Why Do More Progressive Pastors Keep Running For Office?

Something unusual is happening in American politics.

Pastors, ministers and seminarians associated with progressive Christianity are increasingly running for political office -- and they are not hiding their religious identities. Quite the opposite. Many are explicitly presenting their progressive political agendas as expressions of their Christian faith.

One of the most prominent examples is Rev. Adam Hamilton, founding pastor of Resurrection Church in Kansas and now the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate.

Hamilton portrays himself as an independent-minded moderate who wants to bridge America's political divisions. He has described his congregation as roughly divided between Republicans, Democrats and independents and says his experience leading such a diverse church qualifies him to bring people together politically.

But conservative Christians examining Hamilton's theology will find disagreements that reach considerably deeper than party politics.

They concern a fundamental question:

When Scripture conflicts with modern cultural values, which one gets the final word?

Hamilton has long argued that some biblical statements attributed to God may actually reflect the cultural limitations and understandings of their human authors.

He has pointed particularly to difficult Old Testament passages involving warfare and judgment. Hamilton has argued that certain portrayals of God appear inconsistent with the character of God revealed through Jesus.

That same interpretive approach subsequently influenced his thinking about homosexuality.

Hamilton has publicly discussed asking how much latitude Christians have to "push back" against Scripture -- even asking whether there are places where Christians might conclude that the Apostle Paul was wrong. He connected that question directly to reconsidering biblical passages traditionally applied to same-sex relationships.

This represents a profound departure from the conservative evangelical understanding of biblical authority.

Traditional Christianity does not teach that every command given to ancient Israel applies directly to Christians today. Scripture contains different covenants, literary genres and historical contexts that must be interpreted carefully.

But that is dramatically different from concluding that Scripture itself incorrectly represents God's will.

Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all Scripture is God-breathed."

Peter says men "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

Jesus repeatedly answered theological controversy with the words, "It is written."

Once Christians begin deciding which portions of Scripture accurately represent God and which ones do not, an unavoidable question emerges:

Who becomes the final authority -- Scripture or the person interpreting it?

Hamilton's evolving position on sexuality demonstrates the real-world consequences of that interpretive method.

He has argued that biblical condemnations of same-sex sexual behavior may not address modern homosexual relationships characterized by mutual love and commitment.

He eventually became an advocate for changing United Methodist policy concerning homosexuality and supported the denomination's 2024 removal of restrictions involving same-sex marriage and gay clergy.

For conservative Christians, the objection is not that homosexual people should be mistreated. Every human being bears God's image and deserves dignity, kindness and compassion.

The theological disagreement concerns whether compassion gives Christians authority to redefine what Scripture identifies as marriage.

When Jesus discusses marriage in Matthew 19, He reaches back to Genesis:

"Male and female He created them."

And:

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife."

Traditional Christian teaching therefore understands marriage not as a cultural invention that Christianity subsequently adopted, but as an institution rooted in creation itself.

Abortion Reveals Another Major Divide

Hamilton's 2026 campaign has now formally identified him as pro-choice on abortion.

He has expressed personal discomfort with abortion while opposing government restrictions that would broadly prohibit it.

Again, conservative Christians see something deeper than partisan politics.

Psalm 139 describes God forming human beings within the womb.

Jeremiah 1:5 declares, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."

Luke 1 describes the unborn John the Baptist responding to the presence of the unborn Christ.

Christians can disagree about public policy, penalties and genuinely difficult medical circumstances. But the conviction that unborn human life possesses profound moral value is not something American conservatives invented in the twenty-first century.

It is rooted in a much older Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life.

Hamilton's candidacy would be less noteworthy if he were an isolated case.

He isn't.

Religion News Service reported in August that at least 12 pastors, seminarians or former clergy ran for federal office as Democrats during the 2026 cycle, with seven becoming Democratic nominees.

Republicans have clergy candidates as well. RNS counted seven current or former evangelical pastors who launched Republican congressional campaigns this cycle, although only three ultimately became nominees.

So clergy entering politics is certainly not exclusively a phenomenon of the political left.

What is particularly noteworthy about the progressive candidates, however, is how frequently debates over biblical authority, abortion, sexuality and gender accompany their political theology.

Consider some examples.

Rev. Sarah Trone Garriott

Rev. Sarah Trone Garriott is an ordained ELCA Lutheran minister, Iowa state senator and Democratic congressional nominee.

Her political record includes positions that place her sharply at odds with conservative Christian social teaching.

Garriott has supported abortion rights and opposed multiple Iowa measures dealing with transgender policy. Her legislative record includes opposition to restrictions on gender-transition procedures for minors, legislation requiring school bathrooms to correspond with biological sex and restrictions preventing biological males from participating in girls' sports.

RNS reports that Garriott remains a pastor in good standing in the ELCA and says her ministry and experience as a hospital chaplain inform her work in government.

For conservative Christians, however, the issue is precisely the theological tension between that ministerial identity and policies involving unborn life, biological sex and gender.

Rev. Lindsay James

Rev. Lindsay James, an ordained Presbyterian Church (USA) minister and Iowa legislator, provides another clear example.

James has called for restoring Roe v. Wade protections and supports abortion rights. Her record also includes support for LGBTQ protections and opposition to legislation requiring parental consent before schools recognize certain changes involving a child's gender identity.

She defeated another pastor, United Methodist minister Clint Twedt-Ball, in the Democratic primary and is now the Democratic nominee for Iowa's 2nd Congressional District. RNS specifically notes that both James and Garriott have faced criticism from conservative Christians over their support for LGBTQ and transgender policies.

For Christians who understand unborn life as sacred, biological sex as part of God's created order and parents as possessing primary responsibility for their children, these are not minor differences over tax policy.

They concern basic questions of Christian anthropology and morality.

Rev. Clint Twedt-Ball

Rev. Clint Twedt-Ball, the United Methodist pastor defeated by James in the June primary, represents another part of the trend even though he will not appear on the November ballot.

Twedt-Ball explicitly described political involvement as an extension of his faith and spoke of bringing theology into the public square.

During the campaign, he opposed federal restrictions on certain gender-related medical treatment for minors when parents approve and argued that, while parents should generally be involved when children adopt different gender identities, other trusted adults or community members might sometimes play a role.

Conservatives would object that Christian teaching places the primary responsibility for children's upbringing with parents rather than schools, government institutions or outside ideological authorities.

Again, the disagreement is not simply Democrat versus Republican.

It concerns competing understandings of family, authority and human identity.

Rev. Frederick Douglass Haynes III

Then there is Rev. Frederick Douglass Haynes III, longtime pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas and the Democratic nominee for Texas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District.

Haynes has spent decades connecting Christian ministry with progressive social activism.

His 2026 campaign has included support for Medicare for All and dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and he received the backing of Justice Democrats, the progressive organization founded by former Bernie Sanders campaign staffers.

Christians can legitimately disagree over healthcare systems or immigration enforcement without making either position a test of orthodoxy.

But Haynes has also historically defended same-sex marriage and challenged conservative Christian opposition to it.

That brings the debate back to theology.

One common progressive Christian argument asks whether Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality.

But that reasoning creates its own problem. Jesus never personally addressed every ethical issue discussed elsewhere in Scripture.

More importantly, when He did speak about marriage, Jesus pointed directly back to God's creation of male and female.

Traditional Christians therefore reject the idea that Christ's teaching can simply be separated from Genesis or from the apostolic writings of the New Testament.

Rev. Rae Huang

Rev. Rae Huang, an ordained Presbyterian minister who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Los Angeles earlier this year, represents perhaps an even more explicit merger of progressive ideology with Christian ministry.

Huang is a community organizer and democratic socialist whose campaign emphasized housing activism, immigrant protections, alternatives to armed police responses and reducing the size and funding of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Her candidacy did not advance to the general election, but it nevertheless illustrates the broader movement of progressive clergy treating political activism as an extension of ministry.

Here some distinctions are important.

Scripture does not tell Christians precisely how large a police budget should be, what percentage of income should be taxed or exactly how government housing programs should operate.

Conservative Christians should therefore be careful about declaring every economic disagreement a matter of biblical fidelity.

But Huang's candidacy demonstrates how readily contemporary progressive political ideology can now be wrapped explicitly in the language of Christian vocation.

James Talarico

Perhaps no figure demonstrates the theological divide more clearly than Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminary student and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate.

Talarico has made Christianity central to his political identity while strongly criticizing conservative Christianity.

He has argued that abortion and gay marriage have received disproportionate attention from the religious right and has emphasized Jesus' teachings about poverty, economic inequality and treatment of the marginalized.

More controversially, a 2023 sermon that resurfaced during the 2026 campaign included Talarico declaring that "God is not a Christian" and describing God as "being itself" and as love while attacking what he regards as Christian nationalism.

Talarico has also defended abortion rights and LGBTQ protections suggesting God is nor binary.

His theological approach highlights an increasingly common progressive argument:

Jesus never explicitly discussed abortion.

Jesus never explicitly used the modern word homosexuality.

Therefore conservative Christians supposedly place excessive emphasis on issues Jesus Himself did not emphasize.

But there is a major biblical problem with that reasoning.

Christianity has never taught that only statements personally spoken by Jesus carry divine authority.

Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Scriptures.

He commissioned His apostles.

The New Testament presents apostolic teaching as authoritative for the church.

Paul's letters therefore do not become optional whenever modern Christians find them culturally uncomfortable.

The proper Christian question cannot simply be:

"Did Jesus personally mention this subject?"

It must be:

"What does the whole counsel of Scripture teach?"

This brings us back to Adam Hamilton.

Hamilton, Garriott, James, Twedt-Ball, Haynes, Huang and Talarico are different people from different denominations with different political priorities.

They should not be treated as though they believe precisely the same things.

Nor should conservative Christians pretend that every progressive economic proposal constitutes rejection of Scripture.

But taken together, these candidates reveal something increasingly difficult to ignore.

The political argument is no longer merely about whether Christianity should influence American government.

Progressive Christians increasingly answer that question with an emphatic yes.

The deeper battle is over what kind of Christianity will do the influencing.

Traditional Christianity begins with the conviction that Scripture stands above every generation and every culture.

It expects the Bible to challenge us.

It expects Scripture occasionally to offend modern assumptions.

And when our moral intuitions collide with God's revealed Word, historic Christianity calls us to reform our thinking rather than reform the Bible.

Progressive Christianity increasingly reverses that relationship.

Passages judged inconsistent with contemporary ideas concerning sexuality, gender or social morality are reinterpreted, marginalized or explained as products of ancient culture.

The words remain in the Bible.

Their authority gradually disappears.

That is why the rise of progressive pastors running for political office deserves attention well beyond any individual election.

They are bringing a theological argument into America's political arena.

And ultimately the most important question is not whether those pastors are Democrats or Republicans.

It is whether Christianity transforms the culture --

or whether the culture is transforming Christianity.