Stop me if you’ve heard this one…

Dolly Parton, Ken Paxton, and James Talarico walk into a … church. The punchline largely depends on which church the trio enters—at least for two of them. If you’re outside Texas and stay away from politics, you may not be familiar with Ken Paxton (R) and James Talarico (D). They are the main candidates vying to replace outgoing Senator John Cornyn in the US Senate. Christianity has been a major theme in the race. Both candidates profess to be Christians, but to hear their opponents, you would think they represent two opposing religions. In a way, they do. I have been wrestling with why Christians support one of these candidates while finding the other to be the antithesis of everything Christian. Oddly, it was Dolly Parton’s recent death that brought this distinction into sharper focus for me. As I hope to show, this Christian schism centers on the relative importance of beliefs and works. More importantly, Dolly Parton shows us how to bridge the divide.

Before I begin, I need to make a few disclaimers. First, I am not evaluating why non-Christians support one candidate over the other. My observations are limited to those whose values are rooted in their Christian faith. Second, my discussion is limited to Christians in Texas, though I suspect my analysis applies to Christians across the United States. Third, I am primarily concerned with how white Christians perceive these candidates. Christians of color, particularly black Christians, have additional concerns that may influence their votes beyond their understanding of beliefs and works. Fourth, I recognize that political identity plays a major role in how we vote. I am not suggesting that theology alone explains the divide. My interest is in how Christians justify their support theologically. Whatever other factors drive their vote, each group appeals to a particular understanding of beliefs and works to justify their candidate as the “faithful” choice.

Belief First

The first group emphasizes correct beliefs as the primary marker of Christian faith. In other words, “orthodoxy” is paramount. A litmus test of proper beliefs is denominational affiliation. In other words, if a candidate is from my denomination (or an adjacent one), I have confidence that we share a common set of beliefs. If a candidate does not adhere to this group’s set of correct beliefs, their Christianity is called into question. Christians in this group direct their criticism at James Talarico’s beliefs. For example, Robert Jeffress, Senior Pastor at First Baptist Church of Dallas, invokes beliefs and denominational pedigree in criticizing Talarico. During a recent Fox and Friends interview, Jeffress claimed that, unlike James Talarico and Mainline Protestants, Jesus didn’t believe that all roads and all faiths lead to heaven. At the recent Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Jeffress stated, “The beliefs of James Talarico are blasphemous. They are evil and they are not the beliefs that any true Christian could support ever. We must condemn the beliefs of James Talarico.” A scan of Christian social media accounts critical of Talarico echoes Jeffress’ focus on beliefs and his denominational background.

Because this group considers beliefs as the mark of a true Christian, personal actions matter less. They can overlook un-Christian behavior in a candidate. As such, they don’t criticize Ken Paxton because his wife is divorcing him for biblical reasons. They ignore his documented adultery and the fact that elements within his own party impeached him while he was Attorney General (the Texas Senate acquitted him in 2023). Because Paxton shares their belief structure, they can count on him to defend those beliefs, even if he falls short of their teachings. After all, “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23, ESV). Similarly, Christian supporters of Paxton rarely attack Talarico’s works; they criticize his beliefs.

Works First

The second group of white Christian Texans emphasizes actions as the primary indicator of Christian faith. Rather than “orthodoxy,” this group prioritizes “orthopraxy.” In other words, how one lives is the true measure of what one believes. In their view, “faith without works is also dead” (James 2:26b, NRSV). Talarico summarized this view on the campaign trail: “The best sermon is the one you live.” These Christians are quick to criticize Paxton’s un-Christian, corrupt actions as tangible proof that he isn’t a real Christian. They contrast Paxton with Talarico’s tenure as a middle school teacher, which they cite as evidence of his servant spirit. They also note that Talarico organized food drives around the state while Republicans gathered in Dallas for the midterm convention. Because these Christians prioritize Christ-centered works, they tolerate diverse views on social issues, God, Jesus, and Scripture.

However, this tolerance of beliefs has been tested. In a 2021 legislative debate, Talarico said that “God is non-binary,” a clumsy articulation of the orthodox view that God is beyond gender. He also described biological sex as existing on a “nuanced spectrum.” Under criticism on the campaign trail, Talarico has backed away from some of his more provocative claims. For most of his supporters, though, neither the original statements nor the walk-backs are problematic. For this group of Christians, what matters more is whether his actions reflect the Christian Gospel he professes.

Who’s Right?

Which group is right? Is orthodoxy more important than orthopraxy, or vice versa? Fixing our current divide is beyond the scope of this blog post. However, I suggest the right path requires both. What one believes and how one lives are necessary for complete expression of the Christian faith. Those who prioritize beliefs are right to question whether one’s beliefs align with the tenets of the Christian faith. One cannot believe anything and still claim to be a Christian. However, I would caution that the list of essential Christian beliefs is quite small. A reasonable boundary is the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. No doubt, some of Talarico’s more provocative statements stray outside orthodox Christian teachings. At the same time, those who prioritize actions as evidence of Christian faith are correct that one’s actions must align with one’s Christian beliefs. Beliefs alone are not enough. In this regard, Paxton is deficient. At the same time, actions disconnected from Christian orthodoxy do not make someone a Christian, even if those deeds are moral and praiseworthy. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are two sides of the same coin. In truth, neither candidate fully measures up. If only there were someone who represented a balance between the two extremes.

Dolly’s Beliefs and Works

Dolly Parton seems to be the rare individual who bridged the religious divide between belief and works. When Dolly died, people across the religious and political spectrum lauded her. Dolly transcended our divisions. Why? Partly because she generally avoided politics. Nevertheless, I think there is more to it than her avoidance of politics. Both the orthodoxy and orthopraxy groups could readily claim Dolly as one of their own.

For the group that prioritizes beliefs as the primary marker of Christian identity, Dolly had the right pedigree. She had ties to several Christian denominations that share many orthodox views. She grew up in the Pentecostal movement. In 1966, she and Carl Dean were married at the Ringgold First Baptist Church in Georgia. Carl Dean’s family was part of the a cappella Churches of Christ. After their marriage, a photo of the newlyweds appeared in the Radnor Church of Christ members’ directory in Nashville, where Carl’s mother was a member. Even if Dolly didn’t regularly attend church services for much of her adult life, these groups considered her one of their own and, by association, connected her to their belief structures.

While Dolly’s faith heritage connects her to groups that prioritize orthodoxy, her actions also earned praise from those who emphasize faith-driven works. They praise Dolly’s Imagination Library, which has distributed more than 300 million free books to children. They highlight her initiative to improve education near her hometown in Sevier County, Tennessee. They also note that she donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to help develop a COVID-19 vaccine. They even laud Dolly’s long-standing advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights. For Christians who prioritize orthopraxy as the primary evidence of one’s Christian faith, Dolly’s philanthropy and practice of “loving your neighbor as yourself” exemplify a life of Christian faith. In her public life, Dolly embodied Peter’s admonition: “Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge” (1 Pet 2:12).

What Now?

For many white Christians in Texas, the theological justification for supporting Paxton or Talarico hinges on whether beliefs or works are the primary marker of Christian faith. Those who prioritize beliefs (orthodoxy) can overlook Paxton’s well-documented un-Christian behavior because he shares their beliefs. At the same time, they challenge Talarico’s Christianity because they view his beliefs as unorthodox. For the group that prioritizes action (orthopraxy) as the more important measure of one’s Christian faith, Talarico’s provocative statements about God and gender don’t faze them. Instead, they point to his faith-based actions as proof of his faith. Similarly, this group cannot consider Ken Paxton’s immoral behavior worthy of their support. In contrast, Dolly Parton was the all-too-rare figure who bridged the divisions in our country. She balanced Christian beliefs and works in a way that won global admiration, even among non-Christians.

The current Senate race in Texas has exposed a long-standing religious divide among white Christians in the state, and most likely across the USA. The divide centers on whether beliefs or works are the primary marker of Christian identity. The debate is not new; it’s one of Christianity’s oldest. In truth, beliefs (orthodoxy) and works (orthopraxy) are two sides of the same coin. Both are necessary to define Christian faith. However, we need to keep our orthodox requirements to a bare minimum. At the same time, we must reject the idea that good deeds (orthopraxy) alone qualify someone as a Christian. Maybe it’s time for Christians to expect more from their political candidates. If we are going to demand more, we first need to look at ourselves and correct our understanding of what it means to be a Christian. In that regard, perhaps the lesson we can all draw from the current religious divide is to be more like Dolly.

*Post cover art generated with ChatGPT.