Fidelity to Christ or Ideology of Power? A Catholic Response to Christian Zionism in Light of the Apostolic Churches of the Holy Land

 

Fidelity to Christ or Ideology of Power?

A Catholic Response to Christian Zionism in Light of the Apostolic Churches of the Holy Land

Introduction

I write this essay as a Catholic Christian whose faith is inseparable from the Incarnation, apostolic continuity, and the moral demands of the Gospel. Catholic theology does not allow Scripture to be abstracted from the Church that guards it, nor faith to be severed from justice. For this reason, I stand in explicit solidarity with the letter issued by the Apostolic Churches in the Holy Land, including the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Armenian Apostolic Patriarchate, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

These Churches are not recent entrants into the history of the Holy Land. They are the direct continuation of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and the apostles. They have lived, prayed, and suffered in this land continuously for nearly two thousand years. Their theological judgment on Christian Zionism therefore emerges not from theory or ideology, but from lived ecclesial memory.

The response offered by Mike Huckabee, an American political figure formed within modern evangelical Protestantism, reflects a theological framework that is historically foreign to Catholic and Orthodox Christianity and alien to the apostolic faith that originated and still survives in the Holy Land.

---

The Apostolic Churches Speak as Indigenous Witnesses

The letter of the Apostolic Churches grounds its authority not in political power, but in ecclesial continuity and moral clarity. It opens by asserting a responsibility rooted in lived experience:

“We speak as Churches that have existed continuously in the Holy Land since the time of Jesus Christ.”¹

This claim is not rhetorical. It reflects the Church’s understanding of apostolic succession and local witness. Lumen Gentium teaches that bishops are authentic teachers insofar as they stand in continuity with the apostles (LG 20). The Churches of Jerusalem are not external commentators on Scripture. They are among its earliest interpreters.

The letter explicitly rejects Christian Zionism as a theological system:

“Christian Zionism is a false teaching that distorts the biblical message of love, justice, and peace.”¹

As a Catholic, I recognize this language as doctrinally serious. It is not a political slogan, but a theological judgment. The Catechism insists that Scripture must never be interpreted in ways that contradict the moral law or the Gospel of love (CCC 112–114).

The Churches further insist that theology cannot be abstracted from its effects:

“Any theology that claims biblical support while justifying injustice, dispossession, or suffering of a people is incompatible with Christian teaching.”¹

This statement echoes the heart of Catholic social doctrine. Political or theological claims that produce systemic injustice cannot be reconciled with the Gospel, regardless of how many biblical citations they employ.

---

Biblical Fulfillment in Christ: Scripture Read Within the Church

Christian Zionism depends upon a literalist reading of Old Testament land promises detached from their fulfillment in Christ. Catholic theology rejects this approach.

The Second Vatican Council teaches that “the books of the Old Testament… acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament” (Dei Verbum 16). The Catechism reiterates that the Old Covenant is fulfilled, not repeated, in Christ (CCC 121–123).

The Apostolic Churches’ letter affirms this Christological reading:

“The Bible cannot be used as a political program or to justify the denial of the rights of others.”¹

This conviction stands firmly within the patristic tradition.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons insisted that God’s promises must be read as a unified economy fulfilled in Christ, not divided into competing historical dispensations.²
Origen, writing and teaching in Palestine itself, warned explicitly against interpreting biblical inheritance in purely territorial terms, emphasizing spiritual participation in Christ instead.³
St. Augustine argued that the promises to Israel find their fulfillment in the City of God, not in any earthly nation.⁴
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechizing Christians in the very city at the heart of today’s dispute, proclaimed the Church as the true Jerusalem gathered from all peoples.⁵

Christian Zionism thus stands outside not only Catholic teaching, but the interpretive consensus of historic Christianity.

---

The Moral Test: Theology and Its Fruits

The Apostolic Churches emphasize that theology must be accountable to lived human reality. They write:

“The suffering of the Palestinian people, including Christians, is a daily reality that cannot be ignored or justified by selective readings of Scripture.”¹

Catholic moral theology affirms this principle unequivocally. Political authority loses legitimacy when it violates human dignity (CCC 1903). Gaudium et Spes rejects any identification of divine will with state power (GS 76). Pope Francis warns against religious narratives that normalize exclusion or domination (Fratelli Tutti, 25–27).

A theology that sanctifies suffering rather than resists it fails the test of the Cross.

---

Imported Theology and the Response of Ambassador Huckabee

The response issued by Mike Huckabee reflects not the apostolic tradition, but a modern American evangelical framework shaped by twentieth-century dispensationalism. Christian Zionism did not arise from the early Church, the ecumenical councils, or the sacramental tradition. It emerged from Anglo-American Protestant movements historically detached from Catholic and Orthodox theology.⁶

The contrast could not be clearer. On one side stand Churches indigenous to the Holy Land, continuous since Pentecost, speaking from lived suffering and ecclesial memory. On the other stands a theology developed in modern America and projected outward through political and diplomatic power.

As a Catholic, I cannot treat these as equal theological authorities.

---

Conclusion: Apostolic Fidelity Over Ideology

The Apostolic Churches conclude their letter with an appeal that resonates deeply with my Catholic faith:

“We call upon Christians everywhere to stand for justice, peace, and the dignity of all people who live in the Holy Land.”¹

To stand with these Churches is to stand with the Church that Christ founded. It is to trust apostolic continuity over ideological certainty, and lived witness over abstract prophecy.

I reject Christian Zionism not because I reject Scripture, but because I receive it through the Church. I reject it not because I deny Israel’s right to security, but because no security can be built on the denial of another people’s dignity.

In listening to the Churches of Jerusalem, I choose fidelity to Christ over allegiance to power.

---

Sample Footnotes (Chicago Style)

1. Apostolic Churches of the Holy Land, “A Call for Justice and Peace”, recent joint statement on Christian Zionism.

2. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV.20.

3. Origen, On First Principles, II.11.

4. Augustine, The City of God, XVII.3.

5. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XV.

6. Donald M. Lewis, The Origins of Christian Zionism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).