The following is an edited transcript from The Michael Knowles Show.
* * *
A very controversial statement — at least according to the internet — has just come out of Jerusalem. And not just from the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the chief Catholic prelate there, but from the heads of the other historic churches as well: the Armenian Church, the Syriac Church, the Greek Orthodox Church — all the Apostolic churches of Jerusalem.
Here is what they said. In a statement titled On Unity and the Representation of the Christian Communities in the Holy Land:
The Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in the Holy Land affirm before the faithful and before the world that the flock of Christ in this land is entrusted to the Apostolic Churches, which have borne their sacred ministry across centuries with steadfast devotion.
Here is the controversial line:
Recent activities undertaken by local individuals who advance damaging ideologies such as Christian Zionism mislead the public, sow confusion, and harm the unity of our flock. These undertakings have found favor among certain political actors in Israel and beyond, who seek to push a political agenda which may harm the Christian presence in the Holy Land and the wider Middle East.
The statement goes on for several more paragraphs and concludes with: “May the Lord, who is the shepherd and guardian of souls, grant wisdom for the protection of His people and the safeguarding of His witness in the sacred land.”
It is signed by the patriarchs and heads of the churches in Jerusalem.
So what is this about?
We’ve heard a lot about Zionism — the nationalist ideology that arose in the 19th century and sought to return Jews to the Holy Land, where they had lived millennia earlier, though not in large numbers for quite some time. We’ve also heard about Christian Zionism, which is a specifically Christian theological take on that project.
WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show
But who exactly are these “local individuals” sowing discord and undermining proper Christian authority?
I had to look into this, because as a Catholic I don’t exactly keep up with every niche Protestant trend. And I think the patriarchs are referring to a man named Robert Stearns, who styles himself “Bishop Robert Stearns.” He is not part of any Apostolic Christian community, but he calls himself a bishop anyway. He is also a vociferous advocate of Christian Zionism.
Here’s a sample of what he recently said:
“Christian” Zionist Robert Stearns apologizes to Jews at Jerusalem Post conference for 2,000 years of “Christian history” hurting Jewish people.
He says it’s “irrelevant” if Jesus was the Messiah and claims to be part of a new Christian group “serving Zion.”
Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/aHhMgOfpA3
— AF Post (@AFpost) January 14, 2026
Credit: @AFpost/X.com
I was trying to be sympathetic here, but this is just ridiculous. It violates the law of non-contradiction — a principle we’ve known about since at least Aristotle. Opposing statements cannot both be true in the same respect.
Christ’s return cannot be both His first coming and His second coming. It’s one or the other. And if you’re a Christian, I’m happy to break it to you: it will be the second coming. You actually have to believe that.
This attempt to be cute or accommodating doesn’t resolve anything. It just empties theology of meaning.
Stearns also claims that the existence of the modern State of Israel is of biblical and prophetic necessity — that it is required for the end times to unfold. I know plenty of people share this view. But here’s the thing: this theology is new. Really new. Less than two centuries old. It is not the traditional Christian position, and it is not the correct one.
Which brings us back to the Jerusalem statement.
Is it shocking? Is it anti-Israel? Is it a break with tradition?
No. Not at all.
In fact, the position expressed by the patriarchs lines up perfectly with long-standing Vatican teaching. Here is something from 1985 — forty years ago, and two decades after the Second Vatican Council. This declaration from the Vatican goes out of its way to speak respectfully of Jews and is in no way anti-Semitic:
The history of Israel did not end in 70 A.D., but continued, especially in the numerous diasporas, which led Israel to carry to the whole world a witness, often heroic, of its fidelity to the one God… while preserving the memory of the land of their forefathers at the heart of their hope.
That reference, by the way, is to the Passover Seder.
Notice what’s happening here. The Vatican is not talking about the Church as the new Israel — which Christians have always believed — but about the historical, earthly Israel of the Jewish people. It acknowledges their witness, their fidelity, and even their attachment to the land.
But then comes the key clarification:
Christians are invited to understand this religious attachment, which finds its roots in biblical tradition, without, however, making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship.
And just to make it unmistakable, the Vatican adds:
The existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law.
Bingo.
That is exactly what the patriarchs of Jerusalem are reaffirming. And they are completely right.
This is why I would not call myself a Zionist, or a Christian Zionist, or any other kind of Zionist. Not because I dislike Jews — I don’t. Not because I oppose the State of Israel — I don’t.
I am broadly supportive of the nation-state of Israel but not because of Zionist religious claims, which I don’t believe are true. I do not believe Jews are entitled to the Holy Land because of a theological premise. As a Christian, I believe the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. Christ is the New Covenant. The Church is the spiritual Israel. Those Old Testament promises are fulfilled — not suspended, not postponed.
And I also don’t believe that occupying a piece of land 2,000 years ago grants a perpetual title deed. If that were the case, we’d have to hand Mount Rushmore back to the Lakota Sioux. I don’t believe that logic anywhere.
That said, I still broadly support Israel because I don’t like the alternatives. I don’t want Iran running the Holy Land. I don’t think the Muslims have been particularly protective of the holy sites. The Ottoman Empire is gone. Baldwin’s Kingdom of Jerusalem isn’t coming back anytime soon. The real-world options are limited.
From the standpoint of international law, the Jews were granted territory by the British Empire, recognized by the United Nations, and then defended it through war. Like it or not, under the modern nation-state system, that matters.
But that isn’t Zionism. And it certainly isn’t biblical prophecy.
You can support Israel without subscribing to the relatively novel theology of Christian Zionism. You can like Jews without turning geopolitics into eschatology.
I love the Jews. I grew up in New York. I’m extremely philosemitic. If you told me I had to choose between hanging out with the guys making pastrami sandwiches or the guys making shawarma, I’m choosing pastrami 100 times out of 100. Okay — 999 times out of 1,000.
And you can do that without embracing a theology invented in the 19th century and dressed up as ancient Christianity.
That is clearly what the patriarchs of Jerusalem are saying. And anyone pretending this is antisemitic, radical, or some kind of rupture with tradition is, frankly, completely insane.
