The recent statement from the patriarchs and heads of the churches in Jerusalem on Unity and Representation of the Christian Communities in the Holy Land – issued on January 17, 2026 – is regrettable for two principal reasons.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
Unlike many previous ecclesiastical announcements, it lacks both pastoral sensitivity and theological clarity.
Background
There has been much confusion over exactly which cleric(s) issued the patriarchs’ statement, why they did so at this time, and who the unnamed local parishioners were whom they were correcting. Some reports have mistakenly linked it to the recent solidarity mission by some 1,000 American pastors to Israel.
However, the French Catholic news site Terresainte.net has likely come closest to unraveling the cryptic statement by identifying a relatively new Israeli civic association led by a senior IDF reserve officer, which is seeking to better integrate indigenous Christians into Israeli society.
Similar efforts in recent decades did manage to gain official Israeli recognition of the distinct Aramaean-speaking community, which they had sought to distance themselves from any Arab identity.
The latest efforts for further integration, undertaken outside the control of the Jerusalem patriarchs, seem to have gained momentum in the wake of October 7 and the growing communal sense that their future lies in accepting their Israeli citizenship fully, with all its rights and duties – including army service.
When the association’s leader posted a photo of his recent meeting with US Ambassador Mike Huckabee – an avowed Christian Zionist – this set off alarms among some of the senior clergy in the Old City of Jerusalem, thus prompting the patriarchs’ statement on unity among Christians in the Holy Land.
Pastoral Concerns
From my perspective as both a Christian clergy and a scholar on church history, the patriarchs’ statement appears pastorally deficient because it emphasizes control over compassion, authority over accompaniment, and institutional boundaries over spiritual guidance. A genuinely pastoral approach would promote unity, clarity of doctrine, empathy for the flock, and a sincere effort to understand and dialogue with the faithful who are being corrected. Its repeated emphasis on jurisdiction and exclusive representation risks sounding like institutional self-assertion rather than real pastoral concern.
The statement speaks about the faithful rather than to them. It addresses political actors more directly than the Christians it claims to shepherd. It offers no reassurance, encouragement, or attempt to understand why some local believers are drawn to alternative theological movements.
Further, many Christians who hold Zionist views do so out of genuine conviction. Labeling them as “misleading,” “damaging,” or politically manipulated feels dismissive. Pastoral care requires distinguishing between misguided ideas and the dignity of those who hold them.
Moreover, the document claims to defend unity, but its tone may intensify polarization by rebuking unnamed individuals, implying disloyalty, and framing fellow Christians as threats.
The statement further conflates theological disagreements with political subversion.
A pastoral statement typically invites repentance, dialogue, or reconciliation. This document offers no path forward–only exclusion. Without a constructive plan, it risks sounding punitive rather than healing.
Many Christians in the Holy Land belong to small communities or independent movements not under the Patriarchates. Declaring that the patriarchs “alone” represent all Christians dismisses these communities’ experiences. Leadership should acknowledge and welcome diversity within the Christian community.
Finally, the statement focuses heavily on apprehensions about political actors and agendas, eroding trust among believers who already feel leadership is too entangled in geopolitics.
Theological Consideration of Christian Zionism
Christian Zionism has deep historical roots – not only in modern Protestantism but also in earlier Christian theology.
Biblical, patristic, and medieval traditions, despite supersessionist tendencies, often preserved a literal reading of biblical promises to Israel, including a future return to the land. The idea of Jewish restoration is therefore not a modern invention but a recurring theme in Christian thought.
The Gospels affirm Israel’s chosen-ness (“salvation is from the Jews,” John 4:22), express compassion for Jerusalem, and expand Israel’s vocation outward (“a house of prayer for all nations,” Mark 11:17).
After 70 AD, early church fathers could not imagine a restored Jewish state, yet they affirmed Jesus’ Jewish identity and the centrality of Zion. Papias saw Zion as the fountainhead of the Gospel; Irenaeus viewed Zion as the convergence point of God’s promises; Origen taught that the church is grafted into Israel’s story.
Jerome sometimes interpreted prophetic restoration as a future return of the Jewish people. Augustine taught that the Jews would persist until the end of time, a view some medieval thinkers linked to a future restoration.
Throughout the medieval period, several theologians entertained or affirmed a future Jewish return to the land: Rabanus Maurus, Haimo of Auxerre, Bruno of Segni, Hugh of St. Victor, Joachim of Fiore, and Nicholas of Lyra. The latter’s influence extended into Protestant teachings and helped shape later Christian Zionist thought.
This long trajectory contributed to the worldview of Christian Zionists such as Arthur Balfour, whose 1917 declaration became a political expression of centuries of Christian reflection on the biblical hope of Jewish restoration–culminating in the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
Conclusion
The patriarchs’ statement, though rooted in genuine concern, lacks the pastoral depth and theological breadth the moment demands. Its tone risks alienating believers, and its framing oversimplifies the long Christian engagement with Israel and Zion. A more constructive response would address the pastoral challenges of Christian Zionism while respecting the sincere biblical convictions held by many.
The church must engage the diverse tradition on Israel with humility, dialogue, and historical awareness. Only a pastoral, open, and theologically grounded approach can strengthen unity, foster credible witness, and guide the faithful amid the complex realities of Christian-Jewish relations and the Holy Land.
Rev. Dr. Petra Heldt is a Jerusalem-based Lutheran minister, as well as a noted scholar and university lecturer on early Church history. She serves as director of the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel.