faith

Are Christians Really Required to Pledge Loyalty to Bibi Netanyahu?

Carrie Prejean Boller was removed from Trump's Religious Liberty Commission for questioning whether Christians must support Israel politically. The theological debate has real consequences.

Chris Groves

Chris Groves

— 9 min read
AI Token Costs vs Employee Efficiency

A recent Rumble video featuring Carrie Prejean Boller and Tucker Carlson has ignited fresh debate about whether Christians are required to pledge loyalty to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—and by extension, to the modern state of Israel. The discussion touches on deeply sensitive theological terrain: Christian Zionism, replacement theology, and the question of whether anti-Zionism equals antisemitism.

But this isn't just an academic debate. As I'll explain, there are real-world consequences for Christians who dare to question the dominant Christian Zionist narrative.

The Carrie Prejean Boller Controversy

Carrie Prejean Boller first entered public consciousness in 2009 as Miss California USA, when she was stripped of her crown after stating she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Since then, she's become a conservative activist, converting to Catholicism in 2025. In May 2025, she was appointed to President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission.

In February 2026, she was removed from that commission after a contentious hearing on antisemitism. Her offense? Questioning whether Christians are required to support Israel politically—and defending others who had done the same.

At the hearing, Prejean Boller asked legitimate questions that many Christians privately ponder:

"Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know. So are all Catholics antisemitites?"

She also asked witnesses to "condemn what Israel has done in Gaza" and defended Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens from accusations of antisemitism.

Commission Chair Dan Patrick removed her, stating she had "hijacked" the hearing. But the questions she raised deserve serious consideration.

Two Competing Christian Theologies

The debate over Christian loyalty to Israel ultimately boils down to two competing theological frameworks:

Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism holds that the return of Jewish people to Israel fulfills biblical prophecy. Adherents believe the 1948 founding of the modern Israeli state was a prophesied event that paves the way for the Second Coming of Christ. This view has become increasingly dominant in American evangelical politics, particularly among supporters of Donald Trump.

This ideology has deep roots in 19th-century British dispensationalism, particularly through the writings of John Nelson Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible. According to Christianity Today, Christian Zionism has become "a significant political force in American evangelicalism, influencing foreign policy positions and political organizing" around Israel.

Supersessionism (Replacement Theology)

Supersessionism—the theological term for what critics call "replacement theology"—holds that the Church replaced Israel as God's covenant people. Under this view, the New Covenant through Jesus Christ superseded the Mosaic Covenant. This was the traditional position of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and most Protestant denominations for most of Christian history.

As Catholic Answers explains, the Catholic Church has historically taught that while God maintains an eternal covenant with the Jewish people, the Christian Church is the fulfillment and continuation of God's salvific plan, having superseded the old covenant system.

The Catholic Distinction

Prejean Boller's key point deserves careful attention: the Catholic Church does not embrace political Zionism.

The Vatican's position has been consistent across multiple papacies:

  • The Vatican officially recognized the State of Palestine in 2015
  • It has called for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict
  • Pope Francis has repeatedly called for peace and dialogue, warning against "fanatical Zionism" while affirming the Jewish people's historical connection to the land
  • The Vatican's recognition reflected "decades of diplomatic balancing" between supporting Palestinian aspirations and maintaining relations with Israel

In her interview with The Atlantic, Prejean Boller stated clearly: "It is not a biblical mandate that I have to worship Israel."

This is a significant theological position with deep roots in Catholic tradition—and it directly contradicts the demands being made by Christian Zionists.

The History of Christian Zionism in America

Christian Zionism as a political movement has specific historical roots in American evangelicalism. According to the Brookings Institution, the alignment between American evangelicals and Israel "has become a defining feature of the conservative movement in the United States," with significant implications for foreign policy.

The movement gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly through organizations like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), founded in 2006 by Pastor John Hagee. As The Heritage Foundation has documented, this political alliance has created "a powerful voting bloc" that prioritizes unwavering support for Israel as a core political position.

This represents a significant shift from historic Christian theology. For nearly two millennia, the consensus position among Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches held that the Church had replaced Israel as God's covenant people—that the promises in the Old Testament were fulfilled spiritually through Christ and the Church, not literally through political Israel.

The Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism Debate

The most contentious aspect of Prejean Boller's questioning was whether criticizing Israel constitutes antisemitism. This is a crucial distinction that deserves rigorous examination.

Anti-Zionism is political opposition to the modern state of Israel and its policies. Antisemitism is hatred or prejudice against Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group.

These are not the same thing. One can:

  • Oppose the Israeli government's policies while having no animosity toward Jewish people
  • Support Palestinian rights without being antisemitic
  • Question Christian Zionism without harboring any prejudice against Jews

As Prejean Boller attempted to argue at the hearing, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism conflates a political position with racial or religious hatred—and potentially silences legitimate theological disagreement.

However, as The Atlantic's Yair Rosenberg noted, some use anti-Zionism as "a pretext to launder vulgar anti-Semitism into the public square." The challenge is distinguishing legitimate theological and political disagreement from actual bigotry.

The Trump Religious Liberty Commission Context

The Religious Liberty Commission itself deserves examination. Created by executive order, this body was intended to champion religious freedom—but its treatment of Prejean Boller raises questions about what kinds of religious expression are actually welcome.

The Commission, chaired by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, has been criticized for its narrow definition of religious liberty that appears to prioritize certain political positions over others. As Baptist News Global reported when the Commission was created, there were concerns about "whether diverse theological perspectives on politically contentious issues would be tolerated."

Prejean Boller's removal suggests those concerns were well-founded. A commissioner who raised questions about whether Christians must support political Israel—a position held by the Catholic Church for two millennia—was deemed unacceptable.

Real Consequences for Questioning Christian Zionism

Here's where this becomes personal. I wrote previously about how GitHub suspended my account fifteen minutes after I posted about Jesus being the temple—a theological exploration that questioned the connection between the Greater Israel project and Christianity.

The pattern is clear: question the Christian Zionist narrative, face consequences.

This isn't hypothetical. It happened to me with GitHub. It happened to Carrie Prejean Boller with the Religious Liberty Commission. And it's happening to Christians across America who are starting to ask questions that were once unthinkable within evangelical spaces.

The reaction to questioning Christian Zionism reveals something troubling about the state of theological discourse in American Christianity. Are we allowed to disagree with the political establishment of Israel without being labeled antisemitic? Are there genuine theological alternatives to Christian Zionism that can be articulated without career suicide?

Tucker Carlson and the Political Realignment

The Rumble video features Tucker Carlson, who has faced significant criticism for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories—yet remains enormously influential in right-wing media.

Prejean Boller defended Carlson at the commission hearing, stating she had "never heard anything out of her mouth that is antisemitic." This defense is problematic given Carlson's history, but it reflects a broader realignment in American politics.

Some on the right are now questioning longstanding pro-Israel positions—a shift that has implications for the Christian Zionist movement that has dominated evangelical politics for decades. Whether this represents a genuine theological reconsideration or simply another political calculation remains to be seen.

What Does Scripture Actually Say?

The theological question remains: are Christians required to support Israel politically?

The biblical case for Christian Zionism rests heavily on Old Testament prophecies about the restoration of Israel. But supersessionist theology holds that these promises were fulfilled spiritually through Christ and the Church.

Consider:

  • Romans 9-11 discusses God's ongoing relationship with ethnic Israel but within a framework where Christ has inaugurated a new covenant
  • Hebrews 8 states explicitly that God is making "a new covenant" that will "not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors"
  • The New Testament consistently presents Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises

The historic Christian position—which Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline Protestants held for centuries—was that the Church is now God's covenant people, not that political Israel retains special status.

As the Catholic Church has consistently taught, while the Jewish people remain God's chosen people according to the flesh, salvation comes through Christ and the Church. This does not make opposition to political Israel mandatory—but it does mean that making allegiance to political Israel a requirement for Christian faith goes beyond what Scripture teaches.

The Price of Asking

What the Carrie Prejean Boller controversy reveals is that asking these questions carries a price. She was removed from a presidential commission. I've had my GitHub account suspended. Christians across the country are learning that questioning Christian Zionism can cost you professionally and politically.

This raises serious concerns about theological diversity in American Christianity. Are we allowed to disagree with the political establishment of Israel without being labeled antisemitic? Are there genuine theological alternatives to Christian Zionism that can be articulated without career suicide?

When Disobedience Becomes a Crime

But there's something even more disturbing on the horizon. Across America, states are increasingly passing legislation that effectively outlaws the New Testament—not by banning the book directly, but by criminalizing its teachings.

It works like this: states pass laws that criminalize certain behaviors or speech. Then, when those behaviors or speech are rooted in sincere religious belief—as articulated throughout the New Testament—believers are told their faith is no longer a defense.

Consider what's happening with abortion legislation. States are passing near-total bans with no exceptions for rape or incest. When Christians publicly oppose these laws based on their understanding of scripture—that life is sacred, that the innocent must be protected, that governments should not shed innocent blood—they are being labeled as extremists, potential terrorists, or criminals. Their religious convictions, deeply held and sincerely expressed, are being treated as liabilities rather than liberties.

The same pattern emerges across multiple issues. On marriage, on gender, on the nature of human beings created male and female—legislation is being enacted that directly contradicts clear New Testament teaching. And when Christians attempt to live according to those teachings, they face the full weight of the state.

This is not hypothetical. Christians have already been arrested, charged, and prosecuted for:

  • Refusing to perform same-sex marriages
  • Declining to use certain pronouns
  • Operating businesses according to their religious beliefs
  • Praying in public
  • Sharing their faith on college campuses

The message is clear: obey the state's definition of acceptable belief and behavior, or face the consequences. The New Testament's clear teachings on sexuality, gender, and the nature of human life are increasingly treated as illegal—not because they are proven false or harmful, but because they conflict with the prevailing ideological orthodoxy.

This is the logical endpoint of a culture that cannot tolerate theological disagreement. First, you lose your GitHub account. Then, you lose your position on a commission. Then, you lose your business, your freedom, and ultimately, your ability to worship according to your conscience.

The Rumble video addresses these questions directly. Whether the broader Christian community is willing to have this conversation remains to be seen.

Sources

Read more