Former university president and rock-ribbed evangelical Everett Piper writes in the Washington Times this week that Carrie Prejean is an antisemite because she believes, like all Catholics, that the Church is the New Israel and that the modern state of Israel is not Biblical Israel, that is to say, 1948 Israel is not the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that will usher in the End Times.

Piper deliberately mangles a quote from Prejean’s interview with Tucker Carlson, that she believes in “replacement” theology, a theory that holds the covenantal promises made to the Jews have been revoked and transferred to the Church of Christ, and that the Church has “replaced” the Jews. Prejean, in fact, dismissed “replacement theology” as a protestant caricature of what Catholics really believe; that the Church—the Body of Christ—is the fulfillment of the covenantal promises made to the Tribes of Israel.

She believes, like all Catholics, that the Church is the New Israel and that the modern state of Israel is not Biblical Israel.Tweet This

The other definitional sticky wicket is over the term Zionism. Does Zionism refer simply to a desire of the Jewish people to have a homeland? It certainly means that to some. But to Americans of a certain dispensationalist strain, it means more than that; it means the modern state of Israel is Biblical Israel and that we must bless this modern state of Israel. There are many political implications to this type of Zionism, which Prejean rejects, including that the political and military choices of the current government must be supported no matter what. Dispensationalists say those who bless modern day Israel will be blessed, and those who don’t are, well, in deep trouble.

Then there is the gotcha question of “DO YOU BELIEVE ISRAEL HAS A RIGHT TO EXIST?” I capitalize all of this because it is usually shouted. The question is supposed to smoke out the antisemites. The editor of The Economist recently asked Tucker Carlson that question, and he was mocked for insisting she explain exactly what that means. Where does this right reside? What are the concomitant obligations? Do all countries have the same right? Because he asks what she means, once more, he is considered an antisemite. If he asked the same questions about Vanuatu, would he be considered anti-Vanuatuan? No, this is a question specifically crafted for the debate about the modern state of Israel.

The Church recognizes the modern State of Israel, as do 165 other governments that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Church does not view this Israel as Biblical Israel. Israel existed even before 1948. Israel is a people first and foremost, and not a piece of land. Various Popes have recognized Israel as the Jewish homeland. This still does not make it Biblical Israel.

It does increasingly appear to nominal supporters of Israel that we are being whipsawed by Protestant dispensationalists. It might make sense if we came to see Israel as just another country, perhaps closer to the United States than others. We should be closer to 1948 Israel than Vanuatu and Kiribati, to be sure. We have a strategic interest in our relationship with 1948 Israel.

It does increasingly appear to nominal supporters of Israel that we are being whipsawed by Protestant dispensationalists.Tweet This

But do we really have to seek the head of Carrie Prejean because she holds certain Catholic teachings about 1948 Israel?  In her interview with Tucker, which I commend to you, she says the dispensationalists on the Religious Liberty Commission were gunning for her for months before the infamous January hearing about antisemitism. What happened at that hearing did not come out of nowhere.

Dan Patrick, Lt. Governor of Texas, and Paula White, Trump’s “pastor,” tried to get her removed months before that hearing precisely because she was critical of 1948 Israel and what Israel was doing to the Palestinians in Gaza. She says that Patrick and White ordered her to stop posting on social media or to have her posts pre-approved by Paula White. Does this not seem to be a violation of Prejean’s religious liberty, something the Commission is supposed to protect?

The result of this kind of head-hunting is a diminution of support for 1948 Israel. As I discussed in my first column about Prejan a few weeks ago, I have been a supporter of Israel and really rather indifferent to the Palestinians. This is changing for me and many others, and it is because of attacks on Prejean and others who dare question the orthodoxy of dispensationalists. As I said then, guarding a border with machine guns eventually results in a hardening of feelings.

Protestants and Catholics cannot separate over Israel. There are too many important battles in our own country where we are needed together.