Tucker Carlson’s Christian Zionism remarks

Tucker Carlson recently hit the headlines by pronouncing Christian Zionism as a "heresy" in Christianity. According to him, Christians who are of the view that they have a geo-political mandate to stand with the contemporary state of Israel due to biblical prophecy are compromising the gospel, mis−using Scripture, and inviting a "brain virus" into the church.

These are challenging assertions: coming from a media personality who has made a habit of mixing religion, politics and culture, they raise important issues about theology, foreign policy and the place of faith in public life.

What Carlson really said

In interviews and monologues, Carlson:

Referenced Christian Zionism as the "oldest of the Christian heresies" because it instructs that "God somehow prefers some people based on their DNA.

Argued that the "chosen people" of Christianity are not a national or ethnic group, but "those who choose Jesus."

Declared that when Christian Zionist doctrine is employed to sanction killing innocents, it goes from theology to moral disaster. "If you find anybody using the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocents, that person is committing heresy.

Identified leading evangelical‐friendly politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz as "carriers" of this virus, proclaiming he "dislikes them more than anybody" in this regard.

In brief: Carlson portrays Christian Zionism as a doctrinal fallacy and moral threat, in his opinion.

Why it matters: geopolitics meets theology

Theology

Carlson's criticism relies on theological arguments:

That Christianity is inherently universal, rather than ethnic or national. In his view, to stress a specific people as "chosen" based on lineage or territory contradicts the New Testament teaching.

That to identify Christian faith with overseas wars, national interest or strategic partnership with Israel distorts the gospel. He believes it is not "just politics," but a theological mistake with ethical implications.

Geopolitics and foreign policy

Carlson is making a foreign-policy argument as well:

He implies that America's profligate support for Israel is not merely motivated by strategic interest, but by a theological and ideological affinity (Christian Zionism) that distorts judgment, heightens the risk of entanglement, and ignores other aspects of the Christian message (e.g., assistance to the poor, the marginalized).

He argues that by promoting one country (Israel) on theological grounds, Christians can be guilty of or oblivious to "killing the innocent" overseas—when wars like the Israel‐Gaza conflict bring Christian voices and tax dollars into play. 

Major criticisms of Carlson's argument

Carlson's declarations are cacophonous and their piercing good fortune notwithstanding, they are assailed on many fronts:

1. On Scripture and Jewish covenant

Most Christian Zionists would maintain that their side is solidly based on Scripture: e.g., God's covenant with Abraham and his line (Genesis 12:3), Paul's treatment in Romans 11 of the Gentile ingrafting and the continued role of Israel. Carlson is denying a longstanding Christian tradition, according to its critics. 

2. On theology and history

Carlson condemns Christian Zionism as a "heresy," but most historians and theologians would be careful to note that the movement is more complicated—emerging in the 19th and 20th centuries (dispensationalism, etc.), but by no means uniformly condemned in Christian theology. In fact, some documents such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism (2006) indicate that various Christian communities within the Middle East denounce Christian Zionism as "false teaching."

So Carlson is joining one criticism—but that doesn't establish the matter as settled. The theological implications and historical subtleties are profound.

3. On motive and rhetoric

Carlson's language ("brain virus," "heresy," "I dislike them more than anybody") is provocatively deliberate. Many see his alignment with the likes of Nick Fuentes (who has been openly antisemitic) as profoundly disturbing. That begs questions about the larger ideological environment for his criticism, not only the theology.

4. On the real-world implications

If one takes Carlson's argument seriously, it challenges what a Christian foreign policy should entail:

Should Christians oppose U.S. military or financial aid to Israel on theological grounds?

What about Palestinian Christians who are suffering in the region? Carlson has invoked their voice as under‐heard.

But others have criticized his perspective as potentially destroying coalitions and compromising protection for religious minorities in the Middle East by isolating Israel without a clear alternative.

Reflection: What this means for Christians and politics

For Christians, Carlson's comments are an eye-opener in a number of ways:

Theological self-examination: Do our religious beliefs rest on solid theology or cultural/political tradition inherited from others? Carlson raises the question: Why do we hold what we hold regarding Israel and the Middle East?

Integration of faith and policy: The intersection of politics, foreign policy and faith is complicated. Christians tend to vote, lobby or speak using scripture—but not often step back and consider whether or not the scripture being invoked is being interpreted in good faith.

Church disunity: Carlson's criticism exacerbates current divisions—evangelicals favoring Israel as part of God's agenda vs. those viewing such favoritism as hiding injustice. Such disagreement is so heated since the U.S. is still very much engaged in Middle Eastern politics.

Ethical consistency: Carlson highlights a moral dissonance: if one uses religion to justify one nationalistic agenda, but neglects other Christian mandates (justice, mercy, care of the oppressed), can that be aligned with gospel ethics?

My take: Balanced critique

Here are a few thoughts on how to navigate this complex terrain:

Carlson is correct to push for theological correctness. Christians need to ask why they are championing one nation, regime or policy in the name of faith—and to try such theology against the larger Christian tradition (not merely partisan politics).

Simultaneously, his rhetorical style and political affiliations weaken the force of his critique. When someone employs inflammatory language and associates with people infamous for extremism or bias, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine theological concern from ideological polemic.

Christian Zionism is a wide range: some have middle-of-the-road views based on scripture, others have more radical political or apocalyptic interpretations. An informed discussion must be able to sort them out and not lump all together.

In the end, faith needs a stronger, more humble dialogue on Israel, Palestine, theology, justice and politics—not one that is for or against Israel, but mindful of Scripture, ethics and the actual experience of all the parties (Jewish, Palestinian Christian, Muslim, Israeli). Carlson's provocation can be a spark—but will do little good unless followed by rational, reasoned, charity-fueled discussion.

Conclusion

Tucker Carlson's assertion that Christian Zionism is a "heresy" is more than one man's outrage—it indicates a wider fault line in contemporary evangelical Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, and the intersection of faith with geopolitics. Whether you share his theology or object to his tone, you can't help but face the questions he asks:

What does it mean to belong to a faith that is universal and not ethnonational?

How are Christians to think about a foreign country with which their religious heritage has historic connection?

How do we maintain allegiance to faith, to Scripture, and to humility in the face of international conflict and human misery?

The discussion is ongoing—and the stakes are high. Carlson's blunt criticism challenges believers and non-believers alike to peer beyond slogans, bipartisan coalitions and nationalistic impulses, and to ask: what does our faith say, really?