As a Christian, I have looked to mainline denominations for leadership in practicing what they preach about seeking peace. Yet, at the very moment that there is a glimmer of hope represented by the Trump Peace Plan, a multi-denominational response advocating for peace should emerge. Alas, the sound of silence has been deafening.

By my count, there are forty-five mainline Christian denominations across North America and Europe. Seven of the largest denominations have issued public statements during the Gaza War calling for an immediate ceasefire, with the onus of responsibility on Israel to stand down from further military action.

Logically, one would assume that at least some of the mainline Christian denominations would recognize the urgency of the moment and endorse Trump’s peace plan. Sadly, my research shows that there are zero instances of any denomination publicly supporting the most recent Trump peace plan for Gaza. Instead, where they mention Gaza at all, the trend is toward ceasefire/humanitarian access or explicit criticism of elements attributed to the plan.

It is not a situation where the leadership of the different denominations could not respond quickly and post something through their communications channels. Today, the United Church of Canada (UCC) issued a statement calling for the release of the hostages. That is commendable. However, as we have seen throughout this war with church statements, there is a constant theme of moral equivalency between terrorist groups like Hamas and a democracy with the rule of law like Israel.

The UCC statement says, “The church echoes the cry of Israelis demanding the immediate and safe return of their loved ones for the past two years, as Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have cried, demanding the release of their loved ones held captive in Israeli jails. These war crimes must end and all those responsible must be held accountable.”

The men, women and children slaughtered on Oct 7, 2023, did not receive due process through the extensive layers of the legal system in Israel. They were slaughtered and captured simply because they were/are Jews. In contrast, the “loved ones held captive in Israeli jails” range from perpetrators of mass terrorist killings to militants who took up arms against IDF troops. They are in jail because they have been found guilty of serious crimes. They are humanely treated, unlike the Israeli hostages.

Why can’t mainline Christian denominations bring themselves to support the last real chance for peace in Gaza publicly? Is it because President Trump may score some political advantage? Or is it a symptom of a more pernicious toxic belief that has reemerged in recent years as the latest brand of Christian antisemitism? Perhaps the mainline denominations just can’t bring themselves to embrace the idea of a peaceful and secure State of Israel.

In Canada, the mainline liberal Protestant denominations—United Church of Canada (UCC), Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC), Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC), and the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA, Canada branch)—have issued at least 23 official statements, open letters, prayers, and declarations through denominational websites and ecumenical partnerships (e.g., KAIROS, Citizens for Public Justice). These documents cover everything from calls for ceasefire and humanitarian aid to accusations of war crimes and genocide.

In fact, a closer look at the content reveals a striking pattern. While most statements include some perfunctory condemnation of Hamas, not a single one condemns Hamas for starting the war without also blaming Israel—usually in the same breath. This raises important questions about moral equivalency, rhetorical framing, and potentially even antisemitic bias embedded in contemporary liberal Christian discourse.

Let’s be clear: many church leaders did express revulsion at the horrors of October 7. Hamas was condemned for killing civilians, taking hostages, and violating international law. However, these statements were always structured to immediately pivot toward condemning Israel’s response. Here’s a representative example from the United Church of Canada’s open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau:

“We unequivocally condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians… We equally condemn the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and the collective punishment of 2.2 million people.”

This structure—condemnation of Hamas immediately followed by criticism of Israel—is repeated across nearly all the documents analyzed. The rhetorical effect is clear: disproportionate blame on Israel, mutual violence, and equal condemnation.

Even in the most recent statements issued in 2025, the pattern persists. Hamas is sometimes mentioned, but always as one actor among many, its responsibility contextualized by the Israeli “occupation,” “blockade,” “settler violence,” or “colonialism.” In some recent documents, Hamas is not mentioned at all.

What is never present, however, is a statement that isolates Hamas as the instigator of the war—let alone one that focuses on its role without also condemning Israel in the same document. This is not to suggest that Israel should be immune from criticism. But the absence of any moral asymmetry—in a moment when Hamas clearly initiated hostilities with an unprecedented terrorist massacre—betrays an ideological reluctance to hold Palestinian actors accountable, even for war crimes. It is even more alarming that these public statements offer no theological justification for the anti-Israel bias. Apparently, standing in solidarity with Palestinians is equated with a theological case. What would the Jewish Jesus think about that?

This pattern of blaming Israel raises a deeper issue: are these church statements offering legitimate political critique or are they veering into something else—something more dangerous?

To answer that question, it’s worth turning to Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, Israeli politician, and human rights activist. In the early 2000s, Sharansky developed a simple but powerful framework for distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism in public discourse. He called it the Three Ds:

1. Demonization

This occurs when Israel is portrayed as uniquely evil, monstrous, or a global menace—disproportionately blamed and dehumanized. Church statements describing Israel as committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid—without evidence or acknowledgment of Hamas’s tactics—can veer into this territory.

2. Double Standards

This happens when Israel is held to standards not applied to any other country. For example, when churches demand a Canadian arms embargo on Israel but do not call for similar measures against regimes like Iran, Syria, or Russia, a double standard may be at play.

3. Delegitimization

This refers to denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. While Canadian churches rarely state this outright, repeated references to Zionism as “settler colonialism” and silence on Jewish historical connection to the land suggest a creeping delegitimization of Israel’s foundational identity. Ironically, activists in the churches have no hesitation offering colonial judgement about how Israel should behave.

Sharansky’s framework helps clarify what makes certain statements problematic—not because they criticize Israeli policy, but because they frame Israel as the primary or only guilty party, even in a war it did not initiate.

When churches ignore causality—when they cannot bring themselves to say that Hamas caused this war—they risk replacing a moral theology of justice with a political ideology of grievance.

The rhetorical devices they employ matter. Statements like “we condemn both sides equally” creates false equivalence. “We must understand the occupation” contextualizes terrorism without condemning it outright. “We urge Canada to suspend relations with Israel”, while failing to mention Hamas governance in Gaza, shows bias.

This isn’t just poor political judgment; it reflects a theological failure. By turning a blind eye to the very real antisemitism embedded in some modern forms of anti-Zionism, these churches risk complicity in the very prejudice they claim to resist.

The good news is that church leaders have a choice.

They can return to a position of moral clarity, where both Palestinian suffering and Israeli security are honored, where Hamas is rightly condemned for terrorism, and where criticism of Israeli policies is grounded in universal ethical standards, not political dogma. Or, they can continue down a path where Israel is demonized, singled out, and delegitimized—even when it is acting in self-defense against one of the most violent terrorist groups in the world.

In doing so, they risk aligning themselves not with justice, but with a new form of antisemitism cloaked in the language of peace.Words matter—especially in churches. When religious institutions use their moral voice, they must do so with precision and courage. That means being able to condemn Hamas unequivocally, without qualification. That means being able to criticize Israeli policy without denying Israel’s right to exist. And that means avoiding rhetoric that reinforces ancient prejudices in modern forms.

As Natan Sharansky reminds us, the Three Ds are not a trap—they are a test. A test of whether we can still tell the difference between criticism and hate. Between justice and obsession. Between peace and propaganda. So far, many of Canada’s mainline churches are failing that test.

One of the clearest declarations of Jesus’ mission comes in Matthew 15:24, when he says,

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

This statement, often overlooked or softened, should be taken seriously. Jesus, as the Jewish Messiah, understands his earthly ministry first and foremost within the context of the Jewish people. His miracles, teachings, and acts of compassion are not abstract signs of divinity; they are rooted in the covenantal promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Kingdom of God that he proclaims is not a novel invention—it is the unfolding of Israel’s story, now coming to a climactic turning point.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes another profound statement:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

For Jesus, the Torah and the prophetic writings are not obsolete. They are alive and active, pointing forward to the Kingdom he now embodies. His fulfillment of the Law is not an annulment but a deepening commitment. The Jewish law is not discarded—it is honored, internalized, and championed toward love and justice. This again shows his deep commitment to Israel, not as a static ethnic identity, but as the people through whom God’s salvation is being revealed.

In John 4:22, while speaking with the Samaritan woman, Jesus says something theologically explosive:

“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”

Here, Jesus affirms that God’s plan of salvation has a specific historical trajectory. It is not abstract or universal in a generic sense—it is deeply particular, grounded in the story of Israel. Christians often claim Jesus as Savior but forget that he came as a Jew, lived under Jewish law, celebrated Jewish festivals, and taught within the tradition of Israel’s prophets. He was fully Torah observant. To separate Jesus from Judaism is to misunderstand him entirely.

Jesus’ love for Israel is not abstract or sentimental—it is deeply emotional and even painful. In Luke 13:34–35, Jesus cries out:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is depicted participating in and upholding Jewish rituals and customs. Jesus regularly attended synagogue services on the Sabbath, as seen in Luke 4:16:Although Jesus sometimes challenged legalistic interpretations of Sabbath laws, he never dismissed the importance of the Sabbath itself. His debates with religious leaders often aimed to emphasize the spirit of the law rather than its rigid application (Mark 2:27-28).

Jesus participated in Jewish festivals, including Passover. The Last Supper, described in all four Gospels, was a Passover meal (e.g., Luke 22:7-15). He also traveled to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2-14) and Hanukkah (John 10:22-23). There is no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus violated the dietary laws prescribed in the Torah. While later Christian interpretations, such as Peter’s vision in Acts 10, addressed dietary restrictions, Jesus himself operated within the boundaries of Jewish dietary practices.

Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day, in accordance with Jewish law (Luke 2:21). His family also made offerings at the Temple after his birth, fulfilling the requirements of the Torah (Luke 2:22-24).Jesus’ teachings often revolved around the correct understanding and application of the Torah. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus expounds on various commandments, deepening their moral and spiritual implications. For instance:

• On murder: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder;’ and whoever murders will be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” (Matthew 5:21-22).

• On adultery: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28).

These interpretations align with the Jewish tradition of midrash, which seeks to explore the deeper meanings of the Torah. Jesus’ confrontations with the Pharisees and Sadducees are often misunderstood as a rejection of the Torah. However, these disputes were about differing interpretations of the law, not the law itself. For example:

• In Matthew 23:23, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for neglecting “justice, mercy, and faithfulness” while being meticulous about minor commandments: “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

This criticism highlights Jesus’ emphasis on the ethical and spiritual heart of the Torah rather than superficial compliance.

These are not the words of a detached deity. They are the anguished cry of someone whose love has been rejected. And yet, that rejection does not lead to condemnation. It leads to lament. Jesus’ final words in this passage are not “You are cast off forever,” but “You will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’” His heart remains open to Israel. His mission is not one of abandonment but of longing for reconciliation.

Nowhere is the continuity of God’s love for Israel more clearly articulated than in Romans 11. Paul, writing to a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome, anticipates a question that continues to haunt Christian theology: Has God rejected Israel?

His answer is unequivocal:

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham… God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Romans 11:1–2).

Later in the chapter, he drives the point home:

“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

Paul does not see the Church as replacing Israel. He uses the metaphor of a wild olive branch grafted into a cultivated tree—Gentiles are added in, not because Israel has failed, but to fulfill the broader promise that through Abraham “all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Israel’s story continues. The original covenant stands.

These texts are not merely theological curiosities; they speak urgently to our time. As antisemitism rises around the world—even within some corners of the Christian community—it is essential to recover this biblical truth: God’s covenant with Israel has not been revoked. Christians are not called to erase or replace the Jewish people but to stand in solidarity with them, recognizing that the very root of our faith is nourished by Israel’s scriptures, prophets, and promises.

It also challenges how we think about justice, theology, and mission. If Jesus came first to the lost sheep of Israel, if he wept over Jerusalem, if he upheld the Law and the Prophets, then we must resist any theology that treats Judaism as obsolete or inferior. We must resist the temptation to turn complex historical conflicts into spiritualized morality plays. Jesus never rejected Israel. Neither should we.

Jesus’ relationship with Israel is not a footnote—it is central. From his birth in Bethlehem to his final entry into Jerusalem, his life was bound to the destiny of the Jewish people. And his longing remains: that one day, Israel will recognize in him the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers.

Until then, Christians are called not to boast over the branches, but to walk humbly, gratefully, and faithfully—knowing that the gifts and the covenant with God are irrevocable.

The United Church of Canada has long prided itself on its commitment to justice, human rights, and theological diversity. Yet we fear the Church is drifting into ideological unison on the question of Israel—a univocal anti-Zionism that betrays our core values. While we respect our colleagues in ministry, we cannot remain silent as certain voices claim to speak for us all. They do not.

We must reject proposals that describe Israel as a “genocidal settler-colonial project” and accuse it of “ethnic cleansing,” while minimizing the October 7 pogrom by calling it a “raid” and casting it as “resistance.” We must speak out when these proposals even presume to dictate to Jews in Canada the definition of antisemitism we will accept. Since October 7, our denomination’s public statements have ranged from morally ambiguous to outright accusatory toward Israel, often downplaying the brutal reality of terrorism. Such responses reveal a refusal to enter this complex and painful conversation with humility, clarity, and a willingness to listen to diverse voices.

We believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist in peace and security. The UCC affirmed this principle in 2003 as denomination policy in Bearing Faithful Witness. However, our commitment to that ideal is in shambles. We have alienated and angered Jews in Canada. We have created a chasm between our denomination and mainstream Jewish organizations. Our decisions this summer threaten to turn this chasm into a permanent schism.

While we may have complex and competing views about the State of Israel and its policies, we are of one mind and heart in this: Jesus’ Jewishness is of ongoing saving significance. There is no Christianity without Jesus’ Jewish mother, his first disciples, the writers of his New Testament, his friend and imitator Paul. One of Christianity’s earliest heresies was Marcion’s attempt to lop off the Jewish trunk of the tree into which gentile Christians are grafted by faith and baptism. Centuries of Christian anti-Judaism contributed to the catastrophe of the Shoah, after which we began to turn from our hatred of Jesus’ house and family toward something more like love.

However we speak of contemporary geopolitics, we cannot revert to our worst days of reflexive Jew-hatred. Our Jewish friends and neighbours in Canada are in trouble. The post-war generation grew up without fear of living an outwardly Jewish life, but their children and grandchildren worry whether it is safe to go to shul or school or anywhere else. We Christians have been guilty of doing nothing for our Jewish friends in the past, or even of adding to their distress and persecution.

Antisemitism is on the rise worldwide and in Canada. Its best cure, for us Christians, is a love for God’s calling of Abraham, God’s gift of the Torah to Moses, God’s leadership through David and Solomon, God’s promised blessing of the nations through the prophets. Jesus teaches us to see him not just in bread and wine, the neighbour, the enemy, and the prisoner, but in his fellow children of Abraham and Moses. Let us be caught not only speaking well of our fellow descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but standing alongside all who are oppressed, in the name of the Jew, Jesus.

Rev. Dr. Jason Byassee
Rev. Dr. Connie denBok
Rev. Lorraine Diaz
Rev. Foster Freed
Rev. Andrew Love
Rev. James Ravenscroft
Rev. Phil Spencer

We must not be silent as some of our fellow Christian leaders in Canada have offered morally ambiguous statements, where attempts at some foggy kind of balance serve to minimize the severity of the evil at hand and even launder the propaganda of a terrorist organization like Hamas. Ambiguity about antisemitism is complicity with antisemitism. No legitimate expression of “resistance” can ever justify the barbarity of October 7. We are disturbed as protestors in our streets chant direct calls for the death of Jews and the extermination of Israel.

We recognize that there are intense feelings and different beliefs among Jews, Christians, and Muslims on the complicated issues in the Holy Land. However, there is no justification for the tsunami of antisemitic hatred following October 7 and spreading in our communities. We stand against religious and racial hate and every use of political concern to foment, exploit, or pretend it away.

We believe the Jewish people have a right to exist and live in their historic lands. The Jewish people have a legitimate indigenous claim to Israel that is over 3000 years old, supported by overwhelming biblical and archeological evidence. A just peace for Jews and Arabs must affirm the right of self-determination for both peoples secured by recognized, respected, and reliable borders, something repeatedly scuttled by terrorists seeking to eliminate a Jewish national presence in the land.

We believe that the process of a negotiated peace begins when Hamas and other terrorist groups release all the hostages, lay down their weapons, and agree to accept the right of Israelis to live in peace and security in their homeland.

We reach out to the Jewish community in Ottawa during this prolonged season of grief when antisemitic voices must be challenged. You should not have to stand alone at this time, and so, with humility, we want to add our voices to echo your own in a spirit of healing and hope for the future.

Subscribe now