Pope Leo XIV, like his predecessor, hesitates to take a demonstrative stand alongside Israel. By contrast, Evangelical Christianity has not shied away from adopting a clear and unequivocal moral stance in support of Israel in its war with Iran.
When Pope Leo XIV ascended to the papacy, many had great hopes. With his robust interfaith credentials from the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago – a vibrant hub for Jewish-Christian dialogue – Leo XIV seemed poised to renew Catholicism’s commitment to interreligious solidarity, especially with Judaism. These relationships had been severely compromised and put at serious risk due to the moral ambiguity and cautious approach of Pope Francis during the Israel-Gaza war, which drew significant criticism from the Jewish world. Early in his papacy, Leo XIV boldly declared that “all Christians have a special relationship with Judaism.” But when missiles began raining down on Tel Aviv and Tehran in June 2025, those hopes were quickly tested.
The Vatican’s Careful Tightrope
As conflict erupted, Pope Leo XIV urged Israel and Iran to exercise “responsibility and reason,” emphasizing that “no one should ever threaten the existence of another.” Though seemingly balanced, his statement was notable for what it omitted: explicit acknowledgment of Israel’s justified right to defend itself against existential threats.
This hesitancy echoed Pope Francis’s cautious stance during Gaza-Israeli war, proving inadequate and morally unclear at a critical moment. It threatened to continue in the troubling direction set by the previous pope, further eroding decades of progress in Jewish-Catholic relations since Nostra Aetate – the Vatican’s landmark 1965 declaration repudiating antisemitism and affirming Christianity’s foundational ties to Judaism – especially at a time when Iran emerged as the aggressor, openly threatening Israel’s existence with nuclear ambitions and its proxies Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen.
Mainline Protestantism: Predictably One-Sided
If the Vatican’s response was muted, mainline Protestant churches reacted with troubling predictability. The World Council of Churches condemned Israel’s military response as violations of international law, conveniently ignoring Iran’s aggressive provocations, nuclear ambitions, and sponsorship of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Such selective outrage dangerously simplifies complex realities and perpetuates moral confusion within Christian discourse.
Evangelicals Offer Moral Clarity
The Catholic response prompts a deeper theological question: Is there something inherent within Christianity that fundamentally opposes violence and warfare, leaving believers morally paralyzed in moments of conflict? Yet, evangelical Christians present an alternative vision, demonstrating that moral clarity and principled defense are indeed possible within Christianity.
Evangelical leaders swiftly voiced unwavering support for Israel. Franklin Graham explicitly identified Iran’s role, asserting, “Israel has been forced into defending itself and needs our prayers.” Pastor Greg Laurie rallied his congregation to pray fervently for Israelis under missile attacks and added: “The regime in Iran has long supported terrorism around the world –especially against Israel. They have been developing a nuclear [weapon] for some time now, and their leaders have repeatedly threatened to use it to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.'” Dr. Susan Michael of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem similarly supported Israel’s decisive actions to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, calling such a scenario “a threat not only to Israel but to global peace and security,” and urged Americans to pray for the protection of Israel’s civilians and armed forces, wisdom and strength for Israeli leaders, as well as “peace, justice, and the restraint of evil.”
This evangelical clarity emerges partly from theological beliefs positioning Israel centrally within biblical prophecy, but it also stems from a clear ethical conviction: nations under attack possess an inherent right to defend their citizens. Critics may dismiss evangelical support as simplistic or politically motivated, yet it stands as a resolute voice amidst widespread Christian ambiguity.
A Crisis of Moral Courage
The contemporary Catholic Church’s ambivalence sharply contrasts with its decisive commitments following the Holocaust, exemplified in Nostra Aetate. Moral authority, however, cannot rely solely on historical declarations – it requires constant reaffirmation, particularly in crises. Today, many Christian leaders appear hesitant to confront clear moral truths.
For global Christianity to remain relevant and authoritative in addressing war, peace, and justice, it must reject ambiguity and reclaim moral courage. Pope Leo XIV and his counterparts must unequivocally name evil when confronted by it. The evangelical response demonstrates clearly that this lack of moral clarity is not inherent in Christianity itself; indeed, evangelicals illustrate that such clarity remains achievable – and desperately needed – in our troubled times.