07/07/2026
There is a real assault on Christianity in America.
The issue is not criticizing Christianity. In any free society, institutions and movements can and should be questioned, debated, and rejected. But Christian conviction has been increasingly reframed as a social threat rather than a legitimate moral viewpoint. Before a society suppresses an ideal, it usually reframes the ideal. Sociologists call this moral panic. The pattern is striking:
Christian belief is framed as harmful. Christian morality is framed as bigotry. Christian speech is framed as violence. Christian institutions are framed as oppressive. Christian political participation is framed as a threat to democracy. It teaches people what to fear and who to despise.
The argument is not “Christianity is false,” but that “Christianity is dangerous.” Why does that matter? A false belief can be debated. But a dangerous belief can be restricted. Once Christianity is treated as dangerous and no longer debatable, a society can then begin restricting and controlling it. Criticism, pluralism, and being challenged is not an assault. But when Christian belief is treated as morally illegitimate, socially unacceptable, and legally vulnerable; when Christians are not allowed to live publicly according to their convictions, the conversation has moved from debate to persecution.
This is why there is such passion around removing Christian influence in American history, because history shapes legitimacy. If Christianity helped form America’s moral vocabulary, ideas of human dignity, ordered liberty, justice, education, charity, and self government, then Christianity cannot easily be dismissed as an alien threat to American life. But if Christian influence can be erased from the story, then Christianity can be reframed as something foreign, dangerous, or oppressive.
There are real and unhealthy forms of Christian political engagement that confuse the kingdom of God with political power. Christians should be willing to critique that. But the term is also sometimes used so broadly that normal Christian public engagement gets treated as dangerous. If a Christian says, “My faith shapes my vote,” that is not theocracy. If a pastor speaks about justice, life, family, or freedom, that is not authoritarianism. If Christians organize politically, that is not a coup against democracy. That is citizenship.
To be clear, naming hostility toward Christianity does not minimize the persecution of other groups. It does not deny that religious institutions, like any movement with influence, have at times done real harm. Christians should be honest enough to confess where religious authority has been misused.
Christians do not need permission to be faithful citizens. We need courage from God to stand. A Christian who is allowed to sing songs in church but forbidden, whether legally or socially, to speak in public is not religious liberty.
What do you think? Is Christianity being fairly criticized, or unfairly targeted?
Comment your thoughts below.
