Random

A new report from Family Research Council (FRC) shows that there were 415 attacks on churches in 2024, affecting 383 different churches.  

The report, Hostility Against Churches in the United States: Analyzing Incidents from 2024, explains that these attacks include vandalism, arson, gun-related incidents and bomb threats. Other crimes included “physical assault, disruption of church services, and general threats of harm.”

FRC notes that these are reported attacks, but “many cases likely went unreported to law enforcement or unpublished by news outlets or other publicly available sources,” which the organization relied on as sources for the data.

The organization, which advocates in Washington, D.C., for life, marriage, family, free speech and religious freedom, was founded by Dr. James Dobson in 1983. From 1988 to 1992, FRC was a division under Focus on the Family.

The first report on hostility against churches was published in 2022, but that initial analysis “covered incidents that occurred between January 2018 and September 2022.” While 2023 had the highest number of crimes against churches, at 485, this past year had the second highest number. Overall, there has been a significant increase in attacks on churches since 2018.

The report explains the types of crimes that took place in 2024.

Vandalism was once again the category with the most incidents (284). There were also 55 instances of arson, 14 bomb threats, and 47 “other.” The number of gun-related incidents (28) was more than double the previous year’s total (12). Thirteen incidents fell into more than one category, the most frequent combination being vandalism paired with either gun-related incidents or other forms of physical aggression.

Regarding those acts of vandalism, FRC found,

Some acts of vandalism appear to have been motivated by anger toward a particular church or churches in general. Other incidents seemed to have had political motivations, targeting churches based on their views regarding human sexuality or dignity.

Some perpetrators were juveniles or individuals likely dealing with mental health challenges. A few vandals appeared motivated by financial gain, stealing valuable materials such as copper wiring and air conditioning parts. Several incidents were investigated as hate crimes.

The report indicates our popular culture has become more hostile toward and intolerant of Christianity and “is often treated lightly or outright mocked.”

The report acknowledges that President Trump signed an executive order, Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias to combat animosity toward people of faith. In addition, as the Daily Citizen reported, the president launched a Religious Liberty Commission to safeguard our religious freedom.  

But in a press release, FRC President Tony Perkins spoke about the reality that Christians must continue to battle for the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty, “Religious freedom is seldom handed to the passive; it is claimed by those who exercise it even when a hostile culture says they may not.” 

This report clearly shows religious freedom faces substantial threats here at home. The American left intentionally spreads its hostility toward the Christian faith throughout every corner of America.

We applaud the efforts of the Trump administration, but efforts must be taken at every level of government to protect and promote this fundamental human right. Christians must expect and demand more from their government leaders when it comes to prosecuting and preventing criminal acts targeting religious freedom.

The report explains, “Not all crimes against churches are motivated by hatred for Christianity,” adding,

“Some vandals appear to be motivated by financial gain through theft, while other culprits are teenagers engaging in a destructive pastime. However, there are still incidents that seem to be targeting churches intentionally and with malicious intent.”

But the overall affect is very harmful to churches and church members.

“Regardless of the perpetrator’s motives, such crimes can leave churches in physical, financial, and emotional disarray. Some churches struggle to cover the costs of repairs and fear future offenses.”

FRC Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber expressed his hope that “Hostility Against Churches” would cause others to “sit up and take notice.”

The fact that hundreds of churches around the United States are denigrated in this manner highlights the broader reality that Christians, Jews, and others are no longer “automatically” safe to live and worship in peace in the United States – a trend that is at work in other Western countries as well.

Government leaders should do their part in ensuring that our laws and constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion are enforced, and our culture and its institutions must do their part in ensuring honor and respect for religious freedom. 

Weber concluded with a warning for believers, saying, “Meanwhile, we must prepare ourselves for how to live amid such hostility, should this trend continue or perhaps get even worse.”

Read the full report, Hostility Against Churches in the United States: 2024.

Related Articles and Resources

300 Attacks on Catholic Churches – In Less Than 3 Years; 82 Attacks on Pregnancy Resource Centers – In Less Than a Year

Global Persecution and Your Faith

Hundreds of Millions of Christians Facing Persecution Worldwide

Is David French Right — Is Our Religious Liberty Secure?

Image from Shutterstock.

Last week, a disturbing story broke about the fate of a child acquired through surrogacy. Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell, “married” men from Pennsylvania, had chronicled their quest for a baby on social media, and that’s how the world learned that Mitchell is a registered child sex-offender due to highly indecent behavior a decade ago. Though forbidden from unsupervised contact with a minor, he was able to buy a baby. 

As Katy Faust of Them Before Us often reminds us, nothing these men did to acquire this baby was illegal. In fact, it’s an extra-legal situation. Unlike the host of regulations and investigations that govern adoption, no such rules apply when it comes to surrogacy. As Faust posted about this incident,  

“This horrifying case of a pedophile acquiring a surrogate boy is opening a lot of eyes. This isn’t adoption. And that’s by design … no part of this process considers the best interest of the child. It is a market-based delivery system for any and every adult to acquire children.”

She later added, “This kind of failing isn’t a bug of the system; it’s a feature.” 

In fact, there are two interrelated systems at work to produce these horrific results. There is the legal system which, as Faust noted in her post, is allergic to any regulation or legal barrier to artificial reproductive technologies, especially those that provide same-sex couples with children. There’s also the artificial reproductive technologies themselves, which are pushing further into uncharted territory day by day. 

For example, L.S. Dugdale recently wrote about eight babies who were made in a lab. Tragically, that kind of thing is not new. Why these particular babies made headlines is that each one carries DNA from three parents, one man and two women.  

As it turns out, the genetic contributions from each adult are not even close to equal. And, as Dugdale put it, “The aim [of this procedure] has not been to create hybrid creatures but to prevent horrific disease linked to mitochondria, the microscopic power generators in the mother’s egg.” That’s noble, until we remember that the aim of IVF and surrogacy was to help infertile couples have children. Now, these ethically fraught practices are being used to help perfectly healthy adults who are not infertile but are naturally sterile, acquire children. Is there any doubt this procedure, known as mitochondrial donation, won’t be used to give polyamorous couples the kind of kids they want, too? 

In another recent piece in The Free Press, Madeleine Kearns described her journey through her own “unexplained infertility.” Multiple doctors recommended IVF as her best and only option, but Kearns instead chose Natural Procreative Technology, a science aimed at treating underlying conditions that affect fertility. As Kearns put it,  

“Revolutionary though it has been, IVF does not restore a would-be mother’s body to optimal health; in fact, IVF is often a profoundly uncomfortable experience for women, not to mention an expensive one. It’s no wonder that many women with “unexplained infertility” are left feeling that mainstream medicine has failed them, subjecting them to stressful, painful interventions, while leaving them in the dark about the mysteries of their own bodies.” 

In other words, what drives most of our artificial reproductive technologies is not the desire to restore health. Rather, these technologies intend to provide adults with what they want, by any means necessary. As medical ethicist C. Ben Mitchell wrote, when “medicine becomes just another consumer good … customers tell the providers what they want, and the providers either respond accordingly or are left behind in the market.”  

The reproductive marketplace is built on twin illusions of consumerism and control. In this world, the almighty “I” should have whatever he or she wants. Those who want sex without children should not be “punished” with a kid. Those who want a child without the trouble of giving birth can rent a incubator for their little accessories. Those who’ve chosen an inherently sterile union can insist, not only that they should be able to have kids, but that others should pay for it. Any future technologies will be utilized accordingly. 

A worldview that insists on absolute autonomy and that “the customer is always right” will corrupt medicine. Christians must offer a better way. In fact, opportunities are ripe for the Bride of Christ to promote healing, become agents of restoration, and advance human dignity … not just by opposing abortion but by ensuring babies aren’t reduced to products to be bought and sold.