3 Big Threats Facing Christians and Churches in 2026

A threat assessment for churches entering 2026

Threat Environment Overview

Churches in the United States are heading into 2026 facing a more complex and hostile threat environment than in years past. This is not speculation or alarmism. It reflects observable trends, recent attacks, and increasingly aggressive rhetoric directed at Christians. The purpose of this article is to assess those threats clearly and realistically so churches can make informed decisions about preparation and safety.

Churches are inherently vulnerable spaces. They are open by design, gather people on predictable schedules, and operate on trust. These strengths are biblical, but they are also exploitable. Most attacks against churches are not part of coordinated campaigns. They are more often driven by individuals acting on ideology, grievance, or fixation.

Another defining feature of the current environment is the normalization of hostility toward Christians. Online rhetoric increasingly frames Christians as political enemies or moral obstacles. When that language becomes common, it lowers the psychological barrier for real world violence. Churches also exist beyond their walls. Livestreams, social media, and public websites expand reach, but they also increase exposure.

Understanding this environment is necessary before examining specific threats. Without it, churches either dismiss risk entirely or respond emotionally. Neither approach serves the congregation.

---

Lone Wolf Actors

Lone wolf actors remain the most likely threat to churches going into 2026. These individuals act alone or with minimal outside support and are often driven by ideology, personal grievance, mental health crises, or a combination of factors. They do not need direction from an organization, which makes them difficult to identify or disrupt before violence occurs.

Recent incidents from 2025 reinforce this pattern:

• Wayne, Michigan: An individual opened fire at a church with no ties to a larger group.

• LDS church attack: A lone suspect targeted church property, reinforcing that Christian institutions remain symbolic targets.

• Minneapolis: An attack at a church facility targeted children, showing that attackers do not distinguish between worship spaces and auxiliary programs.

Churches are appealing targets because they are familiar environments. Many attackers have personal connections to churches as former members, family attendees, or individuals who feel rejected or wronged. That familiarity lowers hesitation and increases confidence in access.

Ideology is often present but rarely sophisticated. Beliefs are shaped by grievance narratives and reinforced by media coverage of prior attacks, which can drive copycat behavior. Warning signs are usually behavioral rather than verbal, including fixation on leadership, escalating anger, and repeated boundary violations.

---

Islamic Terrorism

While less frequent than lone wolf attacks, Islamic terrorism remains a credible and persistent threat to churches and Christians in the United States and Europe. Groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda have consistently called on Muslims living in Western countries to attack Christians and Jews. These calls are explicit, repeated, and ongoing.

Both organizations regularly publish propaganda encouraging attacks on churches and synagogues. Their messaging frames Christians and Jews as legitimate enemies and portrays lone actor violence as religious duty. They also publish articles highlighting successful attacks in the United States and Europe, praising the attackers and encouraging others to replicate the tactics.

The 2025 Bondi Beach attack in Sydney reflects this model. The attacker acted alone, used a simple weapon, and targeted civilians in a public space. While not a church attack, it demonstrates how jihadist inspired violence often unfolds, low tech, fast moving, and difficult to stop once it begins.

A muslim man wrestles a shotgun away from an ISIS active shooter in Australia.

Online radicalization remains the primary driver. Propaganda is easily accessible and designed to inspire independent action without direct contact with terrorist organizations. Most attacks linked to this ideology would likely be small scale but high impact, aimed at fear and symbolic victory.

Use code KG20 for a discount

---

Radical Left Anti Christian Extremism

Another growing concern is extremism driven by far left ideology that is openly hostile toward Christianity. This threat is rooted less in formal organization and more in dehumanizing rhetoric that frames Christians as enemies or obstacles.

In 2025, following the Minneapolis church attack involving children, several far left influencers and online commentators encouraged further violence against Christians and Jews. Rather than condemning the attack, some framed it as misdirected and argued that future lone wolf violence should be aimed more deliberately at religious targets.

This threat spreads through online spaces where extreme views are normalized and calls for violence are often cloaked in sarcasm or moral justification. Churches are increasingly portrayed as symbols of broader political opposition, which increases risk even when no specific church is named.

This environment lowers the threshold for lone actor violence. Even when influencers do not act themselves, their rhetoric can inspire unstable individuals seeking validation or purpose.

---

Secondary and Emerging Threats

Some of the most dangerous situations come from localized grievances. These include disgruntled former members, domestic disputes that spill into church spaces, custody conflicts, or fixation on pastors or staff. These threats are often dismissed because they feel personal rather than ideological, but they account for a significant number of church incidents.

Cyber and information related threats also matter. Doxxing, harassment campaigns, and online threats are increasingly used to intimidate churches and individuals. These actions can serve as pre attack signaling. Online threats that go unchallenged sometimes escalate into physical violence.

---

What Churches Should Take Away From This

The threat environment going into 2026 is shaped more by individuals than organizations. Churches should not assume that a lack of prior incidents means safety, nor should they expect clear warnings.

Situational awareness, behavioral observation, training, and coordination with law enforcement matter. Preparation should be measured and appropriate, not driven by fear or denial.

---

Biblical Perspective

Scripture makes clear that growing hostility toward believers is expected, not unusual. Jesus warned in Matthew 24:9–12 that His followers would be hated for His name, lawlessness would increase, and love would grow cold. He repeatedly warned of deception in Matthew 24:4–5 and 24:11, emphasizing discernment.

Paul echoes this in 2 Timothy 3:1–5, describing the last days as marked by violence, arrogance, and hostility toward what is good. He states plainly in 2 Timothy 3:12 that all who desire to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Peter reinforces this in 1 Peter 4:12–13, warning believers not to be surprised by trials.

Scripture also places responsibility on leadership. In Acts 20:28–31, elders are instructed to be alert to threats from outside and within. Jesus commands watchfulness in Mark 13:33, warning that the timing would not be obvious.

Biblical readiness is not fear driven. It is obedience driven. The parable of the wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25:1–13 shows that the difference was preparation, not belief. Protecting the congregation and exercising discernment are part of faithful stewardship in a season Scripture said would be difficult.