Gun violence in the United States continues at a rate unmatched among peer nations (Commonwealth Fund, 2024). While Charlie Kirk was not the only person to be killed by gun violence (even within the same week), his tragic death has captured the nation’s attention. Yet the focus around Mr. Kirk’s death has not included renewed calls to stem the uniquely American scourge of gun violence. What allows this violence to continue?

One might reasonably expect those who are most public about their Christian faith, to be strongly in favor of all efforts to curtail such violence. Yet, it is a puzzling fact that over half of self-described Christians oppose stricter gun laws and favor nearly unfettered access to firearms, a pattern Obery Hendricks (2021) traces to the entanglement of evangelical politics and gun ideology. Empirical research confirms this dynamic: Christian nationalism is one of the strongest predictors of opposition to federal gun reform, even more than religiosity or education (Whitehead, Schnabel, & Perry, 2018).

The larger culture has become inured to violence, such that shootings—or mass shootings, Mr. Kirk excepted-rarely sustain national attention. Indeed, among mainstream media and government officials, there has been very little coverage of or expressions of outrage about, other recent shootings, such as the August 27^th mass shooting of Catholic school children in Minneapolis.

While it may seem puzzling that many self-described Christians prioritize the protection of guns, for those who do, the motivation seems clear. In their 2020 study, Vegter and Kelley find the motivation of Christian gun ownership stems from a deep sense of duty to protect and defend. We may simply assume this means protecting one’s family and possessions; however, Christians posit it as something greater. The rhetoric suggests they must protect themselves from a menacing “other,” the embodiment of evil, an existential threat to their life, liberty, economic well-being, faith and way of life. Therefore, having a gun to protect one’s family is a sanctified action.

The transcendence of potential threats changes the conversation for Christian nationalists. No longer are disagreements about differing opinions. No longer can one “reach across the aisle” to find a common ground with someone who believes differently. No longer can concession be made. When someone who has different opinions from you is seen as evil, there is no debate. No longer is the other your neighbor—as mandated in the New Testament, the other is your enemy.

What then is the result? The result, as we have seen, is a belief that Christian nationalists are divinely ordained to do God’s work on earth, and particularly in the United States. This means going to whatever extreme is necessary to eradicate evil. The options are to remove the menacing other through deportation, decrease the other’s influence through gerrymandering, or destroy the other through the “war” rhetoric as voiced recently in some corners of the Christian right. Such violence is Divinely sanctioned. It is the way to save the self or the republic. Thus, violence becomes salvific in the manner of, well, Jesus’ death on the cross, or Holy Wars where the divine justification for such violence is permissive. Thus, violence becomes salvific, in the manner of Holy Wars, where bloodshed is recast as sacrifice and redemption (Gorski & Perry, 2022; Armaly, Buckley, & Enders, 2022).

Even the tragic death of Mr. Kirk is being transformed into a salvific moment. Take for instance an image that has been circulating on social media. An image circulating widely on social media placed him alongside Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus—men remembered as assassinated for words judged too radical in their time. The caption read “All Because of Words.” Among those amplifying it was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL, 13th District), who pinned the image on her personal X account and posted it on her official Congressional account. Her single post drew more than 10.9 million views, a measure of how quickly the martyr narrative spread far beyond its original source.

Positioning Kirk as a martyr for his cause gives further weight to his words. On September 13^th, CNN reported that his social media has gained millions of followers since his shooting. In an address following days after Kirk’s death, Erika Kirk, his widow, encouraged his death to be just the start of his wisdom and voice being spread. The sentiment shared by others, reinforced by the above image, is not just that his death was not in vain, but that his death was necessary so that his message can reach even more people. Two great travesties are evident here—the travesty of sanctifying some of Mr. Kirk’s divisive words, and the other is the violence of his death is glorified, rather than condemned as a violent act that should never have occurred and need never occur.

The tragic case of Mr. Kirk illustrates one aspect of this permission structure for violence. Prevailing ideological commitments (in this case, 2^nd amendment rhetoric) prevent consideration of the negative consequences of such ideology. Illustratively, Congress has resisted federal funding for research into gun violence, and the DOJ website has removed their own study on the prevalence of right-wing political violence—far exceeding that of left-wing violence. Secondly, the theological center of gravity for Christian nationalism, veneration of the cross, allows for some violent acts to be transformed into an avenue for redemption or salvation. Refusal to recognize the causes and correlates of violence, and a reticence to address them, decouples the consequences of violence from the meaning one can make of violent acts. Violence, when perpetuated by or against Christian nationalists, may continue to be seen and interpreted as holy and salvific, rather than simply tragic, preventing discussion of consequences and any policies changes to quell the growing prevalence of all gun violence. The tragic case of Mr. Kirk shows how, in Christian nationalist hands, even bloodshed may become salvific—and why America’s cycle of gun violence endures.

Dr. Tess Starman is a sociologist who studies the relationship between religion, power, and politics.

Dr. Ronald Hopson is a psychologist and theologian whose work engages religion, sexuality, psychotherapy, and the Black church.

Further Reading & Sources

For readers who want to explore the data and debates behind this essay, here is a mix of survey research, peer-reviewed scholarship, and recent reporting. Together, these sources trace the intersection of Christian nationalism, gun culture, and the politics of violence.

Armaly, M. T., Buckley, D. T., & Enders, A. M. (2022). Christian nationalism and political violence: Victimhood, racial identity, conspiracy, and support for the Capitol attacks. Political Behavior, 44(3), 937–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09758-y

CNN. (2025, September 13). Charlie Kirk’s social media soars days after death. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/media/charlie-kirk-erika-social-media-tpusa-followers

Gorski, P. S., & Perry, S. L. (2022). The flag and the cross: White Christian nationalism and the threat to American democracy. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-flag-and-the-cross-9780197618684

Hendricks, O. M., Jr. (2021). Christians against Christianity: How right-wing evangelicals are destroying our nation and our faith. Beacon Press. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/659573/christians-against-christianity-by-obery-m-hendricks-jr/

NBC News. (2025, September 21). Trump says ‘I hate my opponents’ at Charlie Kirk’s memorial [Video]. YouTube.

PBS NewsHour. (2025, September 13). Watch: Erika Kirk delivers first public remarks after fatal shooting of her husband Charlie Kirk. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-erika-kirk-delivers-first-public-remarks-after-fatal-shooting-of-her-husband-charlie-kirk

Public Religion Research Institute. (2025, June 18). Prophecy, Trump, and the justification of political violence. PRRI. https://prri.org/spotlight/prophecy-trump-and-the-justification-of-political-violence/

The Hill. (2025, September 17). DOJ removes far-right extremism study. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5507682-doj-removes-far-right-extremism-study/

Vegter, A. R., & Kelley, M. (2020). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of gun ownership. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 59(3), 526–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12672

Whitehead, A. L., Schnabel, L., & Perry, S. L. (2018). Gun control in the crosshairs: Christian nationalism and opposition to stricter gun laws. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118790189

On September 7, the War Department’s rapid-response account pushed a 19-second clip of soldiers running drills and aircraft banking, overlaid with words from Joshua: “Be strong and of good courage … for the Lord your God is with you” (Josh 1:9). A month earlier on August 10, another clip used a conquest line from the Psalms: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them” (Ps 18:37). Reporting in Religion News Service described the posts in sober tones, noting that some link them to Christian nationalism, and quoted experts warning about the merger of scripture and state power (André, 2025).

Baptist scholar Brian Kaylor stressed that these verses were originally directed to “marginalized people under attack, not imperial armies.” To lift them out of context and stamp them on military imagery, he said, is a selective literalism that “turns scripture into a warrant for force.” Michael Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation raised a related concern: using Bible verses in official channels “privileges one faith” and risks damaging “the cohesion and trust” of a pluralist military (André, 2025).

Civil religion or Christian nationalism?

There is an important distinction here. In his classic essay Civil Religion in America, Robert Bellah argued that the United States has long had a public religious grammar, a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that is neither sectarian nor in any specific sense Christian. Civil religion lets presidents invoke God in a way meant to bind a diverse people to moral purposes (Bellah, 1967). Bellah emphasized a division of labor. Churches do not control the state, the state does not control the churches, and officials operate within a broad, non-sectarian grammar rather than a denominational creed.

The War Department’s videos do not fall into that category. They are not metaphorical invocations of blessing. They are literal proof-texts superimposed on weapons and maneuvers. Comparative work on sacralized politics flags this as the sacralization of state violence, the shift from moral language to religious warrant for coercive power (Rouhana & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2021).

This is not a new temptation. Bellah himself warned that the “American Israel” theme, the idea of America as a chosen nation, has often been used to legitimate imperial adventures and to consecrate conflict through the language of sacrifice. That language is embedded in the civic calendar through Memorial Day and national cemeteries (Bellah, 1967). Feminist theologian Kelly Denton-Borhaug later traced how U.S. officials, especially after 9/11, mobilized sacrifice language to sanctify war, converting military loss into a quasi-sacrament that renders dissent morally suspect (Denton-Borhaug, 2007).

The War Department videos sit squarely in that trajectory, but with an additional twist. They do not only memorialize loss or invoke unity. They overlay conquest texts directly onto images of combat. That is not civil religion. It is Christian nationalism.

Why this messaging matters

Population-level data help calibrate the stakes. PRRI’s 2024 American Values Survey shows the divide is sharp. Seven in ten Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, with nearly all Republicans (94 percent) taking that view compared to four in ten Democrats (41 percent). Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to believe American culture has changed for the worse since the 1950s (68 percent vs. 31 percent). The gap extends to questions of democracy and violence. Nearly one in five Republicans (19 percent) said Trump should declare the 2024 election invalid and do whatever it takes to assume office if he loses. Almost three in ten Republicans (29 percent) agreed that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.” By comparison, only 8 percent of Democrats agreed with that statement (Public Religion Research Institute, 2024).

Peer-reviewed studies trace the consequences. In Politics & Religion, Samuel Perry and Joseph Grubbs show that Christian nationalism predicts support for leaders who suspend democratic norms during national emergencies—especially when people feel their in-group power is threatened (Perry & Grubbs, 2024). In Political Behavior, Miles Armaly, David Buckley, and Adam Enders demonstrate that Christian nationalism, especially when fused with victimhood, racial identity, and conspiracism, predicts support for political violence, including justification of the January 6 attacks (Armaly, Buckley & Enders, 2022).

The official social media channels posting videos of scripture-over-war-footage is not a morale boost. In a country where millions already see politics through a Christian-national lens, these cues correlate with greater tolerance for democratic shortcuts and violence. That is why the distinction between civil religion and Christian nationalism is not academic hairsplitting. It is a democratic tripwire.

Personnel is policy

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has cultivated a crusader image, from the Deus Vult tattoo on his arm to speeches calling for an “American Crusade” to defend Western civilization. Reporting by Mike Baker and Ruth Graham documented those details in depth. When communications produced under his leadership overlay conquest verses on combat imagery, it looks less like a rogue social media post and more like a coherent project.

DHS and ICE as a mirror

The same trend appears across the Trump administration. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement feeds have been filled with videos and memes that borrow both biblical and pop culture references. Washington Post columnist Carolina Miranda describes one clip set to the verse from Isaiah, “Here am I. Send me,” paired with tactical raids and helicopters. Another cites Proverbs, “The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion,” intercut with dialogue from The Batman (Miranda, 2025). The effect is a holy-war narrative where agents are cast as God’s soldiers against shadowy enemies.

The imagery does not stop there. ICE social media has borrowed Manifest Destiny art, slogans like “Which way, American man,” and even Bible verses to frame immigration enforcement as a spiritual crusade. As Gorski and Perry note, Christian nationalism always needs an enemy, whether Native Americans, Catholics, immigrants, or the political left. The enemy shifts, but the us-versus-them logic remains (Gorski & Perry, 2022).

A test for pluralism

One way to measure this is to flip the script. If identical clips were released with Qur’anic verses instead of biblical ones, how would they land? Most Americans would quickly recognize that as the state privileging one faith and redrawing boundaries of belonging. Comparative research on sacralized politics finds that this is what happens when religious claims fuse with national power. They draw hard insider and outsider lines and legitimize demonization (Rouhana & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2021). Inside a pluralist military, those lines shape not just public opinion but the culture of the ranks.

Resisting this drift does not mean banishing religion from public life. It means insisting that biblical language in official communications serve universal purposes such as mourning the dead, binding wounds, and setting moral horizons. It means distinguishing chaplaincy, which cares for service members of all faiths, from messaging that brands the state with conquest texts.

The War Department and DHS examples reveal a consistent logic. America is cast as chosen, under siege, and authorized to fight. That is not civil religion. It is Christian nationalism, and it is being carried by the official voice of the state.

Further Reading

• André, F. (2025, September 9). Department of War quotes Bible in apparent embrace of Christian nationalism on social media. Religion News Service. https://religionnews.com/2025/09/09/department-of-war-quotes-bible-in-apparent-embrace-of-christian-nationalism-on-social-media/

• Armaly, M. T., Buckley, D. T., & Enders, A. M. (2022). Christian nationalism and political violence: Victimhood, racial identity, conspiracy, and support for the Capitol attacks. Political Behavior, 44(3), 937–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09758-y

• Bellah, R. N. (2005). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 134(4), 40–55. (Original work published 1967). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027022

• Denton-Borhaug, K. (2007). The Language of “Sacrifice” in the Buildup to War: A Feminist Rhetorical and Theological Analysis. The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, 15(1), 2-2. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A167897642/AONE?u=creighton&sid=googleScholar&xid=c692c9a8

• Gorski, P. S., & Perry, S. L. (2022). The flag and the cross: White Christian nationalism and the threat to American democracy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197618684.001.0001

• Miranda, C. A. (2025, August 26). Preposterous ICE videos have a holy war to sell you. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/26/dhs-social-media-religious-imagery-battle/

• Perry, S. L., & Grubbs, J. B. (2024). Christian nationalism and support for leaders violating democratic norms during national emergencies. Politics & Religion, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048324000208

• Public Religion Research Institute. (2024). Findings from the 2024 American Values Survey: Executive summary. https://prri.org/american-values-survey/

• Rouhana, N. N., & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (Eds.). (2021). When politics are sacralized: Comparative perspectives on religious claims and nationalisms. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108768191

Bishop Robert Barron has long cultivated a reputation as the Catholic Church’s intellectual statesman. Through his Word on Fire brand, he has built a global platform of books, videos, podcasts, and conferences. His voice carries authority, especially among Catholics searching for cultural relevance and apologetics in a polarized age. Yet his recent reflections on the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk reveal troubling contradictions that merit closer attention.

In First Things, Barron framed Kirk’s death as emblematic of courageous public witness: “Why has the murder of Charlie Kirk resonated so powerfully through the culture? … I am convinced there is something more, and it has to do with the fact that he died with a microphone in his hand—not a gun or a knife or a grenade, but a microphone” (Barron, 2025). He closed by urging readers to take “renewed inspiration from a courageous and religious man who died, not with a gun in his hand, but rather an instrument of communication” (Barron, 2025). Barron’s rhetoric placed Kirk in a martyr-like frame, using sacramental language around the microphone.

The Word on Fire brand reinforced this narrative through its website, where editor-in-chief Tod Worner published an essay on Kirk’s death. Worner is the head of Evangelization & Culture, the journal of the Word on Fire Institute, billed as the intellectual arm of Barron’s ministry and positioned as their equivalent to a cultural review. His reflections on Kirk are telling. Worner described the killing as “an act of brazen totalitarianism” and “a move of supreme censorship,” writing:

“This murder is an act of brazen totalitarianism. This killing is a move of supreme censorship. … This is the dark spirit of ideologically blinkered protestors who prevent events, intimidate crowds, drown out voices, and murder speakers. And they do this because they believe that using their freedom to restrain yours—in whatever way possible, even murder—is good for you” (Worner, 2025).

He went further:

“They hate their enemy more than they love the truth” (Worner, 2025).

And again:

“Ideology is a warped secular religion that leads adherents to murder in the name of a cause” (Worner, 2025).

This is not marginal commentary. As editor of Word on Fire’s flagship publication, Worner helps set the boundaries of what counts as serious reflection in Barron’s orbit. His piece on Kirk elevates the event into nothing less than a civilizational referendum on free speech.

Contrasts in Tone: From Floyd to Kirk

The contrast with Barron’s response to the killing of George Floyd is striking. In his June 2020 essay Why “What are the Bishops Doing About it?” is the Wrong Question, Barron acknowledged the brutality of Floyd’s death but quickly redirected responsibility away from bishops:

“The crisis precipitated by the brutal killing of George Floyd is one that involves many dimensions of our society: law, the police, education, government, neighborhoods, families, etc. Priests and bishops, to be sure, ought to teach clearly and publicly. The declaration mentioned above and the American bishops’ pastoral statement against racism from a year ago, Open Wide Our Hearts,are good examples of this. But I would argue that the lion’s share of the work regarding this massive societal problem belongs to those whose proper arena is the society and whose expertise lies precisely in the relevant areas of concern, namely, the laity” (Barron, 2020).

Barron’s comments on Floyd were sober, careful, and ultimately limited. Weeks later, his Canceling Padre Serra essay (Barron, 2020b) carried sharper urgency, warning against “the cancel culture impulse” and urging Catholics to defend Serra as a heroic evangelist. The juxtaposition is telling: Floyd’s death was framed as a problem primarily for lay action, while threats to a Catholic saint’s reputation elicited Barron’s direct passion.

By contrast, his language on Kirk is more impassioned, casting the activist’s death as a cultural and even civilizational moment. The unevenness can appear to turn free speech from a consistent principle into a posture applied selectively.

Passion, Selectivity, and Public Witness

This unevenness matters because it suggests a particular vision of the Church in public life. In his essay on Kirk, Barron frames free speech in terms that can sound almost sacramental. The effect parallels patterns scholars of Christian nationalism describe—where persecution and martyrdom narratives help bind communities and energize activism (Day, 2025). As Bishop of Winona-Rochester, he is entrusted with a diocese, yet his rhetoric often appears drawn into the orbit of the culture wars.

Once an online priest commenting on film and literature, he now appears more at home in conversation with figures such as Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Tucker Carlson. These platforms shape his public presence as much as, if not more than, his diocesan ministry. Pope Francis once urged priests to “be shepherds, with the ‘odour of the sheep,’ make it real, as shepherds among your flock” (Francis, 2013). Increasingly, Barron seems to smell more like an online personality than a shepherd among his flock.

References

Barron, R. (2020a, June 24). Why “What are the bishops doing about it?” is the wrong question. Word on Fire. https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/why-what-are-the-bishops-doing-about-it-is-the-wrong-question/

Barron, R. (2020, July 20). Canceling Padre Serra. Word on Fire. https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/canceling-padre-serra/

Barron, R. [@BishopBarron]. (2025, June 14). A terrible tragedy occurred in my home state of Minnesota early this morning… [Tweet]. X. https://x.com/BishopBarron/status/1933951934660321546

Barron, R. (2025, September 9). He died with a microphone in his hand. First Things. https://www.firstthings.com/he-died-with-a-microphone-in-his-hand/

Day, J. (2025). Christian nationalism as a social practice: Prayer, violence, and the politics of public ritual. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2025.2555222

Fraga, B. (2024a, May 15). Bishop Barron’s Word on Fire again threatens Commonweal over article about Trumpism. National Catholic Reporter. https://www.ncronline.org/news/bishop-barrons-word-fire-again-threatens-commonweal-over-article-about-trumpism

Fraga, B. (2024b, May 1). Commonweal magazine edits article after legal threat from Bishop Barron’s Word on Fire. National Catholic Reporter. https://www.ncronline.org/commonweal-magazine-edits-article-after-legal-threat-bishop-barrons-word-fire

Francis. (2013, March 28). Chrism Mass homily. Vatican. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130328_messa-crismale.html

KTTC. (2025, June 14). Bishop Robert Barron reacts to shootings of Minnesota lawmakers, killing of DFL leader Melissa Hortman. KTTC. https://www.kttc.com/2025/06/14/bishop-robert-barron-reacts-shootings-minnesota-lawmakers-killing-dfl-leader-melissa-hortman/

Worner, T. (2025, September 11). The murder of Charlie Kirk and the fate of free speech. Word on Fire. https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/the-murder-of-charlie-kirk-and-the-fate-of-free-speech/

Word on Fire. (2025, May 19). Bishop Barron responds to his critics [Video]. YouTube.

My dissertation work focuses on Dutch Sheets, and so I cannot help but read his September 12, 2025 Give Him 15 post through the lens of both his theology and the academic literature on Christian nationalism. In that prayer, Sheets condemns “identity politics” as the root of division and violence in America. He argues that conservatives are falsely accused of hate and tyranny, that liberals deliberately weaponize race to divide the country, and that this politics of grievance produces anger, hatred, and violence. His solution is prayer for revival. What is striking is not simply the argument, but the irony. Sheets has built his career by employing the very politics of grievance and identity that he condemns in others.

Sheets’ model of leadership depends on what scholars describe as the politics of persecution. He repeatedly frames conservative Christians as a group under siege, portrays opponents as agents of evil, and sanctifies political conflict as spiritual war. This is not the rejection of identity politics but its amplification in religious terms. Gorski and Perry (2022) describe Christian nationalism as a “deep story” that fuses religion, nation, and race into a vision of who belongs and who does not. In this sense, Christian nationalism is itself one of the most powerful forms of identity politics operating in the United States today. Sheets embodies this by weaving biblical language with political grievance, presenting opposition not as disagreement but as evidence of persecution.

The consequences of this framing have already been made visible. Dinulescu (2021) documents how the January 6 rioters circled the Capitol with “Appeal to Heaven” flags and conducted rituals patterned on the Jericho march, treating the building as enemy territory to be conquered. Sheets’ Give Him 15 prayers leading up to that day explicitly cast the 2020 election as a spiritual battle and called for angelic intervention against demonic strongholds in Washington. Armaly, Buckley, and Enders (2022) show how Christian nationalism, when combined with victimhood, white identity, and conspiracy belief, was a strong predictor of support for the Capitol violence. Sheets’ narrative of a persecuted Christian nation aligns precisely with these dynamics. His words did not simply describe politics; they mobilized people to see political processes as warfare.

The September 12 post recycles the same frame. Sheets portrays Charlie Kirk not only as a conservative leader but as a martyr whose assassination will “galvanize a movement.” It must be said plainly: Kirk was the victim of political violence, and that is unacceptable in a democracy. Violence should be condemned without qualification, no matter the target or political alignment. But Sheets does not pause to sit in that truth. Instead, he quickly reframes Kirk’s death as proof of persecution and evidence that his movement must rise stronger. Martyrdom functions here not to mourn, but to mobilize. What might otherwise be a tragedy becomes evidence that Christians are under siege and must respond in kind. This is identity politics cloaked in prayer. It constructs group cohesion by turning suffering into sacred struggle. Whitehead and Perry (2020) describe this as the sacred canopy of Christian nationalism, where loss is recast as divine testing, and political opponents are seen as enemies of God. Sheets transforms tragedy into political grievance and then into theological destiny.

It is important to state unequivocally that political violence should be condemned and not tolerated under any circumstances. A recent PBS NewsHour analysis placed this moment in a long, dark history of political violence in the United States, but warned that targeted threats and plots have risen sharply in recent decades. Cynthia Miller-Idriss explained that the present environment is more dangerous than in past eras, precisely because divisive rhetoric fuels cycles of grievance and retaliation. Sheets’ framing of politics as persecution does not lower the temperature. It risks raising it further by normalizing the idea that Christians must respond as if under siege.

At the level of rhetoric, what we hear is not dialogue but antagonistic debate. Structured debate, as practiced in high school or college, is scored and bound by rules. Participants are expected to understand their opponent’s argument and respond with evidence. What passes for debate in politics today is reduced to talking points meant to provoke and score symbolic wins. This is not dialogue, which requires listening, empathy, and recognition of shared truths. It is performance designed to raise temperatures. Sheets critiques division, but his own framing mirrors this model of antagonistic debate, casting opponents as evil rather than engaging them as fellow citizens.

What makes this especially dangerous is the way it collapses pluralism into hostility. Perry and Grubbs (2024) show that Christian nationalism is the strongest predictor of support for leaders who violate democratic norms in national emergencies. Their data reveal that Christian nationalists are willing to suspend elections, suppress opponents, and disregard checks and balances in order to preserve their vision of a Christian nation. When Sheets prays against politicians and media who “seek to divide us,” he is not appealing to pluralism. He is drawing the boundaries of identity and delegitimizing dissent as evil.

Matthew D. Taylor (2024) argues that leaders in the New Apostolic Reformation, where Sheets is a central figure, have reframed American politics as a “governmental war.” Apostles and prophets are depicted as rulers ordained to govern not just the church but the nation. In this frame, political disagreement is spiritual rebellion, and democracy itself is fragile. Sheets’ post reflects exactly this approach: opposition is demonized, grievance is sacralized, and revival is imagined not as renewal of pluralism but as the triumph of one identity over all others.

The irony of his September 12 post is clear. He denounces identity politics as an abomination while practicing it as his primary strategy. He condemns division while insisting that conservatives are victims of sinister forces. He calls for unity while building cohesion through exclusion and grievance. The danger is not simply hypocrisy. It is the normalization of a politics where faith and citizenship collapse into one identity, where pluralism is seen as persecution, and where violence becomes imaginable. Sheets is correct that identity politics can breed bitterness, resentment, and violence. What he cannot acknowledge is that his own rhetoric has done precisely that.

References

Armaly, M. T., Buckley, D. T., & Enders, A. M. (2022). Christian nationalism and political violence: Victimhood, racial identity, conspiracy, and support for the Capitol attacks. Political Behavior, 44(3), 937–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09758-y

Dinulescu, C. (2021). Religion and politics in the context of the 6 January 2021 assault on the US Congress. Strategic Impact, 79(2), 78-92. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/religion-politics-context-6-january-2021-assault/docview/2581875468/se-2

Gorski, P. S., & Perry, S. L. (2022). The flag and the cross: White Christian nationalism and the threat to American democracy. Oxford University Press.

Perry, S. L., & Grubbs, J. B. (2024). Christian nationalism and support for leaders violating democratic norms during national emergencies. Politics and Religion, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048324000208

Taylor, M. D. (2024). The violent take it by force: The Christian movement that is threatening our democracy. Broadleaf Books.

Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2020). Taking America back for God: Christian nationalism in the United States. Oxford University Press.

PBS NewsHour. (2025, July 17). Understanding the root causes and possible solutions for rising political violence. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/understanding-the-root-causes-and-possible-solutions-for-rising-political-violence

They say you should not meet your heroes. But you should definitely meet your references. One of the best things that happened to me this year was meeting Dr. Steve Millies at the Association for the Sociology of Religion conference in Chicago.

A close friend of mine is studying with Dr. Millies in the Doctor of Ministry program at Catholic Theological Union, and our text thread has been shaped by his teaching. Through that, I came across a post about EWTN, which deepened questions I was already wrestling with after reading Millies’ essay The Catholic Brand Is Under New Ownership (NCR, 2023). Both sharpened my sense of how Catholic media and donor networks present themselves as defending the faith while in fact remaking it in the image of wealth.

I had already presented on the dangers of this system at academic conferences, and part of what made Dr. Millies and I connect in Chicago was a shared concern about these dynamics. We both see the concentration of Catholic money and media as one of the most pressing forces reshaping the Church today.

Millies argues that EWTN functions less as a ministry than as a catechesis business. Over the past twenty years, it raised more than a billion dollars, far more than its modest cable revenues. That wealth gave it independence and allowed it to broadcast directly into parishes and homes, bypassing the authority of bishops. Mother Angelica’s fights with Bishop David Foley and Cardinal Roger Mahony revealed how emboldened she became. Even Pope Francis publicly criticized EWTN for being “funded by wealthy conservatives” and for promoting division (America, 2021). NCR described its voice as “powerful, partisan, and problematic” (NCR, 2020).

What EWTN most effectively sold was one narrow vision of Catholicism. It insisted there was only one authentic way to be Catholic, a claim both historically inaccurate and theologically shallow. Yet backed by money and media power, it shaped a movement that resisted Pope Francis and erected an alternative authority structure inside the Church.

EWTN is not alone. The Napa Institute, Word on Fire, and Legatus extend the same project in different forms.

The Napa Institute positions itself as the gathering place for Catholic elites. Every summer, it convenes hundreds of wealthy donors, bishops, business leaders, and apostolate directors in Napa Valley. The pitch is clear: bring money together with influence, share meals and liturgies, and align priorities for culture and Church (Catholic World Report, 2016). Napa does more than host retreats. It forges donor networks that fund ideologically coordinated initiatives. In 2021, revelations of Koch-linked funding sparked backlash from Notre Dame professors, showing how Napa’s reach extends beyond Church walls into public scholarship and debate (NCR, 2021).

Word on Fire works toward the same ends with a different strategy. Founded by Bishop Robert Barron, it has become one of the most powerful Catholic media brands in the United States. Between 2018 and 2022, donations grew nearly 500 percent, giving Word on Fire a scale rivaling many dioceses (NCR, 2023). Its polished books, films, and courses present Catholicism as a sleek brand identity.

Barron often casts himself as a kind of second coming of Fulton Sheen, the mid-century bishop whose preaching on radio and television made him one of the most visible Catholics in America. The comparison, however, underscores the differences. Sheen engaged questions of war, nuclear threat, and social justice with political courage that unsettled his audience. Barron narrows his public voice to culture-war themes, offering polished defenses of a branded Catholicism, complete with online rhetoric of the far-right, while avoiding the kind of complex moral witness Sheen embodied. His influence in this system flows less from episcopal ministry than from cultural capital, donor loyalty, and media visibility.

If EWTN supplies the content, Napa the capital, and Word on Fire the brand, Legatus provides the political muscle. Founded by Domino’s Pizza billionaire Tom Monaghan, it is a membership club for Catholic CEOs and executives (Legatus). The organization encourages members to bring their faith into civic and business realms. That mission translates into political influence. In Ohio, former Legatus chapter leader Senator Jerry Cirino sponsored legislation establishing an “intellectual diversity” center at public universities, a move widely criticized as anti-intellectual and partisan (Ohio Capital Journal, 2025). The Cleveland Legatus chapter’s honoring of Bishop Roger Gries underscored how tight these elite networks hold with ecclesial authority (Diocese of Cleveland, 2022).

Together, these four organizations form a system. Each is powerful alone, but together they create a closed circuit of wealth, media, formation, and influence that rivals the Church’s own structures of authority.

EWTN dominates media and catechesis. It frames the conversation and defines belonging. The Napa Institute convenes donors and aligns ideological strategy. Word on Fire packages theology as brand. Legatus channels all of it into policy and leadership.

Seen together, this is not Catholicism as lived by parishes, dioceses, or religious communities. It is Catholicism controlled by money: narrower, louder, wealthier, and less free.

This is a very particular Catholicism: wealthy, male, conservative, and white. It excludes women’s leadership, sidelines immigrant and global voices, and narrows theological diversity into ideological conformity. As Politico observed, U.S. Catholic networks exported this hard-right posture globally, fueling resistance to Pope Francis and spreading a homogenized identity of what it means to be Catholic (Politico, 2025).

The damage is not just institutional. It is deeply personal. I encounter faithful Catholics whose spiritual lives are confined by this boxed vision. They are told there is only one way to be faithful, were pressured to mistrust Pope Francis, encouraged to see fellow Catholics as opponents. In the name of orthodoxy, imagination is silenced.

The problem also occurs inside these institutions. In 2022, multiple staff resigned from Word on Fire amid reports of a “boys’ club” workplace culture and mishandled misconduct allegations (NCR, 2022). Two years later, Bishop Barron released a Word on Fire Show episode titled The Fall—and Rise?—of Men (Word on Fire, 2024), praising masculine renewal and even referring to men as ”often vilified by secular culture as ‘toxic’ merely for existing.” The contrast is striking. A ministry that sold itself as a refuge for men revealed itself as exclusionary and secretive. Their rhetoric about strength and generosity collapsed under their internal culture.

The through line is clear. Concentrated wealth and media power are reshaping Catholicism in the image of a few organizations. Donors believe they are supporting the Church, but in reality they are supporting brands and networks operating outside episcopal oversight. Their claim to defend the faith became, in practice, a force that undermined it.

Catholicism ought to be bigger, a living tradition marked by diversity, dialogue, and discernment. But wealth and media are flattening it. The Church shrinks even as its megaphone grows.

They say you should not meet your heroes. That may be true. But meeting your references helped me see how much is at stake when the Catholic voice is controlled by money, and how urgent it is to reclaim that voice for all.

Further Reading

• Explainer: The story behind Pope Francis’ beef with EWTN — America Magazine (2021)

• The man behind Catholic U.’s largest donation ever — Catholic World Report (2016)

• Cleveland Legatus chapter honors Bishop Gries for two decades of service — Diocese of Cleveland (2022)

• Napa, Koch funding sparks backlash at Notre Dame — National Catholic Reporter (2021)

• Multiple resignations at Bishop Barron’s Word on Fire after allegations from staffers — National Catholic Reporter (2022)

• The Catholic Brand Is Under New Ownership — National Catholic Reporter (2023)

• Head of Ohio State’s intellectual diversity center provides updates to Ohio Senate — Ohio Capital Journal (2025)

• The ultra conservatives wanting to make the Vatican great again — Politico (2025)

• The Fall—and Rise?—of Men — Word on Fire (2024)