The military is a microcosm of society as a whole, even with the added layer of discipline and mission. So it shouldn’t be surprising that questions of religious intolerance and excessive zeal — and just plain bigotry — would find their way into the armed services. It’s troubling amongst the enlisted. It’s dangerous when it’s seen in the leadership.
But it’s particularly problematic when it comes from members of the chaplaincy. Chaplains in the military are in an odd role — sponsored by their particular faiths, they are intended to serve the needs of all the troops, not just their coreligionists. They oversee religious services, provide counsel and support. They walk a fine line between their own religious fervor (one wouldn’t expect a someone devoting themselves to such service to be wishy-washy in their faith) and supporting the people and service as a whole.
Proselytizing is dodgy. Condemning the very foundation of unity, of a pluralistic military and society, should be right out.
A U.S. Air Force chaplain who ministers to thousands of men and women at an Ohio base is asserting that Christians in the U.S. Armed Forces “serve Satan” and are “grossly in error” if they support service members’ right to practice other faiths. In an article posted on BarbWire.com three days ago, Captain Sonny Hernandez, an Air Force Reserve chaplain for the 445th Airlift Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, criticized Christian service members who rely on the Constitution “and not Christ.”
He wrote: “Counterfeit Christians in the Armed forces will appeal to the Constitution, and not Christ, and they have no local church home—which means they have no accountability for their souls (Heb. 13:17). This is why so many professing Christian service members will say: We ‘support everyone’s right’ to practice their faith regardless if they worship a god different from ours because the Constitution protects this right.” Hernandez continued: “Christian service members who openly profess and support the rights of Muslims, Buddhists, and all other anti-Christian worldviews to practice their religions—because the language in the Constitution permits—are grossly in error, and deceived.”
For a member of the military to suggest that the Constitution must be subordinated to Christ, or that other faiths are inferior and should not be practiced is, perhaps, theologically sound from Capt. Hernandez perspective, but it’s not an attitude that can be itself be tolerated within the military service of the United States — any more than a fervent evangelical Protestant preacher could be tolerated as the Rabbi of a synagogue: it’s not an assertion as to the correctness of their faith, but their suitability to the position.
I disagree profoundly with Hernandez, but he has ever right, under the Constitution, to hold his opinion. But not to preach it as a member of the US Military. It is destructive to discipline, and a violation of his military oath.
Will he be disciplined? Will he be booted? That’s quite another question.
Christians in U.S. Military ‘Serve Satan’ If They Tolerate Other Religions, Air Force Chaplain Says
Amazing that these "men of God" display such intolerance.
Didn't Jesus supposedly say "love thy neighbor as thyself"?
He didn't say only love your Christian neighbors.
Fire his ass.
Chaplains in the military have a fairly good record of serving multiple faiths.
This is another example of the creeping insanity that seems to be plaguing of country atm.
It's this kind of person who gives religion in general, and Christianity in specific, a bad name. Sadly, the article linked indicates that there have been many complaints about this guy since March, but no action has been taken. Of course, if he is dismissed or punished, many will take it as evidence of the persecution of Christians. In spite of this, I think he should be dismissed as unfit for duty and the vetting of military chaplains should be made more rigorous.
+David Newman Agreed on all counts.
There another piece to this: as I understand it, the chaplains are the only people in the service that can offer complete confidentiality. HIPPA, for instance, doesn't apply; health records, including psychological interviews and counseling, are available to your chain of command. The same is true of military legal issues and representation.
This gives chaplains a significant amount of power as putative keepers of secrets. If your beliefs don't align with those of your chaplain, you place yourself at immediate risk by trusting their confidence.
+Michael Verona That both makes perfect sense, and makes this kind of rhetoric all the more awful.
Even from a theological perspective, I'm not exactly sure where Captain Hernandez is coming from – unless he equates the United States with the theological kingdom of Judah, which DID prohibit the practice of other religions. The best example that I can think of regarding religious plurality was Paul's visit to Athens in which he talked about the "unknown god." Paul didn't spend his time criticizing all the other "gods" – he concentrated upon talking about his God.
In the original BarbWire post, Captain Hernandez asks the following question:
"Second, professing Christian service members must answer this important question: “Do you appeal to the Holy Scripture, or the US Constitution as an ultimate standard to measure your conduct?”"
For the ultimate standard, I appeal to Holy Scripture. Yet Holy Scripture itself says that we owe allegiance to the worldly authorities that are placed over us. My favorite example of THIS is Daniel 6, in which Daniel followed his conscience and disobeyed an offensive law (worshipping someone other than God), BUT then submitted to the authorities and took the secular punishment (the lions' den).
To apply this to Captain Hernandez's example: IF you believe (which I don't) that Christianity calls you to prevent your fellow servicemember from leaving base to go to a mosque, then by all means try to prevent him – and be prepared to cheerfully spend considerable time in Leavenworth for doing so.
Whoops, forgot the link http://barbwire.com/2017/09/12/christian-service-members-avoid-supporting-accommodating-evil/
+John E. Bredehoft It's not Christianity or even Pauline Christianity, but Constantinian Christianity that commingles the state with a uniform faith. Ironic, for evangelical Protestants who rejected Roman ways.
+John E. Bredehoft Precisely. They want it easy, with the state's support for their actions. They want it to be unnecessary to have to turn the other cheek, or to resent rendering unto Caesar, by having the powers of the world, the Kingdom of Earth, be under their control. None of that seems particularly Christlike.
Indeed, Christ's very example is the non-violent resistance of Martin Luther King — the willingness to be imprisoned, or even killed, in order to demonstrate the courage of one's convictions, and to shame those who persecuted the righteous.
+John E. Bredehoft The article carries two arguments that I understand but which I consider antithetical to civil society and faithful military service.
The first is the idea that there is no such thing as civil society, or civil rights. Everything from Hernandez perspective is religious, and a zero-sum religious at that. The idea that getting along with others who believe differently is important both to a functioning society and to a military is nonsense to him, because to get along is to condone, and thus actively support, evil.
The second, closely related to the first, is that actions have no meaning outside of their religious motivation. The idea of a "virtuous" Muslim, or Atheist, or Buddhist, is meaningless to Hernandez because virtue is only gauged by adherence to Christianity and acting on behalf of the Lord.
Both these philosophies, to my mind, render Capt. Hernandez unfit to be even a reserve chaplain, as the speak to an inability to personally act, or to support others to act, in a way that promotes unit cohesion and military discipline.
Granted that everything I know about military chaplains is from M*A*S*H, but Father Mulcahy would never have done this.
@George – Definitely. He would have sputtered in a high dudgeon at a colleague who copped such an attitude.