Introduction

Pete Hegseth's public theology has become a focal point for discussions about the role of Christianity in U.S. military and immigration policy. As Secretary of Defense, he has repeatedly invoked Scripture to frame defense decisions, border enforcement, and national identity, prompting scrutiny over how faith shapes public power.

What Happened

Hegseth has hosted Christian worship services at the Pentagon, described immigration crackdowns as biblical, and declared Christ is King in public remarks. He has framed American military strength as divinely aligned, citing Psalm 144 to link God with training hands for war. His rhetoric consistently ties national ambition with Christian language, raising questions about the separation of spiritual conviction and state authority. Early in the Iran conflict, Hegseth referenced Psalm 144, portraying battle preparation as God-given. He has also appeared at Christian media conventions, connecting the founding of the United States with Christianity and portraying policy choices as scriptural mandates.

Why This Matters

The piece explores the tension when Christian rhetoric is fused with military authority. Jesus' own life—entering Jerusalem on a donkey, washing his disciples' feet, feeding the hungry, and commanding followers to love enemies—stands in stark contrast to a theology that equates national might with divine favor. Matthew 25 identifies Christ with the hungry, the stranger, the imprisoned, and the sick. Jesus asks how a nation treats its most vulnerable, not how effectively it defeats enemies. When biblical language justifies exclusionary immigration policy or cuts to healthcare, the theological stakes become immediate. Christian tradition contains a long history of peacemaking, conscientious objection, and advocacy for the marginalized. The article warns against reducing Christianity to a badge of national membership, especially when that reduction fuels division, war, and the erosion of human dignity.

Key Takeaways

  • Hegseth's rhetoric consistently merges Christian imagery with calls for military strength, border enforcement, and national dominance.
  • Jesus' teachings emphasize peacemaking, care for the vulnerable, and love for enemies—directly countering a theology of conquest.
  • Matthew 25 frames compassion for the marginalized as a measure of national righteousness, not an optional extra.
  • Christian nationalism, when fused with state power, risks idolatry and the exclusion of those deemed other.
  • The question What would Jesus do? becomes a concrete ethical challenge when policy decisions affect the poor, the immigrant, and the enemy.

Conclusion

Christianity offers an alternative to nationalism that does not require abandoning love of country, but it begins by refusing to worship the nation. True discipleship, the article argues, means feeding the hungry, welcoming the immigrant, and standing with those society declares expendable. When Christian language is used to justify violence or exclusion, the faithful are called to remember that Jesus entered the world on a donkey—not a tank—and that the kingdom of God belongs to those who serve, not those who dominate.