What Is He Thinking?!

From Military Times…

The office will also align and issue policies on religious affairs for the secretary; represent him on all religious affairs matters in engagements with Congress, religious endorsing organizations, and external governmental departments; and realign the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and its executive director under the office’s authority for chaplain advisement.

Notice that the office is intended to align & issue policies on religious affairs **for the secretary** & represent him (if **the secretary**) on all religious affairs matters in engagements with Congress.

1. The Director’s first priority is to represent GOD —-not the secretary — as to both his or her relationship & duties and in relation to Congress, particularly if the Director is a member of the ecclesiastical class. 

2. As to the issuance of policies, if what MT’s description of the Director’s duties & responsibilities is accurate, then that means Pete Hegseth is the one from whom policies on religious affairs emanates.  

That that sink in.   

3.  That means that a civilian who is not allowed to deploy troops / order troops on the battlefield is going to be the one who sets policies on religious affairs.  

Is Pete Hegseth a minister?  Is he qualified as a minister?  

4. In other words, what he seems to be doing is, by virtue of his office (a civilian office) setting himself up as if he’s the Archbishop of Canterbury or analogous individual &/or as if he is Queen Elizabeth who was, according to British Law & the 39 Articles of the Christian Religion the temporal head of the Anglican Communion. 

——> But this the United States, not the UK.  In the UK, there is state religion (the Church of England).  In addition, the Armed Forces of the US is/are not an ecclesiastical qua ecclesiastical body/church.   

Exactly where does the US Constitution give Mr. Hegseth the authority to exercise temporal & ecclesiastical keys?   

According to the Westminster Confession, Hegseth is attempting to do qualifies as usurpation of the keys.  

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 

(WCF 37.3) 

In other words, Pete Hegseth, may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  

Thus, if any of his policies would directly or indirectly affect the administration of the Word & Sacraments, he has assumed to himself the keys that govern the administration of Word & Sacraments. 

According to the 39 Articles of the Christian religion…

…we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly

The of the duties & responsibilities of a US Military chaplain encompass the administration of Word & Sacrament(s).   Therefore, if Hegseth’s policies/policy decisions directly or indirectly affect the administration of the Word &/or Sacrament(s), the 39 Articles forbids him from doing so.  

Imagine you’re an Anglican minister who is a US Military chaplain.  What Mr. Hegseth (who, as to his own job description, is a representative of the State —- not the Church) the desires to do ultimately requires you, an Anglican chaplain to recognize Mr. Hegseth —- not the reigning British monarch —- as a de facto temporal head of the Anglican Communion (a denomination of which he is not a member) as if **he** is not only a/the temporal head of the Anglican Communion but also the temporal head of any number of world religions/ ecclesiastical bodies, as well as the temporal head of your (& everyone else’s) local church, synagogue, &tc.

This tramples on the religious freedom of the US Military, including is members in general, not just the chaplains/chaplaincy. 

According to the BFM 2000, 

The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion.

In other words, the same thing I wrote above applies.    Hegseth’s goal here tramples on the religious freedom of the US Military, including is members in general, not just the chaplains/chaplaincy. 

In addition to all of this, he’s a member of Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship in Nashville, TN, a church that lists the Westminster Confession in its confessional documents. 

Mr. Hegseth also attends Christ Kirk, WDC.  They too include the Westminster Confession in their confessional documents.  

Whether or not there are particular articles to which one or both of these two churches require their members to believe, it’s very obvious that Mr. Hegseth, either thinks himself to be more astute Christian than he really is or, alternatively, he knows he’s not nearly as astute as he ought to be & nevertheless he thinks that he’s astute enough to set himself up as a de facto civil authority who sits atop this new quasi-religious/quasi-secular office within his peculiar sphere of governance.  

The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it (Proverbs 22:3). 

O LORD, Hear our prayer!