The Homosexual, Anti-Christian Agenda and the Military

Hypocrisy, Immorality, & Problematic Issues

by Sonny Hernandez

The world is a dangerous place for Bible-believing Christians. In the Middle East, radical Islamists are telling Christians “accept us or die,” while in the United States, homosexuals are telling Christians “bake us a cake or we will sue.” This forceful reproach is the stipulation that is now being foisted upon the Armed Forces by homosexual activists who will relentlessly calumniate anyone who opposes their sexual lifestyle.

Bible-believing military chaplains have a constitutional right to express their faith convictions in the military, despite what some liberals seem to think. Recently, I published an article titled, “The Transgender (Homosexual) Lifestyle: A Military Chaplain’s Perspective.”  In response to this article, I was held in derision by innumerable homosexual supporters who categorically decried my article as judgmental hate speech. I was also accused of forcing my beliefs upon others and inciting fear to cause dissension between the Church and the LGBT community. Bible-believing military chaplains should expect hostility because of their faith convictions.

This is why I found many of the responses perplexing especially since many were judging me for allegedly judging them. I was threatened by one person who said they were going to make it their duty to have me removed from the military. By contrast, nowhere in my article did I make any attempt to espouse the need to ostracize anyone from military service because they were gay, and no where in the article did I make any attempt to force my beliefs upon anyone. All I did was articulate my faith convictions which are justified by revelation (special) and the expression of which is protected by the Constitution. The responses to my article are examples of why the homosexual movement should never be respected as heroic, but rather reviled as hypocrisy. The homosexual movement demands equality and respect, while they don’t reciprocate their demands to anyone who oppose them.

Bible-believing military chaplains should expect to encounter false teachers who masquerade as supporters of religious freedom, while suppressing the truth of biblical Christianity to circulate their vile and parochial agenda. Their agenda demands equality, diversity, and inclusivity, just as long as it does not involve the Bible, or else it will be denounced as homophobic, hate-speech, tertiary , unloving, and also not fit for military service. The homosexual agenda is hypocritical, as they demand tolerance while they are intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them; they claim to love everyone, while they loathe anyone that opposes them; they propagate equality, yet they become enemies with anyone who challenges them, and they promote inclusivity, while insulting anyone who calls their lifestyle sin. This is because the homosexual agenda has no justification for biblical integrity, but rather blasphemy and immorality.

Bible-believing military chaplains should always remain resilient when self-described religious liberty groups make an attempt to suppress their faith convictions that were endowed by their Creator. For example, the Forum on Military Chaplaincy (FOMC) is a forum that professes to be committed to the free and diverse commitment to religious expression, but their actions contradict their lip-service. The FOMC says their mission is [emphasis added]:

“…to advocate for a Military Chaplaincy committed to free and diverse religious expression, and to the sacred values of personal integrity, selfless compassion, respect for others, and excellence in leadership.”

In seminary, I remember my New Testament teacher once told me: “always have your Bible-glasses on, because the grass is green, and so are the poisonous weeds. You need to discern between the two.” In my opinion, The FOMC are committed to free and diverse religious expression, just as long as it does not involve an open belief in the inerrancy of Scripture as their response to my article would concur. Here is the post that FOMC recently published on Facebook regarding my aforementioned article:


We generally do not publish writings we find offensive, but this is one example of how some chaplains are unsuited to serve in a pluralistic environment. Comments, please.

Per the FOMC, I am “unsuited to serve in a pluralistic environment” because I openly teach biblical inerrancy. The FOMC is sending a message that: tolerance only works one way (for liberalism), the free exercise of religion is restricted for those who openly preach biblical truth that does not consort with theirs, and only service members with convictions agreeable to theirs should be allowed to serve. If openly gay service members can serve, how come Bible-believing military chaplains cannot openly profess their faith? Bible-believing military chaplains can openly espouse their faith convictions (as I do all the time), which is why the FOMC is also sending a message that the Department of Defense’s policy on pluralism is only extended to chaplains who agree with their convictions, or better yet, agenda.

The FOMC certainly has an agenda — a homosexual one. The Forum was founded expressly to advocate for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and has continued as an advocate for LGBT issues following the repeal in 2011. The Forum is led by co-chairs Paul Dodd, a retired Army Chaplain (COL), and Tom Carpenter, Esq. Both Paul Dodd and Tom Carpenter are homosexual activists. According to a website called the Gay Military Signal: “Through most of his life and military career, Paul Dodd was aware of his homosexuality…” And according to the FOMC website: “Tom is an Elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and lives in Los Angeles with his spouse of 18 years, Art Andrade.”

In my opinion, the FOMC are not advocates for inclusivity and respect for all service members, despite the stated mission of the Forum. Rather, they are advocates for immorality and rejection for those with whom they disagree. They also do not represent a biblical view of purity and augmentation of the Christian faith, but rather perversion and apostasy. The FOMC holds to eschewed convictions regarding the Constitution that certainly do not represent orthodox Christianity. They are examples of liberal hypocrisy that Bible-believing military chaplains should expect to encounter while faithfully serving Christ in the Armed Forces.

As a result, the FOMC is disregarding the innumerable amount of Bible-believing (inerrancy affirming) Christians that are serving in the military. If my conservative, Bible-believing convictions that I openly propagate are not fit for military service, according to Dodd and Carpenter, then who is going to provide spiritual care and the opportunity for Bible-believing Christians and their families who hold those same convictions? How will the military ensure their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion if chaplains that share their faith are banned from serving? The rights of Bible-believing Christians matter, for service men and women, and also for chaplains, which is why Bible-believing military chaplains need to be bold when they provide.

Bible-believing military chaplains should also expect many perplexing and problematic issues due to the homosexual agenda. Chaplains have a responsibility to advise leadership on spiritual, ethical, moral, morale, core values, and religious accommodation issues. How can chaplains advise commanders on ethical and moral values, if commanders are directed to allow female service members to be exposed to “mixed genitalia” (as the guidance says) in their locker room and shower facilities? It is going to be chaotic and perplexing, and it may have a significant effect on military good order and discipline. This is what happens when God’s Word is ignored, and when the government adopts an official theological position that nullifies Scripture. It will always lead to disaster.

For Bible-believing military chaplains that are currently serving: stay faithful to your ecclesiastical endorsing agencies that affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. Preach boldly, evangelize the lost, pray in Christ’s Name, and persevere. Our Bible-believing Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines matter. If you are silent, then the culture will continue to dictate truth, and our Bible-believing service men and women will be the ones who have their constitutional rights (free exercise of religion) suppressed. The future generation and our children are all dependent upon our conduct as heralds for Christ!

As a military chaplain, my authority rests on the testimony of Scripture, not the opinions of those who rely on their emotions and human autonomy as the ultimate test of truth. As a Bible-believing military chaplain, I will continue to preach boldly, evangelize the lost, teach the whole counsel of Scripture, pray in Christ’s Name, and I will also pray for God to have mercy upon the sexual immorality that is manifesting itself in the military that I so dearly love:

So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” – Genesis 18:22-26

Chaplain (Capt) Sonny Hernandez is a US Air Force Reserve Chaplain assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In April 2015, he was selected as the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Individual Mobilization Augmentee Company Grade Officer of the Year, and in May 2016, he was selected as 445th Airlift Wing CGO of the Quarter, first quarter. Hernandez earned a Doctorate from Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.



  • I commend Sonny’s conviction. I’ve also said before we should have civilian chaplains serving the military, not military chaplains; for the very reasons Sonny has so gracefully articulated.

    I’ve never understood why they need to wear a uniform anyway, does it give them special powers? Is it because they can be sent to a war zone? Wouldn’t they just volunteer to go, or is the uniform a means of forcing them to go? Are we afraid enlisted service members would not respect them as a superior–are they superior?

    As a non-theist I have no problem with anything Sonny has said, except he is in the Military are must abide by the same rules and policies as everyone else. More to a specific point, I also find the sharing of latrines and showers by those with different genitals not a good thing either, but I won’t stop someone from doing so because the policy is they can. They only good way to prevent this is to have all private latrines and showers (no open stalls) or what we used to call gang-bang latrines. I really do not want anyone, regardless of gender, seeing me naked. I get it’s not practical at this time and we can’t always have privacy (like in a war zone), but it’s not like we would care much at that point anyway.

    I don’t get the homo policy has ruled the military over the chaplaincy, but I don’t know or see everything. Hasn’t been a problem in my neck of the woods, or it has been few and far between. I know we have gay people around us at work and haven’t heard they are overtly causing any problems.

    I’m sorry Sonny is having difficulty with the military and the homo issues. It’s not likely things will change soon, if at all, so I think it could be time for Sonny to move on, as sad as that sounds, and not to be condescending; I mean it with all good intentions.

    • Watchtower,

      I am not convinced that things will not change, especially since the LORD I serve is absolutely Sovereign. When God sends revival, I can reassure everyone that things will change. The Great Awakening is a wonderful example.

      Instead of moving on as you kindly suggested, I plan to do exactly what George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards had accomplished: herald Christ like a dying man to dying children and pray that God will subdue the unregenerate by effectually calling them, and giving them new hearts for His glory! This is why it is imperative that military chaplains are bold, and are willing to speak up, because how can anyone hear without a preacher (Romans 10:14)?

      Thank you for your reply.

  • SH – I’m not sure aligning yourself along side Whitefield (an actor), as history records, he campaigned for slavery’s legalization. Whitefield saw the legalization of slavery as part personal victory and part divine will. I also doubt anyone today would support or advocate for preaching terror when necessary, even to children, as Edwards (also a slave owner) is said to have done.

    “God is an angry judge, and humans are sinners!” is not a message people want to hear in my humble opinion. (I know, I know, you have a book that says it so).

    • Watchtower,

      Which is easier: to hear about hell, or to feel it?

      In regards to Whitefield, I would encourage you to actually read church history, instead of relying on google scholars or internet theologians.

      My reference to Whitefield was not pertaining to slavery, but rather his perseverance and boldness in proclaiming the Gospel, where regeneration was the fruition of his labors.


      1 Cor 15:1-4

  • SH – your inference that my information comes from google scholars or internet theologians is dead wrong as everything I said comes from recorded, historically factual books, and I encourage you too read them too.

    You used Whitefield in your response your way, so I can too. His perseverance and boldness in proclaiming the Gospel was an act to sway his listeners (aggrandizement); he was an actor by training, so history records. Most people living in the 1700’s were quite ignorant and gullible of what was true or not.

    Regarding your question “Which is easier: to hear about hell, or to feel it?” My answer is neither, because so far there is no such thing.