PENTAGON CHRISTMAS WORSHIP SERVICE

SPARKS CONTROVERSY OVER FAITH AND POWER

On December 17, 2025, the Pentagon hosted what officials described as its first-ever Christmas Worship Service. This event explicitly placed Christian theology at the symbolic and operational heart of U.S. military power. Organized by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and his wife, Jennifer, the service brought hundreds of military personnel, civilian employees, and guests into the Pentagon courtyard for nearly an hour of worship, music, and scriptural reflection, effectively merging religious ritual with the authority of the national defense establishment. The service featured live performances by Christian artists Matthew West and Anne Wilson, Scripture readings, and a sermon delivered by Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of Samaritan’s Purse. It reflected a broader effort by Hegseth — who has promoted monthly voluntary worship services at the Pentagon since May 2025 — to normalize overt expressions of Christian faith within the Department of War’s institutional life.

In his remarks, Secretary Hegseth emphasized sacrifice and reliance on God, referring to his earlier attendance at a dignified transfer ceremony for fallen U.S. service members. “You each day are asked to do impossible things… at impossible odds… And that’s why we bend the knee, because we know where our strength comes from,” Hegseth said, framing faith as a source of endurance amid violence, loss, and war.

The most consequential and controversial portion of the service came during Franklin Graham’s sermon, which departed sharply from the traditional themes of peace, humility, and mercy commonly associated with Christmas worship. Graham began by acknowledging the familiar John 3:16 — “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” — before pivoting to a far more severe depiction of God’s character: “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates? Do you know that God also is a God of war? Many people don’t want to think about that, or forget that.”

Graham then invoked 1 Samuel 15, a passage in which God commanded the ancient Israelite King Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites — including men, women, infants, and livestock — as divine judgment for attacking Israel during the exodus. He quoted the scriptural directive to “don’t spare them, but kill them, both man and woman, infant, nursing child…” and dismissed moral discomfort with the story: “Now, people will say, ‘But, Franklin, that is so hard; that’s not the God I believe in. Well, you had better believe in him.”

The text Graham cited comes from a biblical narrative in which King Saul was punished for failing to obey the command to completely annihilate the Amalekites. According to the story, Saul spared the Amalekite king Agag and the best of the livestock, claiming success while preserving the spoils of war. Because of this incomplete obedience, the prophet Samuel rebuked Saul, declared that God had rejected him as king, and ultimately executed Agag himself. Saul’s rebellion cost him divine favor and marked the end of his dynasty’s legitimacy in the biblical account.

By centering his sermon on this particular account — a story traditionally interpreted by many scholars and theologians as a cautionary tale about disobedience, judgment, and the dangers of conflating divine command with human warfare — Graham was not merely recounting an obscure Old Testament incident. He appeared to be drawing a direct line from ancient Israel’s divine mandate for total extermination to a modern context in which national identity, punishment, and war are framed as expressions of obedience to God. The choice of 1 Samuel 15 is especially striking given that it is one of the most ethically troubling texts in the Bible, precisely because it depicts sanctioned mass violence, including against children. It has been used historically by some to justify genocide under the guise of divine will.

Delivered at the Pentagon, this message carried particular weight. The association of a scriptural mandate for total annihilation with the ethos of a modern military institution collapses the distance between ancient religious violence and contemporary state power, implicitly sanctifying the idea that mass killing can be morally righteous when framed as obedience to divine command. That implication becomes even more charged when considered in relation to ongoing geopolitical debates about Israel, warfare, and historical memory; 1 Samuel 15 has, at times, been invoked in political discourse around Israel’s modern military actions — a context Graham did not explicitly endorse but inevitably touched upon by selecting this text for a sermon in the seat of American military command.

Graham went on to frame this uncompromising vision of divine judgment in a distinctly nationalistic register, urging repentance and submission to what he called “the God of our fathers” and saying he prays “that God will forgive the sins of our country… and that America, once again, will turn to the God of our fathers and serve him.”

The sermon immediately drew attention for its stark tone and content, particularly because it occurred in a federal workplace that serves a religiously diverse military force. Critics argued that invoking a scriptural mandate for total extermination — especially at a Christmas service — crosses a line from personal faith into ideological justification for violence, raising serious concerns about church–state separation, inclusivity, and the moral signals being sent to those entrusted with the lawful use of force. The setting amplified those concerns, as the Pentagon is not merely a workplace but the command center of U.S. military force. Supporters of the service defended it as voluntary and consistent with the religious convictions of many service members. At the same time, Secretary Hegseth emphasized religion’s historical role in American life, invoking figures such as George Washington and Revolutionary War–era prayer.

Yet the content of Graham’s sermon — not merely its presence — remains central to the controversy, particularly its unapologetic embrace of exterminatory violence as an attribute of God, and its selection of a biblical narrative where a leader’s failure to execute total destruction resulted in divine rejection. This choice is laden with symbolic significance in a modern world where debates over religious justification for violence, national identity, and military authority are increasingly intertwined.

The Pentagon Christmas Worship Service thus stands as more than a seasonal observance. It illustrates a broader shift toward overt religious messaging within Department of War activities. It raises urgent questions about how far such messaging can go when it normalizes the language of annihilation, divine hatred, and holy war. As figures like Franklin Graham continue to be given prominent platforms within the military’s most powerful institutions, debates over religious expression, moral authority, and the boundaries of state power are likely to intensify rather than fade.

Video:

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth host a Christmas Worship Service at the Pentagon. (Department of War YouTube. 12-17-25)

Other Related Articles:

Hegseth Hosts Special Guests During Pentagon Christmas Worship Service (U.S. Department of War, 12-17-25)

At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ (A Public Witness, 12-17-25)

Preacher tells Pentagon’s Christmas service: ‘God also hates’ (The Hill, 12-19-25)