Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 8
When asked “But what about Hitler?” Bercot flips the question and claims Hitler’s evil depended on professing Christian soldiers, implying non-resistance by the whole church could have prevented his rise; what assumptions is he making about the church’s social power, and how does that collide with the way Christians usually interpret “responsibility” in the face of mass evil?
Another way to ask: When people ask, “What about Hitler?” Bercot says Hitler’s power depended on soldiers who claimed to be Christians and that if the whole church refused violence, he might not have risen. What does he assume about the church’s influence, and how does that clash with how Christians usually think about duty when facing great evil?

Direct Answer He assumes the church, if obedient, has enough social weight to deny evil the manpower it needs—because many soldiers are professing Christians. This collides with the common belief that “responsibility” means taking up force, since many Christians view prayer and nonviolence as essentially “doing nothing.”

Support from Transcript:

  • He says, “if all Christians had practiced what Jesus taught, Hitler would never have been able to do the things he did.”
  • His reason: “most of the soldiers in Hitler’s army were professing Christians,” drafted or voluntary.
  • He claims if Christians “stood by the commandments of Jesus,” Hitler “would have had few soldiers to carry out his plans.”
  • He suggests a larger possibility: “If all Christians stood by Jesus’ teachings, perhaps there would be no wars.”
  • He identifies the key objection: “the only thing needed for evil to prevail…” and replies that many Christians treat prayer as “doing nothing.”
  • He argues true resistance is obeying Christ: “Following Christ’s teachings is the only effective resistance to evil.”
Discussion Follow-ups His argument depends on the church being unified and consistent. Do you think the church today sees itself as a distinct “kingdom” with its own loyalty, or mainly as moral support for the nation-state?