To be sure, Hitler’s version of Christian morality never mentioned mercy, forgiveness, salvation, or generosity. Instead, Hitler talked about Christianity as a social grouping. The nation could achieve unity and solidarity by working from a religious heritage. Christianity was, to Hitler, first and foremost, a movement that could correct the movement toward Marxism. Adherence to Christian groupings could, he explained, bring individual families into solidarity. Christianity could enhance national loyalty. Hitler’s Christianity was about unity as a common people. Other religions were rejected as incompatible with the unity that Christianity could provide. In contrast to Marxism, which was materialistic, Christianity could, Hitler explained, move the German people into a sense of commonality: “Volk,” as he said.
From context, Hitler’s inaugural address promised to restore Christian virtue to correct what he called the damaging encroachments of democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, all of which he painted with the same brush. The speech laid out a strict dichotomy: atheism or Christianity (as Hitler defined Christianity), no other ground being conceivable.
Marxism as the Disease?
To Hitler, Marxism was the disease that rotted the German public. Hitler’s thesis was to advocate the so-called Enabling Act, which effectively dissolved the German legislature and gave the chancellor’s cabinet almost unlimited political power. The law’s necessity lay in what Hitler said was the post-World War I Weimar Republic’s decision to adopt Marxist rule:
“In November 1918, the Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a Revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of Reich and Länder removed from office, and thus a breach of the Constitution was committed.”Indeed, steeped in religious symbolism, Hitler called Marxism “this demonical doctrine.”
Marxism, Hitler insisted, eroded German will by driving people toward material goods rather than encouraging loyalty to nation and family. Hitler laid out a stark contrast between the evils of Marxism, which he contrasted with the noble foundations of (his version of) Christian morality. He called those opposing views “irreconcilably opposite.” Indeed, he insisted that liberal philosophy of any kind inevitably led to “communist chaos:”
“Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery. The disintegration of the nation into irreconcilably opposite Weltanschauungen which was systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism means the destruction of the basis for any possible community life.Liberalism, communism, democracy, moral evil—in Hitler’s terms, these were all the same disease. Could Christianity cure that disease?
“The dissolution permeates all of the basic principles of social order. The completely opposite approaches of the individuals to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family, and economy rips open differences which will lead to a war of all against all. Starting with the liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in Communist chaos.” [italics added]
Christianity as the Cure?
Indeed, to resolve Marxism’s horrors, Hitler insisted that Christian moral values would permeate the Reich’s government. Christianity would, Hitler said, reinforce family loyalties while encouraging patriotism. Atheism would have no part. Indeed, his government would employ Christians exclusively:
“The advantages in personnel policy which might result from compromises with atheist organizations do not come close to offsetting the results which would become apparent in the general destruction of basic moral values.Thus, Hitler laid out a strict dichotomy between Christians and atheists, as the only two possibilities that the Reich could envision. (The “two Christian confessions” were, presumably, the Catholic and Protestant faiths.)
“The National Government perceives in the two Christian confessions the most important factors for the preservation of our Volkstum. It will respect any contracts concluded between these Churches and the Länder.”
To implement his approach, Hitler did not support the separation of church and state, but, rather, an “honest coexistence:”
“The Government’s concern lies in an honest coexistence between Church and State; the fight against a materialist Weltanschauung and for a genuine Volksgemeinschaft equally serves both the interests of the German nation and the welfare of our Christian faith.” [italics added]Hitler’s religious views extended to foreign policy towards the Vatican, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic faith. This was not merely a political convenience; no, on the contrary, the Christian faith must be, Hitler emphasized, the nation’s “unshakable foundation:”
“Similarly, the Reich Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of the Volk, places great value on friendly relations with the Vatican and attempts to develop them.”That is, although Christian sects had long squared off against one another, Hitler’s goal was religious unity. A conflict between Christian churches could only weaken his political control. It was not Hitler’s purpose to take sides in doctrinal disputes (about which he could not have cared less), but to use the Christian faith to survey common ground and encourage German nationalism.
Overall, like many American and European conservative speakers today, Hitler harshly attacked communism while offering the Christian faith as the exclusive saving alternative.
The Christian Right
The Christian Right of today continues to view Christianity as spiritual warfare. Instead of emphasizing moral social behavior, Christian Right leaders often talk about a war between Christians, defended by conservative leaders, and demonic forces, supposedly defended by liberals. For example, minister Paula White said this about Donald Trump:
“Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.” [italics added]
Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate
White unwittingly echoed Hitler’s definition of Christianity, making Christianity a force that protected people from liberal values. Similarly, Rev. Robert Jeffress prayed (on Twitter!) about warfare between liberals and Christianity:
“Thank God for a President like @realDonaldTrump who is intent on protecting our great country from anarchists who are trying to destroy it. As the Bible says, ‘Sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4).”If such views are popular today, is it any wonder that Germany, which was in 1933 still wracked by the Great Depression, found Hitler’s view so inspiring? Hitler roundly condemned communism, which, in the wake of Stalin’s purges, was renowned for violence and cruelty. Renouncing Marxist materialism, Hitler spoke for German unity based on nation, family, and the Christian faith.
Conclusion
Avoiding doctrinal disputes, Hitler expressed profound acceptance of all versions of Christianity. That made perfect sense, as it was Christianity’s social power, not its teachings, that moved him to speak.
Thus, Hitler found Germany’s salvation, not in physical power, but in a common religious perspective.
In his personal life, Hitler was no more active in religion than, for example, American presidents Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, who were both darlings of the American Christian Right. Indeed, at no time in the speech did Hitler take a stand on such Christian values as compassion, forgiveness, mercy to foreigners, or the like. Instead, Hitler twisted Christian morality to become the salvation of a nation that faced, he said, great danger from Marxist wickedness.
So, Hitler’s speech was not about what Christianity was for. His speech was about what Christianity was against, and what it was against was Marxism. Similarly, Hitler downplayed the Enabling Act’s destruction of democratic checks and balances. Instead, he called Germans to national unity and moral recovery.
Conservatives have long called their opponents communists, regardless of any conflicting details. In 1933, this was absurd on its face. The Weimar Republic, although incompetent and ineffectual, was no more a Marxist organization than was Nazism. Although Hitler’s speech made only vague references to Judaism, it is remarkable that he found morality only in the Christian faith, ignoring the larger Judeo-Christian tradition. Of course, although the Holocaust would not adopt its full horrors for another eight years, Hitler had long before laid out his deep hatred of German Jews.
Unfortunately, false dichotomies can kill. Just over 12 years after this stirring speech, Hitler’s Reich collapsed in disgrace, its promises shattered by war. Hitler committed suicide, leaving Germany in a smoking ruin. His name today is a synonym for evil.
Hitler’s rhetorical success sounds a stark warning for our own century. Germany in 1933 was industrialized, a center of religion, philosophy, education, music, and art. If Hitler could convince Germany to quash democracy with a single vote of the legislature, to make Christianity a unifying political force, to implement a stark dichotomy, a sort of spiritual warfare, between Christianity, on the one hand, and Marxism on the other, excluding all possible room in the middle—well, if that kind of rhetoric could work in Germany, it could work anywhere. It could work, once again, in western Europe. It could work in the United States of America. How slow we are, indeed, to remember history’s simplest lessons.
Thus, Hitler found Germany’s salvation, not in physical power, but in a common religious perspective.
In his personal life, Hitler was no more active in religion than, for example, American presidents Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, who were both darlings of the American Christian Right. Indeed, at no time in the speech did Hitler take a stand on such Christian values as compassion, forgiveness, mercy to foreigners, or the like. Instead, Hitler twisted Christian morality to become the salvation of a nation that faced, he said, great danger from Marxist wickedness.
So, Hitler’s speech was not about what Christianity was for. His speech was about what Christianity was against, and what it was against was Marxism. Similarly, Hitler downplayed the Enabling Act’s destruction of democratic checks and balances. Instead, he called Germans to national unity and moral recovery.
Conservatives have long called their opponents communists, regardless of any conflicting details. In 1933, this was absurd on its face. The Weimar Republic, although incompetent and ineffectual, was no more a Marxist organization than was Nazism. Although Hitler’s speech made only vague references to Judaism, it is remarkable that he found morality only in the Christian faith, ignoring the larger Judeo-Christian tradition. Of course, although the Holocaust would not adopt its full horrors for another eight years, Hitler had long before laid out his deep hatred of German Jews.
Unfortunately, false dichotomies can kill. Just over 12 years after this stirring speech, Hitler’s Reich collapsed in disgrace, its promises shattered by war. Hitler committed suicide, leaving Germany in a smoking ruin. His name today is a synonym for evil.
Hitler’s rhetorical success sounds a stark warning for our own century. Germany in 1933 was industrialized, a center of religion, philosophy, education, music, and art. If Hitler could convince Germany to quash democracy with a single vote of the legislature, to make Christianity a unifying political force, to implement a stark dichotomy, a sort of spiritual warfare, between Christianity, on the one hand, and Marxism on the other, excluding all possible room in the middle—well, if that kind of rhetoric could work in Germany, it could work anywhere. It could work, once again, in western Europe. It could work in the United States of America. How slow we are, indeed, to remember history’s simplest lessons.
By William D. Harpine
_______________
P.S. Historical predecessors of the Christian Right are not hard to find. See this example.
_______________
Copyright © William D. Harpine
