An Open Letter to a Right-Wing Pastor in Response to His Hijacking of Sophie Scholl’s Legacy
When using a martyr's name, you'd better live up to her compassion
A public response to The 1916 Project, Christian nationalism, and the dangerous trend of rewriting history in the name of faith.
I recently received an invitation from a group calling itself The White Rose Resistance, asking if our church would host a screening of their new documentary, The 1916 Project. The film claims to expose Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, and the “century-long destructive impact” of the sexual revolution. Others have made the same claim — attempting to correlate Sanger’s work with racism and eugenics — but they are either mistaken or dissimulating.
At first glance, the name of the group might sound noble—even inspiring. The original White Rose was a student-led Christian resistance movement in Nazi Germany, remembered for its extraordinary moral courage in the face of authoritarianism. Sophie Scholl and her fellow dissidents Hans Scholl and Christoph Probst, were convicted of treason for distributing leaflets that called on Christians to resist fascism, nationalism, and the co-opting of faith for political ends. They were beheaded the same day.
This new group, unfortunately, shares none of the ideals of the original.
What it does share—that is, what it shares with the very regimes the original White Rose opposed—is a willingness to twist history into propaganda. We’ve seen it across time and geography: whenever authoritarianism is on the rise, someone’s going to be strategically rewriting the past. Distorting the record, erasing the nuance, and declaring an upside-down version of events was a vital part of the Bolshevik, and later Soviet toolkit on the far-left. On the far-right, Joseph Goebbels found it particularly effective in bringing fascists to power. From its inception, the China Communist Party has leaned heavily on controlling the narrative to keep its population in line.
Scrolling through the propaganda posters from the 20th century, we’ll see three things that seem familiar today.
Destruction of “the enemy” with obvious, almost childlike ad hominem mockery, rather than addressing issues.
Bright, invigorating and engaging imagery — museum-quality art posters in the 20th century, and professionally created, video-heavy websites in the 21st.
Depiction of the movement’s leader as a secular god — or perhaps “anointed.”
We see this happening in politics, in media, and also now in many churches.
Increasingly, these tactics are being baptized in Christian language. In our time, we’re watching parts of the church become a megaphone for ideology rather than a sanctuary for truth.
The 1916 Project is part of this trend. Its promotional website is inflammatory and misleading, wrapped in apocalyptic rhetoric that divides the world into enemies and warriors. Bright colors and dramatic video edits grab the eye, delivering an anti-Biden, anti-LGBTQ+ message at high speed. Pro-choice advocates are ridiculed in split-second cutaways, spliced together with footage of children enjoying a drag queen story hour and a trans woman receiving communion.
Most troubling, it encourages churches to stoke outrage and fear rather than reflection, compassion, or faithful engagement with hard questions.
Below is the invitation, and my response.
Dear (redacted),
Thank you for your message and for reaching out.
I must respectfully decline your invitation to host or promote a screening of The 1916 Project. While I am aware of the film’s stated intent, I do not share your interpretation of history, theology, or what constitutes a faithful Christian response to complex moral and social issues.
As a Christian, my call is to proclaim the Gospel of love, justice, and truth. It demands intellectual integrity, historical accuracy, and spiritual humility. The framing of this film appears less concerned with fostering deep discipleship and more aligned with stoking fear, reinforcing ideological silos, and advancing a politicized version of our faith.
This is part of a disturbing trend in contemporary Christianity: the use of emotionally charged, revisionist history and apocalyptic language to rally outrage and manufacture division. When churches become platforms for this kind of propaganda, we drift far from the example of Jesus.
Our church remains committed to a faith that practices humility, mercy, and honors the image of God in every human being. We will not contribute to movements that weaponize scripture or manipulate history for ideological gain.
I wish you peace in your own walk of faith, even as our paths diverge.
Sincerely,
Holly Pettit
Hello, Enthusiasts! I’ve spent a few decades in nonprofits — getting families into housing; supporting clients in recovery; providing crisis & suicide prevention services; funding medical, dental and behavioral care; and partnering with the disability community. A former Army linguist, I used the G.I. Bill to pay for my M.Div.
If you’re feeling flush, please consider tossing a coin into the tip jar. Many thanks, my friend!
Oh! I’m with you.
Jesus was not about whitewashing. He was about truth. And love and kindness and seeing the hearts of others.
Wonderful response. Thank you for sharing.