I wrote to your comment that Adolf Hitler was "a committed Christian" a brief note that it was not that simple.
People like to recruit Hitler for a representative of various things they do not like - "Hitler a committed Christian".
And I agree that nor is it so simple that he did not exploit aspects of religious ideology which he found useful.
Do you think Dietrich Boenhoffer would have agreed that "Hitler was a committed Chrisian"? I don't think that Boenhoffer, a Christian theologian who attempted to assassinate Hitler, would agree with your characterization of Hitler as "a committed Christian."
If we go down that road shall I say that the Japanese military general who ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor was "a committed Shintoist"?
We might argue over when Ashoka (304–232 BCE) really became a Buddhist before or after his atrocities in India. Maybe I could say he was a committed Buddhist while he was having people killed to expand his empire too ?
"He embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. "
That was convenient.
Dietrich Boenhoffer realised the incipient dangers in using religious differences to embroil humanity in hatred.
And there is an incipient danger, I think, also in labeling someone "a committed" this or that because you expoit the atrocities to make a guilt by association point.
Sometimes it is done intentionally, other times through insightless acceptance of unreasoning prejudice applied beyond the radical few to the normally peaceful many.Boenhoffer as you know died because he refused to go along with such. It seems so did your Founder.
My only point here is that calling Hitler "a committed Christian" is rather a wild call. Your skepticism about what it is to be "a committed Christian" is being opportunistic in a unfair way.