Talk:Christian Identity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Organizations (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tone of article[edit]

It's interesting to notice that this article is linked in the Christianity series, while Islamism and Muslim Brotherhood are not linked in the Islam series. Inquiring minds wonder why...

Afc 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does seem somewhat slanted. 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in an edit war. Attempting to include information that may help clarify the origins of the Christian Identity Movement not instigate conflict. Religion, philosophy, science, and myth all play a role in this complex and fascinating subject. A narrow scope diminishes the potential impact of the article. 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Irony in two seedline Christian Identity teaching[edit]

The two seedline branch of Christian Identity teaches that Jews are the descendants of Satan. The VERY ironic thing about this is that there is very extensive association between Satanism and Neo-Nazism. Gringo300 01:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citation please. This is Wikipedia, after all.
What the hell are you talking about? There is no link between "Satanism" and "Neo-Nazism" except in the minds of a closed group of American fundamentalists who lump together anything they consider "evil". (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, there definetly is a strong link between satanism and neo-nazism. There even is a style of Heavy Metal, which is called NSBM (National Socialist Black Metal). And there are many among that few neo-nazis who stick to both ideologies. (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


---interjection: Schizophrenia is a poorly-chosen term. I understand that you're trying to explain the ambivalence you see in the Christian Identity. Teachings would have it that Jesus was a Jew. They hate Jews. But they love Jesus. They can't love and hate Jesus at the same time. In order to only love - not hate - Jesus, the truth of their legacy must hold that Jesus was not part of one of these disgustingly unworthy, soulless races. As imaginable, accepted and supported pools of thought pile up insurmountable evidence that Jesus was "of Israel" to say the least. Jesus of Nazareth. The Nazerene. The only way to counter this is to change "accepted and supported thought" into "irrational, mainstream thinking, only accepted because of its popularity," and by changing the definition of "Israelite/of Israel" to "something we can totally prove is Caucasian." This turns the insurmountable pile of evidence into reasonable doubt. The problem is, the conversion process has not been supported by enough evidence to change people's minds and Christian Indentity followers can be safely labelled as trying to rationalize and justify irrational leaps of logic that are completely unfounded and have no roots in actual history. Not schizophrenia. Wishful thinking. What good is being racially supreme if they can't feel at peace with God? Hence the extreme amounts of rationalization. Ambivalence is almost always followed by rationalization. This is my argument. Notice its cohesive qualities, and its contrast with the near entirety of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an lmost schizophrenic faith. They claim to hate Jews with every inch of their being, yet are so scared sh*tless to leave the Christian faith they were raised in (ironically derived from Judaism) that they have to invent some pseudo-historical babble based around a Jewish book!! Still not one piece of archaeological evidence has ever been produced to show that the ancient Israelites were in fact Indo-Europeans, and it will never be found either!!

Oh damn, I've just become part of the conspiracy!!

As far as the "no archaeological evidence" idea goes, I would submit that you are wrong. The simplicity of it is is that they are running against the mainstream currents thus less likely to gain any favourable coverage when it comes to such. Archaeologist Raymond Capt provided vast amounts of evidence of such. In addition to Capt, there is Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis and his article on the Israelite origins of Europeans. Hardly any sort of "white supremacist". - --Revolutionarypug (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Raymond Capt was a nasty kook. His 'evidence' is a joke. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

--You offer what proof to the contrary of Raymond Capt's findings? And what to to the contrary of the above mentioned research?


All the books written by Egyptologists for instance? Doug Weller (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is a quote from the article's link to the FBI's Project Megiddo:

There are a number of white supremacy groups that do not necessarily adhere to Christian Identity or other religious doctrines. White supremacy groups such as the National Alliance, the American Nazi Party and the National Socialist White People’s Party are largely politically, rather than religiously, motivated.

As a result, I'm reworking the article's apparent reference to the American Nazi Party as an example of a Christian Identity. SCCarlson 04:30 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why does this article use the word "fundamentalist" to describe these groups? In what sense are they fundamendalist? Mkmcconn

Don't know. It appears to be in the initial revision of the article. SCCarlson
I addede that, because in the articles I read which discussed the topic, none of these groups accepted the validity of any form of modern tetxual study, lower biblical criticism, or higher biblical criticism in understanding the text. None of these groups, so far as I have read, attempt to use history to read the books of the Bible within their original historical context. However, I concede that this is only true for the specific groups and individuals I read about, and is not necessarilly true for all such groups. We can remove this term from the article. RK

This is certainly an extensive quote. Would it not make sense to link to the original article instead of excerpting so much from it? -- Zoe

This shouldn't be used as a quote! It was meant to be the article itself! Many of our articles here on Wikipedia come directly from U.S. Government webpages, which offer much public domain information (and images!). I think we alreadyhave several hundred Wikipedia articles that started out as such quotes, and then grew from there. RK

I believe that white supremacy is racist. As a result, it's not necessary to say explicitly that they are racist in the intro: one can simply say that they are white supremacists. This yields a concise intro that both white supremacists and normal people can accept as accurate. Martin 19:44, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"White supremacy is racist." Yes, but racist isn't necessarily white supremacist. Someone hating someone else doesn't necessarily mean the person sees the other person as INFERIOR. A person can hate someone and believe they are equal to or even superior to themselves.

Plus, just because a person believes that one or more races are inferior to their own, that doesn't automatically mean they view ALL other races as inferior to their own. Gringo300 09:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should "interracial couples" be linked in some fashion? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, such a hyperlink could be appropriate. (It was hard to resist making some sort of pun...) RK 19:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

I have restorted the list and discussion of the many kinds of Christian Identity groups. They are, I would think by definition, on topic for this article. I also totally agree with Arline that some of this material also is useful in other Wikipedia articles. So we can copy and paste, word processor style, without deleting the text from this article. RK 23:17, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Most of the text on particular groups should be refactored to separate articles - e.g. the section on Aryan Nations is much the same as that separate article already.

This article is historical and religiously distorted[edit]

This article must be rewritten. There was absolutely no connection between the Worldwide Church of God and the Christian Identity movement. The link in the article is both offensive and totally untrue. Whatever one may think about Herbert W. Armstrong one thing must be stated as fact: he saw himself as a friend of the Jews and a friend of the State of Israel. Students from his Ambassador College system participated in the various digs in conjunction with Hebrew University. Armstrong himself was very much at home in the company of Israeli leaders and Armstrong's right hand man since the 1950s was himself a Jew who claimed to convert to the beliefs of Herbert W. Armstrong. On the other hand the Christian Identity movement shuns both the Jews and Israel and embraces Germanic ideas. Armstrong on the other hand devoted his entire prophetic ministry to warning that a new German led Europe would destroy both the USA and UK. 04:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Needs more scholarly data and less FBI[edit]

Many scholars who have studied Christian Identity have a very low opinion of the FBI report on which much of this article is based, especially Kaplan. I have tried to correct some obvious factual errors, and remove some sweeping statements. Armstrong, incidently, promoted British Israelism for many years, so the statement above is not entirely accurate. Armstrong did not promote the neonazi version of Christian Identity however. Let's put more or Barkan and Kaplan into theis piece.--Cberlet 00:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

armed citizen(s)(') militias[edit]

OK, this is tricky. It depends on the source document. armed citizens militias armed citizen's militias armed citizen militias Any questions? Is there a style for this on Wikipedia?--Cberlet 02:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Armed citizens' militias Atheistrabbi 23:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't a militia, by definition, armed citizens? Why not just say "militia"? Spark240 (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Got Cite?[edit]

"Although they have never identified themselves as such, Westboro Baptist Church adheres to most, if not all, of the tenements of the movement. " This really needs an independent cite.--Cberlet 21:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The word hardcore might not be seen as very professional... perhaps restate? DoomBringer 07:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

British Israelism[edit]

Doesn't a large block of the text in the Ideoology section belong on the British Israelism page?--Cberlet 14:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Seedline Theories[edit]

The two seed line branch of Christian Identity seems to be the extreme manifestation, of the "struggle for birthright" idea. It goes something like: Jacob was able to purchase the birthright from Esau, and Esau resented it afterwards. Jacob became Israel (and fathered the nation), Esau became Edom (and fathered the nation). Similarly the nation of Edom resented the nation of Israel and did everything in their power to hinder and harm Israel, and hence verses like [Rom 9:13]. Accordingly, Edom is supposed to have done everything in its power to re-obtain the birthright from Israel. In Babylon both nations were taken captive, and Edom "became" mixed the House of Judah. They did not object to, or discourage being called "Jews". Judaean and Idumeans became one under a new banner.

Both themes appear in Christian Identity literature. Certainly, the struggle for birthright idea seems much less offensive. By itself, it seems to explain how Herod (an Edomite and non-Israelite) became king of the Jews.

Between the two themes however, the struggle for birthright appears much more prevalent and more accepted. The two seed line idea appears more extreme. The article does not convey this, and reads as though the focus sits primarily on the "fringe" theologies in Identity Christian belief rather than the popular ones. Certainly, the fringe theologies should, by no means, be avoided, but they should also be presented in proper context. For the sake of objectivity, perhaps a better approach might be to outline the most common (and least objectionable) Christian Identity ideas, and work towards the more extreme, making it clear that the extreme ideas are towards the fringe even in Christian Identity. (added sig: WikiRat)

You need to cite a published source that backs up these views--Cberlet 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Notice the tab? "Discussion!". I'm not an expert on Christian Identity sources (though I have looked at issues in Biblical history). Nor should I need to be to comment on the tone of the article. Anyone with an (objective) opinion can judge the tone of this article and recommend a more objective approach in this discussion page if one is needed. --WikiRat 05:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
What's with the attitude? I was merely asking for a cite. We are trying to improve an encyclopedia here. Constructive comments are even better if there is a cite to consult to see if text here needs to be edited.--Cberlet 12:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Barkun book[edit]

The Barkun quote I checked is from the 1994 edition. It may also be in the 1996/97 revised edition, but I don't have that book at home. Now for the trivia. If you ask UNC press, they will tell you the revised edition was published in late 1996. However most library catalogs list it as 1997. I have had editors castigate me for getting the dates wrong, but in fact, it is a confused issue. Sigh.--Cberlet 22:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Adamites and Israelites[edit]

Christian Identity claims that Adam and Eve were the first white people, and calls whites Adamites.

But how even by their logic could they be called Israelites?

Assume for a second that Jacob/Israel himself could be called an Israelite (the FIRST Israelite). He obviously wasn't even conceived until MANY generations after Adam and Eve, who they say were the first white people.

And certainly, there would have been many other descendants of Adam and Eve on the earth in the lifetime of Jacob/Israel, and THEY would have had descendants, too.

So how could whites and Israelites be synonymous even by their logic?

Gringo300 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't even think they are Christian and I feel that the real Christian church should sue them for using that label.-- (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Identity states that Adam (Hebrew - to show blood in the cheeks) was the first "White" person. Yes, there were many other Adamites on the earth prior to Jacob/Israel. However, The Covenant was made with Israel, a specific bloodline within the Adamite household. All Israelites are Adamites, but not all Adamites are Israelites. This is akin to saying that all Californians are Americans, but not all Americans are Californians. There is nothing contradictory about it at all. As well, the statement that "the real Christian church should sue them" also leaves much to be desired. Just who is the "real Christian church"? Mormons? Catholics? Episcopalians? JHVH's Witnesses? All lossely define themselves as "christian" to one degree or another but all would certainly disagree that anyone but themselves truly make up the body politic of Christiandom.


South African groups?[edit]

Doesn't this entire South African section belong in British Israelism It's a great addition, but CI is a form of British Israelism developed in the U.S. I suspect the same is true for the SA variant--Cberlet 13:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No - the Boers are a separate people from English South Africans - and in fact a great deal of historical emnity exists between them. I'm sure there are English CIs in the country, but it certainly isn't as widespread as it is among some Afrikaner communities (without wishing to offend anyone). The church which is most associated with Christian Identity beliefs in SA is the Dutch Reformed Church, although I think many of their congregations have now renounced racism and Identity theology to fit in with the new South Africa. I don't know where it can go - I'm thinking of writing an article on it, but unfortunately, there is not much information about these groups on the internet, since many South Africans do not have internet access. I could ask some people I knew, but that would certainly be classed as original research. XYaAsehShalomX 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This gives some good background, although it needs to be cleaned up - and if anyone's going to do a separate article, some more CI-specific stuff would have to be added. XYaAsehShalomX 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't we remove the whole South African section altogether. Since the link with British Israelism is non-existent, and the comparison between the Dutch Reformed Church and Christian Identity is spurious at best, this section amounts to a whole lot of nothing but conjecture. If no response, I will be happy to delete the section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

@ User:XYaAsehShalomX Your explanation includes a wrong presumption: Mobile phones are generally much more common than landlines in subsaharan Africa and nearly everyone has one (not only in SA of course). Nearly everyone has access to the internet through cell phones and cyber centers. Fast modems are common too. Internet-access is the most important criteria for a subsaharan mobile buyer. It is simply that the only relevance of your topic is historical. Only 12% of the population of South Africa is currently european, most of them don´t use the term "Afrikaaner" (double a!) and the majority of us by far doesnt want to have anything to do with CI. I don´t know anyone who thinks CI matters (presumed he even knows it existed). btw: Most european South Africans have german, dutch or even french ancestors. those with british decent are a minority within a minority... (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should be moved[edit]

... to "Christian Identity Movement". Since Christian Identity encompasses a number of different people and doctrines, movement is a better article title.

There is no reason to do this. Most of the scholarly works simply call it "Christian Identity," and that it is a series of related groups is discussed in the text. It probably lacks the cohesion required to term it an actual "movement" in the title. While it is often called the Christian Identity Movement in scholarly titles, it is not common in titles.--Cberlet 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, that was not clear. Yes, scholars refer to the Christian Identity movement, or even "CIM", but in an encyclopedia titles need to be more careful and avoid jargon such as sociological jargon. So American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) is a propoer title, but Christian Identity is a movement but should not be promoted to a title, since it is a religion as well as a movement.--Cberlet 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So they reject the deicide charge?[edit]

Well, if they believe that those Barbara Streisand-ish people from Russia are actually Khazars, not descended from the Gospel era Judahites, then they must reject deicide, since no Khazars were in Jerusalem.--22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)~Enda80

Would need research into CI literature to determine. What's the point?--Cberlet 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

probably not worth lookin at it lol Lostmywayfelldownahole (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Christianity & Christian Identity[edit]

While it is true that every major Protestant denomination and the Roman Catholic Church consider CI to be a heresy, that does not mean it should not be cataloged in an encyclopedia as a form of Christianity. See indexes to: Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements, and Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism, on Amazon. I have both.--Cberlet 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide what's Christian or not. I contend that there is not enough reliable source vefification via citations to known experts on the subject of Christianity which assert this so-called "movement" to be Christian. You need better verification on this point and you need citations. I am restoring my edits. Wombdpsw - @ 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the references provided support the statement in the lead paragraph, "Most of them promote a Euro-centric version of Christianity." From there, it's useful to the reader to include the Christianity template. I don't think people are going to read this and think the skinheads are the true followers of Jesus, or that Christians in general are racists. I don't understand what statement in the article you regard as uncited.

We already say, "...most modern Christian denominations and organizations denounce Christian Identity theology as a heresy." It's possible that there could be some presentation of opinions saying that followers of Christian Identity are not Christians at all, if you have some good references to people saying that. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment of "I don't think people are going to read this and think the skinheads are the true followers of Jesus, or that Christians in general are racists." If that is true, why are you helping people get confused on this issue by reinserting a template that clearly does not belong here? Also, you are asking me to prove a negative - that people of this type are not generally recognized as Christians. You have the burden of proof wrong. It's you, by inserting the {{christianity}} template who is asserting that the subject people of this article are indeed generally recognized as Christians - but you offer no proof such recognition exists. And it doesn't matter that you put a weak disclaminer of "...most modern Christian denominations and organizations denounce Christian Identity theology as a heresy" in the article. Even that assertion must be cited to a reliable source for verfication. I am removing the template. It does not belong in this article. Wombdpsw - @ 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this ADL page on the subject of "Christian Indentity". The ADL's page is extremely accurate and a very reliable source. The ADL refers to CI as "Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles." At no point does the ADL refer to CI as a variant of Christianity. The editors who want to say that CI is a variant of Christianity must supply reliable source citations to experts on the subject who say that. If not, the wiki standards of WP:V and WP:RS are not being met, but instead we will have a WP:OR violation whicb is unacceptable. Wombdpsw - @ 17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The references are listed - stop being disruptive. Barkun, for example, discusses CI as a variant of Christianity. When you have read Barkun, come back with more concerns.--Cberlet 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive and your assertion that I am is false. This article as currently comprised, if the {{christianity}} template is included, is a disgrace. By no recognized standard or expert opinion is CI a variant of Christianity. I have no more time to address this today, but I will return here with further comment soon. Wombdpsw - @ 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Numerous scholars write about Christian Identity as a hateful variant of Christianity--but a variant of Christianity nonetheless. If you cannot abide by Wiki guidleines, perhaps it is best if you do not edit this page--Cberlet 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE - User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal using many usernames before, such as "Merecat" and "Rex071404". He's been blocked indefinitely. (see userpages or clerk's report) -- ActiveSelective 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They are far removed from Christianity. In believing that Jesus was caucasian and not a Jew means that they worship "another Jesus". Their concept of "pre-Adamic" races conflicts directly with the bible as it is stated in Genesis 3:20 that Eve is "the mother of all the living. The bible also preaches love and rejects prejudice, exact oppisites of this so caled "Christian" movement.

"Opposition by Some neo-Nazis, Support by Others"[edit]

This section seems to confuse the subjects of "opposition" and/or "support" for the Christian Identity ideology in particular with whether or not some neo-Nazis emphasize any sort of "belief in God and Christian fundamentalism."

The generalization about the complicated issue of the history of relations between the Third Reich (and other fascist powers) with the Catholic Church would certainly need some citations, or at least links to other entries (the stub on Hitler_and_the_Church, for example), if it belonged here at all.

A link to the entry on the Protestant_Reich_Church would make sense, though.

I haven't changed anything because I'm too new to Wikipedia to be entirely sure of the rules (and even just trying to edit my comment here has been tricky), but I thought I'd log my concern here. Frippo 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"This Is Nonsense"[edit]

As a long-time Identity adherent, I can tell you that most of what is contained within this article is nonsense. We do believe there is going to be a Second Coming, we believe there likely will be a Race War, we deny the rapture (this is part of why we prepare for the race war). You state that we stockpile food and guns yet we don't believe in Armageddon, well why do you think we stockpile these things? Furthermore, those who do not believe in Pre-Adamite peoples are the MINORITY within Identity. Likewise those who are not dual-seedline are the MINORITY within Identity. Additionally, I know of no Identity followers who believe in the goodness of the children of Cain. HouseOfJacob 0:54, January 22nd, 2007 (EST)

I didn't see thse problems, the problem seems to be the opposite. This article does claim pre adamites and survival orient life styles are common aspects of CI.You very nice place 08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word racialist[edit]

racialist is a real word, and means a belief that certain characteristics are determined by race. racist means a belief that race is the primary determinant of certain characteristics and is meant in a derogatory way. I would suggest changing the occurrence of the word racialist to racist in this article. I'll leave this comment here for a while and then move on it.

BananaFiend 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; Racialist is a real word in the dictionary, not a made up one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talkcontribs) 09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BananaFiend explanation. "Racist" is the correct term. (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This should be removed from "WikiProject Fascism"[edit]

Someone with administrative capabilities should remove it from the Fascism Project. Say what you will about Christian Identity but it has few of the characteristics of fascism. If anything it is anti-fascistic. From the American Heritage Dictionary: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, ...". GuyInCT 11:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here want to seriously dispute that scholars have suggested that

a significant number of Christian Identity adherents in the U.S. are neofascists or neonazis? See Barkun's book.--Cberlet 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your point, Cberlet? A majority of Communists and Anarchists are also atheists. Does this mean that the Wikki articles on atheism should be linked to articles on those political views? GuyInCT is correct on this point, thus I removed the "wikiproject fascism" banner as inapropriate. 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Religious scholars generally point to four divisions within Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Restorationist. Protestant churches are those which trace their belief systems specifically back to the Reformation, whether for theological reasons (Luther, Calvin, the Anabaptists) or political reasons (the Church of England), including those churches which began as breakaway groups from them (as Methodism is from Anglicanism and Holiness and Pentecostalism in turn from Methodism, for example). Restorationist churches believe the Protestant churches are just as "apostate" as the Catholic, reject the Protestant label, and assert they are "restoring" the true early church. Inasmuch as they reject almost all theological tenets of Protestant churches, consider them apostate, and have no notable line of succession to the Reformation (trying to establish a link to Anglicanism via British Israelism is a tenuous link at best), Christian Identity is a form of Restorationism, not Protestantism. It is properly grouped with other Restorationist groups like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Campbellites/Church of Christ. "Protestant" is not synonymous with "not Catholic", and Identity's main distinguishing features are either completely unique to Identity (two-seed doctrine, salvation only available to white/Europeans, and so on), or shared with one or more other Restorationist churches but not with any Protestant churches: Saturday worship in some groups, British Israelism, asserting that Christians should keep Old Testament feasts but reject Christmas and Easter, doctrine on baptism identical to that of the Campbellites, etc. It is probably important to distinguish Identity from the recent emergence of some breakaway Catholic groups which hold some Identity-like doctrines but the "Protestant" label is not a factually accurate way to do this. 13:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Specifically, CI's adherents reject historical Protestant teachings on soteriology (especially justification, usually considered the defining doctrine of historical Protestantism), Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology. The only links CI has to Protestantism is its use of the Bible (though often in altered translations) and certain ethical positions (on abortion, homosexuality, etc.). In these they are also similar to traditional Catholic and Orthodox views. The majority of CI adherents would not even self-identify as Protestant. Deskins 06:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


This article doesn't need to be in Category:Christianity because it is already in category:Christian fundamentalism and Category:Protestantism, which in "dughter categories" of Category:Christianity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern day Christian Identity pastors[edit]

Maybe there should be a brief list and description of modern day existing CI pastors that operate. For example, "pastor" Thomas Robb, Ken Gregg, etc. [1]

I second that. Quick perusal of the article reveals that all of the prominent Christian Identity leaders died back in the 1980's. The "Christian Identity Movement" - as in a current growing ideology - seems to be a figment of the SPLA/FBI's fundraising imagination. There are one, maybe two, churches in Mississippi/Missouri that believe this stuff. Two or three guys who made a YouTube video. Maybe it should be called the "The Five Guys who Believe in Christian Identity" instead of a "movement".Cadwallader (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is an exageration to call a group of maybe 30.000 people a "movement". Especially in a country of more than 300.000.000 citizen. 1 out of 10.000 Americans believes this nonsense. An idea, that is even nameless to most men (as the article says itself) can´t be described as a movement. The correct term is "sect". (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Logical Contradiction between Christian Identity and Semitic religion[edit]

I think the article should provide analysis of logical contradiction between Christian Identity and Semitic religion. As we know, Christian religion is a kind of Semitic religion. The ancestry, history, tradition, god, belief and culture in Christian religion is just about Semitic people. It's not about the ancestry, history, tradition, god, belief and culture of European people. How can Christianity be the identity of Europeans? -Sparkeling (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you got some reliable sources (see WP:RS discussing this? Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What is troublesome about the article is all the quotes/citations about CI beliefs come from non-CI leaders, literature or statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is mostly true. But a person that is not part of that sect (it is not a movement) may have a more objective view on it. More impartial litarally. This article is actaully not only neutral but too positive about this sect. For example when it is characterizing it as a "movement". The term "movement" implies power and a certain social relevance. You can hardly claim that about a "religion" that never had more than 1 out of 10.000 Americans as its followers. And in europe it is completely and absolutely nameless, even though ironically it claims to be eurocentric. (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is saying that Jews aren't descended from the tribe of Judah anti-semitic?[edit]

Seriously. This is American propaganda where anything which isn't the party line is anti-semitic. This is the worst thing about wikipedia. Who the Jews are descended from makes no difference to how they should be perceived; they are human beings first and if someone denies they are who they say they are does not make them racist. The fact is that Jews believe they are descended from the aforementioned due to their religion; is it not possible to be understanding that other people might not share their faith and have a different faith based opinion? Either way, an encyclopedia is not the place to wage this war. The point of an encyclopedia is to present raw data, not opinion or political one-upmanship. I can't be bothered to fight you about it but I'll leave this here for others to pick up and run with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. Given that adherents of Christian Identity believe themselves to be descended from both Jacob and Shem (father of the Semitic tribes), it is absurd to refer to them as "anti-semitic." For that matter most anti-Jewish Muslims are also ethnically Semitic and very proud of this fact. The word "antisemitism" was first used in the German-Jewish debates in the 1800's but is poorly suited to describe intra-semitic hatred. The term has become something of a non sequitur given that most antisemitic groups are themselves wholly or partially Semitic in origin. It would be more accurate to call them "anti-Jewish." Cadwallader (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Added external link[edit]

Any way we can get this section deleted? William Raymond Finck is a proven jew by race - nowhere near "Christian Identity" (which only Wickstrom and Visser may speak for).

Finck is a professional troll pushing drugs and free sex on Saxons. Remove all links to this jewish honeypot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CA:202:6784:6983:4508:7B89:AD65 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone came in and reversed my adds, claiming "we have enough links"... whatever that means.

I reversed the reverse. is literally the largest website on the internet concerning CI. It consistently stays in the Alexa top 10K websites. It is the go to place for research on the subject, so the link should stay. That's assuming, of course, this page is about objective information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorSwitzer (talkcontribs) 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the general issues of the links here at WP:ELN. It may well be that this link should stay and others removed. WP:EL is the relevant guideline. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC) is not "objective information" by any stretch of the imagination. Let's at least be clear about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are the Alexa stats. Ranked #96,821 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. Most popular download, Mein Kampf. I don't think the site qualifies under WP:ELYES. I guess someone might argue that it qualifies under WP:ELMAYBE #4 "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I wouldn't buy that because the site, apart from the "About" page, isn't "about" Christian Identity in the meta-sense. It's a site that promotes all sorts of views associated with the movement. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I just removed a couple of links which clearly conflict with WP:EL (we do not link to two different locations on one website without very good reason—find the one page which satisfies the WP:EL guideline and use that). I am having trouble seeing any merit in several of the remaining links, each of which should help the reader with more information directly relevant to the topic of the article. I suppose the FBI link is sufficiently interesting to be kept, and it is certainly on topic. A link to a forum is normally not warranted (WP:ELNO#10), and most of the other pages do not actually provide information on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the argument here. However, Christogenea serves as a source point for massive amounts of information on the subject as well as archiving the sermons of Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet, two of the "founders" of the modern Identity movement. If nothing else, it stands as an excellent source for those who want to learn more about what CI means. Objective? Pushing it. More useful than not? Definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorSwitzer (talkcontribs) 22:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The standard procedure is that if a website has a page that is helpful for an article, the external link should go directly to that page. If the website is set up in such a way that that cannot be done, the link is probably not warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm copying a response from WP:ELN below Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC):

"The claim to be adding these links on the ground that we "can never have enough links" is disingenuous, as the person who said that has repeatedly removed a couple of links, as well as adding his/her own links. Not only the links added by that person, but nearly all the external links in the article are not to objective sources of information on the subject, but rather to propaganda pages for organisations advocating "Christian Identity". They have every appearance of being "links mainly intended to promote a website" (quoted from WP:ELNO), they appear to me to be sites "that [do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", and they seem to contain "unverifiable research", if one is to grace such unsubstantiated opinions with the term "research". In addition, one of the links (the one to appears to be a dead link, and another ( links to a web site with nothing to do with the subject of the article: it looks as though the domain name has probably changed hands. As far as I can see the only link in the external links section which has any reasonable claim to comply with our external links policy is the FBI link. Certainly the links added by the person Dougweller refers to do not belong in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32 am, Yesterday (UTC+1)"

Confusing supersessionism with Chrisitan Identity?[edit]

The end of the introduction states: They claim that modern Christian churches are teaching a heresy: the belief that God's promises to Israel (through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) have been expanded to create a spiritual people of "Israel", which constitutes the Christian "Church".

While some Christian churches teach dispensationalism, just as many teach supersessionism (or some variation thereof) without being partisan to the Christian Identity movement. I believe that the above statement is incorrect and can be construed to mean that "If you're not a dispensationalist, you're inline with the Christian Identity movement", as there is no qualification given for the belief as unparticular to the movement. (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispensationalism and supersessionism aren't the only two options, you know. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches a radical continuity between the Old and New Testaments, rather than a discontinuity or break between them as most Westerners tend to see it. Indeed, dispensationalism and supersessionism are actually more alike than different, since both see Israel and the Church as two completely different entities, they just differ on how God's relationships to them play out in history (supersessionists see the Church as having replaced Israel for good, while dispensationalists see the Church as a temporary "parenthesis", whose adherents will be raptured eventually, after which God will resume dealing primarily with Israel). The Orthodox teaching, by contrast, sees only one covenant, of which the church is merely the fully realized form (so that Old Testament Israel was like a caterpillar, and the Church is the butterfly). This view is neither dispensational, nor supersessionist. Nor does it have anything in common with Christian Identity (indeed, most Orthodox believers belong to ethnicities considered by Identity folks to be non-human, or at the very least non-Aryan, such as Arabs, Greeks, etc.) FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Kidd reference[edit]

Here's Kidd, 978-0521797290:

"Indeed, the blending of the soulless races with Adamic whites had not only caused an affront to God, spoiling his racial plan of Creation, but had also led, according to Carroll, to the delusive errors of evolution. Miscegenation became in time 'the parent of atheism, with its theory of development [evolution] ... which attributes the whole phenomenon of the universe to natural causes'."

Kidd cites Charles Carroll, The Tempter of Eve, 1902, and adds a see-also of M. Stokes, Someone's in the Garden with Eve, American Quarterly 50, 1998.

Tom Harrison Talk 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Identity observance of Jewish customs and holidays[edit]

Would it be worth putting something about how the way that some Christian Identity churches observe Jewish festivals such as the "fest of tabernacles" differ (or maybe don't) from how Jews do it? I know that a lot of these people observe Jewish holidays because they think they're the "real Jews". But how is it different and what sort of things do they do? The article talks about their views about race, the Jews etc but we are not told what to expect, if we went into one of these churches, what would happen during the service (apart from anti-semitic rants). How would it look, would there be stained glass windows, statues of Jesus etc or would it be plain? Would they be singing songs etc, would they try and speak Hebrew?

I am Jewish so I find the whole concept of a group of Nazis observing the Jewish holidays quite funny, and I know it happens (and I once read on a forum somebody going on about how not to eat pork but not to do it in the "kosher kike way" so how does their observance of Jewish customs differ from ours? (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Lostmywayfelldownahole (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sect versus Ideology[edit]

I think one of the major problems with this article is that it defines Christian Identity as a sect, when it is in fact an ideology. It is not even accurate to call Christian Identity a "movement" as it did not have an objective or direction it aimed to achieve.

A sect is a religious organization with a clear leadership and membership structure. The World Wide Church of God (WWCOG), which is mentioned in this article, is/was a sect, because it is not just a doctrine, but an organization of member churches with leadership, membership and rules. (Incidentally, the WWCOG clearly held many of the British Israelite beliefs, but does not seem to have held or promoted the beliefs (that Jews are not descended from Judah but are descended from Satan) that distinguish Christian Identity from the former. Therefore it is inaccurate to classify that organization as teaching Christian Identity ideology.)

Neither Christian Identity nor British Israelism were ever, as far as I can tell, actual sects. In both cases they are/were ideologies or historical doctrines that were popularized by certain authors in books, radio and other media. As such, Christian Identity and British Israelism are more like clusters of ideas. Since there was no membership requirement or creed, adherents of Christian Identity and British Israelism may have held some but not all beliefs of the associated cluster. Herbert Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God clearly advocated most of the beliefs associated with British Israelism, but did not advocate the beliefs that distinguish Christian Identity.Cadwallader (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Following - Overstated?[edit]

I realize there is one citation claiming the membership of groups in the USA holding Christian Identity ideology is between 2,000 and 20,000. However, this figure seems to be grossly exaggerated. Aryan Nations is the only "major" group holding CI beliefs, and the Wikipedia page for that group states, "At the time of Butler's death, Aryan Nations had about 200 members actively participating in the group." If the largest of the several listed CI groups only has 200 active members, it seems unlikely that there are more than one or two thousand people affiliated with this ideology in the USA, though a larger number may have been influenced by it. Of the 200 active members, it seems likely at least half are undercover law enforcement agents or informants acting on their behalf.

There are several interested parties who stand to gain from exaggerating the size and influence of Christian Identity and other racist ideologies: federal law enforcement agencies (FBI, Homeland Security, etc), anti-racist advocacy groups (ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center) who raise their donations through newsletters that incite their donors to fear these groups, and university professors who get paid grants by the aforementioned interested parties to write books about these groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center was actually a plaintiff against Aryan Nations in a lawsuit, and was awarded the group's property by the court. This makes them a highly interested party, not an NPOV source. These interested parties appear to be the majority of sources cited here about Christian Identity, rather than the literature of the actual proponents of this ideology. This suggests that the sources themselves are likely to be biased in favor of exaggerating both the ideology and the number of people who follow it.

It seems that Christian Identity is at most an ideology, not a sect. It barely even qualifies as an ideology, and would be better described as a collection of associated beliefs. The affiliated adherents number less than a thousand in a country of 300 million.

I agree. I think this whole article should be remade. (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is a disgrace and it's tone is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Reads like a press release from the SPLC. I may take some time to revise the worst of the loaded language. Seki1949 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"strict fundamentalist racial views"[edit]

The above phrase is incorrect and dishonest. Fundamentalism is a theological position, traditionally held by Black as well as white Protestant American churches. There is thus no such thing as "fundamentalist racial views," as white and Black churches could disagree profoundly on the subject and yet both remain fundamentalist.

I have noticed the tendency to redefine "fundamentalism" from a theological position to an ethno-cultural term applying to stereotypical rural "racist rednecks." There is no such thing as an ethnic fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Protestantism historically began in highly respected big city churches and for many years prevailed at Princeton University's divinity school. The identification of cultural racism with "fundamentalism" may be quite handy for those who wish to discredit the theological position, but as I said earlier, is quite dishonest--kind of like claiming a "Southern accent" indicates a lack of intelligence and then magically re-defining Martin Luther King Jr.'s accent as something other than Southern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)