HLSS523Wk3

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism

Joseph O. Baker

Department of Sociology & Anthropology

East Tennessee State University

Abstract

Many religious groups, by design, exist in high “tension” with their surrounding socio-cultural

environments. Often, high tension groups enact strict, (internally) legalistic, and highly exclusive

versions of long-established religious traditions, formally making them “sectarian” according to the

sociology of religion. Such groups can be categorized into three types of reactions against the outside

world: passive (insular), assertive (externalized non-violent), and impositional (externalized violent).

Examples from each of these categories drawing from Christianity in the United States are analyzed

from the perspective of deviance and social control. Notorious groups such as Appalachian serpent

handlers, Westboro Baptist Church, the Branch Davidians, and instantiations of religio-racial hate

groups such as the Christian Identity movement defy conventional society in a variety of ways, and are

therefore subject to various efforts at social control. Although such groups can be problematic for civil

order, societal reactions to their perceived threat also warrant critical evaluation and analysis. More

generally, deviant religions offer insightful case studies at the intersection of studies of religion, culture,

deviance, politics, and law.

Citation: Baker, Joseph O. 2018. “Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism.” Pp. 187– 198 in Routledge Handbook of Deviance, edited by Stephen Brown and Ophir Sefiha. New York: Routledge.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 2

Defining Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism

Drawing on the ideal types of Max Weber ([1922] 1991), Ernst Troeltsch (1932) formalized a typology

of “church” and “sect,” with the latter referring to groups that attempt to live out Christian ideals in

radical, textually literal, and often separatist fashion. Much confusion and elaboration followed the

initial positing of these ideal types (Stark and Bainbridge 1979), but perhaps the most parsimonious,

generalizable, and useful articulation of the differences between churches and sects was put forward by

Johnson (1963, p. 542), who proposed the following definitions: “A church is a religious group that

accepts the social environment in which it exists. A sect is a religious group that rejects the social

environment in which it exists.” This continuum between acceptance and rejection of the surrounding

social environment can be further specified or subdivided, but it provides a simple and useful baseline for

categorizing religious groups that has been termed “tension,” which “refers to the degree of

distinctiveness, separation, and antagonism between a religious group and the ‘outside’ world” (Stark &

Finke, 2000, p. 143). Put another way, groups that are more sectarian in nature will be viewed by

members as exclusive, with definitive boundaries between in-group members and out-group others,

while groups that are lower in tension will be less exclusive and more pluralistic, with less distinction

between in-group members and outsiders.

Although the general conceptualization of tension allows for the exporting of the sect concept

out of the Christian, particularly Protestant context Troeltsch examined, here we will focus on various

expressions of Christian sectarianism. In essence, we are interested in groups that take Christianity to

high levels of socio-cultural tension, often through the extensive use of behavioral proscriptions and

prescriptions, as well as exclusivist dogma and apocalyptic ideology. Within the broader concept of

sectarianism, we can further distinguish the manner in which a group retreats from or engages the

outside world.

Notably the concept of sect has a high degree of overlap with the idea of fundamentalism, which

has itself been subjected to multiple efforts at definition and elaboration. The most extensive and

comparative study of fundamentalism resulted in the following definition:

“Fundamentalism,” in this usage, refers to a discernable pattern of religious militance by

which self-styled ‘true believers’ attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity,

fortify the borders of the religious community, and create viable alternatives to secular

institutions and behaviors (Almond, Appleby, & Sivan, 2003, p. 17).

Emphasizing the role of reaction against the generalized forces of “modernity” and

secularization, Bruce (2008, p. 15) posits that “Fundamentalism is a radical reconstruction and

redeployment of a tradition for contemporary purposes.” In this rendering, consistent with the origins

of the term in American Protestant traditions in the 1910s (see Marsden, 1977, 2006), fundamentalism

is viewed as characteristically rejecting of the “modernity” of the era in which it exists, and an effort to

reassert a definitive and pure version of a religion which is not subject to the secularizing effects of

pluralism, multi-culturalism, or globalism. Fundamentalism is, then, consciously organized as an

ideological and communitarian bulwark against disintegrating and individualized effects of the modern

world. Marty (1992, pp. 15-23) summarized the most basic points of fundamentalisms as: 1) arising out

of “traditional” cultures; 2) perceiving vague but pervasive outside threats; 3) naming of enemies; 4)

reaction against perceived threats; 5) delineation of what separates True believers from outsiders; 6)

seeking definitive authority; 7) offending the sensibilities of the surrounding culture; 8) resistance to

ambiguity and ambivalence in favor of binary distinctions; 9) division of the enclave from the outside

world; 10) potential or actual aggression against the outside world; and 11) millennialism and end times

schema about the flow of history and the future to come.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 3

In many cases “sectarianism” and “fundamentalism” can be used interchangeably, and the

extensive study of fundamentalisms has in many ways superseded the study of sectarianism. Much like

the concept of sectarianism, fundamentalism was born of Protestant Christianity, but has wider

applicability. A unique and useful take of what constitutes fundamentalism is provided by Hood et al.

(2005), who argue that an “intra-textual” perspective is the key feature fundamentalism, meaning that

all ideas and information must pass through a singular and authoritative interpretation of sacred

scriptures. Notably fundamentalist groups often deny interpretation at all (e.g., textual literalism) in an

effort to restrict the (perceived) Truth from alternative interpretations. Ideas or arguments that do not

operate within a group’s authoritative rendering of sacred texts are ignored or openly combatted.

Regarding the concept of “extremism,” there is a pejorative connotation to this designation, and

in that sense the concept may be more problematic than useful. At the same time, there can clearly be

varying levels of intensity among fundamentalist or sectarian groups, so some manner of signifying a

higher than usual level of intensity has utility, and thus extremism or zealotry, or a similar analog, do

have some value as distinctions. As Pratt (2010, pp. 438-439) notes, “extremism expresses an ultra-

orthodox outlook in contrast to orthodoxy per se,” and that “A religious extremist requires specific

religious identity as the primary reference for self-legitimation.” In other words extremist groups take

sectarianism and fundamentalism to higher levels of intensity than merely orthodox movements.

Clearly this a matter of judgment, but as we will see in the examples below, other more (ironically)

mainstream fundamentalists often reject more intensive forms of fundamentalism.

Having laid out some basic definitions of fundamentalism, sectarianism, and extremism, we can

now briefly address some of the common features of these groups. Concerning both behavioral rules

and ideology, such groups tend to be very “strict” (see Iannaccone, 1994), meaning extensive ascetic

behavioral prohibitions and stringent ideological regulations on precisely what religious beliefs are

acceptable within the group. Some features of the ideology and orientation of such groups are also

distinguishable. First and foremost is exclusivity, meaning the internal perception that the worldview

and practices of the group are seen as the only True perspective. A corollary of this is that members of

the group are seen as destined for (or have already achieved) salvation, while those outside the group are

destined for damnation. This definitive in/out-group distinction is often expressed in terms of purity

and pollution.

Following on the ideas of Weber ([1922] 1991), the ideology of extreme fundamentalist and

sectarian groups draws extensively on other-worldly ideas and justifications. Claims about heaven, hell,

supernatural intervention in the material world, apocalypticism, and eschatologies of end times are

common. Typically such groups view themselves as playing an important, often starring role in the

processes of the end times. A necessary corollary of the belief in definitive Truth and salvation is the

opposite belief in pure, supernatural evil, which generally also has a central role to play in the

apocalypse and is a designation applied to the rest of “the world” (as against the other-worldly and the

chosen) (see Hall, 2009). The pure evil of the fallen world must be combatted, but how it is to be

combatted determines the type of fundamentalism a group can be classified as expressing.

Types and Examples

In an effort to better understand when and how fundamentalist religious groups turn violent, Pratt

(2010) provides a trichotomous typology of fundamentalist groups with ideal types for passive,

assertive, and impositional. These types are not definitive, and in some cases not even mutually

exclusive, but they do provide a general orientation to varying expressions of the relationship between

fundamentalist and sectarian groups and the wider socio-cultural environments in which they exist.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 4

Much like the definitions offered above, the types outlined are not true or false, but rather should be

judged by their utility (on the social construction of definitions of religion, see Berger, 1967, pp. 175-

177).

Passive Fundamentalism

Passive fundamentalism has three definitive features. First, it espouses “perspectival absolutism” and

“immediate inerrancy,” the former meaning the positing of an exclusivist, singular Truth and the latter

referring to the denial of interpretation in the reading of sacred texts, such that the meaning of sacred

texts is viewed as “given” rather than derived or interpreted. A second, related feature of passive

fundamentalism that follows from immediate inerrancy is “authority derivation,” meaning that

authoritative texts are perceived as unambiguous in their meanings and messages. The final feature is

that fundamentalist groups attempt to live out the authoritative edicts understood as given from

authoritative texts, while simultaneously developing extensive rhetorical defenses against the

condemnations of the outside world. In order to live as distinct from one’s socio-cultural environment, a

necessary stigma of difference from conventional culture must follow. Accordingly, fundamentalist

groups must convince themselves (rhetorically) of the Rightness of their own position, and the

wrongness of the wider society in which they live. Importantly, however, passive fundamentalism does

not attempt to impose group ideas on the wider culture, but instead retreats into a subcultural

community in which members can affirmatively live out their authoritative theological principles. Thus,

the path of action chosen to deal with the outside world in passive fundamentalism is a retreat into

religious community and experience in an effort to overcome and transcend evil. Oftentimes this is an

expression of combatting evil by overcoming individual sins through communal participation and

religious experience. The outside world is to be shunned.

An example of an “extreme,” but passive fundamentalist group or tradition within this schema

would be serpent handling traditions of rural Appalachia. Originating within Pentecostal Holiness

traditions, serpent handling sects display perspectival absolutism, immediate inerrancy, authority

derivation, and the attempt to live out divine commands by virtue of the acts that make these groups

distinct (see Hood & Williamson, 2008). Congregations in this tradition understand the King James

Version of Mark 16:18 literally, interpreting “shall” as a religious edict and command: “They shall take

up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick,

and they shall recover.” In essence, serpent handling traditions share much in common with

Pentecostalism more generally, such as speaking in tongues and belief in faith healing, but with added

forms of religious experience such as serpent handling and drinking poison that are not practiced among

most forms of Pentecostalism. The practice of serpent handling creates a definitive boundary between

members of the group and those outside (Williamson & Pollio, 1999). Serpent handling groups also fit

well into the category of passive fundamentalism by rejecting the outside world, but also not actively

pushing their beliefs and practices on other people (Burton, 1993). In contrast to groups that make

extensive efforts at external proselytizing, serpent handling groups are typically insular.

In terms of being labeled “deviant” or extreme, serpent handling traditions certainly fall into

this category (Hood 1998), despite the best efforts of scholars of religion to show that members of the

tradition are in no way pathological from the standpoint of psychology (Abell, 1982; Gerrard, 1968;

Hood, Williamson, & Morris, 2000; Schwarz, 1960; Tellegen et al., 1969; Williamson & Hood, 2015).

As anthropologist Steven Kane (1974, p. 302) summarized:

Once outside the church, serpent handlers behave in a perfectly "normal" and socially

acceptable manner, operating with a keen sense of their own ego boundaries and

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 5

personal limitations. Other than the fact that they are given to somewhat extraordinary

and spectacular behaviors during religious meetings, they manifest no apparent or

readily discernible psychological or behavioral characteristics that unequivocally

distinguish them from non-serpent-handling members of their communities. In sum, to

interpret dissociative behavior among serpent handlers as a symptom of psychological

abnormality would be gross error. The many serpent handlers of my acquaintance are,

from a clinical standpoint, not psychotic, psychopathic, or even severely neurotic, but

fundamentally normal people.

In spite of such sympathetic portrayals on the part of some academics, general condemnation

and ridicule of serpent handlers remains common, even among other fundamentalists. For instance,

self-described fundamentalist and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell said of the groups that practice

serpent handling:

I think these snake handlers are very sincere people, but I think they are sincerely

wrong…. I think the snake-handling and poison-drinking churches are about as

dangerous to the boys and girls who are watching adults’ examples as prime-time

television is. They are both dangerous to the health of America’s young people (Burton,

1993, pp. 133-134).

Further, the history of serpent handling traditions in relation to larger denominations demonstrates the

initial toleration, but eventual rejection of the practice and its practitioners, making serpent handling

traditions sectarian in the formal sense (Williamson & Hood, 2004).

More generally, there are many conservative Christian traditions and groups that would fall

into the category of passive fundamentalism. Other notable examples would include the Amish,

Pentecostal traditions, and some Southern Baptists, although the latter of these would perhaps be better

classified as assertive rather than passive, at least since the 1970s (on the fundamentalist takeover of the

SBC, see Ammerman, 1995a; Farnsley, 1994). Often there is a great deal of variation with regard to

type of fundamentalism at the congregational and individual levels in large religious traditions and

denominations. Further, some groups straddle the categories of passive and assertive fundamentalism,

such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who withdraw from civic engagement in many ways, such as not voting or

serving in the military, while actively engaging in extensive proselytizing efforts. Similarly the

rejuvenated stance of political assertiveness found in the movement of the Religious Right in the United

States shows that in many cases the distinction between passive and assertive fundamentalism is blurry,

and that groups may transition from passive to assertive given the proper political opportunities and

mobilization. Indeed, the tendency for conservative and strict religious groups to be the ones most

prone to growth (Iannaccone, 1988; Stark & Finke, 2000) often means that fundamentalist and sectarian

groups are faced with the choice of: 1) becoming more accepting of the wider socio-cultural

environment, as outlined in church-sect theories; or 2) attempting to enact social policies and laws that

reflect the views of conservative religious groups, as in the case of the Religious Right and other

fundamentalist movements in contemporary social democracies (see Casanova, 1994). Groups that opt

for the latter path of action transition into assertive fundamentalism.

Assertive Fundamentalism

Assertive fundamentalism amplifies some of the features of passive fundamentalism, particularly by

emphasizing that the only Truth available is that offered and espoused by the group, and further that

these Truths are understood as “factual,” while all other ideas or views are, by inverse implication,

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 6

falsehoods (Pratt, 2010). In this phase, individuals’ identities are inextricably tied to the fate and

wellbeing of the group. In other words, the idea of individualized paths to salvation are subsumed into

the perception that one’s individual identity rises or falls with the religious group itself, and “the

stronger or more hard-line or assertive the fundamentalism, the tighter this relation” (Pratt, 2010, p.

446). The feature that most distinguishes assertive from passive fundamentalism is the view that the

ideas of the group should be imposed onto the rest of society. Often this involves a supernatural

legitimation of the group as the this-worldly representatives of divine order and law (see Berger, 1967,

pp. 29-52). In essence, the group seeks to have its views implemented in social institutions, and too

subsume and dismantle social and civic structures that do not match the group’s view of that which is

True. A necessary compliment to this view is the explicit condemnation of all worldviews other than

the one espoused by the group. Thus, “inherent in [assertive fundamentalism] is often a deprecating

attitude towards others” (Pratt, 2010, p. 446). As an extension of this, assertive fundamentalist groups

often place limits on interactions between members of the group and outsiders, especially regarding

close or intimate interpersonal relations. At the same time, members of the group will be expected to

engage outsiders for the sake of proselytizing, advocating social reforms, and/or condemning other

belief systems. In this type of fundamentalism, the path of action taken to combat the evil world is to

engage in prophetic and/or political efforts to decry or restrict the perceived sources of evil. In effect,

evil is viewed as a societal sin that must be condemned and corrected. The outside world is to be

rebuked, engaged, and redeemed.

An extreme example of a group that fits the assertive fundamentalist category is Westboro

Baptist Church (WBC). Founded in 1955 in Topeka Kansas by Fred Phelps, WBC began public

protests in order to decry sins of sexual immorality in 1989, signaling a transition from passive to

assertive fundamentalism (see Barrett-Fox, 2016). Although Fred Phelps had long been publically

condemning “sins of the flesh,” the protest mobilization of the group that began in 1989 marked a

distinctive, new phase. At first WBC protested locally in an effort to bring attention to a “tearoom”

where men engaged in sexual relations with each other in a local park. Failing to elicit action on their

behalf from local politicians, the group began using more flamboyant tactics and inflammatory

language.

In 1991, the group began using the tactic that would make them infamous, funeral protests. In

this initial phase of funeral protests, the group targeted LGBTQ activists and victims of AIDS in order

to get attention for their homophobic message that Gods hates you (anyone not in WBC) and is

punishing the world in general and the United States in particular for increasing acceptance of gay,

lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Reflective of a condemnatory stance of anyone not in the

group, WBC gained wider notoriety in 1998 for their protest of Matthew Shepard’s funeral, who was

murdered in a hate crime.

However, public attention to the group and efforts to control their activities changed

dramatically after they began protesting at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and

Afghanistan (Baker, Bader, & Hirsch, 2015). Specifically, multiple federal ordinances and state laws

were enacted to limit the accessibility of funeral protests through restrictions on the time and space of

legal activities at funerals (see McAllister, 2007). In all of their protests, WBC sought to condemn all

worldviews other than their own, which was aggrandized as the only True position. Further, they

admonished “the world” that destruction awaited if the laws of the land were not brought into line with

divine commands (effectively meaning the worldview of WBC). At the same time, the group, at least to

date, has remained non-violent and lawful in its efforts to bring the message of God’s condemnation to

the world, placing WBC squarely within the assertive category, but falling short of advocating and

justifying violence in an effort to impose the views of the group on society more broadly.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 7

More generally it could be argued that the resurgence of fundamentalist movements’ efforts to

influence politics and social policy in the last thirty years marks a transition into assertive

fundamentalism (Casanova, 1994). For instance, in the United States, the recognition of the potential

power of conservative religionists across traditions and denominations to operate as a voting bloc and

work toward enacting social policies reflecting religious viewpoints, particularly on matters of sexuality

and gender, signal the potential political power of fundamentalist groups and individuals, even in post-

industrial social democracies (Wilcox & Robinson, 2011).

Impositional Fundamentalism

The final and most problematic category—from the standpoint of social control and civil order—is

impositional fundamentalism. This type of fundamentalism differs in that it not only condemns outsider

views and people it finds problematic, but also seeks to negate others by sanctioning the imposition of

the group’s views on others and by legitimating violence against outgroups (Pratt, 2010). Here, rather

than attempting to enact political reforms or policy reflective of the group’s views, as in assertive

fundamentalism, the imposition of the group’s views is seen as called for and justified through whatever

means necessary, including violence. It is here we find groups and individuals engaging in terrorist

attacks and other forms of violence justified through religious rhetorics. Thus, the path of action chosen

by imposition groups regarding the evil world is combat, sometimes in the literal sense. In essence, “the

world” is completely damned, and violence against it is justified as righteous. The outside world is to be

warred against.

A notable example of impositional fundamentalism is some versions of Christian Identity, which

combines white supremacy with Christianity. Growing out of the British-Israelism movement in the

1940s, which asserted that Western Europeans, particularly Anglo-Saxons, were direct descendants of

the lost tribes of Israel (see Barkun, 1997, pp. 3-46; Wilson, 1968), Christian Identity seeks to enshrine

white supremacy and virulent anti-Semitism as divine, prophesying that its members will play an

integral role in an inevitable, apocalyptic race war which will bring about the Heavenly Kingdom on

earth (Apple & Messner, 2001; Sharpe, 2000). Gerald L. K. Smith was an important early figure in

organizing the movement, but “more than anyone else, Wesley Swift was responsible for popularizing

Christian Identity in right-wing circles by combining British-Israelism, a demonic anti-Semitism, and

political extremism” (Barkun, 1997, pp. 60-61). Swift founded a church in California dubbed “Church of

Jesus Christ Christian.” Rather than redundancy, the name of the church was meant to forcefully

indicate that Jesus was not Jewish. Anti-Semitism is the centerpiece of Identity theology, as it functions

to allow the full whitening of Christianity and the Bile by fully divorcing them from their Jewish roots.

After the death of Swift in 1970, Richard Girnt Butler emerged as “the dean of the [Christian Identity]

movement” (Juergensmeyer, 2003, p. 35), and spread its ideology into the Aryan Nations, a neo-Nazi

group he founded in the 1970s.

The ideology of Christian Identity argues that believers live in the “Last Days,” but, contrary to

many other fundamentalist Christian groups, Identity theology rejects the idea of the rapture, instead

yearning for the onset of and participation in the cleansing violence of an apocalyptic race war (Barkun,

1997, p. 104). In contrast to premillennialists, Identity groups are postmillennialist, believing that the

Second Coming of Christ will only occur after all endure the End Times period. Accordingly, rather

than patiently await the rapture, many Identity followers participate in paramilitary groups that train

for the inevitable race war. Although all non-whites are despised, Jews are given special place and

believed to be literal offspring of Satan. While similar to more mainstream Protestant fundamentalism

in other respects, such as belief in biblical inerrancy and apocalypticism, Identity groups’ most

important differences with other forms of fundamentalism involve their conspiratorial view of history

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 8

and strident anti-Semitism (Kaplan 1995). Identity followers perceive themselves as being in a cosmic

war with “dictatorial secularism” and vast, powerful Jewish/Satanic conspiracies (Juergensmeyer, 2003,

pp. 32, 154-155; White, 2001).

Adherents of Christian Identity vary widely in their activities and actions based on their unique

religious views. Barkun (1997) argues that the activism of Identity members can be broken into six

distinct activities, two of which of clearly legal, two of which of are debatable in terms of il/legality and,

and two of which are illegal. First, efforts to change America’s legal system through reform in order to

bring it in line with Identity views, as well as support for candidates who Identity members feel reflect

their values are clearly legal. For instance, although not officially an Identity follower, Klansman and

former Louisiana state representative David Duke has many close ties to and support from the Christian

Identity movement. The legally liminal activities include the organization of paramilitary groups and

pledging affiliation to highly localized, self-organized polities in defiance of legitimate state and local

authorities. Finally, two illegal forms of activism some Identity members undertake are planning and

organizing for the overthrow of the federal government, as well as advocating for territorial succession

from the U.S. to create a distinct polity run as an “Aryan nation.”

Violence within Christian Identity and far right movements more generally can be categorized

as rhetorical, defensive (e.g., creating militias), and revolutionary (e.g., terrorism); and the vast majority

of Identity followers fall into the rhetorical and defensive categories rather than engaging in

impositional violence (Kaplan, 1997, p. 55). Although relatively rare, there are notable examples of

Identity adherents engaging in “revolutionary” violence. A breakout group from Aryan Nations

connected to the Identity movement known as “the Order” engaged in crime and efforts to create a

distinct polity, including a bank robbery and the assignation of liberal Jewish talk show host Alan Berg,

who was shot gratuitously by Bruce Pierce, who “was intensely committed to the tenets of Christian

Identity” (Hamm, 1997, p. 7). Many members of the Order were also members of Identity minister Pete

Peters’ church, who was known for his pamphlet Death Penalty for Homosexuals (Kaplan, 1995).

Founding member David Lane, who was later convicted of federal charges in the death of Berg, stated

the Order’s mission as: “We declare our God-given rights as descendants and members of the seedline

who founded these United States to continue our racial existence… so that our people may fulfill the

mission allotted them by the Creator of the universe” (Barkun, 1997, p. 231).

Although less direct, connections between Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and

Christian Identity adherents and communes has also been highlighted (Jeurgensmeyer, 2003). While

most Identity members are not violent separatists, those who engage in violence are often upheld as

heroes and martyrs. Often white supremacy groups advocate violence in rhetoric with direct commands

to followers to enact such violence. Ultimately, however, white supremacy groups feed off of and laud

the violence of “loose cannons” who undertake violence in the name of race war (Ezekiel, 1995). But

there are also many Christian Identity advocates who openly oppose violence, such as Dan Gayman,

pastor of the Church of Israel in Missouri, who renounced violence after pressure from the federal

government during the 1988 Fort Smith sedition trial of white supremacists due to his connections with

the Order and Aryan nations (Kaplan, 1993).

Indeed, many Christian Identity groups and adherents—which are highly decentralized and

often idiosyncratic—would be more accurately understood as passive expressions of fundamentalism

(Kaplan, 1993). Further, Identity ideas are associated with violence as a result of being deeply enmeshed

with other far right groups, but this also means that disentangling where the influence of Identity stops

and other groups or ideologies start is difficult. This problem is made more acute by the fact that many

of the most violent actors in far right movements in the U.S. cycle through multiple groups over time.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 9

Summing up the diversity and projected future of Christian Identity groups and ideas, Kaplan (1995, pp.

55-56) noted:

The future of Christian Identity is difficult to gauge. The movement is in constant flux

with adherents taking up the cause only to abandon the belief system months later. The

decentralized nature of Identity combined with a largely mail order congregation

precludes reliable estimates of the size of the Identity flock at any given time. Yet

Identity has proven to be… resilient… and the ability of Identity pastors to combine

Identity doctrines with other right wing appeals… suggests that Christian Identity will

be a feature of the North American racialist right for some time to come.

Other noteworthy impositional Christian groups include the Army of God, known for abortion

clinic bombings (Jeurgenmeyer, 2003), and certain strains of Dominion or Reconstructionist theologies,

which advocate for Christians to take over social institutions in order to create a wholly Christian

society. Reconstructionist and Dominionist views range from efforts to enact reforms within existing

governmental systems (assertive) to calls for revolutionary actions (impositional) (see Aho, 2012).

These advocates call for theocracy, with arguments about the realignment of church and state,

abolishing abortion, and aggressively punishing homosexuality featuring prominently in their rhetorical

narratives.

Potential Ironies of Social Control

So what are we to do about groups that pose problems for civic and social order such as Westboro

Baptist Church or Christian Identity? While the actions of members of such groups are clearly

problematic, overreaching efforts at control may have unintended consequences. Two examples help

illustrate some of these issues. In close succession to one another, armed standoffs at Ruby Ridge and

the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas serve to illustrate the potentially disastrous

consequences of forcible control of sectarian religious individuals and groups.

The siege at Ruby Ridge in 1992 involved Randy Weaver and his family, Christian Identity

followers, Weaver was entrapped into selling illegal firearms to undercover agents, then sought by

federal authorities (Barkun, 1997, p. 242). After refusing to become an informant and failing to appear

in court on the charges, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Fearing for his life and that of his family as

a result of his belief that the government was part of a Satanic Jewish conspiracy, the Weavers fled to a

remote cabin in Idaho. After twenty months self-subsisting at the cabin, a U.S. Marshals Special

Operations Group began surveillance of the property. During an armed confrontation on the Weavers’

property, a U.S. Marshal and the Weavers’ fourteen-year-old son were shot and killed. The next day,

Weaver’s wife was shot and killed by law enforcement inside the cabin as she held her 10-month-old

baby (Kaplan, 1995, pp. 66-67). The standoff continued for another nine days, ending with the

surrender of Randy Weaver, as negotiated by right wing activist, 1992 Populist Party presidential

candidate, and fellow Christian Identity follower Bo Gritz (see Hamm, 1997, pp. 16-28). After a trial,

Weaver was ultimately cleared of all charges except for failing to appear in court on the initial firearms

charge.

The next year, following a series of stories in a local paper about “The Sinful Messiah,” the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms raided the communal compound of the Branch Davidians, a

sectarian offshoot (of another sect) of Seventh-day Adventism (Pitts, 2000; Tabor & Gallagher, 1995).

The group’s leader David Koresh (née Vernon Howell) had come under federal surveillance for

trafficking and stockpiling firearms, but the Sinful Messiah stories sparked concerns about the sexual

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 10 exploitation and abuse of young women in the group, many of whom Koresh had taken as wives.

Subsequent media coverage of the event, often aided by “anti-cult” groups and “experts” resulted in a

moral panic concerning the Branch Davidians (Wright, 1995). The ATF raid quickly devolved into a

shootout between federal agents and members of the sect, with four ATF agents killed and 16 more

wounded in the firefight. Five members of the Branch Davidians were killed, with many more wounded,

including Koresh.

For the next fifty-one days the FBI besieged the compound, treating the situation as a military

engagement under the veneer of hostage negotiation (Wright, 1999, 2003). As a result, negotiators

failed to seriously consider the theological outlook of the Branch Davidians (Ammerman, 1995b), which

placed heavy emphasis on their role in the impending events of Armageddon and Koresh’s role as the

self-appointed “lamb of God” who would decode and unlock the Seven Seals of the book of Revelation.

Accordingly, the group saw the siege by federal agents as consistent with Koresh’s prophecies, and

understood their role to be that of being faithful believers in Koresh and the group itself. While

negotiators generally failed to make headway with Koresh or understand his references or reasoning,

theologians James Tabor and Phillip Arnold successfully engaged Koresh via a local radio program with

an alternate interpretation of Revelation within the group’s theological paradigm that would allow the

Branch Davidians to leave the compound (Tabor, 1995). Koresh released a letter stating that he and his

followers would leave the compound once he finished writing his interpretation of the book of

Revelation (Doyle, Wessinger, & Wittmer, 2012, pp. 226-227).

Unfortunately these developments failed to impress federal agents who believed this to be a

stalling tactic (but see Koresh, 1993). On April 19, 1993, federal agents conducted a final raid on the

compound beginning before dawn, which included using tanks and the extensive dispersal of flammable

CS tear gas into the building. Around noon, fires started and quickly spread throughout the compound,

killing seventy-six Branch Davidian members inside, including twenty-three members aged eighteen or

under. The federal government maintained that the Branch Davidians started the fire, while the few

surviving Branch Davidians said that the fires were ignited by federal agents in the process of the

assault (see Wright, 2009).

Yet the unintended consequences of these efforts at forcible control are not limited to those

killed in the sieges themselves. Both the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian episodes have become

centerpieces of far right rhetoric and ideologies (Barkun, 2007), sometimes with grave consequences, as

illustrated by Timothy McVeigh’s firsthand witnessing of the Branch Davidian siege and his subsequent

act of terrorism two years later at the Alfred P. Murrah Buildin, which killed 168 people and injured

more than 800 more on the anniversary of the final assault at Waco (see Hamm, 1997). Afterward, in a

letter sent from prison to Fox News, McVeigh (2001) stated his motivations thusly:

Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative

raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in

over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation

of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal

agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew

increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government…

was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

Overall, it is safe to assume that sectarianism and fundamentalism will continue to viable forms

of Christianity in the future, as they are, essentially by design, impervious to “modernity;” however, how

the general public and governmental agencies choose to address groups that become problematic to

public and social order is an open question (for insightful suggestions, see Iannaccone & Berman, 2006).

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 11 At the very least, it is hoped that past events allow us to foreground three important points: 1) It is

critical to take the self-proclaimed religious motivations of high tension religious groups and actors

seriously; 2) Respecting religious freedoms must take precedence in the absence of direct threats of

violence; and 3) Understanding that in many cases heavy-handed efforts at control may ultimately do far

more harm than the groups “we” find problematic.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 12

References

Abell, T. D. (1982). Better felt than said: The Holiness-Pentecostal experience in Southern Appalachia. Waco,

TX: Markham Press

Aho, J. A. (1990). The politics of righteousness: Idaho Christian patriotism. Seattle: WA: University of

Washington Press.

Aho, J. A. (2013). Christian heroism and the reconstruction of America. Critical Sociology, 39(4), 545-

560.

Almond, G. A., Appleby, R. S., & Sivan, E. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of fundamentalisms around the

world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ammerman, N. T. (1995a). Baptist battles: Social change and religious conflict in the Southern Baptist

Convention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Ammerman, N. T. (1995b). Waco, federal law enforcement, and scholars of religion. In Wright, S.

(Ed.), Armageddon in Waco (pp. 282-298). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Apple, A. L., & Messner, B. A. (2001). Paranoia and paradox: The apocalyptic rhetoric of Christian

Identity. Western Journal of Communication, 65(2), 206-227.

Baker, J. O., Bader, C. D., & and Hirsch, K. (2015). Desecration, moral boundaries, and the movement of

law: The case of Westboro Baptist Church. Deviant Behavior, 36(1), 42-67.

Barkun, M. (1997). Religion and the racist right: The origins of the Christian identity movement. Chapel Hill,

NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Barkun, M. (2007). Appropriated martyrs: The Branch Davidians and the radical right. Terrorism and

Political Violence, 19(1), 117-124.

Barrett-Fox, R. (2016). God hates: Westboro Baptist Church, American nationalism, and the Religious Right.

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Bruce, S. (2008). Fundamentalism, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity.

Burton, T. (1993). Serpent-handling believers. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

Casanova, J. (1994). Public religions in the modern world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Doyle, C., Wessinger, C., & Wittmer, M. D. (2012). A journey to Waco: Autobiography of a Branch

Davidian. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ezekiel, R. S. (1995). The racist mind: Portraits of American neo-Nazis and Klansmen. New York, NY:

Viking.

Farnsley, A. E. (1994). Southern Baptist politics: Authority and power in the restructuring of an American

denomination. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Gerrard, N. L. (1968). The serpent-handling religions of West Virginia. Trans-action, 5(6), 22-28.

Hall, J. R. (2009). Apocalypse: From antiquity to the empire of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 13 Hamm, M. S. (1997). Apocalypse in Oklahoma: Waco and Ruby Ridge revenged. Boston, MA: Northeastern

University Press.

Hood Jr., R. W. (1998). When the spirit maims and kills: Social psychological considerations of the

history of serpent handling sects and the narrative of handlers. The International journal for the psychology

of religion, 8(2), 71-96.

Hood Jr., R. W., Hill, P. C., & Williamson, W. P. (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism. New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hood Jr., R. W., & Williamson, W. P. (2008). Them that believe: The power and meaning of the Christian

serpent-handling tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hood Jr., R. W., Williamson, W. P., & Morris, R. J. (2000). Changing views of serpent handling: A

quasi-experimental study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 287-296.

Iannaccone, L. R. (1988). A formal model of church and sect. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S241-

S268.

Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1180-

1211.

Iannaccone, L. R., & Berman, E. (2006). Religious extremism: The good, the bad, and the deadly.

Public Choice, 128(1-2), 109-129.

Johnson, B. (1963). On church and sect. American Sociological Review, 28(4), 539-549.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2003). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence, revised third

edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kane, S. M. (1974). Ritual possession in a southern Appalachian religious sect. Journal of American

Folklore, 87(346): 293-302.

Kaplan, J (1995). Right wing political violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 7(1), 44-95.

Kaplan, J. (1997). Radical religion in America: Millenarian movements from the far right to the Children of

Noah. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Koresh, D. (1993). The decoded message of the Seven Seals of the book of Revelation. Axtell, TX: General

Association of Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventists.

McAllister, S. R. (2007). Funeral picketing laws and free speech. University of Kansas Law Review 55,

575–627.

McVeigh, T. (2001). McVeigh’s Apr. 26 letter to Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/04/26/mcveigh-apr-26-letter-to-fox-news.html. Last accessed

on 5/18/2016.

Marsden, G. (1977). Fundamentalism as an American phenomenon: A Comparison with English

Evangelicalism. Church History, 46(2), 215-232.

Marsden, G. (2006). Fundamentalism and American culture, new edition. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 14 Marty, M. E. (1992). The fundamentals of fundamentalism. In L. Kaplan (Ed.), Fundamentalism in

comparative perspective (pp. 15-23). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Pitts Jr., W. L. (2000). Changing views of the millennium in the Davidian tradition. The Journal of

Religious History, 24(1), 87-102.

Pratt, D. (2007). Religious fundamentalism: A paradigm for terrorism? Journal for the Academic Study of

Religion, 20(2), 175-194.

Pratt, D. (2010). Religion and terrorism: Christian fundamentalism and extremism. Terrorism and

Political Violence, 22(3), 438-456.

Schwarz, B. E. (1960). Ordeal by serpents, fire, and strychnine: A study of some provocative

psychosomatic phenomena. Psychiatric quarterly, 34(3), 405-429.

Sharpe, T. T. (2000). The Identity Christian movement: Ideology of domestic terrorism. Journal of

Black Studies, 30(4), 604-623.

Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1979). Of churches, sects, and cults: Preliminary concepts for a theory

of religious movements. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18(2), 117-131.

Tabor, J. (1995). Religious discourse and failed negotiations: The dynamics of biblical apocalypticism.

In Wright, S. (Ed.), Armageddon in Waco (pp. 263-281). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tabor, J., & Gallagher, E. V. (1995). Why Waco? Cults and the battle for religious freedom in America.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Tellegen, A., Gerrard, N. L., Gerrard, L. B., & Butcher, J. N. (1969). Personality characteristics of

members of a serpent handling religious cult. In Butcher, J. N (Ed.), MMPI: Research developments and

clinical applications (pp. 221-242). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Troeltsch, E. (1932). The social teaching of the Christian churches, translated by Wyon, O. New York,

NY: Macmillan.

Weber, M. ([1922] 1991). The sociology of religion, translated by E. Fischoff. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.

Wilcox, C., & Robinson, C. (2011). Onward Christian soldiers? The Religious Right in American politics.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Williamson, W. P., & Hood Jr., R. W. (2004). Differential maintenance and growth of religious

organizations based upon high-cost behaviors: Serpent handling within the Church of God. Review of

Religious Research, 46(2), 150-168.

Williamson, W. P., & Hood Jr., R. W. (2015). Religious serpent handling and community relations.

Journal on Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 43(3), 186-198.

Williamson, W. P., & Pollio, H. R. (1999). The phenomenology of religious serpent handling: A

rationale and thematic study of extemporaneous sermons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,

38(2), 203-218.

White, J. R. (2001). Political eschatology: A Theology of antigovernment extremism. American

Behavioral Scientist, 44(4), 937-956.

Christian Sectarianism, Fundamentalism, and Extremism 15 Wilson, J. (1968). The relation between ideology and organization in a small religious group: The

British Israelites. Review of Religious Research, 10(1), 51-60.

Wright, S. (1995). Construction and escalation of a cult threat. In S. Wright (Ed.), Armageddon in Waco

(pp. 75-94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wright, S. (1999). Anatomy of a government massacre: Abuses of hostage‐barricade protocols during

the Waco standoff. Terrorism and Political Violence, 11(2), 39-68.

Wright, S. (2003). A decade after Waco: Reassessing crisis negotiations at Mount Carmel in light of

new government disclosures. Nova Religio, 7(2), 101-110.

Wright, S. (2009). Revisiting the Branch Davidian mass suicide debate. Nova Religio, 13(2), 2-24.