Anglo Israelite Christian Church

www.angloisraelites.com

Thank you for starting this thread. I'm glad that we can openly talk about this subject openly and without fear of someone banning us for not being popular. I'd like to relate my own recent experiences briefly:

In Georgia we have an Indian that thinks he's a Christian Identity minister. An Australian C.I. wannabe relates his experiences with "Geronimo:"

christianidentityaustralia.org/jeromy-visser-a-blameless-bishop/

Full disclosure here: Obadiah 1: 18 has been on the Internet for YEARS and posts a lot of good stuff; however, he and I had a discussion board once and the first time we disagreed on doctrine, instead of discussing it he shut the board down and destroyed all of his work as well as mine. He doesn't have a church and doesn't seek to have one. That situation is a common one among people who advocate the C.I. mantra. As critics say, there is no unity in terms of doctrinal positions. Still, it is important to know the players in the game.

The media's "go to" guy is William Finck. Finck has the greatest Internet presence, but is not well respected by the old time pioneers of Christian Identity. An article critical of C.I. had this to say about Finck:

"Finck’s sector claims that trinitarianism is paganism, not Christian Identity, while Sutherland’s sector claims that Finck is practicing modalism instead of unitarianism. On one of Sutherland’s old channels, he frequently posted memes and essays making fun of Finck’s ideology, and he used to frequently challenge Finck and his followers to public debates. The modalism/unitarianism versus trinitarianism and Finck versus Sutherland displays clear infighting within Christian Identity circles and the lack of doctrinal unity."

www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/ctec/ctec-publications/christian-identitys-new-role-extreme-right

FWIW: Many of the claims by the author of that article are blatantly false. The history of the basic tenets of what is now "Christian Identity" are much older than the writers claim; NOBODY has refuted the origin of the Khazars (such would be impossible unless scientists are claiming to have the DNA of Jesus); C.I. had no Nazi origins in its founding. When we first started the Christian Israelite Christian Church, I went on to Geronimo's discussion board as well as Finck's. The absolute filth and fighting going on at Geronimo's site caused him to ban me within a few months due to the fact that I complained about it. On Finck's discussion board, someone asked for an explanation of the origin of Adam man and pre-Adamites. I posted and gave him the standard response that Bertrand Comparet (a leading founder of what is called C.I. would have said.) Finck had a hissy fit within 15 minutes and banned me post haste. I am a graduate of Comparet's course and Finck isn't which only proved to me that Finck isn't really C.I. He simply has the greatest eye candy on the Internet.

Kingdom Identity Ministries, which administers the training started by Comparet, is slowly fading into the pages of history; Destiny Publishers folded and now their titles are being sold by Artisan Publishers. There are still a lot of "Christian Identity" types out there. For example, the biggest church in the U.S. that operates is the Church of Israel. I'm a graduate of their course in Systematic Conceptual Theology and have known Dan Gayman since 1976. He is one of my dearest friends. He and I don't agree on subject matter that is more political than theological. Rather than create a problem with our friendship, I decided to try creating a separate denomination rather than get on the wrong side of Pastor Dan. Dan had a falling out with a man that greatly influenced me. That would be Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz, a former Green Beret and CIA operative. Gritz started the S.P.I.K.E. (Specially Prepared Individuals for Key Events) program and I was among the first graduates of that program. Pastor Dan didn't like Gritz being armed and advocating for protecting America even if it calls for defense by arms. I agree with Gritz, but will still tell you that Dan Gayman has a lot of useful information for the serious minded. I don't think the far left considers Gayman to be C.I. any longer since he is a pacifist.

As this thread progresses, I'd like to talk more about the people out there and how we differ in terms of doctrine and vision for the future.

My experience with it all came in 1976 / 1977 in Knoxville, Tennessee. Pastor Dewey Tucker had a large church in Knoxville that had been firebombed. I was in Bible College at the time and was intrigued by his church sign: Welcome to America. Jews own it Blacks enjoy it Whites pay for it. I began knocking on doors in the neighborhood and found a man named L.L. Cupp, a former member of the firebombed church. Tucker had fled to do his own thing in another part of Tennessee. The congregation was meeting in the conference room of a bank nearby. One of the bank employees was a C.I. adherent in Tucker's church. So, while still in the World Church League I was recruited to be an associate pastor of Dewey's old congregation and studied under Dan Gayman.

During that time the regular pastor, George Whedbee suffered his third heart attack and was unable to fulfill his role as pastor. I led the group, though not an ordained minister and stayed until Stephen Jones (author of The Babylonian Connection Between Ancient and Modern Religions) assumed the duties. In 1977 I was recruited by Tom Metzger to man the southern border under the pretext of it being the John Birch Society. When our contingent got into Arizona, we stayed in the home of Sheldon Emry who had a relatively large church for the times and was on the radio. Emry was a pastor who preached the message that whites were the Israelites of the Bible; Dan Gayman was preaching the message that Comparet and Swift were famous for: that biblical Israel was represented whites and there was a dual seedline. I studied the differing points and ended up on Gayman's side of that issue. Soooo...

While Comparet and Swift are credited with the "movement" known as Christian Identity by many mainstream hacks, the message was being preached in America for a long time before that. Emry opened his church in 1967. Dan Gayman began his ministry in 1972. Honestly, I don't believe that Comparet or Swift would be impressed by what Christian Identity became and it was Dan Gayman that influenced more people from 1972 to present. Gayman was close friends with Gerald L.K. Smith. Wesley Swift got most of his beliefs about the white people's connection to biblical Israel from Rev. Philip Monson's Kingdom Bible School in the 1930s and Swift drew on the books and materials written by Gerald Burton Winrod, Charles Parham and Howard Rand. Rand was the most influential individual promoting the message that whites are Israelites (sometimes referred to as British Israelism.) According to one source:

"Bertrand Lewis Comparet (January 25, 1901 - October 10, 1983) was a Christian Identity minister and attorney. Comparet was a Stanford law graduate and practicing attorney in San Diego, California. He was San Diego assistant district attorney from 1926 to 1932. From 1942 to 1947 he was deputy city attorney for San Diego. He retired in 1968 to become a full time minister for Kingdom Identity Ministries. He was a member of the Christian Knights of the Invisible Empire. Together with Dr. Wesley Swift, he co-authored The American Institute of Theology Bible Study Course."

www.colchestercollection.com/authors/C/bertrand-l-comparet.html#:~:text=Bertrand%20Lewis%20Comparet%20%28January%2025%2C%201901%20-%20October,Diego%20assistant%20district%20attorney%20from%201926%20to%201932.

One of the criticisms you will read about Wesley Swift (who founded the Church of Jesus Christ Christian in 1957) is that he did not have any systematic conceptual theology (Wikipedia does a hit job on Swift, FWIW.) Given all the hairs that Christians split over the most insignificant details, that criticism is duly noted. That is why the Anglo Israelite Christian Church works to rectify that weakness so as to not be associated with modern racial groups who have bought into various political and religious ideologies that are inconsistent with biblical principles.

In short the seedline doctrine was not altogether new when Swift and Comparet were formulating their version of it. According to one miseducated anti-white source on the subject:

"Swift continued to promote some classical British Israel beliefs. He viewed the United States and the Anglo-Saxon race as true descendants of Israel, saying "This great nation of ours is one of the great nations of Israel."[1] Swift deviated from traditional British Israel thought by associating God's "divine covenant" with a race, rather than a nation.[1] He also deviated from traditional British Israelism by associating the Tribe of Judah with Germans, and claiming the Jewish people were imposters; British Israelism believed the Jewish people to be Tribe of Judah.."

jhs.press.gonzaga.edu/articles/10.33972/jhs.183/

Of course the above article is factually wrong, but that is why we're having this discussion. Most of the theological points go back many many years before Christian Identity ever became a thing. If I had to give credit to the first church in the modern era that believed in our Christian Heritage (whites are Israelites), I'd say that goes to John Wroe in Australia. He founded the Christian Israelite Church in 1822, but Wroe knew nothing of the dual seedline doctrine. Be that as it may, Kingdom Identity Ministries probably still sells books by Howard Rand, Dan Gayman, Sheldon Emry, etc. for their contributions to the understanding of our Christian Heritage. Hope this helps some.

pastor started a thread asking if there are other Christian Identity churches in other countries, and preferably closer to him. I keep coming back to a theme here:

One time I posted on William Finck's discussion board (mentioned it earlier.) Someone posted and asked something about pre-Adamites and the origin of races. I explained it, consistent with what Pastors Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet would teach. That whizzed Finck off and I had NO idea that his discussion board was limited to Finck's own personal theology and it wasn't a discussion board, but rather a FAQ board for Finck to answer questions. I don't mean to single the man out. Most of these people don't want to debate their cause (as per the biblical admonitions.) They simply want to force feed you their version.

Let me explain something. I put forth my positions. There is no need for others to get their tighty whiteys in a bunch and have a conniption fit if they disagree. They simply present a counter-argument and a discussion of point and counter point can be made. NOBODY has the call the other person names. I feel that if I present my view and the other guy presents his, those who seek the truth can evaluate the facts and arrive at their own conclusions. My contemporaries don't feel that way. When Wesley Swift was alive, he was an organizer for the Christian Defense League. I got a charter from them in 1978. I know how Swift and Comparet felt on some issues that they didn't address. This is where we stand on issues:

Finck doesn't believe in the Trinity. Swift and Comparet did

Christian Identity Ministries (which has a large international following) does not believe in the dual seedline doctrine. Swift and Comparet did:

christianidentityministries.com/

Still, CIM does refer people to Christian Identity churches that DO advocate the seedline doctrine. I refer people to a lot of their books not related to seedline as there are other doctrines as well and they refer people out of their theological positions.

Dan Gayman believes that the flood was world-wide; Swift, Comparet, and I think the flood was a localized event. Dan also is a pacifist and wouldn't take up arms against tyranny. I would.

CIM maintains a library of material from Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr. Mohr was a member of the Christian Patriots Defense League and one of my primary mentors. Mohr was also a co - founder of the Militia of Georgia back in 1987.

Obadiah 1: 18 has the greatest collection of books online, but if you defend a position he disagrees with, he will ban you and cut off all communications with you. It is an inconsistent position to hold when many of the books he posts online are supportive of the C.I. dual seedline / local flood / pre-Adamic man tenets of faith that set us apart from other C.I. groups.

In my observations, most people in other countries don't respond well to the C.I. / dual seedline / localized flood / Promised Land version as they feel left out. I truly believe that America is the New Jerusalem of the Bible and when viewed objectively, it is undeniable. The United States was founded as a constitutional Republic by whites that sought to advance, preserve, and protect their religion and their race. When they stuck to the original blueprint, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history and whites came from all over the world and contributed to that greatness. As we come to a close of this era in history, people are rejecting their kinsman redeemer and seeking to follow rich elites that are an embarrassment to our nation. So, if you're outside the U.S. and, especially if you're younger (under 45 or so), it's hard to imagine the U.S. being the undisputed leader of the free world and having a majority of the people putting some effort into following the laws of God and acknowledging His Sovereignty. But, we did. We fought tyranny and won our Independence against what was then the world's superpower. The Nazis cannot claim such a victory so I'm not sure why they attract so many of the youth. The Nazis did have better looking uniforms and lots of great political rhetoric. I prefer results to rhetoric, but that's just me.

I saw that a new thread was started about the need to have a degree program for this new denomination. I'm trying to figure out if this a cult or some serious religion. Mainstream churches have become cults. What is different about what you want people to believe? Don't be shy about the answers.

When we began deciding on tenets of faith, those who helped me start the Anglo-Israelite Christian Church sought to preserve not only our Christian heritage, but the fundamental tenets that served our predecessors so well.

One poster asked me to explain God and so far there is no further conversation about the Trinity. Here is something I'd like to say relative to tenets of faith. Even in mainstream explanations of the Trinity you will find this:

"While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a triadic understanding of God[9] and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas.[10][11] The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church as they attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God in their scriptural documents and prior traditions."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Now, of course the Jews have developed a similar theory, but I'm not about to abandon a Christian tenet of faith just because another religion decides to adopt it. This seemed to be a make or break situation with another Christian Identity preacher, so let's set the record straight for those who want to judge our tenets of faith:

I was ordained in the World Church League. The World Church League later voted to align itself with the Latter Day Saints. I couldn't accept the writings of Joseph Smith as being the equivalent of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I was already immersed in learning about our white Christian heritage so I split from the church I was in and began aligning myself with Christian Identity. Even when I don't agree with every tenet of faith put out by the small, independent churches I will recommend their books, videos, etc. on subjects we agree on. I did support (and still do) the Church of Israel. However, Pastor Gayman does not believe that we should rebel against tyranny and he even ran my friend, Lt. Col. Bo Gritz off church property because Col. Gritz keeps a firearm in his automobile.

I refuse to be an enemy to fellow Christian Israelites over differences in interpretations of certain subjects. The Bible teaches:

"Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another" Proverbs 25: 9

On many topics we can agree to disagree and maintain a working relationship. Sometimes you have to ask yourself: Will my divisiveness on a topic be something that I can defend in front of God when there are major issues of faith and our future that demand our attention? I don't like getting into pissing matches. I'd rather someone present their argument; let me present mine and let the people make up their own minds without the personal rhetoric, name calling, and stupid allegations that someone is something they clearly are not. If most people treated their politics the way they treat religion, they could NEVER vote. If you read political platforms, you wouldn't agree with every plank of the platform. Would you refuse to vote for the party if they disagree with you on one issue when you agree with the overwhelming majority of the rest of the message?