In June of 2023, local news and national outlets covered the recognition of a “explicitly racist” religion in Michigan prisons. The decision from the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals came after years of litigation between two incarcerated individuals and the Michigan Department of Corrections, and ultimately decided that a niche religious movement known as Christian Identity qualifies as a protected religious group under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Previously denied recognition due to its alleged association with organized white supremacy and advocation for racial separatism, Christian Identity is a distinctly North American iteration of the fringe 19th century religious movement British-Israelism that contends that Caucasian people are the true descendants of the lost tribes of Israel and are therefore the chosen people of God. The troubling implications of this theology, and its historical association with white supremacist organizations have led to dubious assessments of its religious sincerity. The legal recognition of Christian Identity as a ‘bona fide’ religion In the Michigan Department of Corrections has raised a number of tensions regarding authority, governance, and authenticity. How can competing external and internal claims of sincerity be remedied in cases of flagrantly racialized religion? What does it mean to accept the sincerity of incarcerated Christian Identity adherents? How do external and internal modes of governance impact religious affiliation in the hyper-racialized environment of the prison?
The limited historiography characterizing Christian Identity, as well as the information available from hate-watch organizations, purport serious doubts about the religious sincerity of those who espouse Christian Identity belief. The figure of the sincere believer, as explored by Charles McCrary is legally constructed by secular authorities against the figure of ‘the faker’ (McCrary, 2022). However, in the Michigan cases regarding Christian Identity, the courts demonstrated a tendency characterized by Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, which sees the courts reticent to meaningfully engage in determinations of sincerity, often accepting personal declarations of religiosity at face value (Sullivan, 2020). However, the meager scholarship that has been produced on Christian Identity does not display a similar reticence. Sociologist Kathleen Blee and historian George Micheal have both examined Christian identity in the context of religious extremism and ultimately concluded that the understanding of adherents’ often does not go beyond the idea that whites are God’s chosen people, to have any real doctrinal underpinning beyond reactionary justification for racial animosity amid increasing multiculturalism (Blee, 2002; Micheal, 2014). The major academic work on Christian Identity, Religion and the Racist Right, was conducted by Micheal Barkun, and while this text endeavors to take the belief system seriously, it focuses more heavily on the intellectual and political history of the movement rather than the sincerity of the hermeneutic and perspective of adherents (Barkun, 1997). My research has demonstrated that incarcerated Identity Christians explain their belief in relation to extensive study and divine revelation which indicates that rather than latching on to a shallow explanation of racial supremacy, these folks are deeply invested in constructing a logical and spiritual apparatus that supports their slanted racial hermeneutic.
This presentation argues that while Christian Identity can and does manifest as a sincere belief system among incarcerated individuals, the determination of sincere belief is contested across overlapping mechanisms of authority and obfuscated by the hyper-racialized environment of the prison. Drawing on court documents, recruitment materials, church archives, and extensive interviews with incarcerated adherents, this presentation explores the ways in which the dynamics of prison recognition advance, confine, and alter the practice and proliferation of Christian Identity theology.
The original petition for recognition was denied by MDOC employees including the Special Activities Coordinator and the Chaplains Advisory Council on the grounds that the groups claims were not genuinely of a theological nature but rooted in extreme racism and anti-Semitism of a secular nature. This was ultimately at odds with the decision of the appeals court, who determined that the plaintiffs belonged to a legitimate religious tradition making valid demands for religious freedom under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000). This decision continues to be contested by MDOC officials who see recognition as potentially destabilizing to precarious race relations in their facilities. While authorities external to the religious movement propound their own authority in determining who can be recognized as a sincere believer, the decentralized nature of Christian Identity ecclesiology and the racial environment of the prison open up new avenues for the internal negotiation of sincerity among incarcerated believers. Christian Identity is a religious movement that claims no central body to espouse orthodoxy or formal denomination to link parishes to one another. As such, a highly variable and contested set of doctrines leads to frequent internal disputes over who constitutes a ‘real’ Identity Christian. Additionally, the hyper-racialized environment of the prison means that white inmates may be seeking racial separatist groups to channel their existing hatred or seek resources and protection through a sanctioned mechanism of group interaction, such as religious meetings. Current adherents express repeated concern about this possibility and vow to uphold internal standards of sincerity. This case demonstrates how internal and external spheres of authority exert control and impose boundaries on access to the racialized religious movement of Christian Identity amid negotiations on the bounds of religious freedom.
This presentation offers a number of contributions to the interdisciplinary academic discourse on Christian Identity, racialized prison religions, and limits of religious pluralism. First, by approaching Christian Identity, while extensively harmful, as a legitimately held religious belief beyond the realms of the political and intellectual, allows for a deeper understanding of the theological and spiritual dimensions that makes claims to sincerity more substantial. Secondly, looking at recruitment, conversion, and identification in the space of the prison illuminates how religion acts as a resource in contentious racial environments. Finally, this presentation problematizes the boundaries of religious freedom in the prison through a highly controversial and contested manifestation.
In 2023, the Michigan Department of Corrections became the first state agency mandated to recognize the Christian Identity movement as a protected religious group entitled to hold group services within its facilities. The recognition of the controversial white-racial theology animates a number of issues concerning religious sincerity and governance in the prison context. This presentation focuses on the dynamic tensions between external authorities (in the form of the courts and prison officials) and internal authorities (in the form of long-believing inmates and religious leaders) in determining sincere adherence. Pulling from court and church records, as well as extensive interviews with incarcerated adherents, this presentation combines historical analysis and contemporary evidence to argue that while Identity Christians can be sincere believers, their recognition complicates the boundary between racial extremism and religious pluralism in prisons.