Editing Christian Identity (section)

=== Soft or repentant Identity ===
Soft Identity sees the concept of serpent seed theology as allegory. It dismisses National Socialism as secular diversion and ungodly occultism. It further rejects the vigilante concept of the Phineas Priesthood adopted by hardcore Identity, seeing it as misguided.  The claim is that while they should be prepared for the final battle, the start button for the battle should be left to God, thus rejecting an accelerationist belief.{{Sfn|Gardell|2003|p=118}}

Although they are not considered pacifists, leaders within "soft" Identity reject the violence of the more militant side, complaining that it has resulted in all of Identity being "painted with the same brush, thereby transforming Identity into an icon of evil in the public mind".{{Sfn|Gardell|2003|p=118}}  Leaders within this strain have sought to distance themselves from more militant strains by rejecting the "Identity" label and adopting terms like "Kingdom Israel" or "Covenant People".{{Sfn|Gardell|2003|p=118}} The soft Identity school includes Pete Peters, Ted Weiland, [[Gordon Mohr|Jack Mohr]], and [[Dan Gayman]].{{Sfn|Gardell|2003|p=119}}  

Brannan points out that most academic writing on Gayman focuses on the ideology of the greater Identity movement, glossing over his theology, as an agenda-driven polemic; further stating that although Gayman's theology is problematic, overstating the position and lumping all Identity together is dangerous.{{Sfn|Brannan|1999|p=110}} Gayman takes a traditional view of [[Romans 13]] and rejects the militia movement as illegitimate, drawing a firm distinction between repentant Identity and the rebellious forms.{{Sfn|Brannan|1999|p=111}} Brannan concludes that repentant Identity has a more coherent presentation of theology, despite its academic or scholastic flaws. Thus, it is more theologically driven than the ideologically driven rebellious Identity.{{Sfn|Brannan|1999|p=115}}