Despite a long fascination with his seminal contributions to the sociology of religion, Max Weber is often overlooked in the literature when it comes to his ideas about sects and sectarianism. Or rather, on the occasions when he is mentioned his contribution to the sociology of sects is passed over very quickly. His founding figure status, not his ideas, are usually acknowledged before the author swiftly moves on to consider Troeltsch or some later theorist considered more suitable to the task in hand either because they are thought of as faithful followers and extenders of Weber's own “undeveloped” ideas, or as having surpassed Weber's apparent limitations (e.g. Hunt, 2003: 34-35; Johnson, 1971; Jokiranta, 2001: 226; Stanton, 1992; Stark and Bainbridge, 1979: 122). Frequently, when Weber and Troeltsch are treated together as some kind of partnership the analysis is more often based on Troeltsch's ideas than on Weber's, with the result that the exposition of Weber's work is at best limited and at worst inaccurate and often wrong (e.g. Wilson, 1966: 209-10; 1988; Hill, 1973, McGuire, 1997: 142). It is typical for interpreters to suggest that where Weber's work held out potential then that potential was not fulfilled by Weber himself (since he did not apply his ideas in any works or did not return to the distinction and amplify it or some such) or, on an alternative track, to argue that Weber's work actually is severely limited.