After posting “Race hatred and the ‘Word of the Kingdom,'” inquiries were sent to churches and organizations that promote LampBroadcast.org, a ministry that had published a book condemning desegregation. Some never replied back. Others offered “no comment.” Some expressed disapproval.
In The Selected Writings of A. Edwin Wilson, edited and compiled by Arlen Chitwood of LampBroadcast.org, the late A. Edwin Wilson had written, “Integration, of which we hear so much today, is an effort to take two or more parts and fuse them into one, to integrate the colored race and white race through marriage, amalgamation, and assimilation, and to reduce the two groups (colored and white) to one group. Anyone who knows God’s plan and purpose concerning the human race can see the hand of Satan behind all this.”
This diatribe is found in chapter 15, “The Sons of Noah.”
A pastor responds to inquiries
Pastor John Herbert of Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Jacksonville, Florida, disavowed Wilson’s position on race. “I would not adhere to that under any circumstances,” he said in a telephone interview. He added that he would not “dismiss” the other material in the book, which he called “excellent.”
Herbert was sought for comment given Cornerstone’s relationship with Chitwood, who is a regular speaker at conferences the church sponsors.
Herbert explained that Wilson’s views on race were unfortunate but reflected his times. He emphasized that Wilson’s views were not accepted at Cornerstone Christian Fellowship. “We have no racial biases whatsoever,” he repeated, adding that the congregation is mixed and that it conducts regular missions trips to Kenya.
“At Cornerstone Christian Fellowship there is no instance whatsoever where you would see racial intolerance,” he said.
Non-response and vexation
No other person, group or organization queried offered comment. Schoettle Publishing Company, which sells Wilson’s book, referred KingdomExclusion.com back to Chitwood (see story). Others asked to be removed from a supposed mailing list.
The leadership at Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Los Gatos, California, never answered, but posted a response on their church website. In “Guilty by Association,” an unnamed author stated that he (or she) believes the church would not be given fair treatment by KingdomExclusion.com. The author went on to say that the church disagreed with most of “The Sons of Noah,” but “not all of it.” The author did not explain which parts the church approved, but said it disavowed statements affirming racial segregation “because the Bible doesn’t affirm it.”
Is anyone cursed?
Regarding the underlying assumption of Wilson’s race theory, however, there has been no negative comment.
Wilson derived his position from a theological construct called the “Hamitic curse,” the idea that a race of people descended from Ham is under a curse (cf. Gen. 9). As the theory goes, this curse will be valid until Christ reigns in the millennial kingdom. The “Hamitic curse” has long been condemned as derogatory and racist, and Pastor Tony Evans has written an instructive article on the subject (here).
John Herbert of Conerstone Christian Fellowship offered no comment on the subject, saying he would have to study the matter first. However, he did offer that “people in the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be under a curse,” whereas the unsaved are under a curse of sin and death already.
The Californian extension of Cornerstone Christian Fellowship offered the following regarding the possibility that a race of people is under a curse: “Don’t know. The Bible doesn’t tell us. The Bible’s genealogies don’t carry into the present day.”
Chitwood, for his part, steadfastly affirms the “Hamitic curse,” though he now refuses to state which groups comprise this designation. Previously, he stated the curse, “of necessity,” remains in effect, explaining that this would “reflect A. Edwin Wilson’s position, my position, and the position of anyone who takes the Bible at face value and believes it.” When asked if African Americans were in view, he offered “The Sons of Noah” in reply.
Responding to KingdomExlcusion’s first article on the subject, Chitwood complained that he was describing Wilson’s views, not his own. “I didn’t go on and answer your question about my view on the matter,” he complained.
Editorial Note: Chitwood insisted that if his comments were published, the entire response be quoted, so here it is:
As usual, in your latest attempt to do whatever it is that you are trying to do, you have all types of material in your latest article on your web site that has no basis in fact. But your misdirecting my statement above does need corrected on your part, since you are the one who made the mistake.
Note the pronoun in my statement — “his” — referring back to Wilson, not to me. All I did was comment on your statement concerning Wilson, since that had been the continuing subject of your previous inquiry. I didn’t go on and answer your question about my view on the matter.
The English language shouldn’t be twisted in this manner to drive a point home, else the point could easily be false, as it is in this case.
And it is false because I don’t even agree with a number of things wilson has in that chapter in his book, along with things here and there that he has elsewhere in the book. I was just the editor of the book, not the author.
Now, if you were to ask me what race of people today is under the curse in Gen. 9, I would take the matter no further than to tell you to find out who the descendants of Ham through his sons are today, and you will have that segment of society. I’m going to let you find that out for yourself so that you can’t do what you have already tried to do on your web site.
This will be the last communique with you on the matter. There are too many people out there who want to know the truth for me to waste time with those who don’t.
You can put this e-mail on your web site to correct what you have done if you like. But if you do, again, put the whole message out there.
First, it should be noted that Chitwood’s views were never solicited. The original inquiry pertained only to Wilson. Chitwood himself volunteered that “A. Edwin Wilson’s position, my position, and the position of anyone who takes the Bible at face value and believes it” was reflected in his comments about Gen. 9. Responding to a subsequent inquiry seeking clarification, Chitwood offered “The Sons of Noah” without qualification.
Second, none of the quotations from “The Sons of Noah” was attributed to Chitwood. It was only noted that Chitwood compiled and edited the book, and that he promoted it at LampBroadcast.org. (If these facts are disturbing, that can’t be helped.) Until the publication of these findings, an unabridged, electronic version of the book was offered by Chitwood at LampBroadcast.org.
Third, it should be noted that Chitwood continues to offer his views on the subject:
“Now, if you were to ask me what race of people today is under the curse in Gen. 9, I would take the matter no further than to tell you to find out who the descendants of Ham through his sons are today, and you will have that segment of society. I’m going to let you find that out for yourself so that you can’t do what you have already tried to do on your web site.”
Though Chitwood declines to state which people are in view, his published work indicates he believes a majority of Egyptians are under the curse. In “Focus on the Middle East” (p. 75), he identifies 90 percent of the population as “Hamitic.” His writings do not indicate which other groups fall under this designation.
Racially and culturally insensitive?
Chitwood regularly gives preference to offensive nomenclature. Egyptians, for example, do not call themselves “Hamitics.” Muslims, for another example, do not call themselves “Moslems;” Chitwood regularly prefers that spelling.
(“Moslem” is offensive to Muslims because, as commonly pronounced in English, it sounds like an Arabic word meaning “one who is evil and unjust” — see here for more.)
To persistently use terms which knowingly offend people is vulgar. It suggests utter disregard for their humanity.
The notion of a “Hamitic curse” is equally demeaning, yet Chitwood persists with this idea as well. Knowing its history (directly from Wilson, no less), Chitwood steadfastly defends the “Hamitic curse.” That he refuses to explain his position leaves his views open to debate.