Chitwood avows theory that blacks, other races are cursed

Months after it was reported that a prominent teacher of the “Word of the Kingdom” edited and endorsed a book promoting segregation, Arlen L. Chitwood has published two pamphlets affirming that blacks and other races from the “southern parts” of the world are cursed. Maintaining that “racism is not even remotely connected” with the teaching, Chitwood omitted to explain his role in publishing Selected Writings of A. Edwin Wilson, a 1981 book that stated that blacks and whites should not integrate.[pullquote] [God] took the sons of Ham, of whom are the servile nations, and he scattered them across the southern part of the earth, from the equator on.” — A. Edwin Wilson (1977)[/pullquote]

Apparently unconcerned to distinguish his beliefs from those of his spiritual predecessor, A. Edwin Wilson, Chitwood repeated his assertion that curses and blessings pronounced by Noah over his progeny (cf. Gen. 9:24-27) constituted “prophecies” that remain effectual in this current generation. He did not explain how his interpretation of the so-called “Hamitic curse,” the age-old theory that blacks and other races should serve the dominent races (especially whites), is substantively different from interpretations that Chitwood acknowledges “have been used in a perverted manner to teach and foster racism.” Nor did the state whether Wilson used the Hamitic curse in a “perverted manner.”

In the introduction to Selected Writings, Chitwood wrote that Wilson was “pre-eminently qualified” to write on the subjects contained in the 1981 book. Chitwood has never disavowed Wilson on segregation, despite repeated inquiries from KingdomExclusion.com.

Chitwood’s pamphlets, “Sons of Noah, pt. 1″ and Sons of Noah, pt. 2,” are published here: http://lampbroadcast.org/PAMPHLETS.HTML.

—————

Below are two replies Chitwood did offer in response to inquiries by KingdomExclusion.com.

Chitwood’s first reply:

Mark:

One can no more change that which is written in Gen. 9:25, 26b, 27b than he can change that which is written in Gen. 9:26a, 27a.

The curse connected with Gen. 9:25, 26b, 27b, of necessity, remains in effect today, will remain in effect until the Millennium, and will then pass out of existence (Zech. 14:21b).

The blessing connected with Gen. 9:26a, 27a, of necessity, remains in effect today, will remain in effect until the Millennium, and will then be realized in its fullness during the Millennium and throughout the endless ages following, never passing out of existence (Gen. 12:1-3; Ex. 4:22, 23 [and there is an entire O.T., plus a N.T., filled with verses which could be referenced to show that it “must” and “will” be this way, with the two references shown revealing “why” it must be this way]).

The preceding would reflect A. Edwin Wilson’s position, my position, and the position of anyone who takes the Bible at face value and believes it. The latter would have to be the case, for the preceding is simply what the Bible states — something which no one can get around, no matter how hard that person might try.

Now, if you put the preceding on your web site, I don’t particularly care. But, if you do, I want the whole of what I have written in the preceding four paragraphs quoted, exactly as I’ve written it. Also, do not reference me on this matter in any way on your web site unless you do as I’ve previously stated.

What you might think or say about what I’ve stated is immaterial. I could care less. But, if you are going to comment on the matter, I want it all out there, exactly as I’ve written it, so people can see what you are commenting on.

In fact, if this goes on your web site, put the whole of the previous out there — all six paragraphs.

ALC

Chitwood’s second reply:

Mark:

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.

ALC

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved.

One thought on “Chitwood avows theory that blacks, other races are cursed

  1. It seems to me that Mr. Chitwood has a problem with the English language. The bible does not teach that Ham’s descendants were cursed, that Ham’s son (Canaan) was cursed. This cursed was fulfilled by Israel in Jos 9:23 and Jdg 1:28. Mr. Chitwood teaching in this area, makes you wonder about error his other teaching.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *