Kingdom seekers split over race issue

The “Word of the Kingdom” is a house divided. Churches and individuals associated with this teaching are split over whether a race of people called “Hamitics”[1. “Hamitics” are considered to be descendants of Noah’s son Ham. They are understood to have settled in Africa and the Middle East. The term is not recognized by sociologists or the designated peoples themselves, yet its use persists among some dispensationalists.] are cursed. This breach is noteworthy inasmuch as kingdom seekers believe the “Word of the Kingdom” is not a teaching, but the word of God itself.

The late A. Edwin Wilson, who originated this system of theology[2. Wilson was the first to teach what is known among kingdom seekers as the “Word of the Kingdom.” This distinctive teaching is preserved in much of its substance in the teachings of like-minded persons], contended that Noah pronounced a generational curse upon the descendants of Ham, whom he identified as Africans. Arlen L. Chitwood, a leading theologian in the movement and a former disciple of Wilson, contends Hamitics are under a curse, though he is reluctant to identify who they are. His writings indicate Hamitics are of African descent.[3. In “Focus on the Middle East” Chitwood identifies 90 percent of Egyptians as Hamtic (p. 75). His writings do not indicate which other people groups fall under this designation, but historically the term was used to describe most Africans and some Middle Easterners. Absent clarification, one has only the historical use of the term to go on. Chitwood placing Hamitics in Africa is consistent with the general theory of the Hamitic race.]

“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),” Chitwood wrote in reply to written inquiries.

He added later, “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.”

Churches associated with the teachings of Wilson and Chitwood are not so certain.

A house divided

Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Los Gatos, California, stated they didn’t know if a “contemporary people group” was under a curse today. “Don’t know,” the leadership wrote on its website. “The Bible doesn’t tell us. The Bible’s genealogies don’t carry into the present day.”[4.]

This contradicts Chitwood who in a subsequent written statement explained: “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.”

That parties associated with the “Word of the Kingdom” claim the teaching is “what the Bible says” makes disagreement among them remarkable. That they sometimes disagree on important subjects indicates the “Word of the Kingdom” is not the word of God itself, but an interpretation of the God’s word. However they won’t admit as much.

Statements from Pastor John Herbert of Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Jacksonville, Florida, further underscore the issue. In a phone interview, Herbert said he would not comment on the Hamitic curse as he had not yet studied the issue. He did disavow Wilson’s pro-segregation writings, as has the leadership at Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Los Gatos.

Both groups emphatically denounced segregation.

What saith the teacher?

Chitwood, however, has neither avowed nor disavowed Wilson’s strident segregationist rhetoric. This is alarming considering Chitwood edited and promoted Wilson’s book, Selected Writings of A. Edwin Wilson, in which Wilson wrote, “WHAT GOD HAS SEPARATED, LET NOT MAN INTEGRATE!” (emphasis in the original). The book was published in 1981.

Also, Chitwood has asserted he and Wilson held the same position on Gen. 9, from which the Hamitic curse is derived.

Arlen Banks, whose website is one of the few recommended at[5.], apologized for Wilson, stating at “[His] view of the Hamitic curse was a prophetical view, of the future, and not to promote racism or segregation as you claim.”[6.] Banks did not explain how Wilson’s pro-segregation stance did not promote racism.

Kevin Hobby, who as an invited guest at the Los Gatos Cornerstone Christian Fellowship recited Hebrews, wrote in the comment section at that he agreed with Chitwood on the Hamitic curse.[7.] Hobby offered that the doctrine of the curse should not be used to promote racism.[8. Hobby can speak for himself, but as I understand his position, the “curse” should not be understood as condemnation, but abstractly as a condition of the Hamitic people.]

Neither Banks nor Hobby represent the Los Gatos church, but their opinions illustrate how deep the division is among this group of believers.

The “Word of the Kingdom” and the Hamitic curse

In February, Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Jacksonville, Florida, will hold its annual Word of the Kingdom conference. Chitwood is engaged to speak. One wonders if participants will unite around the revered teacher.

Will they agree that what he teaches is “simply what the Bible states — something which no one can get around, no matter how hard that person might try”? Or will they dissent?

Kingdom seekers have long held that the “Word of the Kingdom” is simply what the Bible teaches. They lament that the broader Christian community has rejected the plain meaning of scripture, going so far as to condemn Christian ministers for neglecting the doctrine.[8. “Woe Unto You,”, and “False Teachers,”] Yet, if one were to accept the “Word of the Kingdom” as a valid interpretation of scripture, what stance should one take on the Hamitic curse?

Is there one “Word of the Kingdom”? Or several?


© 2009, Mark Adams. All rights reserved.

69 thoughts on “Kingdom seekers split over race issue

  1. Well, Chitwood says anyone who takes the bible at face value must believe in the Curse of Ham. I mean, he’s not offering his opinion, he’s just telling everyone what it is.

    Yeah, a house divided will soon…

  2. Russell,

    That is exactly the point. You are right: interpretation of Genesis 9 and the curse is a side issue and open to debate among good, Bible believing people. But look above at Chitwood’s quote on his interpretation being ” … the position of anyone who takes the Bible at face value and believes it.” He leaves no room for your position when you say it is “No big deal. Who says every one[sic] has to think alike.” If we don’t see it his way then he accuses us of not taking the Bible at face value and believing it.

    Isn’t it a Big Deal to have a leader make such a statement about fellow believers who disagree with him on this one minor point?

  3. Pastor Haak:

    I am not attempting to be rude to you, and I say this with regret. But I say this with no apologies.

    You said, “If we don’t see it his way then he accuses us of not taking the Bible at face value and believing it”.

    I didn’t read, any where in Chitwoods statement,that he accused any person of any thing; that’s your assumption. You should look in the mirror at your own accusations first, before pointing your finger at others.

    You said: “Isn’t it a Big Deal to have a leader make such a statement about fellow believers who disagree with him on this one minor point”?

    But before you said that, you said this, “That is exactly the point. You are right: interpretation of Genesis 9 and the curse is a side issue and open to debate among good, Bible believing people”.

    So are you saying Chitwood is not, “good Bible believing people”! Does that imply that any Christian that does not see doctrine your way, is not, “good Bible believing people”! That is one of the most, hypocritical statements that I’ve ever heard (read) coming from a pastor, or anyone else.

    This proves, that this is not a race issue at all; it’s an attempt to destroy the reputation of those who do not agree with your doctrine. Good Bible believeing people; WHAT MAKES ONE GOOD!

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but Chitwood is not my leader. My leader is our Lord Jesus Christ, and everything about Jesus is good. You, and every other person, including myself, should guage your (our) goodness to the goodness of Christ! I KNOW, we will all be disapointed. THE ONLY ONE GOOD IS JESUS.

  4. Arlen,

    Chitwood said the following: “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.” Now, I take the Bible at “face value,” but I do not believe Noah issued a generational curse, certainly not lasting till the millennial age. Either I am wrong or Chitwood is wrong.

    Had this matter been left in the realm of speculation, there would be very little to debate. But Chitwood insists his interpretation is the plain meaning of scripture. This is not the only time he has done this.

    That said, the so-called Hamitic curse is not “open to debate.” You might object to this statement, but let me borrow from Chitwood: “The preceding reflects my position, and the position of anyone who takes the Bible at face value and believes it.”

  5. Mark:

    You say, “But Chitwood insists his interpretation is the plain meaning of scripture”. You (Mark Adams) “insists” Chitwood’s interpretation is not the plain meaning of scripture; on every subject. Stop reading his material if you don’t like it. Chitwood didn’t “insist” his interpretation on you, or anyone else. He has not forced (insists) anything, on any person. The reader dicides to read Chitwood’s writings with a free will, they’re not forced to read it. BUT! Are you not forcing (insists) your interpretation (views, doctrine), on anyone who does not agree with your interpretation of the “plain meaning of scripture”? You continue to cast stones at Chitwood, who you have said in one of your earlier writings past, that The Word of The Kingdom is a puny doctrine, and doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Why bother with it? Why do you put so much effort into something you say is puny.
    If I wanted to put this much effort towards destroying another Christian’s (brother in Christ’s) reputation, I belive I would go pick on someone who goes door to door, persuading other Christians to believe Jesus is not God; that Jesus is an angel, that Jesus is not in a flesh and bone body. Also this same group has changed the scripture to support their doctrine; thats something to fight, if one was led to do so.

    You said “Either I am wrong or Chitwood is wrong”. So far in all your articles your always right, and Chitwood, or anyone who uses the term “The Word of The Kingdom” is wrong.

    As I have said before, this is not about race, or the Hamitic curse; it’s about destroying the reputation, of Chitwood, Wilson, or anyone else who teaches The Word of The Kingdom.

  6. Arlen,

    Thank you for being direct on how you took my words. I understand short comments like this can be misunderstood as you clearly misunderstood me on at least this point. Let me affirm that I do put Chitwood in the class of “good, Bible believing person.” That is my point. I question the KE method of Bible study but not their good commitment to rightly handling Scripture. On the other hand Chitwood’s words question anyone who disagrees with him on this and their handling of Scripture.

    Does that help you take my words in a better light and re-think any of your words about me?

  7. Arlen,

    Teaching that a race is “cursed” has real consequences. Of course I will speak out. You may view my work here at as “destroying” a man’s reputation, but I am more concerned to speak out on behalf of my many brothers and sisters in Christ. No, there are real issues that should be (and must be) discussed. If pointing out that Chitwood propounds the “Hamitic curse” damages his reputation, whose fault is that? It is certainly not mine.

    And one wonders why Wilson and Chitwood so desired to criticize Billy Graham. After all, the Selected Writings of A. Edwin Wilson was not published in 1956, but 1981! You criticize me for writing about these men, but consider what these men have done to others. I think your anger is misplaced.

  8. Pastor Haak:

    Yes, it does make me think differently about your words that I quoted, and also my words toward you, and thank you for your response.

    I do understand where your coming from about “KE”. I have been an Independent Baptist most of my life, and I still am. If you know anything about the Independent Baptist you know this message is not excepted. I was very skeptical at first but when I saw the answer was not what the skeptics claim, it started making sense to me. When I realized that these things Mark refrences in Chitwood’s books are metaphors, and that all Christians, bad and good will be in the kingdom age, and that eternity does not begin till the end of the millennium; the Judgment seat makes sense now. But that’s all I’ll say about that subject. My intentions are not to peruade you, only to agree to disagree.

    I was only being direct in my statement to you earlier, and I apologize for my assumption of you.

    I will say this Pastor: Most people that teach the Word of The Kingdom, are not very clear in their answers to their interpretations. I am simple minded and I try to bring the truth out in a simple fashion. But these are good, and honest people, that are dedicated to being fruitful, and serving the Lord. I have not met one (teacher) yet who demanded you believe the way they do.

    With that said I do look forward to future discussions with you.

  9. Mark:

    Before you twist my words, let me say this.

    I am not a racist.

    I do not support segregation of the races.

    I do not agree with Wilson’s wording on this subject.

    You would have people think that A.C. and A.E. Wilson only wrote about, or are writing about the Hamitic curse, and that is not true; what’s honest about that? A.C. has written dozens of books. Your not being truthful, and your tactics show it. So what if Wilson disagreed with Billy Graham. ARE YOU NOT FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? So what if Chitwood said what he said, it’s a free country.

    I said all that to ask you this? Are you putting this world’s view of what is politically correct before the second comandment our Lord, Jesus gave us to keep?
    Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

    I ask this with no sarcasm intended. Which is more important, being politically correct in the eyes of men, and destroy your neighbor’s (brother’s) reputation, and break the comandment of Jesus in doing so?
    Or loving your brother (neighbor) like Christ comanded? We (you) should do as Christ says; not as you (we) would say.

  10. Arlen,

    It’s not that you do not agree with Wilson’s wording on the subject, you do not agree with Wilson on the subject at all. He would have the races separated, you would not. Please credit yourself this distinction.

    You asked which is more important, being politically correct in the eyes of man or destroying a man’s reputation. Neither. What is more important is standing with my brother, regardless of his race or ancestry. And to stand with him, I must stand against any teaching that demeans him, particularly as the Bible commands me to so act. That you fail to grasp this point is unsettling.

  11. Mark:

    Jesus said, “And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these”. KJV

    You are choosing who you want to love, and not who Jesus comanded you to love. You are breaking His comandment. Does that not mean anything to you? You are not seeing past your own will (ego).

    Let the Lord deal with this; He is able.

  12. That’s rich. So it is OK to say, “Brother, you are not welcome in this church for you are a descendant of Ham: the Bible says we should not intermingle,” but to point out this belief is to violate God’s commandment to love thy brother.

    No, the real question is what to make of the overall system. What do we make of a system that says, “This is what the Bible says,” when advocates of that system disagree on fundamental issues. Perhaps, this is not what the Bible says, but only interpretations of the Bible.

  13. Mark:

    You know my answer to that; it is not OK.

    Also, that is not what Wilson said; you said that!

    Now, are you insinuating that Wilson didn’t allow African Americans in his fellowship? That’s a stretch, seeing you never new the man, or enterd his meetings.

    You said: “but to point out this belief is to violate God’s commandment to love thy brother”. Pointing it out is one thing, but what your doing is another. Jesus didn’t say destroy your neighbor (brother), he said to love him (her).

    I see nothing wrong with pointing it out, but to willingly break the comandment of Christ, because you think it’s right, is a sin. It is just as much a sin to break this comandment, as being a racist.

  14. Actually, Arlen, you are wrong. Wilson did indeed say that the races should not intermingle. In fact, the leadership of Daytona Heights Baptist Church said this throughout the 1980s. Wilson himself wrote, “What God has separated, let not man integrate!” He categorically rejected efforts by evangelicals to integrate the church. Those are the facts.

    I suggest you do a little more research.

  15. Mark, you said:

    “In fact, the leadership of Daytona Heights Baptist Church said this throughout the 1980s”. Is this hear-say Mark, or do you have documentation? Where is this person that was told not to enter Daytona Heights Baptist Church? Surely you can tell us, sense you’re claiming Wilson was a racist. Surely you wouldn’t speculate such an accusation? Surely you wouldn’t lie about such a thing that could bring violence to your brethren, is that your goal? You talk about peace, among all brethren, but your actions speak defferently!

    If Wilson was as you claim, then he was wrong, and I agree with you, know person should be segregated. But what you’re doing in the eyes of God is just as wrong. Your actions say you do not love your brother by trying to destroy him.

    My point is this, regardless if Wilson was as you claim, you should Love him anyway. You have your eyes set on the things of this world, and not on the things of God. How many doors are knocked on daily promoting Wilson’s theology? Probably (.00000001 %), but how many doors are knocked on daily, by those who would persuade people to think Jesus is an angel, and not God in flesh etc.

    Mark, in my last statement I said, “I see nothing wrong with pointing it out, but to willingly break the commandment of Christ, because you think it’s right, is a sin. It is just as much a sin, to break this commandment, as being a racist”.

    Is this not a true or fare statement?

  16. Arlen,

    As you’ve posted Wilson’s book at your site — — I’m making the broad assumption that you’ve read it. Even I have posted the most controversial chapter, “The Sons of Noah,” at Read it for yourself and decide.

    As regards your belief that I am breaking a commandment, enough already. You are welcome to e-mail me your concerns, but it isn’t relevant to the conversation here, which concerns a profound disagreement among proponents of the “Word of the Kingdom” over the so-called Hamitic curse.

  17. Mark, sense this is a one sided view, and you make the rules as you go, I’ll just let it go. This does nothing for our saviour, and it does not edify the Church in any way.

    As for the record, I’ve read the book, and I quoted much of the chapter in question on another artical of your’s. You have a short memory.

    As for the insult towards me, that’s fine I expect no less from you brother, and you prove with each insult, and each accusation towards others what the words of Christ really mean to you; I would say “not much”. The commandment is relevent to this subject, and you are breaking it.

    As far as the email you just sent to me, your senses are wrong.

  18. If my pastor told me blacks were cursed, then I’d leave his church. Sounds to me like the kingdom seakers need to get settled on this important issue. Makes you wonder what else is badly wrong with everthing they teach.

  19. Arlen,

    A belated thank you for your apology. I am glad we cleared that up.

    Your statement that …

    “I have not met one (teacher) yet who demanded you believe the way they do.”

    Would you say that a teacher who told people to consider non-KE Christians as the “unbelievers” of 2 Cor. 6 violating this? If you feel you need to hear the context for yourself I can send you the recording of it.

  20. Pastor Haak:

    I do understand where you’re coming from on this issue, and I do respect your view of it.

    I myself have not listened to one of Pastor John Herbert’s sermons, if that is who you are referring to. But I don’t believe he (or the person in question) meant that one was lost if they didn’t believe. I would take it as, a person is a non-believer if they didn’t except “The Faith”. “The Faith” would be denying one’s self will, and carrying their own cross as Jesus said in Matthew 16:24.

    As I have said before, a lot of teachers of this doctrine don’t answer questions well, and come across as if, you would already know what their talking about.

    If you would give me the reference your speaking of and I’ll listen to it.

    As far as “demanding”, I would have to disagree; on this basis. The people who order these sermons on cd, or download them, and choose to enter the meetings with there free will, were not demanded to do such. But, I would agree with you on this basis: That if it were demanded in another place of worship, if it were forced on another congregation who opposed, and they could not stop the demand, then that would be sin against a brother (sister) in Christ. You know how I feel on that subject.

    Is this a fair statement?

  21. Arlen,

    Sounds like you know the reference I am thinking of. Try turning it around and see what you think. If I preached a sermon and said that KE people were the unbelievers of 2 Cor. 6 what would you think?

    Of course I would not be “demanding” that anyone believe it … (tongue in cheek) … I am only labeling a group of highly dedicated Christians as ‘unbelievers’ and coming up with an interpretation never recorded in 2,000 years of church history.

    Don’t you see a problem in this that is more than “a lot of teachers of this doctrine don’t answer questions well”?

    I appreciate your grace and kindness toward KE but it becomes a fault when you can’t call a spade a spade.

  22. Pastor Haak:

    My answer is this; I wouldn’t attend a meeting, or listen to someone I thought was teaching falsely.
    They’re many doctrines, and it is my (the believers) choice to decide which is right or wrong. Does the free will of a person not count for anything?

    I’m not dodging “spades”, when any person chooses to make their own decision, whatever the case may be that is not a demand.

    Now I myself would use another choice of words instead of “unbeliever”. I would say it like this, “if a person does not believe our doctrine”. And that’s OK with me if someone does not believe my doctrine, but it doesn’t mean I have to stop preaching it.

  23. No one is suggesting that anyone has to stop preaching their beliefs. We don’t live in that sort of society, we don’t have that sort of government. The question more relates to what is acceptable in God’s eyes, as expressed in the scriptures. Only people bound by faith are concerned with this issue.

    For a minister to call other Christians unbelievers, because they don’t accept the Word of the Kingdom, as taught by that minister, is unacceptable in light of the scriptures. A man does not get to decide which Christians are believers and which are not. If he does so, he exposes himself to censure — not political censure, but moral censure. In other words, he will be called to account for his beliefs by other Christians, which is their duty.

  24. Mark,

    I didn’t think Pastor Haak was wanting me or anyone else to stop preaching, I said that as part of my reply to make my point.

    You said, “The question more relates to what is acceptable in God’s eyes, as expressed in the scriptures”, Who makes that rule? Please reference this scripture so I can review it.

    Back to the context of my answer; If you don’t believe the doctrine of “The Word of The Kingdom”, than you are a unbeliever of that doctrine. Is that not a fair statement? It doesn’t mean you’re an unbeliever of Christ.

    2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? KJV

    If a person thought that these unbelievers Paul is writing about were lost, I would be offended also. But they’re not lost they’re worldly Christians, who care more about the things of this world, more than they do the things of God. Do I think the people who do not believe “The Word of The Kingdom” are wicked? NO! But you can tell who is wicked by theis actions.

    This means, I will not fellowship with Christians who are wicked. It does not mean that I shouldn’t fellowship with a person because they do not believe my doctrine. Nothing would please me more than to fellowship with the people of Los Gatos, it doesn’t matter if we agree or disagree does it? Is that not why your fellowship in non-denominational? I applaud you for that.

    I believe that this is what the minister in question meant. But if I’m wrong, and he did mean it the way you imply he did, then he was wrong.

  25. I was addressing your point, Arlen, not John’s.

    As for your question, certainly you acknowledge that there are things acceptable in God’s eyes, and that we can turn to the scriptures for that knowledge. In Acts, the church gathered to decide whether circumcision was necessary for salvation. Notice that a collective body made the decision. In 2 Peter, the apostle says no interpretation of scripture belongs to one man — again, a collective body is mentioned: “men moved by the Holy Spirit.” And, the apostle John warns against false teaching; Paul warns against heresy, etc.

    As for your interpretation of 2 Cor. 6:14, it’s peculiar. Paul references people who live in darkness, who are aligned with the devil, etc. That anyone can interpret that passage to include Christians is extraordinary. That meaning is alien to the scriptures.

  26. That’s fine. But you are one person. Unless you’ve separated yourself from the larger Body of Christ, you may want to consider some opinion other than your own.

  27. “Unless you’ve separated yourself from the larger Body of Christ, you may want to consider some opinion other than your own”.

    Separate yourself from the larger Body of Christ?

    Only the wicked (evil) members of the Body of Christ. Only to separate from them, not to hate them.

    1 Cor.6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and
    daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. KJV

    Evil in God’s eyes is a lot different than evil in man’s eyes.

    If you wish to continue this discussion, open a new post or topic, and I will continue there. This is a different subject, than the blog title.

  28. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, Arlen, but consider the following:

    We are members of the Body of Christ. To form ones opinions apart from the Body of Christ is to form sentiments, not theological truths.

    Presently, followers of Wilson/Chitwood are divided over an important issue: whether or not a race of people are condemned. The problem, as it has been discussed here, rests in their hermeneutic. By applying a faulty hermeneutic, they arrive at faulty conclusions, such as Christians being called unbelievers. I sincerely believe that if they cared for the opinion of the larger Body of Christ, they would not fall into such error.

  29. I hear your point.

    But if the discussion of my interpretation continues on 2 Cor. 6, I ask that you please move it to the discussion forum.

    In my last comment I meant for the ref. to say 2 Corinthians.

  30. Arlen,

    What local context of 2 Cor. 6 supports that Paul was telling Christians to separate from Christians? The references all naturally apply to non-Christians. This is the poor Bible study that worries me. That interpretation is more dependent on the KE system rather than true Bible study.

    This is a major issue since it divides the Body of Christ without Scripture’s support. I think it does relate to the topic here of division. And it illustrates poor conclusions that come out of poor Bible study methods. [see Forum discussion]

    Admin … Move this is you prefer and let us know.

  31. Arlen,

    Follow-up … Are you saying it would be okay if I interpreted 2 Cor. 6 as saying that anyone who accepted KE were the “unbelievers” Paul spoke of? But you would change “unbeliever” from meaning a non-Christian to meaning someone who did not believe the view I thought was Scriptural?

    You sound more reasonable than that but that is the logic of your argument above.

  32. Pastor Haak:

    You see my point, and I do understand why you don’t agree with it. But only God can allow any seperation of the Body of Christ, and that will not happen in this dispensation.

    I am not suggesting Paul said to seperate because of doctrine, I’m suggesting Paul said to seperate from worldly Christians, that loved the world more than they loved the things of God. Why would we seperate ourselves from the lost, when we are to witness to the lost?

    Look at this 2 Cor. 6:17 “Wherefore come out from among them,and be ye seperate,saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” KJV

    “and I will receive you”, If we had to seperate ourselves from the lost to be received by the Lord, then that would be salvation by grace through works, and we cannot add to, take away from, or blemish the finished work of Christ. So that would delete the thought that we must do a work of any kind to be received (saved) for the ages.

    Pastor I’ve been in your shoes, doctrinally speaking. I understand where you’re coming from, and you’re not telling me something that I’ve never heard or believed at one time myself.

    I once thought that if the Bible said a bad statement, it must be a statement for the lost. I once thought certain people in the Bible were lost because of their actions, but I learned more. Example: I once thought Cain was lost, King Saul maybe was lost, the Pharisees were lost, the Jews were lost in the Gospels etc. When I realized these people were not lost, scripture as a whole made more sense.

    I can tell you this; I didn’t learn these things from Wilson, or Chitwood, or any other teacher in question. After I came to this knowledge through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, I then saw the other folks that were teaching this doctrine. Also, I don’t depend on Wilson or Chitwood to guide me with their commentary. The commentary I use is the Bible its self, comparing scripture with scripture. Now if your opinion is that my Bible study methods are “poor”, thats fine. I don’t have a problem with that. I can’t be mad about it, that would make me a hypocrit. I preach basicly the same thing weekly to thousands who belong to all orginized religion (Christians), only opposit of your point of teaching on this subject you are questioning me about.

    I am a reasonable man, but I will not step back, to step forward in the eyes of men (saved leaders) who disagree with me.
    I’m not saying that, that is what you want me to do, but it seems to be what you may be implying.

    As far as context; you can review all the previous chapters before 2 Cor. 6, specially chapter 5.

  33. The separation of the Body of Christ will never happen, not in this dispensation, nor the next. This idea, that the Body of Christ will be divided, is obscene. And it’s this thinking that allows men such as Chitwood and Wilson to preach that a race of people is cursed, and to promote the idea that races should not intermingle. (Just the thought of it makes me sick.)

    That not a single verse is given demonstrating that the Body of Christ will ever be divided is evidence enough against this idea.

    Nor has it been demonstrated that the “unbeliever,” the one who has partnership with “Belial,” is a worldly Christian. For all we know, this “unbeliever” might be one who believes God does not want to bless the descendants of Ham. By this logic, Wilson is an “unbeliever,” “lawlessness,” “darkness.”

  34. “Is Christ divided?” — 1 Cor. 1:13

    “So we, though many, are one body in Christ.” — Rom. 12:15

    “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” — 1 Cor. 10:17

    “And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body.” — Col. 3:15

    No place in scripture says Christ’s body will be divided. If this is not so, provide a scriptural reference.

  35. You are right about those ref. Mark. I have no disagreements with you there. But that is not what I’m speaking of.

    Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honer to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteosness of the saints.

    The Bride of Christ did not save herself, but she did prepare to meet Christ. That is why she was granted this garment; she earned it! This is the reward for the overcomer at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
    Ref. 1 Cor.3:14,15

    Not all beleivers (the Body of Christ) are doing something for Christ. Their lives (soul) are caught up in the things of this world, and not the things of God. Their loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ will be, not being granted the wedding garment.

    The wedding garment is a metaphor. It is the covering of light (glory) like Jesus now has. This is why we must deny our self will (soul, life) in this present age. To recieve this glory sooner rather than later.

    The Outer Darkness is a metaphor,the hurt of the second death in rev 2:11 is a metaphor, etc. These metaphors describe those who will not be granted to ware the wedding garment.

    All of the Body of Christ will be in the millennium, both good and bad, but not all will be granted to ware the wedding garment during the millennium. This is the separation I was speaking of.

  36. That may well be how you interpret the passage, but Pastor John Herbert interprets it quite differently. His view is that Paul is teaching the Corinthians not to consort with other believers, er, unbelievers of the Christian faith. Herbert teaches that kingdom seekers should have nothing to do with so-called non-kingdom seekers, implying that Christ can be divided. The distinction is as clear as “light” and “darkness.”

    Again, the question is whether such teachings can be trusted. Do men such as Herbert, Chitwood and Wilson employ a credible hermeneutic? As regards Wilson, his views on race call into question his method of interpretation, which seems to be influenced by the traditions of men more than by scripture itself.

  37. I’d like to comment on a couple of things that have been brought up. I think Arlen makes a great point that if the doctrine of the kingdom is so wrong, and so unfounded in Scripture then why is such an effort made to refute the doctrine, why are those that hold the doctrine so hated, why is there so much deception on the part of those that disagee and why so much attention given to this?

    It makes no sense.

    I for one am extremely thankful that Mark puts up such a fight and I hope his sites become widely popular, because God can work with the ice cold as much as He can the red hot! It’s the lukewarm that He doesn’t care for according to Scripture.

    I would also have to agree that a number of teachers of the Word of the Kingdom are very short, especially those that have held to the doctrine for long periods of time. And I think the biggest part of it, certainly not all of it, has to do with what I stated in the first paragraph. Why in the world would you want to bother with people that are disingenuous, going to call you bad names and have an ulterior motive. That doesn’t make any sense either.

    I think it is sometimes quite comical how those that do not believe in the Word of the Kingdom are so demanding of answers to something they know they are not going to believe and don’t want to believe.

    And the calling a spade a spade comment. I personally think we should call spades spades. That’s why if you don’t believe the Word of the Kingdom you are an unbeliever. That’s a spade being called a spade. The problem is folks only want to call spades when their definition of spade is in use.

    You want to call me a heretic? Okay. (I’ve been called that and much worse) What do I care? Is that calling a spade a spade? Well according to some people’s understanding it is. Fine by me. If that’s what you believe according to the Scripture then be bold enough to take a stand on it.

    We need to get back to the correct Biblical use of words. Words have means and they have consequences. I believe traditionalism has robbed Scripture of its meaning for several different words and has caused mass confusion.

    Semantics are critical.

    But what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. But we are all humans and that of course does not hold true, especially in this day and age we live. It does not matter what the topic is – sports, politics, religion, theology it doesn’t matter.

  38. The chief concern is racism. Wilson, the founder of the so-called “Word of the Kingdom,” was an avowed segregationist. Chitwood, Wilson’s spiritual successor, promotes the Hamitic curse.

    I’ll be blunt: the “Word of the Kingdom” has racist origins.

    I think people should know about that.

  39. Right on. I don’t know why anyone is defending Edwin Wilson. I think Mr. Jump is upset because he’d like people be stay silent about these things. I have this to say to him. If you don’t like what Wilson taught, maybe you should get another teacher.

  40. “I’ll be blunt: the “Word of the Kingdom had racist origins.”

    I’ve heard some absurd claims made about this doctrine, but Mark you’ve taken the prize with this absurdity. You taking an apple and and orange and trying to make a posioned Snapple drink just so people will not study it out for themselves based on absurd claims.

    Regardless of what you think about Bro. Wilson’s view of segregation, to try and lump that in with the kingdom gospel is simply a parlor deception trick. Unfortuneately it works on a lot of the mindless numbs we have filling pews these days. And if you close up the kingdom for anyone based on your absurd untruths you are going to be held accountable for it!

    Roseted you show once again how little you know about me, because there was no hint of being upset in my previous post. I am upset at Mark’s latest statements because he us once again being COMPLETELY untruthful and misleading. And that gets me upset, because it’s not the right thing to do.

    By the way Bro. Wilson is not “my” teacher so i don’t need to get another one. I haven’t read his book and I’ve only listened to two of his sermons and I didn’t finish either one. Personally I could care less what he has to say, or Bro. Arlen or Bro. John or any other teacher for that matter. The ONLY thing that matters is what does Scripture say. And it’s sad when you folks have to sink to such detesable levels to try and draw people away from an open and honest look at the Scriptures. Such actions should bring shame and guilt which leads to repentance. And there is still hope, put payday is coming SOON!

  41. “Word of the Kingdom” — in quotation marks — is the distinct teaching of Wilson/Chitwood. Kingdom exclusion, or the “kingdom gospel,” is a broader system of theology. The Wilson/Chitwood version of the “kingdom gospel” — there are many versions — indeed has racist origins. Segregation = racism. I won’t even debate this point.

  42. Glad to see we don’t have an “open” forum here. Not surprising, and it just goes to prove my point was dead on in that you can only call a spade a spade when it is agreeable to the one making the claim. So as in this case you can’t call a spade a spade unless Mark (the admin) agrees with you. If not then you get censored.

    You can keep spouting nonsense until the cows come home Mark, simply repeating something over and over and over ad nauseum does not make it true. One would think that Al Gore would have learned this lesson with his global warming nonsense. But we now know what many have speculated and that is there is an ulterior motive behind Al Gore’s actions. I have serious doubts to whether he believes any of it, but he keeps spouting it, because it is a means to his agenda’s end.

    This idea that the “word of the kingdom” has racist origins is equally as absurd, untrue and unfounded.

    When you continue to argue from the absurd eventually people start to see through it for what it is. Again look to the Al Gore example. If you want to debate the word of the kingdom fine. All doctrines should be looked at in Light of the Scripture. No one has an issue with that.

    However when you have to leave Scripture and start debating on non-doctrinal matters and commence in character assassinations then that is when the line is crossed form iron sharpening iron to just plain sin.

  43. Mark,

    You are completely ignoring the “real” point.

    This is all I have to say regarding your question, it depends on who gets to define what racism is.

    I actually think this is a pretty timely topic from a secular standpoint in light of remarks that have been discussed in politics recently in regard to Harry Reid and subsequently Trent Lott.

    Who gets to define what racism is? What is racism? Hard to have a meaningful discussion on matters when one there is no definition of terms involved and two those definitions can change on a whim when the need arises.

  44. Mark I didn’t say whether it was or it wasn’t. Don’t attempt to paint me into a corner just because I don’t want to play your games.

  45. Exactly, you didn’t say. Why? You complained about the definition of words, now is your opportunity to define segregation. Is segregation a form of racism?

  46. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. Who’s playing games? What I want to know is why all these people can’t call a spade a spade. Really. Is there any confusion? Just say SEGREGATION IS RACISM. You want accountibility? Just say it!

  47. Once again my posting regarding calling a spade a spade was deleted. It’s okay to call a spade a spade so long as the person in charge agrees with it. And in case they don’t then you can’t call a spade a spade. It’s a double standard that exists these days. These discussions are not immune to that double standard.

    Mark I have no desire to define segregation. Once again I’m not interested in playing your games. The question is not whether segregation is racism or not. That’s a whole different debate, although you are trying to muddy the waters to get away from the “real” point.

    The real point is you are trying to paint a Biblical doctrine as incorrect and even worse as originating from racism which is utter nonsense. It’s absurd.

    You are drawing a completely illogical conclusion by trying to compare two COMPLETELY unrelated items and trying desperately to connect them together.

    What is segregation and what is racism has NOTHING do to with the word of the kingdom. NOTHING!

  48. For the record, JJump, your post was not deleted. I advise you to read over these comments, for there are two posts from you on calling a spade a spade.

    Here’s an adage: “Silence implies consent.”

    Your refusal to say whether segregation is racism or not reveals a lot about you.

  49. I’m satisfied. Mr. Jump answered the question: “segregation and what is racism”. They aren’t the same. He’s saying segregation isn’t racism. Thanks, man, for taking a stand.

  50. If I know anything about the South, its that a lot of people, even good Bible believing people, still want to see the races separated. It’s been a part of the teaching of churches for ages and its dying a hard, hard death. I wasn’t surprised to read about Edwin Wilson at all. I think if mark keeps researching he’ll find many Southern pastors who preach that segregation is o.k.

  51. Mark unfortunately your adage is just that an adage. It doesn’t make it true anymore than not answering a question paints you in one camp or another. Pure silliness that does nothing more than advance someone’s agenda. It’s pure parlor tricks and nothing more.

    Mic I’m glad you are satisfied for whatever that’s worth, but I did not answer the question. And I’m not going to answer the question because it has NOTHING once again to do with the word of the kingdom. That is the point that no one wants to address, but I’m going to keep on reminding everyone about it.

    If you want to isolate that particular section of Bro. Wilson’s book and talk about it as a topic fine. Have at it. But to try and tie the two subjects together to try and say that the word of the kingdom has any founding in racism is ABSURD. It’s beyond ABSURD.

    Roseted I think we have actually come to agree on something :-). I have to agree that there probably are pastors even today that preach segregation is not only okay, but what needs to happen.

    And Mark deleted was an incorrect term, I apologize. My comments were “edited” “censored”. Either of those two terms would be adequate.

  52. Your comments were neither “edited” nor “censored.” Send me an e-mail explaining what you’re talking about. We’re not accomplishing much here.

  53. JJump –

    Are you reading any of this stuff? Billy Graham spoke out against segregation and Edwin Wilson rebuked Billy Graham. It’s not ok to preach segregation. You’re big on accountability so show us some. If segregation is wrong, speak up and be heard. BTW, you never did say those pastors are wrong to “preach segregation is not only ok, but what needs to happen.”

  54. You are right Ted I didn’t. That’s that’s the whole point. And I’m not going to. I’m not interested in playing this game. If you all want to then you are more than welcome to do so. Once again at the expense of sounding like a broken record my whole point is to draw attention to the original absurdity (which again it is beyond that) to say that the “word of the kingdom” doctrine has origins in “racism”. That’s utter foolishness and nonsense.

    Mark I owe you a huge apology. You did in fact leave my post intact. I retract my comments and will enjoy my crow with a little salt to help it go down. I was looking at a different post that I thought I had made some comments in that I thought were deleted. I truly apologize for my false accusation!!!

  55. Jump –

    I got to wonder why you bothered to join in on this discussion. Edwin Wilson preached segregation. You and I both know he isn’t alone in these beliefs, but you can’t say that segregation is racist? If it is, we’ve got problems with the man. If it isn’t, I got a problem with you. I got a problem with you anyway the way you won’t fess up and call a spade a spade.

  56. Sorry, hit the submit button to quick….

    JJump –

    I didn’t mean to misspell your name. Only you got yourself in this corner by starting something you can’t finish. You want to defend Edwin Wilson but you ignore the big elephant in the room. I doubt one chapter is all its about. You have to really believe those words to put them on paper. You have to really put your mind to it. A spade is a spade. That’s that.

  57. Really. I thought I would have made that abundantly clear by now. The reason I got into this discussion was to point out the absurd claim that the word of the kingdom doctrine has it origins in racism. There’s absolutely no truth to that at all. It’s a claim based solely on opinion and has NO facts to back it up.

    Even if you want to claim A. Edwin Wilson is a racist there is STILL no facts to base an accusation that the word of the kingdom has it’s origins in racism, because A. Edwin Wilson did not create the word of the kingdom doctrine. It’s just utter nonsense.

    It’s a cheap-handed parlor trick and nothing more.

  58. RoseTed you, Mark and Mic are just aggravated because no one will play your silly game. I find it quite comical the way people will act when they want a debate and no one will play. You guys aren’t any different.

    This will be my last post on the matter, because I’ve already wasted enough time, unless I need to repeat that it’s absurd to claim that the word of the kingdom doctrine has its origins in racism, and I’ll repeat that as often as necessary, because there is no truth to it at all. They are two TOTALLY different topics with NO relation to one another.

  59. RoseTed I just saw your latest comment while I was typing and I actually want to comment on it, because I think it’s valid.

    There are a LOT of people that use the Bible to push a LOT of different things. And they have done so and will continue to do so until the Lord’s return (which is very soon).

    Why is it that you all only want to jump on one man, who is dead and can’t defend himself. To me that’s pretty cheap in and of itself. Yet there is no outrage I see from you for anything else.

    Not that you aren’t outraged, but I’m just saying you all seem to be fixated on beating up a dead man. Seems silly to me. Again have at it if you will. I’m not interested.

  60. JJump —

    The book was published in 1981.

    Arlen Chitwood edited the text.

    Chitwood continues to affirm the Hamitic curse. He has not disavowed Wilson’s racial theories.

    No, this matter is quite relevant.

Leave a Reply

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