UPDATE (12/29/2018): Some of the implicated or named parties in this article have contacted American Vision regarding their relationships, or non-relationships, with Peter Hammond. So far, I have been told by Ted Baehr that he immediately resigned from his position on Hammond’s board, which appears to have been a very loose and nominal position to begin with. George Grant has informed me that he was never on the board to begin with (it is unclear why he is named there, and what steps will be taken to have that name removed asap), and that he has only ever had very minimal interaction with Hammond. As noted in the text of the relevant footnote below, Todd Friel of Wretched says they cut ties with Hammond years ago over similar issues, and that they will remove all past posts that include content with him. I am still waiting to hear from others. ——JM
Many of you are aware that in March and April of this year, I wrote and defended an article on “Interracial marriage and racism in modern ministry.” What follows is a rather unfortunate, but very illuminating, and I think very important, update on the effects of that stand. In the process, I am going to share with you something I got for Christmas that I am sure you have never gotten before, and may not even believe! This is stupendous.
Not so fringe as you may think
One of the subjects of that exposé was South African missionary Peter Hammond, who openly calls marriage “across the colour line” a “betrayal to Almighty God.” Hammond has not only entrenched himself and become defiantly unrepentant in that racist position he advances, but it appears that view has even deeper roots than before understood.
First, let me say that it brings me little pleasure either to relate these developments or to spend the time on such a backward, deplorable view when I could be spending it on something better. But I am not only passionate about this issue, and the need for Christians to stand firm on it, but it is also disturbing to see the number of prominent people and ministries with whom Hammond still finds publicity. These include, but are not limited to, organizations like Ligonier Ministries and Todd Friel’s Wretched [please see update below1 ]. Likewise, prominent men are listed as Board members of Hammond’s ministry, Frontline Fellowship. These include: Ted Baehr of movieguide.org; George Grant, pastor of Parish Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Franklin, Tennessee, and well-known leader of King’s Meadow Study Center; Jay Grimstead, Director of Coalition on Revival; and David Noebel, former Director for many years of Summit Ministries, among others. Among deceased board members is even included, allegedly, D. James Kennedy.
It is not clear whether these individuals and organizations are aware of Hammond’s views, or whether they are aware and simply overlook it, dismiss it, or actually agree with him. I know that one listed board member, Dr. Phil Kayser, has already resigned over the issue, and I would hope the others would as well, or clarify their stance.
Thus you can see that while the issue itself may seem fringe and backwards to many American readers, it actually has tremendous roots and branches, reaching into the potential influence of many large and mainstream ministries in America, aside from having thousands of people who actually do agree and support these views.
It goes yet deeper than this. But first, let’s review the most startling recent development.
A gift like no other
Over the holiday weekend, a variety of things concerning Hammond came to a head, and Hammond himself took to a Facebook thread (which I am not in) to deliver to me the most amazing Christmas present I have ever been given. I am pretty certain most of you have never received one of these, and never will, and you have seen nothing like it in modern times. It is this:
Peter Hammond literally challenged me to a literal duel.
That’s right, straight out of 1830 pagan, aristocratic, conceited, self-honor-defending, perverted ideas of manhood . . . a real-life duel. Here you go:
What provoked this level of reaction? While Peter may cry “backstabbing slander,” the only thing I have done is drawn attention to his own words, as we shall see. I have attributed nothing to him except the views he expressed in his own words, publicly, and I quoted them directly.
The reader, however, needs to see how the fallout from merely drawing attention to his own words and views has led to such vitriol on his part as to desire my death. Here’s what has transpired.
Developments since April, and recently
Not too long after my first publications in March and April, we discovered a series of interviews Hammond had given on an openly Neonazi, or pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler, fiercely antisemitic, white nationalist podcasts. Among these, Hammond has been a repeat guest on the podcast History Reviewed. The candid expressions therein are troubling to say the least.
Throughout multiple interviews, openly white supremacist views are shared and affirmed by each person, as are approving statements or sometimes more subtle suggestions of affirmation of Hitler himself, Apartheid, ethnic purity, anti-miscegenation, etc.
One of the interviews ended with this:
Host: “White people want strong leaders, and they want leaders that do what they say they are going to do.”
Peter Hammond: “Yeah.”
Host: “From what I can see, the only guy that we’ve had in the last hundred years who’s done that has been Adolph Hitler.”
Hammond: “That is why he is the most hated . . . oh . . . he’s the second-most hated person in the world. The person that the Jews hate the most is Jesus Christ. I mean, he gets blasphemed in how many Hollywood films morning, noon, and night. But Adolph Hitler has got to be the second-most hated person in all of history—by the Jews, that is—because their media puts so much effort into fighting Adolph Hitler, and depicting him in a real caricature without any regard to his real accomplishments.”
Many such things were said. Interethnic marriages are openly and strongly condemned as a communist plot and agenda, Jews are roundly and frequently disparaged, and blacks generally so as well, except those blacks who allegedly say they prefer whites to rule over them.
This was all simply quoted and shared by several interested parties on social media.
Hammond has attempted what I think is a weak defense, saying that it is acceptable to do interviews in venues with people whose views you may not share. A pro-Hitler podcast, however, should provoke a little more than a mere disagreement, should it not? But worse, it was hard to find a single place in any of the host’s openly antisemitic and racist statements where Hammond did not seem to agree. He further argued that in an interview setting, it is difficult to respond to everything. Perhaps. But in these multiple cases, he not only disagreed with nothing the host said, he openly affirmed some of the more objectionable parts, and in some cases, expanded upon them.
That was all during the Summer and early fall of this year. Just this month, however, the real developments surfaced. In an attempt to defend himself against me allegedly calling him a racist (a careful review will show I not only did not say that, I specifically avoided it and pointed it out multiple times), Hammond did the unimaginable blunder to taking to that same racist podcast to air his defense! I am not sure if it is hubris or oblivion, but he went on a racist podcast, affirmed more of the host’s views, in a long attempt to clear his name of the alleged charge of racism.
I just feel I have to say this: I am not making any of this up.
The result is an hour and eighteen-minute-long interview and a lengthy article with the following titles:
If I were attempting to clear my name of the charge of “racism,” I would not only pick a different venue, but certainly not adopt titles that reinforce the charge!
The real impetus was clear, however. Hammond revealed that my exposé had a material effect on some of his key American supporters, and thus his bottom line. One of his largest donors cut funding, and a conference was cancelled due to the attention drawn to his views (the Rocky Mountain Worldview Conference, where Hammond has spoken in the past and was slated to again this year).
It is not clear, again, whether these cancellations were due to disagreement with the views revealed, or, as Peter claims, merely the fear of being perceived as aligned with a “racist” ministry. It was claimed in that these supporters would still support him if it were not for the heat that may come from the public. Again, I am not sure which is true, but the effect has been the same either way.
Again, while Peter claims I have attacked him, slandered him, called him a racist, etc., the article actually contains one of my favorite bits of evidence to the contrary. It links to John Reasnor’s post on all this, and says, with a breath of alarm, that the article “goes into an all-out attack, quoting word for word what Peter and I discussed on one of our shows. It makes for interesting reading.”
Yes. Yes. Guilty. We plead guilty as charged to “quoting word for word” and to making “interesting reading.” But that is not called an “attack.”
Further, in the interview, Hammond doubles down and gives a strident defense of his anti-miscegenation views, along with much more of the ethno-nationalist and white supremacist expressions. For the sake of brevity, I will share only a couple excerpts here:
Hammond: The only times that people have gotten into miscegenation has been the death of empires. . . . and that’s the death of the American and the British Empire too. When you start to allow, to break down the demographic genetic integrity of your people, then that nation will be destroyed. You don’t perpetuate your nation by allowing others to come in and take over, and by allowing your own women to breed other people’s babies; ultimately it means that you’re being replaced and it means that you’re committing genetic suicide. . . .
Host: “They don’t even know what black people are like.”
PH: “I think the white South Africans have been the greatest blessing to the black people, along with the Rhodesians, . . . Nobody treated black people better.”
Host: the blacks in South Africa had the highest standard of living in the days of Apartheid . . .
Host: “We are moving into a Jewish, liberal, communist world, and in this world it’s a world of nothing but lies, nothing but lies. White people are the source of the truth and the knowledge, and the best things that have happened on this planet, even for the non-whites.”
PH: “Well, without a shadow of a doubt; and there’s a lot of black people that recognize that; and who say, you know, they prefer to have whites ruling over them because then they knew they were safe and their property was safe, and they had jobs. . . .”
Note that Peter nowhere challenges any of the host’s openly objectionable claims, but worse than that, affirms them, “without a shadow of a doubt.”
The host further published all of this, openly, without any objection from Peter, and then even stated that “Peter Hammond is being attacked viciously for standing up for the Germans and telling the truth about WW2. . . . Peter Hammond stands up for Hitler, the Germans and the TRUTH. . . .”
This obviously foolish sentence was also shared on Facebook, but then was suddenly been edited out (without any acknowledgment of doing so, or why). Here’s the screenshot of the original:
It was for merely sharing this information and pointing out that we were right to oppose him that Hammond has now reacted violently, suggesting we “settle this” with violence. That is unfortunate, but it certainly does speak of the level of entrenchment in views that are rightfully labeled despicable and hateful, and perhaps the depth of the roots of such sentiments.
Hammond refers to dueling as “the old fashioned way.” That is true—very old fashioned, in the same way that torture and race-based chattel slavery are old fashioned. He seems, however, unaware that even during the height of dueling culture in America, Christians sternly rejected the practice and were expected not to engage in it, let alone resort to it for their own glory/honor. It was widely understood even by the unbelievers that a Christian gentleman who was challenged to a duel could and probably would except himself from such barbarism with an appeal to Christian culture. To engage otherwise would probably even have been seen by some as a rejection of his faith.
I certainly understand how the loss of funds can be very stressful and frustrating. It is my assumption, however, that most honest Christian folk would not give to a cause they knew to be promoting even mildly racist views, let alone pro-Hitler, pro-white nationalism, etc., etc. So, one has to deal with that in their own ministry. I would think that anyone with so many boasts to manhood, greatness, bravery, etc., would be able to own up to the simple facts of the truth that they themselves have said, and the honest consequences of saying them.
If you truly believe something, and truly believe it to be important and integral to your worldview and western civilization, then you ought simply to preach it openly and defend it. Don’t pretend someone is “attacking” you “viciously” when they quote you. Or else, if it is truly objectionable, repent of it.
I just happen to believe that the kinist doctrine in question is wrong, unbiblical, and demeaning, and I have drawn a line on participating in events or conferences in which such are entertained or tolerated. That’s just my view, I openly defend it, and I want everyone to know it.
Now, I did also say previously that the only exception to my policy would be appearing at such an event to oppose such views publicly, which leaves open the possibility of debates, etc. That road in general is no problem, but if I were ever to do that, there would be some clear guidelines, negotiations, and agreements for it before it happened, including the debate resolution containing the actual words to which I originally objected.
Whether or not anything like that were ever to come to pass, I am more firmly convinced in my original opinion that these views and their proponents should be marked and avoided. I hope that the aforementioned organizations and persons listed on Hammond’s Board will take note and responsibility: Ligonier, Wretched, George Grant, Jay Grimstead, Coral Ridge, Movie Guide, Summit, etc.
- Mr. Friel has nicely contacted me to update the record: Wretched has not had a relationship of any kind with Peter Hammond for years. AV reported they did as Wretched still had programs with Peter Hammond archived on their website. Wretched admitted that was an oversight and has rectified that.(↩)