By Kevin Briggins, Op-ed contributor
Over the last several years, faithful Christians have confronted ideologies like critical race theory, intersectionality, and identity politics. Those systems elevate race — a modern idea that dates only to the late 18th century — above our identity in Christ and encourage believers to interpret nearly every aspect of life through the categories of oppression and privilege.
Much of the evangelical world rightly rejected those ideas because they compete with the sufficiency of the Gospel. Yet as one error fades, another has begun to emerge.
Genesis 9 does not say what Partridge claimsA growing number of Christians, particularly within certain corners of the online conservative movement, have resurrected an old doctrine once used to justify slavery, segregation, and racial hierarchy. It is commonly known as the “Curse of Ham,” though even that title is biblically inaccurate. Among the most prominent voices promoting a modern version of this doctrine is pastor Dale Partridge, lead teaching pastor at King’s Way Reformed Church in Prescott, Arizona. In a recent presentation, he argues that Genesis 9 provides God’s explanation for the different trajectories of the world’s civilizations and races. According to Partridge, Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, became the federal heads of three macro races whose blessings and curses continue to shape history today.
To his credit, Partridge does not make this argument carelessly. His presentation is thoughtful, well organized, and saturated with biblical references. He is not merely throwing provocative statements onto social media. He is attempting to construct an entire theological framework that explains racial differences, civilizational development, and even current political tensions through the lens of Genesis 9. That is why Christians should take his argument seriously enough to answer it carefully.
The problem is not that he wants to develop a theology of nations. In fact, I believe the Church desperately needs a more robust theology of nations, culture, and God’s providential rule over history. Scripture clearly teaches that God appoints the boundaries of nations, raises up kings, and governs history according to His sovereign purposes. Christians should not surrender those conversations to secular political theorists.
The problem is that Partridge asks Genesis 9 to do far more theological work than the passage was intended to do. Early in his presentation, Partridge says, “From these three sons come the three macro races of humanity.” Later, he argues that Genesis explains “the racial differences that we all notice,” including disparities in crime, intelligence, family structure, technology, wealth, and civilization.
The first difficulty appears in the text itself. The passage does not actually say Ham was cursed. After Noah awoke and learned what had happened, Genesis records his words plainly:
“Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25, English Standard Version).
Throughout the narrative, Moses repeatedly reminds the reader that Ham was “the father of Canaan.” The inspired author intentionally directs our attention toward Canaan. While Partridge argues that Noah cursed Canaan to indirectly curse Ham, that conclusion is an inference. It is not what the text explicitly says. When an entire theological system depends upon extending a curse beyond its stated recipient, Christians should exercise great caution before building doctrine upon that conclusion.
Noah’s sons are not federal heads of humanityThe larger issue is not who was cursed; it is how Partridge interprets the entire event. He argues that Shem, Ham, and Japheth function as enduring federal heads of humanity whose blessings and curses continue alongside the redemptive work of Christ.
Historically, federal headship has occupied a central place in Christian theology, but only in relation to Adam and Christ. Paul writes in Romans 5:19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:22, he declares, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Throughout Church history, these two figures have been understood as the covenantal representatives of humanity. In Adam, we inherit sin and death. In Christ, we receive righteousness and life.
The New Testament never introduces a second set of federal heads through Noah’s sons.
Yet Partridge’s framework creates parallel covenantal identities. A person may be redeemed in Christ while permanently defined by whether he belongs to Shem, Ham, or Japheth. Those inherited identities continue to determine civilizational stations, national callings, and even leadership responsibilities. This is a theological innovation, not historic Christian doctrine.
The assumptions continue when Partridge identifies Noah’s sons with modern racial categories. He repeatedly refers to Shemites, Hammites, and Japhethites as three races, assigning Africans to Ham, Europeans largely to Japheth, and Middle Eastern peoples to Shem. The difficulty is that Genesis never makes those connections. The biblical text speaks of families, nations, tribes, and peoples. It does not divide humanity into modern racial categories, which emerged many centuries later.
In fact, the New Testament moves in the opposite direction. Paul declares in Acts 17:26, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth…”
Notice the emphasis on “one man” and “every nation.” The diversity of nations grows out of the unity of humanity. Scripture recognizes ethnic distinctions without treating race as the controlling category of human identity. Even Genesis itself undermines the racial assumptions Partridge imposes upon it. Shem, Ham, and Japheth shared the same parents, belonged to the same family, and inherited the same ancestry. Nothing in the text suggests that one son became the ancestor of modern black people while another became the ancestor of white Europeans in the racial sense that we use those terms today.
Christ, not ancestry, defines the ChurchPerhaps the greatest weakness in Partridge’s presentation is how little the New Testament actually shapes his conclusions. Nearly the entire argument is built upon one interpretation of Genesis 9. Christ, the apostles, and the New Covenant receive comparatively little attention.
This matters because the New Testament repeatedly teaches that the church is the new humanity created in Christ. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:14 that Christ “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” A few verses later, he explains that Christ created “one new man in place of the two” (Eph. 2:15). Likewise, Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
These passages do not erase ethnic identity. Jews remained Jews, and Greeks remained Greeks. Nations continued to exist after Pentecost, but those distinctions no longer determined covenant standing, spiritual privilege, or rank within the household of God.
Partridge’s framework appears to reverse that emphasis. While acknowledging redemption in Christ, it continues to assign permanent civilizational stations based upon ancestral lineage. In his own words, “The Hammites have been assigned a civilizational station of subordination and dependence.” He goes on to argue that “the answer is to return to Christian (white) colonization of Africa,” asserting that Hamitic peoples are “most blessed when they embrace their station under Shemite and Japhethite nations.”
Regardless of how gently those statements are presented, they establish a permanent hierarchy among image bearers based upon genealogy. That is not simply a discussion about nations. It is inevitably a discussion about the Church.
As a black man serving as an elder in a predominantly white church, I cannot hear Partridge’s conclusions without asking obvious questions. If Hamitic peoples are permanently assigned to subordinate stations, what does that mean for leadership within Christ’s Church? Should I, as a black elder, serve in a predominantly white congregation? Should a black pastor shepherd white believers? Should missionary leadership flow only in one direction? These are not hypothetical concerns. Every theological framework eventually produces practical implications.
While Partridge rightly criticizes modern egalitarianism, his own framework risks creating a different form of identity politics. Instead of dividing people into oppressors and oppressed, it divides them into providential rulers and followers. Both systems take differences in ancestry, ethnicity, and physical appearance and turn them into essential categories of identity — something Scripture reserves for our identity in Adam or in Christ.
History cannot be reduced to Genesis 9Partridge’s historical argument also deserves careful examination. Throughout the presentation, he appeals to crime statistics, IQ scores, Nobel Prize winners, technological innovation, and economic development as evidence that Genesis 9 explains history. He asks whether these differences are merely circumstances or whether they reveal God’s providential ordering through Noah’s curse. But this presents a false dichotomy.
Of course, history unfolds under God’s providence. Every Christian affirms that, but providence ordinarily works through secondary causes. Geography, climate, trade routes, natural resources, disease environments, political institutions, wars, migration, education, and culture all matter.
The rise and fall of civilizations cannot be reduced to one event in Genesis. Africa itself demonstrates the complexity of history. Long before European colonialism, the continent produced powerful kingdoms, thriving trade networks, centers of learning, remarkable architecture, and vibrant Christian communities. Likewise, civilizations across Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas developed along vastly different paths shaped by geography and historical circumstance. History is simply more complicated than Partridge’s explanatory model allows.
Ironically, what makes his framework attractive is also what makes it dangerous. It explains everything. Why do civilizations differ? Genesis 9. Why do crime rates differ? Genesis 9. Why are some nations wealthier than others? Genesis 9.
Like every grand theory, it offers a single explanatory key that appears to unlock the entire world, but biblical theology is rarely that simplistic. Scripture presents a far richer account of history. Human sin, common grace, divine judgment, faithful leadership, geography, culture, economic systems, and God’s mysterious providence all intersect in ways that resist reduction to one interpretive framework.
The New Covenant defines the ChurchMy greatest concern is not historical or sociological. It is ecclesiological. The Church is God’s new covenant people. Our deepest identity is no longer found in ancestry, skin color, tribe, or nation. Those realities remain part of God’s good creation, but they have been subordinated to a greater identity. We belong to Christ.
When race becomes the primary lens for understanding authority, civilization, and God’s purposes in history, the church inevitably suffers. Instead of emphasizing the unity Christ purchased with His blood, we begin emphasizing inherited distinctions that Christ never intended to function as permanent covenantal categories within His body.
That is why I believe this version of the “Curse of Ham” is anti-Church. It does not merely offer an alternative interpretation of Genesis — it introduces an alternative vision of Christian identity.
While the Gospel does not erase our cultures or ethnic heritage, it places them beneath something infinitely greater. The New Covenant has already created the only enduring humanity that matters. Every believer, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, stands equally justified before God, equally indwelt by the Holy Spirit, equally adopted into the Father’s family, and equally united to Christ.
The New Covenant is sufficient. It needs no supplemental racial covenant. It needs no permanent hierarchy of nations within Christ’s Church. It needs no civilizational caste system rooted in Genesis 9. The cross has already established the deepest truth about every Christian, and that truth is enough.
Kevin Briggins serves as the Managing Director of the Center for Biblical Unity and as a lay elder at Grace Auburn Church in Auburn, Alabama. A retired military intelligence professional, Kevin completed a distinguished 22-year career of service and holds a bachelor’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies. He is passionate about equipping Christians to think biblically about issues of race, culture, and unity within the church. Kevin and his wife, Shulonda, have been married for 19 years and are the proud parents of three daughters: Karis, Kinley, and Khloe. Together, they are committed to serving their local church and advancing the Gospel through discipleship, teaching, and faithful engagement with the culture.