By Davis Carlton
Rich Pierce of Alpha & Omega Ministries is not happy. He’s upset with Kinists, writing “When they come to the NT they fall apart. Look at my threads, they start with personal attack, then they want to link me to articles that turn Luke 10:36-37 on its head.” Pierce recently has been counter-signaling Eric Conn and Joel Webbon on X (formerly Twitter). Pierce took umbrage at Webbon’s suggestion that Jews were uniquely hostile to Christian Nationalism. At which point I chimed in. I told Pierce that Jews were in fact uniquely hostile to Christianity and that while I pray for their conversion, that it would be better for Western countries to be free of Jewish influence. Pierce asked me about a New Testament instruction. Not knowing what exactly Pierce had in mind I replied, “Sounds good. That being said, I don’t think that Christians are required to tolerate Jews in positions of authority or influence in their societies while also praying and hoping for their conversion.”
For some reason, Pierce interpreted my answer as being evasive because I couldn’t read his mind and know exactly what he was thinking. When I kindly asked Pierce what New Testament reference he had in mind he responded, “Romans 11 and 12 cover this entire matter in great detail. Anyone saying the things that you have said here should already know that. I am discovering that almost to a man that your entire movement is entirely ignorant of these things.”
To this I responded, “We are not obliged to afford unbelieving Jews the influence and power that they currently have in Western countries, and which they leverage for their own benefit to our detriment. That’s the point being raised by my side of this debate.” This was enough for Pierce to respond, “Repent and be changed.”
This lays a foundation for my interaction with Pierce in his thread on the Good Samaritan. Pierce apparently believes that the Ogden Bros, Joel Webbon, Christian Nationalists, and Kinists ignore the point of the parable. In response I posted Ehud’s excellent commentary on this passage. This seemed to break Rich Pierce’s brain as he can’t seem to imagine how anyone could possibly disagree with his own conclusions. “The efforts that people will go to in order take a plainly stated portion of scripture and deny the very thing that it says will always amaze me.” I’m amazed as well. Pierce’s inability to engage opposing arguments, for someone involved in Christian apologetics at that, as astonishing. In the threads and sub-threads you can see that Pierce never concedes Ehud’s well-argued case that Jesus is calling out the clerical class for failing to live up to the standard presented in Lev. 19:18. Likewise, Pierce has no answer to Ehud’s observation about the likely identity of the robbers along the route from Jerusalem to Jericho.
For Pierce, these carefully chosen details aren’t necessary to address, because the most relevant detail, or seemingly the only relevant detail is the identity of the Samaritan. Pierce frames the contrast between the priest, Levite, and Samaritan this way, “A Priest (highly placed and honored), A Levite (well bred – the highest of class), A Samaritan (A despised race, lowly in class).” I think that Pierce’s portrayal is trying to play up the distinction between the priests and Levites on the one hand and the Samaritan on the other as being about class and race while ignoring that whatever prominence that the priests and Levites would have held would have been based upon being members of the clerical class. Outside of the high priest and his entourage most priests and Levites probably weren’t wealthy due to their being excluded from owning landed property under the Law. Jesus is definitely calling out the clerical class for their failure to be the kind of shepherds that their office required.
Another issue is that 20th and 21st century polemics against “racism” really have to be read into the text. The priests and Levites were from the same tribe, the only difference being that the priests were required to be patrilineal descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother. Would the Samaritans have had much of a different physical appearance from the tribe of Levi? Not really. The Samaritans were the descendants of Israelites who had acquiesced to the Assyrian conquest and had intermarried with them. The Assyrians were fellow Semites and wouldn’t have had a greatly different appearance from the rest of the Israelites.
The Samaritans even continued to identify with the patriarchs of Israel, like how the Samaritan woman mentions “our father Jacob” in her conversation with Jesus (John 4:12). The historical animus between the Isrealites was primarily religious and cultural, since the Samaritans were perceived as collaborators with conquerors as well as religiously heterodox. Jesus even seems to confirm this assessment when he tells the Samaritan woman “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), while avoiding the duplicity and hatred of those he is criticizing with Parable of the Good Samaritan.
This brings us to Pierce’s grand conclusion, “So then who was this man’s neighbor? His neighbor was the last one that they wanted to be and NOT either of the other two! And Jesus tells them to go and be like the Samaritan! Jesus deliberately posed the question this way and His purpose and meaning is as clear as day. All of the book learning, historical studies and theological discourse that you have had in your life is worthless. You need to repent!”
Here’s the thing. No one was arguing for anything like “racial animus.” Nothing in Ehud’s article or the other comments on any of Rich Pierce’s threads could be construed that way. The only way to find what isn’t there is to define “racial animus” so broadly as to render it meaningless. Am I really guilty of “racial animus” when I stated cautioned against Jewish influence in our society? Recall that I also said that Christians should hope and pray for their conversion? If someone is suffering from unjustified animosity, it is Rich Pierce in his uncharitable readings of Joel Webbon, Eric Conn, Stephen Wolfe, and myself along with other Kinists.
That Rich Pierce isn’t particularly good at understanding arguments (or at least posts on X) and what motivates them can be seen when he accuses Colby Malsbury of “sola ecclesia” and believing that “doctrine supersedes scripture.” Colby is obviously just making a comment about how Rich Pierce presents himself on social media, not discussing epistemology or the foundations of truth. Rich should be pleased to learn that Colby is a Protestant committed to the sufficiency of Scripture. Nothing in Colby’s post could lead one to conclude otherwise.
My brief conversation with Rich Pierce brings me to what I see as the main problem with clergy complaining about Kinism or Christian nationalism online. I think that Pierce made several uncharitable and unwarranted assumptions about myself and others during the course of the discussion, and then claimed that we couldn’t answer his questions…after blocking us and shutting the conversation down. What’s odd is that no one was calling for something that could fit a Scriptural definition of reviling or hatred. I stated in the thread that I prayed for the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, but that Christians should be wary of Jewish influence. I think that Christian societies should not have Jews in positions of power in the government, academia, media, entertainment, etc. The Christian Founders of the America colonies would have heartily agreed as evidenced by their religious tests for participation in the civic life of the colonies.
Does Rich Pierce believe that this constitutes “boasting against the natural branches” mentioned in Rom. 11? Is this “repaying evil for evil” contrary to Rom. 12? How exactly does the Parable of the Good Samaritan condemn Kinism? Is Jesus insisting on allowing or even applauding Jewish influence in formerly Christian societies? Is Jesus teaching a standard of being a neighbor that requires Christians to comply with their own ethnic and racial displacement in their own homelands? If not, then why the condemnation? These were questions that I would have liked to have asked Rich Pierce directly, but alas, he prematurely shut down the conversation. In spite of his best efforts, these conversations will only grow louder and the issues only more relevant. Rich Pierce won’t be able to hide in his social media bubble for much longer.