Christians and politicians have been in uproar after US Vice-President JD Vance advocated for a hierarchy of ‘loving your neighbour’ that prioritises family and nation.
A debate has raged on social media about Vance’s belief that prioritising those closer to us is a “Christian concept”. Even UK politicians like Rory Stewart have waded in, prompting a quip from the VP that he has a mean IQ.
The clip of Vance’s interview with Fox News was shared on social media and has up to now received 125,000 ‘likes’: “There is an old-fashioned – and I feel it’s a really Christian concept – you like your loved ones and then you definitely love your neighbour, and then you definitely love your community, and then you definitely love your fellow residents in your personal country, after which after that, you may focus and prioritise the remainder of the world,” the VP said.
“A whole lot of the far left has completely inverted that. They appear to hate their very own country, and care more about people outside their very own borders. That is not any approach to run a society.”
There has been a heated debate on X in regards to the comments from a series of high-profile Christians, Catholics and politicians on each side of the political divide.
Rory Stewart, the liberal former Conservative MP, wrote in response: “A bizarre tackle John 15:12-13 – less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians develop into theologians, assume to talk for Jesus, and tell us wherein order to like.”
However, Stewart is wrong that Vance’s words derive from that chapter of John, because the VP identified in a reply: “Just google ‘ordo amoris’ (which implies ‘order of loves’ in Latin).
Doing so reveals that Vance’s statement was based on teaching from church fathers through the ages, similar to St Augustine in City of God. St Thomas Aquinas expanded the concept. Philosopher David McPherson shared a passage from Aquinas saying “we must be most beneficent towards those that are most closely connected to us”.
Such teaching is given more weight in Catholic circles, and lots of commentators identified that it is said to the Catholic Social Teaching principle of “subsidiarity”, although there have been Catholics, evangelicals, and others on each side of the heated social media debate.
McPherson elaborated: “Glad to see people debating the ‘order of affection.'” His more balanced comment on Aquinas was that it “acknowledges special obligations to family and fellow residents, while also acknowledging Good Samaritan cases, but without resolving our political questions.”
Vance continued in his riposte to Stewart: “Aside from that, the concept there is not a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are similar to his duties to a stranger who lives hundreds of miles away? Does anyone?”
Left-wing critics
Vance’s comments were met with derision from left-leaning Christians on X. Apologist Randal Rauser wrote: “JD Vance is openly teaching a false gospel. The Christian concept is Love God and neighbour where ‘neighbour’ is the tax collector, leper, woman of Cana, anyone you might be least prone to need to love. MAGA is an anti-christ gospel.”
Meanwhile, the Baptist News wrote that Vance is “getting schooled by theologians over his inverted theology”. The news outlet cited the pro-LGBT priest James Martin, theologian Joash Thomas, and pastor Zack Lambert as criticising Vance’s comments as un-Christian. Many cited the parable of the Good Samaritan, which has a transparent message from Jesus that we must take care of someone from a special community.
Conservative defenders
To say Vance was “schooled” seems an exaggeration nonetheless, because prestigious Christians with more conservative values were quick to defend Vance and criticise Stewart, citing Bible verses and historic teaching themselves.
Political philosopher John Milbank wrote: “I’m afraid that JD Vance totally trounces Rory Stewart here,” while Catholic philosophy academic Edward Feser wrote: “The Vice President has St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and indeed the complete mainstream Christian and natural law traditions on his side. His critics have, on their side, woolly liberal bromides and foot-stomping.” He added in an additional post that the assumption now we have the identical duties to all people on the planet is a consequence of “radical individualism”.
Staunch evangelicals also supported Vance. “Except he’s right,” writes Jamie Bambrick, editor of Clear Truth Media, in response to Stewart. “It’s called the ordo amoris and it’s a widely known concept, taught within the Bible, where you might be to take care of your personal family before other families, the household of God before the broader world, and yes, your personal nation before others.”
Along with other Christians, Bambrick cited several Bible verses to support Vance’s point, including: 1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone doesn’t provide for his relatives, and particularly for members of his household, he has denied the religion and is worse than an unbeliever.” And also Galatians 6:10: “So then, as now we have opportunity, allow us to do good to everyone, and particularly to those that are of the household of religion.”
Other passages raised in support of Vance were Mark 7:11-13 where Jesus clearly teaches against neglecting parents in need.
Other religions were brought up in the controversy. Khaled Hassan said: “If you truly knew anything about most cultures on the planet, you’d know that the identical concept exists in Islam, Judaism, and just about every other culture/faith group… you are arguing against one of the sensible concepts known to man!”
The undeniable fact that there will be such very different interpretations of the core teachings of Christianity must confuse many. Perhaps it is an indication that politics is the fundamental lens by which many individuals interpret scripture, which should give believers of all political persuasions pause for thought.
Vance gave a cutting final response to Stewart on Thursday: “I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: the issue with Rory and other people like him is that he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130. This false arrogance drives a lot elite failure over the past 40 years.”
Heather Tomlinson is a contract Christian author. Find more of her work at https://heathertomlinson.substack.com or via X (twitter) @heathertomli
