It’s the battle of the theological politicians. Rory Stewart, former Conservative MP, and now co-host of The Rest is Politics podcast, versus JD Vance, creator of Hillbilly Elegy and now the Vice-President of the United States. Stewart kicked all of it off when he posted on X: “A bizarre tackle John 15:12-13 – less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians turn into theologians, assume to talk for Jesus, and tell us by which order to like.”
This was in response to a quote picked up from a Fox News interview with JD Vance: “There is a Christian concept that you simply love your loved ones and then you definately love your neighbour, and then you definately love your community, and then you definately love your fellow residents, after which after that, prioritize the remainder of the world. Plenty of the far left has completely inverted that.”
Heather Tomlinson has given us an accurate summary. But what intrigues me is how this whole spat is being interpreted by Christian leaders. After all, if politicians are talking theology, surely those of us whose business is theology must have something to say to the politicians? And I’m not talking concerning the political theologians … those whose theology is just used to serve their political opinions. They are far worse than the theological politicians.
I do know that in today’s politicised, polarised world it seems not possible to reply the query without immediately being accused of being ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’, but let’s have a go: what does the Bible actually say amid all of the claims and counter-claims?
The well-known British Christian politician, Tim Farron, had no doubts: “Christians may support Trump/Vance, but they absolutely must call out this false teaching. In the Good Samaritan, Jesus clearly tells us that our neighbour is *everyone* – including the ‘alien’ – and that it’s essential to love them, and that love is dear. Jesus trumps your politics.”
But is what Vance says false teaching? Was he denying that we must always look after everyone? Or was he setting political priorities for his own administration? Was Mordecai unsuitable for prioritising in this fashion? ” Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the many Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the nice of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all of the Jews” (Esther 10:13). Would a Christian politician be unchristian if he prioritized the needs of his constituents over the needs of constituents lots of of miles away?
In response to Stewart, Vance tweeted, “Just Google ‘ordo amoris’. 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 children are similar to his duties to a stranger who lives 1000’s of miles away? Does anyone?”
The idea of ordo amoris is a conventional Christian (Catholic) concept taught by Augustine and Aquinas. I think Tim Farron could be slightly more cautious about accusing them of false teaching!
It is an easy idea: you look after yourself, your loved ones, your community and your nation before you then go on to look after others. There is no person who doesn’t live like this. If my daughter phoned me up and said ‘Dad, I really want $1,000,’ she would get it. If someone I didn’t know did the identical thing, I could be most unlikely to provide them anything. And if I only had $1,000 would anybody think I used to be unchristian for giving it to my daughter?
If my wife says she really must see me and a piece acquaintance desires to catch up, where does my priority lie? The problem just isn’t in having the ‘ordo amoris’; the issue is after we use that to say that now we have no responsibility in any respect for the stranger, the unknown and people we should not have direct responsibility for. And that just isn’t what Vance was saying. Indeed, it’s profoundly unloving, and unchristian, to accuse him of something he didn’t say – and attributing the worst possible motives to him.
Turn to the passage Stewart cited, John 15:12-13 “My command is that this: love one another as I even have loved you. Greater love has nobody than this: to put down one’s life for one’s friend.” The irony is that even these verses taken out of context prove Vance’s point – you lay down your life on your ‘friends’, not only every stranger. In context it’s much more striking. Jesus just isn’t speaking about or to everyone. He is addressing the disciples, whom he has chosen and whom he calls friends. He doesn’t call everyone ‘friends’. And he’s telling them that the world will hate them and persecute them. This just isn’t some form of general call to ‘love’ all mankind in an impersonal and meaningless way.
But Stewart’s misquotation of the Bible gets even worse. He cites Galatians 3:28 in his defence: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither is there female and male, for you might be all one in Christ Jesus.” Note the qualifier: it’s those that are ‘in Christ Jesus’. Again, this just isn’t a universal brotherhood of man text which will be used to attack someone who’s arguing for the ordo amoris.
Stewart lacks not only theological and biblical knowledge, he also lacks self-awareness. When he warned us to not trust politicians who turn into theologians, and speaking within the name of Jesus – he did in order a politician who was pronouncing himself as a theologian and telling us what Jesus really meant!
When The Telegraph and the Spectator identified the errors in Stewart’s theology and misunderstanding of the Bible, Stewart just doubled down: “Good to see the Telegraph and Spectator taking JD Vance’s side in our debate. Who knew the election of Trump would make our right-wing media embrace the perimeter concept that Christian love is about putting yourself and your personal people first?”
But this just isn’t a ‘fringe idea’, it’s Christianity 101. We are to like our neighbour as we love ourselves. We are to supply for our relatives, and particularly the members of our own household or we deny the religion and are worse than unbelievers (1 Timothy 5:8). We are to do good to all people but especially those that belong to the household of religion (Galatians 6:10). We put them first – but they are usually not last. We are also to look after the outsider, the weak and the poor.
None of that is fringe. Nor is it, as Stewart and the Novara media ‘expert’ Aaron Bastani declared, ‘a pagan idea’!
However, there may be one other aspect to this that Tim Farron rightly identified. There is something missing, and that’s love for God. Given that Vance was in a political interview he may very well be forgiven for not specifically mentioning that – in spite of everything, other Christian politicians who imagine that their values are Christian have often argued for them without citing biblical chapter and verse.
Nonetheless that is important. For the Christian love for God comes before all the pieces – even family. We are to be prepared to be forsaken by our nearest and dearest simply because we follow Christ. Our political colleagues may despise us, our country lock us up and friends turn from us, but for the Christian the primary order within the order of affection is to like God. And this love of God doesn’t reduce our capability to like others – as if we only had a lot love to provide. The reality is that in loving God, his love is poured out into our hearts and provides us an important capability to like others – including those beyond our immediate circles.
Furthermore, I believe Vance missed a trick when he didn’t indicate that one in every of the explanations for wanting America to prosper is in order that others profit from that. After the Second World War, the US sacrificially arrange the Marshall Plan for Europe. It didn’t retreat into an ‘America first’ isolationist policy – even though it could just as easily be argued that supporting Europe to rebuild was also in America’s interests. It is true that each politician will put their very own country before others, but that doesn’t mean that they need to achieve this on the expense of others. A Christian politician especially should seek justice and peace.
None of the above is meant to justify or decry President Trump’s policies on tariffs, immigration or other matters. But it’s to warn us about using the Bible for reasonable political shots at those we disagree with, and above all neither theologians nor politicians should misuse the Bible for their very own ends.
One mistake that many Christian commentators make is to act as if there are two equal and opposite sides on this inside the Christian Church. So they argue that on the one hand there are ‘conservatives’ who use the Bible to talk about individual responsibility and a limited State; and on the opposite ‘progressives’ who’re into loving everyone and a universal appeal to basic humanity. Scripture doesn’t fit neatly into these dual paradigms.
For example, we must always not use the parable of the Good Samaritan as a morality tale about giving foreign aid to other countries, or the necessity to cultivate personal wealth so that you could afford to assist others! It is a story to inform us the high standard required of those that are to inherit everlasting life – and the importance of showing mercy to those we come across. To use it for every other political purpose is a misuse of Scripture.
In this instance Vance was entirely correct in his theology (whatever we may say about his politics), and Stewart was way out of his depth. However, is it not fascinating to see Tom Holland’s commentary that “many arguments over political values are sublimated theology”. If that’s the case, then let’s at the very least ensure that our theology is biblical theology – faithful to the God of the Bible.
David Robertson is the minister of Scots Kirk Presbyterian Church in Newcastle, New South Wales. He blogs at The Wee Flea.
