In the blue corner, once-Conservative MP, now-podcaster Rory Stewart. In the red corner, the Vice President of the United States of America, JD Vance. The topic: a Christian doctrine from the fifth century?
Welcome to 2025, everyone. But could a surreal exchange on X (formerly Twitter) help us better understand God’s calling for our lives and our nation?
For those catching up, the Vice President gave an interview where he argued that the political leaders of the USA should prioritise its citizens first and only after that, those from other nations: 'There is this old school, and very Christian concept… that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world.'
Rory Stewart took issue with a video clip of this, saying in a slightly patronising tone, 'A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 - less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love…'
Firing back, the Vice President dismissively told Stewart to 'google "ordo amoris”.' 'Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away?'
Google searches for ‘ordo amoris’ have indeed skyrocketed. It’s the concept of ‘ordered loves’, dating back to the hugely influential Christian theologian, Augustine of Hippo and his seminal work, The City of God. He wrote that 'it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love.' It is an understanding that he and countless thinkers since have developed. But is Vance right to invoke it? Who’s right? And is there anything we can learn for our own lives?
How should a Christian love?
Before we think about any political implications we should consider our own loves. We are called to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves. We are to love other Christians (1 John 4:8) and our spouses (Ephesians 5:25). We are even to love our enemies (Luke 6:35).
This poses at least two important questions. First: does this mean we love everyone exactly the same, as Rory Stewart seemed to imply? And, second, how can we love anyone at all if we’re loving God Himself with all our hearts?
Despite Jesus Christ’s radical message that we really should love everyone - even those who want to do us harm - there are Bible passages that clearly imply that our loves and responsibilities are not meant to be evenly, flatly distributed.
1 Timothy 5:8 says that a Christian who does not provide for his family is 'worse than an unbeliever.' This duty of care does not extend equally to every other human on earth. But in 1 Corinthians 11:21-22, Paul does criticise Christians who are leaving others hungry when eating the Lord’s Supper; the family principle is extended to the local church. Galatians 6:10 likewise calls us to do good to all, but especially to the ‘household of faith’.
Paul’s special love and affections even go to a national level. In Romans 9:3 (ESV) he writes: 'I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.' No one can doubt Paul’s love for the Gentiles and he is instrumental in breaking down Jew/Gentile barriers within the Church; nevertheless, he clearly has a special, legitimate bond and affection for his own nation.
None of us love evenly
If we demonstrate our love by our actions, none of us love every other human evenly. It’s not how God made us.
We are relational beings because God is relational. First, we are created - put in a relationship with God as our Creator. He doesn’t put us directly in relationship with ‘the Human Race’ but he gives us a mother and a father, who name us. As we grow up, we will develop more relationships; with wider family, neighbours, friends and possibly a spouse who we become ‘one flesh’ with.
As Christians, we are given new spiritual brothers and sisters in the Church. We are called to love enemies who we might otherwise hate. Some of us are called to missionary work pouring their lives out for people thousands of miles away with whom we had no prior connection. But these loves and responsibilities don’t erase our other relations, they extend them.
We are finite and don’t have endless resources. There is a great temptation in attempting to love ‘humanity’ in general, rather than the people God has placed us in relationship with. If we are to be virtuous, we will need our loves to be ordered.
What’s the right order, then?
As a teenager I was told that the order was Jesus, then Others, then Yourself - JOY. But if you love Jesus with everything you have, how much can ever be left for others? And when do you know that you’ve loved others enough and can move on to yourself?
This is the slight problem with the simple way Vance explained the responsibilities of the US government. How will leaders know when they’ve looked after American citizens enough, to the point where they can think about others?
This is not the right way to think about love. In 1 John 4:19-20, John is clear that love for God and love for others are not only compatible, but one depends on the other:
'If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.' (1 John 4:19-20 ESV)
So instead of thinking of love as an amount you spread around, it may be more helpful to consider the quality or the type of loves you have. The kind of love you have for God is for him alone. You are to love him as your King, your Lord, your Heavenly Father, your Saviour. If you love your spouse in the same way, something has gone badly wrong. If you pour all your love, energy and resources into your children at the cost of everything else, your love has probably transformed into obsession or idolatry. By contrast, if you consistently ignore them or are bitter towards them, perhaps you have began to tolerate them, rather than actually love them.
It’s quite possible that Vance himself uses 'ordo amoris' more to justify his politics than to shape it.
Your brother, your daughter, your second cousin, your friend, your pastor; appropriate love for each of these will have different degrees and characteristics. Rather than count up how many pennies you’re putting in each pot, why not consider if your love for them is the right kind of love?
Back to the debate on X then - and for a political leader, I think this would work itself out in a similar way to Vance’s explanation. A monarch, president or prime minister leads a particular people. They should order their loves and resources in a way that reflects that. And with the great power of leading the ‘free world’, comes great responsibilities. It is right for him to act as a friend towards friendly countries - and not as a father nor as a foe.
Perhaps this was the real reason for Stewart’s criticism. In truth, I suspect we all know that we need to order our loves in some way. I think he was selectively quoting scripture because he disbelieves Vance and the Trump administration - he thinks that this is an excuse to only love the USA. And it’s quite possible that Vance himself uses 'ordo amoris' more to justify his politics than to shape it.
There is a long history of politicians using Scripture as proof texts for their beliefs rather than to form them. But I am convinced that there are immense treasures of Wisdom for any king or ruler to find in the Bible. God’s pattern for our lives, shared in Scripture, is good news both for individuals and for nations.
Let’s give thanks for this unexpected cultural moment and believe wholeheartedly, as our Coronation service says, that in God’s word '...is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.'
