When it comes to politics, I always have a lot of thoughts running through my head. I try to limit my comments to issues of personal interest or that connect directly with the Church. So, I commented when Obama had an openly gay bishop pray at his inauguration, when Pence inserted ‘old glory’ in a Bible verse, or when Christians stormed the capital waiving Christian flags.

Recently, JD Vance brought “a Christian concept” into the discussion to justify America First and the administration’s immigration policy (but it also has implications for recent cuts to foreign aid). So, when policy is theologically justified, us pastors/theologians need to respond.

Vance said, “You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, 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 prioritize the rest of the world.” He claimed that the “far left” has inverted that.

On the “far left” inverting this, I suspect he’s correct. But I want to explore the first part of that statement.

Okay, the first part is often referred to as the ordo amoris. And he is correct; it is a Christian concept that dates back to Augustine. Augustine wrote, “All people should be loved equally. But you cannot do good to all people equally, so you should take particular thought for those who, as if by lot, happen to be particularly close to you in terms of place, time, or any other circumstances.”

Augustine uses a few thought experiments to flesh this out. Imagine you only have enough food to feed one hungry person, but two people stand before you, asking for food. Both are equally close to you relationally (say, cousins). How do you choose? He suggest you could choose by lot. But, suppose the two standing before you are not equally close to you relationally. Say one is your child and the other a distant cousin. What then? Augustine rightly concludes that we are justified in giving aid to your child rather than our distant cousin.

This logic is confirmed in several places in the NT. Paul writes to Timothy, “But if anyone does not provide for his own family, especially for his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). We should love our neighbors but especially take care to provide for our family, even more especially our own household. Similarly, Paul admonishes the Galatians, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith” (Gal 6:10). Do good to all, but especially look out for those of your Christian family.

St Thomas Aquinas agreed and included a section in Summa Theologica on the right order of charity. He states, “The commandments of the decalogue contain a special precept about the honor due to our parents (Exodus 20:12). Therefore we ought to love more specially those who are united to us by ties of blood.”

John Calvin certainly agreed with Augustine.

Our Savior having shown, in the parable of the Samaritan, (Luke 10:36,) that the term neighbor comprehends the most remote stranger, there is no reason for limiting the precept of love to our own connections. I deny not that the closer the relation the more frequent our offices of kindness should be. For the condition of humanity requires that there be more duties in common between those who are more nearly connected by the ties of relationship, or friendship, or neighborhood. And this is done without any offense to God, by whose providence we are in a manner impelled to do it. But I say that the whole human race, without exception, are to be embraced with one feeling of charity: that here there is no distinction of Greek or Barbarian, worthy or unworthy, friend or foe, since all are to be viewed not in themselves, but in God. (Institutes, 2.8.55)

In principle, JD Vance is correct. The ordering of love/charity is a Christian principle. AND, I think one can argue for limiting immigration on the basis of love. Orderly immigration is in everyone’s best interest. (Publicly, I used the analogy of a lifeboat. If the lifeboat is full and in danger of sinking, pulling more people into the boat is foolish and unloving. But if, as I suspect is actually the case, the lifeboat can accommodate more people, but you keep others out, it is a hateful thing.)

However!

Vance’s argument goes awry and is dashed on the rocks of the administration’s actual policies and rhetoric.

In the interview, Vance states, “As an American citizen, your compassion belongs first to your fellow citizen. That doesn’t mean you hate people from outside of your own borders.” Again, he is correct in this. BUT his rhetoric and the rhetoric of the administration IS hateful. Vance himself, on the campaign trail spewed lies he knew were lies regarding Haitian immigrants in Ohio. Knowing it was a lie, he doubled down, defending “creating stories” to get the coverage of suffering Americans he wanted. Consistently, the current President and those associated with him have referred to immigrants as vermin, as poisoning our blood, as an enemy within, and conflating immigrants with criminals. This is slander. Slander is not love. You cannot, as Vance did, claim to be following a Christian principle on the order of love and speak hatefully of those who you claim not to hate.

Moreover, the ordo amoris of Augustine and Calvin assumes there is not enough bread to feed the cousin and one’s own child. But that is simply not the case nationally. If your own child is well fed, and most American children are overfed (as are their mothers and fathers), to withhold food from the cousin to give your child MORE is not “a right ordering of love.” It is evil. There are needy people in the US. I do not mean to diminish this. Some live in need of shelter, suffer from food insecurity, and have insufficient clothing, etc. But WE as a nation have enough to meet those needs AND continue to accept the persecuted and the oppressed, and to feed starving people around the world, provide life-saving vaccines, drill clean wells, etc. What we don’t have is the WILL.

So, do not use the ordo amoris to justify the wealthiest nation turning its back on the most vulnerable peoples of the world WHILE still not doing anything more to help the hurting here.