JD Vance vs Rory Stewart: Should we order our loves?

ICYMI recently a heated exchange on X (formerly Twitter) between US Vice President JD Vance and former senior Conservative MP Rory Stewart took an unexpected turn, sparking a debate not over politics or policy, but over the Christian theology of love. 

US Vice President JD Vance and former senior Conservative MP Rory Stewart ended up in an extended argument that lit up social media. These sorts of online spats are hardly unusual in our digital age. However, what was interesting was the Vance and Stewart did not fall out over economic policy, or gun control, or NATO defence spending. No, their debate, fascinatingly, was over the Christian theology of love. 

The debate started with Stewart reposting a Fox News interview in which Vance responded to a question about illegal immigration by saying:  

“…but there’s this old-school, and I think it’s a very Christian concept by the way, 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. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that. They seem to hate the citizens of their own country and care more about people outside their own borders. That is no way to run a society and I think that the profound difference that Donald Trump brings to the leadership of this country is the simple concept- America First.” 

Stewart, who is an Anglican, commented on X in response: 

“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, tell us in which order to love” 

After short and unedifying exchange about Stewart’s IQ, Stewart then went on:  

“Nowhere does Jesus suggest that love is to be prioritised in concentric circles. His love is universal…. This does not mean that Christians should not care for their families… But Christian love is radical precisely because it always extends to the most vulnerable and marginalised and to those we desperately do not want to love”  

So who is right when it comes to the bible’s teaching on love- Vance or Stewart? 

I would suggest both and neither.  

The Order of Love 

I think Stewart is correct when he says that God’s love extends to the whole of humanity (John 3:16), including our neighbours and enemies. However, when it comes to the practicalities of caring, the New Testament does give some teaching about prioritisation, or the “ordo amoris” (“order of loves”). In particular, God does give instruction to Christians about prioritising care for those within our two God-ordained institutions- the family and the church.  

For example, Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:8: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” To neglect the needs of one’s own family, whether financial or practical, is of such a high level of seriousness that Paul equates it to “denying the faith”. Provision for the immediate family is a clear priority for Paul.  

Perhaps more controversially, Paul also speaks of prioritising the family of believers: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Galatians 6:10). Although this verse is explicit that Christians ought to care for “all people”, there is a right way in which Christians should look with special focus at the needs of their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. One area in which this could apply is in charitable giving, where I think there ought to be some level of godly prioritisation of the local church.  

So contrary to Stewart’s comments, I think there is a godly way we should order our loves, particularly when it comes to the family and the church.  

In addition, I do believe there is a legitimate place for prioritisation based on vocation. As an A&E doctor, it is both professionally and ethically mandated that I prioritise the care of the patients in my A&E department over those in the A&E department down the road. God has gifted me both a vocation and a group of people whom I have a vocational duty to care for. Similarly, I do not think it is illogical or unbiblical to argue that the President of the US should prioritise the interests of Americans over those in the rest of the world. That is his God-given vocational duty.  

Love Your Neighbour  

However, I do also have serious theological problems with Vance’s contentions on Fox and subsequently on X.  

Although the bible does appear to emphasise a prioritisation of those in our family and church, I do not think this prioritisation extends to nationality or race. I struggle to see anywhere in Scripture that justifies Christians giving preferential treatment to those who share our skin colour or citizenship- quite the opposite in fact. The gospels repeatedly describe Jesus going out of his way to break down cultural and racial barriers. The clearest teaching on this is Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in which “neighbourly love” is exemplified by the Samaritan crossing the cultural and racial barriers to help the Jewish man who had been left for dead by robbers.  

Even the Mosaic Law, which gave the Israelites a whole series of specific commands about life in God’s theocracy, nonetheless still prohibited preferential treatment based on ethnicity: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:33-34) 

Therefore, I find Vance’s invocation of Jesus’ commands to justify Trump’s immigration policies theologically problematic. Trump may well have a personal vocational mandate as US President to care primarily for the American people. However, to imply that all Christians need to prioritise the needs of their own fellow citizens over foreigners and immigrants is theologically perverse.   

I think Christian love is more vast and profound than what is described by either JD Vance or Rory Stewart. Yes, there ought to be practical prioritisation of those in our biological and spiritual families. However, the radical and world-changing message of Christ is that Christian love should extend far beyond the boundaries of our own nation and people. We are to follow in the footsteps of the Saviour who loved, and died for, the foreigner, stranger, outcast, and enemy.  

Dr Ben Chang is a writer, speaker and A&E doctor. He is author of ‘Christ and the Culture Wars - Speaking for Jesus in a World of Identity Politics’ and blogs at www.benchangblog.com