In an interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Vice President J. D. Vance outlined a circumstance for why” America First” is a moral imperative, not just a promotion phrase. The incident was immediately overshadowed by the horror and occurred as rescue personnel were searching the Potomac River for victims of the collision between a passenger aircraft and a military aircraft close to Reagan National Airport. But Vance’s feedback are for reviewing because his knowing of his main responsibilities as a U. S. legislator is extremely clear and, unfortunately, unique.
” There’s this ancient school — and I think it’s a pretty Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your other members in your own country, and therefore, after that, you can target and promote the rest of the world”, Vance said after Hannity referenced Selena Gomez’s viral video in which she sobbed heavily about deportations of illegal aliens.
” There’s something very deranged in the head of the far left in this state”, Vance said, “where I really do believe that they feel more of a sense of compassion for unlawful creatures, who have no right to be in this state, than they do their own people, and that really has to change”. He claimed that Gomez’s picture was being circulated online, but that people were also sending him images of young kids who had been murdered by illegal aliens. ” As an American president, but also just as an American citizen, your kindness belongs second to your other people”.
Vance’s knowing is bible, social, and logical. While Matthew 5: 44 instructs his disciples to love their enemies, and there are various sections about showing kindness to outsiders, Scripture clearly teaches that others have stronger and weaker claims to our love. Of course, God comes first, as Jesus emphasized when he explained which commandment was the greatest ( Matthew 22: 37 ).
In addition, it is clear that family members have a special obligation to one another:” But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for , members of his household, he has  , denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” ( 1 Timothy 5: 8 ). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul instructed believers,” So then, as we have opportunity, let us , do good to everyone, and especially to those who are  , of the household of faith” ( Galatians 6: 10, emphasis added ).
The above-mentioned lines only provide a brief summary of what Thomas Aquinas described as the domus amoris ( the order of loves ), which was further explored by Augustine. However, the idea is sufficiently evident that who and how we love are prioritized in order of priority.
Of program, there are many who disagree with Vance’s clear explanation of the process, and some ventured to correct his supposed mistake of Scripture. Thabiti Anyabwile, a priest in D. C. and Gospel Coalition source, responded on X that” this may be an’ old school’ concept but it’s not a’ quite Christian concept.'”
He then cited the moral obligation to love enemies, widows, orphans, and strangers — an obligation that Vance didn’t come anywhere close to denying. The idea of ordered love is not meant to mean you hate people from outside your own borders, according to Vedance, but rather a tool for exploiting others while abiding by moral standards. All Bible-believing Christians ( and many non-Christians ) would acknowledge the authority of Jesus ‘ command to love strangers, orphans, and enemies.
Many people, however, concur with Vance that loving strangers doesn’t mean leaving the United States ‘ open for Hamas terrorists ( or numerous other terror organizations ) to cross unchecked. Supporting a border policy that leaves the U.S. government without access to hundreds of thousands of immigrant children, who are then vulnerable to human trafficking, doesn’t mean loving orphans. While criminals like the one who brutally murdered Laken Riley continue to smuggle through America, Tom Homan and ICE are not required to stand on their hands.
Anyabwile then claimed that” This country has so baptized the flag in civil religion, or wrapped Christianity in the flag, that it cannot distinguish between the two and thereby distorts the two” — an odd claim given that the American political arena is in many ways at the apex of its anti-Christian trajectory ( the last 10 or so days of the Trump administration notwithstanding ).
Rory Stewart, one of the United Kingdom’s most popular podcasters and professor at Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs, called Vance’s comments” a bizarre take on John 15: 12-13 — less Christian and more pagan tribal”. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at American Magazine, said,” Actually no. This misses the point of Jesus’s Parable of the Good Samaritan ( Lk 10: 25-37 )”. For what it’s worth, it’s quite obvious that Vance was not trying to exegetically represent either of those passages. In neither of those texts does Jesus teach that the elected leader of a democratic republic has a moral obligation to allow anyone and everyone to cross the country and remain there in direct opposition to the wishes of the people he was elected to represent.
Ironically, Stewart ( who is a former Tory MP), warned that” We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love …” It’s also worth noting that Stewart recently argued that” Trump]has ] pulled off the biggest political con in history”. ( He also predicted Kamala Harris would win the election easily, called the Biden administration” solid”, and labeled a Trump presidency “heartbreaking”. )
” Just google’ ordo amoris,'” Vance replied to Stewart, before pointing out that” the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really believe that his moral obligations to a total stranger who lives a thousand miles away are the same as those to his own children? Does anyone”?
Most Americans, whether Christians or not, would concur with Vance’s common sense argument if they were honest with themselves, putting aside Scripture verses and sayings about Jesus for a moment. Parents, for instance, are aware that failing to provide for their children would be wrong in terms of morals. The vast majority of American parents have made ( and, their kiddos fervently expect and hope, will continue to make ) direct payments for the food, clothing, lodging, education, and recreation of their children instead of dividing their monthly income among” all the children of the world”. Why? Are they motivated to do so by their blatant and pagan disregard for Jesus ‘ teachings? Or do they already comprehend the morality and wisdom of 1 Timothy 5: 8? The latter explanation seems more convincing.
Vance then went on to explain why so many people don’t understand the common sense tenet that American politicians are primarily responsible for the welfare of the people: moral hubris.
The issue with Rory and people who like him is that he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130, as I’ve said before and I’ll say it again. Over the past 40 years, this false arrogance has led to so much elite failure.
In contrast to so many U. S. politicians — both well- and ill-intentioned — who fundamentally misunderstand their obligation to prioritize the interests of the American people, Vance’s clarity on the issue is refreshing.
Joshua Monnington works for The Federalist as an assistant editor. He is a graduate of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and previously worked as an editor for Regnery Publishing.
