In an interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Vice President J.D. Vance outlined a case for why “America First” is a moral imperative, not just a campaign slogan. The interview aired even as rescue workers were searching the Potomac River for survivors of the collision between a passenger plane and a military helicopter near Reagan National Airport and was quickly overshadowed by the tragedy. But Vance’s comments are worth reviewing because his understanding of his primary responsibilities as a U.S. politician is remarkably clear and, unfortunately, rare.
“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 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,” Vance said after Hannity referenced Selena Gomez’s viral video in which she sobbed profusely about deportations of illegal aliens.
“There’s something very deranged in the mind of the far left in this country,” Vance said, “where I really do think that they feel more of a sense of compassion for illegal aliens, who have no right to be in this country, than they do their fellow citizens, and that really has to change.” He said that while Gomez’s video was making its way around the internet, people were sending him photos of young children who had been murdered by illegal aliens. “As an American leader, but also just as an American citizen, your compassion belongs first to your fellow citizens.”
Vance’s understanding is biblical, ethical, and logical. While Jesus instructed his disciples to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and there are numerous passages about showing kindness to strangers, Scripture clearly teaches that others have greater and lesser claims on 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 passages above are merely a sample of what the Bible says about what Augustine called ordo amoris (the order of loves), a concept further explored by Thomas Aquinas. But the principle is sufficiently clear: There is an order of priority in whom we love and how we love.
Of course, there are many who disagree with Vance’s straightforward explanation of the principle, and some ventured to correct his supposed misunderstanding of Scripture. Thabiti Anyabwile, a pastor in D.C. and Gospel Coalition contributor, responded on X that “this may be an ‘ol school’ concept but it’s not a ‘very 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. Vance repeatedly clarified that the principle of ordered love “doesn’t mean you hate people from outside your own borders;” it’s clearly not a scheme for exploiting others wriggling out of moral duties. All Bible-believing Christians (and many non-Christians) would acknowledge the authority of Jesus’ command to love strangers, orphans, and enemies.
But many also agree with Vance that loving strangers doesn’t mean leaving the U.S. border wide open so that Hamas terrorists (or numerous other terror groups) can cross unvetted. Loving orphans doesn’t mean supporting a border policy that results in the U.S. government losing track of hundreds of thousands of migrant children, who then are vulnerable to human trafficking. Loving your enemies does not require Tom Homan and ICE to sit on their hands while criminals like the man who viciously murdered Laken Riley continue to roam the streets of the United States.
Anyabwile then asserted that “This country has so baptized the flag in civil religion, or wrapped Christianity in the flag, that it cannot distinguish the two and thereby distorts the two” — an odd contention 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, Vance was pretty obviously not attempting an exegesis of either of those passages. A much longer article would be needed to explore those texts, but in neither does Jesus teach that the elected leader of a democratic republic has a moral obligation to allow anyone and everyone to cross the borders of his country and remain within them — in direct opposition to the wishes of the citizens 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 think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?”
Setting aside Scripture verses and sayings of Jesus for just a moment, most Americans (Christian or not) would agree with Vance’s common sense argument — if they were honest with themselves. For example, parents recognize that it would be morally wrong not to provide for their children. 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 driven to do so by their blatant and pagan disregard for the teachings of Jesus? Or do they innately understand the wisdom and morality of the ethical principle expressed in 1 Timothy 5:8? The latter explanation seems more convincing.
Vance quickly went on to provide an explanation for why so many fail to grasp the common sense principle that, just as politicians in other countries are responsible for the interests of their people, American politicians are primarily responsible for the American people: moral hubris.
“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: the problem with Rory and people like him is that he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130. This false arrogance drives so much elite failure over the last 40 years.”
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 is an assistant editor at The Federalist. He was previously an editor at Regnery Publishing and is a graduate of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Jesus Christ is King
