‘When politicians become theologians…’: J. D. Vance claims Christianity promotes a hierarchy of love

Vice President J. D. Vance claims it’s a “Christian concept” that people are supposed to have a hierarchy of love, which places non-U.S. citizens at the very bottom.

Vance has a unique religious journey. He grew up without being a part of organized religion and went through a period of “near-Atheism” before ultimately converting to Catholicism. In a country with a separation of Church and state, faith shouldn’t be a part of politics. However, given that the Trump administration has frequently targeted the religious right and that Vance made his faith part of his vice presidential campaign, religion and politics are only becoming more entwined. The blurring of faith and politics is especially evident as Vance begins preaching that Christianity supports his and Trump’s “America first” agenda.

What did J. D. Vance say about Christianity and love hierarchy?

During an appearance on Fox News, Vance tried to mix politics and theology, insisting it was an “old-school, Christian concept” that people are meant to have hierarchies of love. He claimed Christianity encourages Americans to love their family first, followed by their neighbors, communities, and fellow citizens. Then, at the very bottom of their love hierarchy is “the rest of the world.” Vance criticized the left for “inverting” this hierarchy and supposedly putting those outside America’s borders before American citizens. He stated:

You love your family, then you love your neighbor, then you love your community, then you love you fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus and prioritize 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.

People like myself, who grew up with religious backgrounds, will likely be wondering where in the Bible Jesus preached, “Love others—in this specific, strict order.” The only hierarchy I remember being taught was the acronym JOY in Sunday school, which stipulated the order you should love: Jesus, Others, You. There were never any narrow definitions of who constituted “others.” One can also point to multiple verses about one’s neighbors, including “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” It’s most commonly interpreted that by “neighbors,” Jesus meant everyone without distinguishing between race, gender, or nationality.

Professor, writer, and former diplomat Rory Stewart challenged Vance, stating: “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…” The verse he’s talking about reads, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” Again, the sentiment is clear and simple: love others. There’s simply no way to interpret this somehow as, “Love this person first, then this person, and then these people last.”

Vance responded by stating his viewpoints hadn’t come from the Bible but from philosopher Augustine, who wrote about the “ordo amoris,” or love order, in The City of God. Of course, the arrogant Vance also had to include a jab at Stewart’s “IQ.” Undeterred, Stewart returned to the Bible, describing how Jesus was once asked, “Who is thy neighbor?” In response, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, choosing to use a “theological enemy of the Jews” as an example of a neighbor, further reiterating the broad interpretation of “neighbor” in the Bible.

Josiah Hawthorne also points out that Vance badly misinterpreted The City of God. Augustine’s point was that loving everyone equally wasn’t always possible or practical. Hence, it’s understandable to prioritize love for the people you are fortunate enough to come in contact with in your life. Obviously, people form a special love for their families and communities because they have that close connection and opportunity to pour more love into them, not because their communities are inherently superior or more deserving of love than others.

The difference between Augustine and Vance is that Augustine was trying to relieve people who found it daunting to try to mimic the completely equal, perfect, and, frankly, impossible love the Bible describes by telling them it was acceptable to naturally have a special love for the people closest to them, while Vance is trying to tell them to adhere to a strict hierarchy and always offer the least love to non-U.S. citizens, even if they have the opportunity and capacity to connect with and love them. The way that people twist the gospel or Christian theology to adhere to their personal agenda is precisely why politicians aren’t supposed to carry themselves as theologians pretending to have the authority to tell America how to love or live according to “Christianity.”