The Order of Love

Invoking Ordo Amoris from the right and from the left gets us nowhere

Feb 16, 2025

love neon signage — Photo by Jez Timms on Unsplash

Most people had never heard of it before, I’m sure. But there are now, it seems, many experts. In the Year of Our Lord 2025, the above two sentences could apply to 10 different controversies a month. But this one is about a teaching from the middle of the 13th century found in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, if it doesn’t reach back to Augustine’s City of God in the middle of the 5th century. Perhaps I should ask one of the many experts currently weighing in.

This latest controversy stems from an interview Vice President J.D. Vance gave in which he spoke, in so many words, of the order of our loves. He, in referencing current immigration policy, articulated what he described as the -

Christian concept 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.
Vice President J.D. Vance

There was a predictable reaction, mostly from the Catholic church - since Vance is a Catholic and is referencing a teaching more closely associated with the Catholic church. A counter reaction predictably followed this predictable reaction. Those reacting against included many who oppose current immigration policies and those reacting in defense included many who support current immigration policies. In the process, many hidden theologians have been uncovered. Again, change a few words and this scenario is repeated over and over in our ongoing culture war - with very little actual information coming to light along the way - with everyone left to believe what they already believed and what they already wanted to believe - to which they now add theological justification. But let’s take a second look at Vance’s statement, which I have heard in a more indirect form over the past number of years. Some of you may know I have been a part of various efforts to help people in Africa and Asia and a part of a local non-profit that largely worked with immigrants over the last decade or so. Along the way, I have had some form of this question implicitly posed to me: “why go so far away to help people when there are so many problems closer to home?” It is not exactly the context in which the current conversation, such as it is, takes place, but it is close enough.

To the extent that this question reflects the frustration stemming from the ongoing presence of intractable problems all around us, I understand it. That is, I understand the frustration. But is there any sort of biblical or theological foundation for this “order” - love your family first, then (and the ‘then’ is crucial), love your neighbor and so on outward to, eventually, love those far away from us? In a word, no. I don’t think either Augustine or Aquinas were saying anything of the sort.

people sitting on chair in front of table with candles and candles

I have written before about the central Christian obligation to love our neighbor, but let’s take another look. Jesus was asked by a teacher of the Hebrew Scriptures what must be done to inherit eternal life. In another instance, a different teacher asked what the greatest commandment was and the same answer was given. In each case, Jesus turned the question back on the teacher and asked him, “what do you say?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Luke 10:27-29

I don’t think it is unfair to categorize J.D. Vance’s answer regarding an order of loves as an attempt to justify a particular immigration policy by way of saying we don’t have an obligation to love the people who are not here until we have loved the people who are. I think that is how he would describe it. Readers may or may not be surprised with whatever level of agreement I may have with any particular immigration policy. But my concern here is co-opting Christian teaching in defense of it. Specifically, when that co-opting is in error. Jesus’ answer to the teacher’s question, to his attempt at self-justification, is the parable of the Good Samaritan. In that parable, a normal, everyday fellow countryman is beaten, robbed, and left for dead on the side of the road. Good, upstanding religious people find what seem to them to be justifiable reasons for passing by on the other side of the road. It is the Samaritan, the hated, half-breed, don’t belong here resident of Samaria - more hated that people who live farther away - who stops and helps the man at great cost and inconvenience to himself. Remember the question Jesus was responding to as he finishes this parable:

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Luke 10:36-37

Who is my neighbor? It is almost too simple to say that everyone is. Jesus here is saying that, but also that the last person you would pick to be your neighbor is your neighbor.

I could have referenced the many passages where the people of Israel are commanded to care for the immigrant among them, but I don’t think that is as direct an answer to this Ordo Amoris question as this is. Who is our neighbor is the question Vance appears explicitly to be raising. Here is an answer.

Does that mean that America, or any nation, should just let all immigrants in the country? Of course not, no country governs itself that way. There should be laws to govern entry into any country. And we should love our neighbor, whatever their status - we should love the poor, the displaced and downtrodden in our country. Even if we favor a more restrictive immigration policy than we have had (and it is difficult to get much less restrictive). I happen to think that immigration is a net good for America. I also happen to think that allowing immigrants to walk across the border en masse (which is, de facto, what we had been doing), is a disservice to them and to the country. In any case, favoring or disfavoring a political policy does nothing to our obligation to love people. That should not really need to be said. Does that also mean we should love the poor and displaced and downtrodden in other countries? Yes. Of course. What possible biblical justification could there be for not loving them? We are called, whatever policy we favor, to have compassion for those who have difficult lives, who suffer, who are hungry, who lack proper medical care for their children. Whatever other loves may come before this one or alongside that one, there is no biblical sense that this love is unimportant. Policy, however correct it may be, is not a substitute for the love I, personally, am called to give.

This is part of my answer to those who question why I am involved in far off areas. All of us in the church, collectively, have a mission that starts in our homes and extends to the corners of the earth. It is true that I am uniquely called to love those in my family because most others don’t have that particular opportunity and responsibility. It isn’t true that love is to be thought of as a scare resource that must be conserved and parceled out slowly. The one love does not preclude the others, it sits alongside it. Are any of my questioners called especially to a local need? Please, work to meet it, work to love those near you. As an entire global church, we can work together to meet needs here and near and far. These loves are not in competition with each other.

man in white jacket walking on road during daytime — Photo by Luba Ertel on Unsplash

But there is a more helpful, and introspective, way for us to consider what an order to love might be. To love those actually in your life as opposed to loving a group of people in the abstract is one of the things both Aquinas and Augustine were talking about. Much ‘love’ expressed via political programs can serve as a substitute for loving the actual, messy, flawed people in our lives. The first doesn’t really cost me anything, and, I would argue, doesn’t really fit a biblical definition of love. These political programs may or may not be good and necessary. They may help people. But when Jesus says to love your neighbor, that isn’t mostly what he is talking about. He mostly is talking about you, actual you. And he is mostly talking about your actual neighbor - your actual coworker, classmate, family member - the ones who have wronged you and misunderstood you and betrayed you. Immigration is easier than this, trust me. All of our pride and anger and shouting should fade when thinking about this order of love, our order of love, my order of love. And how much better I need to be in its practice.