Ordered

We are called to be people of charity; as Jesus taught, we are to love God with the entirety of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Then, we are to love our neighbor. But, does that concept of "neighbor" mean everyone equally? Or is there an order? For instance, 1st Timothy 5 has been used in a current debate; that verse says:
8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Jamie Bambrick, who is a pastor in the U.K. and the Editor-in-Chief of Clear Truth Media, notes that Scripture in his analysis of a concept that has been discussed recently concerning the immigration issue. He also references Galatians chapter 6 in his analysis on X. It says:
10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Bambrick is referring to this concept:

It's called the ordo amoris and it's a well-known concept, taught in the Bible, where you are to care for your own family before other families, the household of God before the wider world, and yes, your own nation before others.

Bambrick, by the way, is the man who has produced versions of the controversial and misguided "He Gets Us" commercials to better reflect the teachings of Scripture.  And, probably at a fraction of the cost! 

So, why are we even talking about this concept?  Because it's a concept that the Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance, used in discussing the immigration issues and America's obligation, or lack of it, to those who are in the country illegally.  

James Orr notes at First Things:

The provocation began when JD Vance offered to a Fox News interviewer the seemingly inoffensive observation that charity begins at home. It was, he noted in passing, “an old-school idea” and “a Christian concept.” He was correct on both counts.

He goes on to say:

When explicated in Augustine’s On Christian Teaching or in Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, the ordo amoris emerges as a concept that is both cogent on its own terms—reciprocal obligations incurred through birth and upbringing are, after all, self-evidently stronger than those we freely undertake through choice or circumstance—and entirely consistent with the moral grammar of the scriptural witness. The idea that we must structure and not dissipate our finite and fragile stock of affections and loyalties does nothing to undermine Christianity’s revolutionary insistence on the inestimable worth of every human being, a claim that rooted human worth not in fallible human affections or human agency but in the perfect love of God for each of his creatures.

Orr references an exchange between a British member of Parliament and Vance on X.  Jack Prosobiec of Human Events had posted a portion of Vance's interview on Fox, quoting the Vice President as saying: "There is a 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, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world," to which Prosobiec added, "A lot of the far left has completely inverted that."

The British MP, Rory Stewart replied by saying: "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…"

Vance replied: 

Just google “ordo amoris.” Aside from 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?

Abigail Dodds writes at American Reformer:

To Augustine, virtue was found in rightly ordered loves. And this encapsulates so much of what’s wrong with love in 21st-century America. We live in a time of dis-ordo amoris––many would rather virtue signal on social media, exercise charity by off-loading it to a governmental program delivering who-knows-what to who-knows-where, or love their neighbor with a theoretical love for anyone but their actual next-door neighbor.

This is where PJ O’Rourke’s pithy saying sums up disordered loves so well: “Everybody wants to save the world; nobody wants to help mom do the dishes.”

So, whether or not you agree with J.D. Vance, we are having a discussion about the Bible and a theological concept.  And, we are gaining insight into a culture that would rather virtue-signal publicly than perhaps live a well-grounded private life.  The priority of family cannot be underestimated - it's been pointed out that when the family suffers, when marriage suffers, our entire society is adversely affected.  That's why we have to fight to preserve the family.  So, out of our love and obedience to God, we hold those close to us closely. 

But, what about the stranger?  The Bible speaks of being charitable and embracing the poor - and we should always be looking for opportunities to show the love of Christ.  So, we are to be motivated by compassion.  David Brody of CBN emphasized the balance between showing compassion and upholding the rule of law in our conversation at the NRB Convention last year.  He wrote about it a while back, stating:

...the government has to enforce our immigration laws but that doesn’t mean we have to be bystanders who don’t care about the individual. We need to help in whatever way we can. Help improve their Central American communities by going into those communities with our Bibles and the message of Jesus Christ, support families in need financially, pray for these children, get involved and active in some way to help provide a better life for these children. That’s compassion.

I believe that there is a case to be made for this ordo amoris, or "ordered love," as it's been interpreted. We are called to love, but cannot humanly love all.  If our love for God is right, then He will direct us by His Spirit to demonstrate that love, but we have to remember the importance of our own homes whom God has given us to steward.