The following article was copied and pasted from TruthScript, linked below.
What In The World Is The Ordo Amoris?
Nathan Rush February 3, 2025
Last week, our newly minted Vice President, J.D. Vance, elucidated the principle of ordo amoris quite proficiently. The phrase in question is Latin for “ordering our loves,” or prioritizing them. During an interview with Fox News, Vance said, “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 your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” To the average listener, this should come as no shock whatsoever. For the record, the Vice President is a practitioner of Roman Catholicism.
The issue of rightly prioritizing our loves has come under fire by the liberals (both theological and political), the woke, the progressives, and proponents of the Social Gospel. The claim has been made that no such principle exists within the greater context of Christian History. Those who make such claims should probably go back to the books and study a bit more before running off at the mouth. The principle was discussed at some length by 13th-century philosopher and church father, St. Thomas Aquinas. He, in turn, learned at least some of what he espoused from the bishop Augustine of Hippo. These names are hardly unknown in the world of theology, and their works have influenced tens of millions.
As Vance stated, the ordo amoris has to do with having a specific hierarchy of loves, indicating that there are some he loved more than others. Most who ascribe to this understanding of love would say that our love for God is to come first, followed by our love for our spouse, our children, our local neighbors, those of our own country, and lastly, those in the larger world. By way of illustration, we would rightly be concerned with the priorities of one who spent much time volunteering at the soup kitchen, while their own children starved. Such a scenario would be demonstrably absurd.
Why is it that the leftists are so opposed to this idea? Well, with their disordered priorities, those on the left are incensed at the idea that God might love someone better than themselves. Their warped view of God demands that God love everyone equally, no matter what. The very notion of accountability before a thrice Holy God terrifies them. We can consider the situation between Cain and Abel as demonstrative of this concept. God clearly preferred the sacrifice of Abel, accepting it. Cain was furious, not so much that his own offering was not good enough, but that God actually had the audacity to prefer his brother. This, of course, is borne out in the fact that instead of repenting when urged by God to do so, Cain murdered his brother in cold blood (Gen. 4). Human nature is desperate for the acceptance of God, in spite of doing nothing to earn such acceptance. Conversely the Scripture itself declares that it is Christ who makes us accepted (Eph. 1:6).
Biblical Examples
Following the example of Cain and Abel, we can next consider the story of the Flood. Who would be willing to argue that God loved Noah and his immediate family equally to the rest of the world? It was Noah who found favor in the eyes of God. The rest of humanity fell under the expressed judgment of God. It was only to Noah and his family that God gave the invitation to come into the Ark (Gen. 7:1).
Then there’s Abraham and the covenant God made with Abraham’s future descendants, making it clear that through Abraham’s family, all other families on the earth would eventually be blessed. The separation of Abraham from his countrymen, and even his own extended family, shows God’s clear favoritism toward Abraham. Even in the following generations, God preferred Isaac to Ishmael (even after Abraham begged that God would find favor with Ishmael), and He preferred Jacob to Esau (cf. Mal. 1:1-3). The last was a choice God made to love Jacob before either of the twins had done anything by which to be judged! Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible is replete with references and allusions to the fact that God loved Israel far more fervently than any other Gentile nation.
The evidence of God’s choice is clear. The Israelites were not a special people because of their great ferocity as warriors, nor their grand intellectual acumen. They were special precisely because God chose to love them over and above all of the other possible people groups He could have picked around the world (Deut. 7:7).
In the New Testament God shows His choice of Mary above all other women. She was one who was highly favored by God (Luke 1:28). She is the only one who was ever chosen to carry and give birth to the Savior, the Son of God! In addressing His disciples, Jesus declared that they did not choose to love Him, but He rather chose to love them! Unspoken is the obvious implication of that, that if Christ so chose His disciples, He did not choose any others (John 15:16; 1 John 4:17-19).
Most telling of all is the relationship between Jesus and the Father. Of whom else did the Father ever declare, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”? Not only that, but He said it twice! That the Father loves the Son above all others is crystal clear throughout the New Testament. No one else enjoys that same relationship with the Father. What’s more, no one else should! It would be beyond arrogant for any person to claim such a standing before God. It is right that God love His own Son first and foremost in the order of the universe. It is because God loves His Son that He accepts Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf (cf. John 17).
My own high school-age daughter was astute enough to make mention of the fact that the very idea that there are both Heaven and Hell is proof positive that God loves some people more than He loves others, and that if God operates in such a way, it seems natural for people to do the same.
Arguments Against The Ordo Amoris
Many on the left would argue that John 3:16 shows God loving everyone equally. If this were true, then all men would have an equal response to the Gospel invitation. But all men do not have an equal response. There are many who reject God’s offer. So John 3:16 does present a general principle that God loved His creation enough to provide a way of redemption. Unfortunately, men universally rejected His redemptive offer. It is categorically God’s exercise of His own volition to extend love, mercy, and grace to some in spite of their rejection that causes this anger in men. Like Cain, they shake their fist at God demanding He accept them as they are. Like Esau, they petulantly scream, “Bless me, too!” The simple fact is, God is not obligated to love anyone the way they insist. God has ordered His own loves in keeping with His prerogative. God is not accountable to man and has stated that His decision to express mercy and show compassion is determined only by His own good pleasure (cf. Rom. 9; Eph. 1).
Another example the left likes to bring up is the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The argument follows that the wounded man was not helped by those closest to him, the Pharisee and the priest, but by the stranger. This parable relayed by Jesus actually says the opposite of what the leftists would have us believe. The focus of the story is not on the wounded man but on the Samaritan! The Samaritan would not be expected to render aid in the scenario Jesus described because he was the stranger. No one agreeing with the Ordo Amoris is suggesting that we are not to love the stranger. Obviously, Jesus commanded us to do so. There was no one else vying for the Samaritan’s attention. The priority was not in question there. Clearly, the Pharisee and the priest failed in their own responsibilities. This does not mean that the Samaritan jumped the order when he did what was right.
Conclusion
Vice President Vance never suggested that we should forgo any show of love for the stranger and foreigner. What he said was that there was rightly a specific order whereby our loves should be prioritized—and the stranger and foreigner are far down the list of those priorities. The Scripture states that we are responsible first to take care of the members of our own household and that the one who refuses to do so is worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8). Jesus made this crystal clear when challenging the wrong priorities of the Pharisees when He told them ignoring the fifth commandment was “making the Word of God of no effect through [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9-12).
Leadership within the body of believers is to be executed by those who love and care for their own houses well; because if a man cannot take proper care of his own family, how can he care for the flock of God? The church is rightly served when we keep our loves in their proper order and context (cf. 1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). If I put my children ahead of my wife, my marriage is in trouble. Interestingly enough, so is my relationship with my children. Likewise, if we as a nation choose to prioritize the stranger and foreigner over and above our own fellow countrymen and citizens, we are in for a world of trouble we neither need nor want.
Well done, Mr. Vice President, and thank you for bringing up the issue.
Nathan Rush
View all Nathan’s TruthScript Articles
Nathan currently serves as Associate Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in McPherson, Kansas. He is a graduate of Wayland Baptist University, BA in Religion/History, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, MDiv. He has served as a Southern Baptist pastor for 28 years. He is married to Sara and they have four daughters. He is ardent supporter of the Second Amendment.
Link to Truth Script: https://truthscript.com/
Featured Image: Jd Vance Children: Son Ewan Wife Usha; Nationality Net Worth celebdoko.com