JD Vance brought faith to the office when he explained in an interview on Hannity that America’s leaders have a duty to love their own nation first and above other nations. JD Vance’s sentiment is mindblowing to many Big Eva figures because he is rejecting liberal views on love and embracing the Christian teaching of ordo amoris.
“Ordo amoris” is a Latin phrase that translates to “order of love” in English. It is a concept that has been discussed in various contexts, including theology, philosophy, and literature, but it is not explicitly found in the Bible. The term is often associated with the work of the German philosopher Max Scheler (1874-1928), who used it to describe the hierarchical structure of a person’s values and loves.
In a theological context, “ordo amoris” can be understood as the proper ordering of one’s loves or affections, aligning them with God’s will and design. This concept is rooted in the idea that human beings are created to love God above all else and to love their neighbors as themselves (Matthew 22:37-39). When one’s loves and desires are rightly ordered, they lead to a life of virtue, fulfillment, and harmony with God’s purpose.
The concept of “ordo amoris” can be traced back to the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) and other early Christian thinkers. In his work “The City of God,” Augustine discusses the importance of properly ordering one’s loves, with God as the highest good and the source of all other loves. He argues that sin and evil result from disordered loves, when humans love lesser goods more than God.
JD Vance uses this concept to explain that leaders are to love and serve their nations above other nations and their people above other nations, a concept that is apparently controversial.
Thabiti Anyabwile attacked Vance as being unChristian.
This may be an “ol school” concept. But it’s not “a very Christian concept.” He’s describing *natural* affection, a fleshly notion of love. He’s describing self-love spread over a wider area. He’s not describing Christian or *super*-natural love.
Much of the undergirding context for this is that President Trump halted refugee resettlement programs in the US. Neil Shenvi debating a straw man, states, “What is anti-Christian is appealing to a “hierarchy of loves” to excuse yourself from loving your neighbor.” From a woke perspective, neighbor has nothing to do with proximity, which is the premise of many liberal arguments such as David Platt’s starving child argument in Radical.
JD Vance, unlike many Evangelical leaders, understands ordo amoris and also operates with the premise that neighbor relates to proximity and not abstraction.
Powered by RedCircle
4 Responses
“America’s leaders have a duty to love their own nation first and above other nations.”
Well said.
Your race is your extended family. Loving, caring about, and defending your own race is absolutely a Christian moral value.
The Bible says that those who don’t provide for their own, are worse than unbelievers.
And betraying your race is even worse than failing to provide.
It is the sacred Christian duty of every White person to be loyal to the White race at all times, and to love the White race and care about the White race and defend the White race at all times.
It is absolutely moral and Christian to prioritize the safety, wellbeing, and survival of your own race over the interests of outsiders.
It is morally wrong to prioritize the interests of outsiders above the safety, wellbeing and survival of the White race.
Loving your neighbor means protecting your White racial kin from being harmed, corrupted and destroyed by subversive jews and Pakistani/Somali rapists.
Therefore, a White person who truly loves their neighbor will support policies that ensure the safety, wellbeing, and survival of the White race.
Jesus Christ wants and commands us to love our own race and prioritize the safety, wellbeing, and survival of our race, above the interests of outsiders.
If natural affection is fleshly in some bad sense then why does Paul warn that in the last days there will be those without natural affection? Paul clearly views natural affection as good.
I notw btw that modern translators chane natural affection to mere love to hide the meaning here:
2 Timothy 3:2-5
“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
Note how without natural affection and traitors go together, along with false accusers and despisers of those that are good, not to mention having a form of fake godliness. He is literally describing these big eva traitors.
Dave, thanks for that!
Strong’s makes it even more explicit that what you are saying is the intended meaning (emphasis mine):
ἄστοργος ástorgos, as’-tor-gos; from G1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of στέργω stérgō (to cherish affectionately); **hard-hearted towards kindred**:—without natural affection.
To “A Christian”: At best, you are gravely mistaken in your stated description of Christian love. Statements equating race to family are nothing more than fiendish deception and twists the meaning of simple language to a tortuous degree. Shame on you. Simply repeating these thoughts in a public venue make you a wolf in sheep’s clothing, worthy of ostracism from the community of believers in Christ. Repent and read your bible.