The newly minted – and increasingly irrelevant – US Vice President, James David Vance, recently tried to rewrite Christian ethics in order to justify not helping people. He always likes to interject cherry-picked Christianisms into his ideological preferences, particularly his need to secure his own hierarchical position at the top of the caucasian trash heap while also keeping the nonwhites out of his proximity. Recently he claimed on Fox (“News”) that “America First” is supported by the “very Christian concept” of prioritizing families and communities over those further away from us in proximity, language, skin color, gender, etc. etc.
When the bearded Yalian was called out for it by an actual Yale professor, Rory Stewart, Vance deemed the latter “low IQ” and name-dropped St. Tommy A. and his “order of love” (ordo amoris) on state-run media (X/Twitter). We certainly can’t ignore the Summa and it’s bleedingly obvious points about the real limits of empathy and love. Yes, I am certainly going to care more about my own offspring, legitimate or otherwise, rather than your stupid brat, who I can only assume is watching millenial white guys play Minecraft on Youtube right now.
But like many Catholic converts and college sophomores, to defend his ideology Vance has to conveniently ignore what Jesus Christ himself actually preached, which inverted our social priorities. Remember the Beatitudes? Remember Matthew 25:40-45? “Whatever you did for the least of these…” blah blah blah? Seems pretty important to me! We are clearly meant to be better than our material and empathic limits. Christ deemphasizes our social, familial, and material needs: We don’t need much before we can start spreading the Love around (see Luke 9) and he was highly in favor of us telling our biological families to “screw off” (Luke 18:29; Matt. 19:29) and embracing our spiritual families (Matt. 12:46-50). That was a huge departure from ancient norms, and even today it’s not a luxury most of us have (as much as we would want to). But JC wasn’t talking about reasonableness, Thomistic or otherwise. He was talking about the possibility of universal love and the greater selflessness and abundant giving it entails. The true Christian life pushes against the limits of self-interest and myopic empathy.
No less than the Pope himself found it necessary to call Vance out on this matter. In a letter to U.S. bishops, he said that Christian love must be guided by divine law universal human dignity, as seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Sure, priorities and laws exist, but he says we must always meditate “on the love that builds a fraternity of all, without exception.” Obviously, the GOPers did not like him saying, with some having the gall to try and “school” the supreme pontiff. Hit dogs will indeed hollar!
Unlike JC, JD and his ilk have apparently decided that such ideals are too hard and should take a backseat to narrow-minded tribalism. In that case, why bother with being Christian at all? In fact, we should probably just admit that these people are not actually Christian. Stewart claims Vance is appealing to some pre-Christian pagan ethics, but even that’s not entirely accurate! Pagan societies still praised the virtue of hospitality; neighbors and strangers were to be welcomed. The barbaroi were barbaroi only because they did not buy into civilized life and obey the rules of hospitality.
But Vance and his ilk don’t seem to want to give the stranger – the immigrant, the refugee, the marginalized – even this condescending opportunity. These “Christian” nationalists are really tribalists following the zero-sum theology of a Darwinian god. They prioritize the survival of their own inbred bloodlines at the expense of others. Ironically, this undercuts Evangelical missiology, which used to be a bigger thing among the Christian right. As problematic as the now “old-school” evangelicals are, they still feel a moral imperative to reach out to the suffering stranger. That’s a lot better than whatever religion the MAGAts are peddling.