But desiring to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

I The Ordo Amoris

In response to debates about foreign aid, Vice President J.D. Vance made comments about the ordering and priority of love, explicitly appealing to the Christian concept of the Ordo Amoris.

The clear context of this was a defense of a number of acts, among them the cancellation of PEFPAR by Trump’s administration. What Vance was appealing to here is called The Ordo Amoris, and it dictates that, among other factors, social proximity can and should influence the prioritization of our love and acts of charity.

The concept of the Ordo Amoris has since been taken up by many Trump supporters as a defense of the administration’s suspension of the funding of PEPFAR.

PEPFAR, which costs 6 billion dollars a year, has saved millions of lives and is widely agreed to be one of the most effective instruments of international aid in the world. Bush likely killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq, but such is the incredible power of PEFPAR he may have saved more lives than he cost. USAID in general is a dodgy instrument of some very nasty factions of the US ruling class, propping up any number of tyrants. PEPFAR is, however, almost uniquely good as far as foreign aid goes. I don’t want babies infected in their mother’s wombs dying of AIDS. I don’t want the citizens of poor countries with HIV-positive rates of 25% dying in their millions.

I will focus on the cancellation of PEPFAR here, but there are other serious matters. For example, the freezing of research trials already underway with consequences for patients already being treated:

In some cases, this may be worse than never having treated them at all, effectively meaning that America will be, in sum, responsible for serious medical harm:

But PEPFAR is suspended, and that will be our focus here, not USAID’s more general portfolio. Of course, it is only a suspension at this stage, and we may hope the decision is reversed, but people have already started dying, and excess deaths will result from every hour it is suspended.

I: Using far to excuse near, and near to excuse far

C.S. Lewis and Nietzsche are an unlikely pair, but they both agreed that people use “the love of humanity” generally as an excuse not to love particular humans- especially those near themselves. In practice, this can serve as an excuse for not serving anyone but yourself. Many Christians and atheists alike have taken this to heart, this is good, but it must be understood as one extreme, with the other, equally possible and equally harmful extreme being excusing the poor treatment of strangers through the assertion of an unbounded obligation to one’s nearest and dearest.

I’ve seen this firsthand. When I worked in an emergency department as a receptionist, patients were generally polite when inquiring on their own behalf, but when relatives came to the counter asking how long till their parent or child would be seen they were all too often rude and obnoxious. Many awful things have been done in the name of family.

II The ordo amoris, and the clear call to universal charity

Within Christianity, there is great scope for special love for one’s own family, and even one’s nation. However, the Gospels and epistles forcefully indicate there are limits. See what may be the bible’s single most viscerally provocative verse:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”

Even Pagans love their families. Christianity is not the religion of doing or giving, roughly what you would have done or given as a pagan.

So yes, Christianity has always recognized an order of affections. However, Christianity is universal and absolutely cosmopolitan in spiritual outlook, and is clear that spiritual brotherhood obligates material generosity.

There is one verse in the New Testament that the conservatives have been citing repeatedly to try vindicate themselves- Timothy 5:8:

“Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Certainly, this verse indicates special concern is appropriate and, indeed crucial. This is something that has always been recognized by essentially every Christian tradition. Thank goodness for that, life would be intolerable without friendship and family, which depend on special affection.

However, this verse must be read in conjunction with the dozens and dozens of New Testament passages that demand an outlook of almost inconceivably broad charity. This includes injunctions to give your coat to anyone who tries to steal your tunic, to care for injured strangers even at great expense and even if they are from an enemy ethnic group, to treat all believers as brothers and sisters, to give water to the thirsty, to give generously to beggars and the homeless lest you might burn forever in hell fire, to give even when you have almost nothing, that even pagans and tax collectors love their family and friends, and so on and on and on. The sheer frequency of appeals to Timothy 5:8, without careful consideration of how it is to be interpreted in light of these verses, is telling.

III No infinite needs and wants loophole

I think a lot of people are hoping to exploit the following “loophole”, the order of love starts with my family and then my countrymen.

1. The needs of each step in the Ordo Amoris take lexical priority over each subsequent step.

2. Since my family and my countrymen will never be fully satisfied, I need never actually give to anyone else.

Even giving to one’s countrymen becomes largely theoretical since your family will never have all that they desire- desire is infinite. If you think this is going to fly with God I would recommend reading the gospels.

IV Distinguishing between state and individual is no excuse

Another common response to the demand that PEFPAR be funded is a kind of Christian Lockeanism. On this view, while individuals should give, this is the individual’s choice, not the state because individuals have a nigh-inviolable right to their own property which the state cannot suspend merely for the sake of doing good. There is no good scriptural or authoritative basis for this, especially in light of the tradition that withholding from the poor is not merely a failure of charity, it is theft.

St. John Chrysostom said: Not to share with the poor is to steal from them. St Ambrose said: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone.” The idea of the sovereign owner who does not have to give although it would be awfully nice if he did doesn’t stand up in the Christian tradition. The owner who fails to give has not merely failed to be generous, he has failed to keep his most direct obligations, and he is a thief. He holds things that do not really belong to him.

How does this implicate the state? The state enforces and shapes the order of property rights. This is obvious not just empirically, but even scripturally (render unto Caesar…)

None of us could have as much as we do without the state. If individuals withhold from charity, they steal- it is not merely that they are a scrooge, rather they are a robber. Because the state is necessary for the enforcement and creation of property rights, If the state helps create and defend a world in which we do not give what we owe, the state is an accessory to theft. It upholds an order of property relations which constitutes theft.

A lot of people dislike this way of seeing things because they want to feel good about their giving. They bitterly resent being told they are just giving what they owe. A Catholic priest on Twitter summed up the position of the church well- Charity is throwing a grand feast for the poor- giving the poor enough to eat isn’t charity, that’s just justice, doing the bare minimum. A lot of people resent wokeness not because of the specific content of the demands it puts on them morally but because they hate the very idea of having moral demands imposed on them, seeing it as sanctimony. Unfortunately for them, Christianity is all about tough demands.

V The objections from differences of opinion and ethical balancing

But what about differences of opinion on how to help people? it’s important to be clear that the state isn’t a thief if, for example, they have some crackpot alternative theory about how they can do a lot of good for the global poor by readjusting money away from PEPFAR. They might be imprudent to be sure, but this doesn’t alone make them a thief.

I do not think this excuse applies here. I do not see an administration overflowing with goodwill for the global poor and seeking the best way to help them. I know the state doesn’t feel this way because of what they say. I am especially certain that the bulk of their vocal online supporters do not feel this way because they will tell you as much at the drop of a hat.

But consider the following argument. The distribution of money in the Christian tradition and most others is a matter of balancing and, thus, of individual judgment. How, then, can we critique the judgment of another?

That a question is a matter of judgment does not necessarily shield one from severe reprimand. There is this moral delusion- I think perhaps it is a very modern delusion- that unless one can clearly articulate exactly what the moral line is, no wrong can be all that serious. This is nonsense. It can be a good guideline for law, but not for morality. An act can be obscenely morally depraved, and we can know this beyond any real doubt without being able to specify some precise rule that has been broken.

Suppose that your kid snuck out when they weren’t supposed to, and you grounded them. Exactly what degree of punishment is prudent is a matter of balancing, and within reason, we should give parents discretion, but if your response was, say, that your children were grounded for the next five years until they were adults and were under house imprisonment for this period that would be abuse.

Even in questions of balance and judgment, it is possible to get it badly wrong, usually under the influence of malign motivations, and commit grave wrongs. It is tricky to say that canceling a specific policy is wrong, but this seems close to the clearest case we will get. The cancellation of PEFPAR, in a disorganized way, and without clear warning, or careful inquiry into its specific parts- seemingly primarily motivated by the skepticism of foreign aid generally- seems to qualify as motivated by a lack of charitable will, and not a mere difference of opinion. The mistruths the administration has told in the process underline this ill will- e.g. falsely claiming they’d cut off funding for condoms in Gaza, indicating either great inaccuracy due to destructive haste, or dishonesty.

I don’t claim to have an exact theory of our moral obligations, let alone to know what the best possible Christian theory is. I am sure that we do have moral obligations to help the poor globally, both as individuals and collectively, and that not immediately and in a disorganized manner canceling the best program the government has would be a good start. The beautiful thing about morality is that one doesn’t need a complete theory to exercise judgment, or to know certain acts are cruel. This is a mercy since otherwise we’d surely be dead.

I know that Americans think the government spends 25% of its money on foreign aid and should spend 10%. I know, in reality, it spends less than 1%. Exactly how much should be spent, I don’t know. I don’t need to know that one of the best programs in the world should remain and that if it is to be canceled, it should be canceled with great caution after a period of significant warning. No reasonable administration, filled with real and not merely professed goodwill for the poor and sick everywhere- filled with a desperate hunger to see all people live good lives- would act as the administration has.

VI My fate and yours

Even if you disagree on the general issue we know this. If you support the denial of crucial charity because it is“based”, “owns the libs” or the like, this will be your fate if you do not repentant:

Matthew 25:31-46

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

As for myself, I do not know what to believe. It would be dishonest of me if I did not admit that I am unsure if any God exists. However, I was raised a Christian, it informed deeply my intellectual heritage, and it fills me with anger to see Christ made out be the tawdry preacher of a kind of Roman-Pagan religious nationalism, minus the aesthetic majesty of Homer & Virgil.

If you don’t want to be Christian, admit it. No one is making you pretend, so stop pretending. Stop defiling one of the most beautiful and magisterial ideas ever created. Maybe once you stop pretending, you can consider, again, its proposal of unimaginable, all-transfiguring love and mercy striking from a clear sky into an order of darkness that could not comprehend it.

You may say, of course, that you have no interest in my words because I do not believe and you do, but Jesus was very clear that I’m not the one you have to convince, and perhaps you are not the believer you think you are. If there is a God, may he have mercy on all who have lived and will live. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.