Rightly Ordered Love - American Reformer

Seeking Clarity Amidst Contention

In certain circles online, there has been a lot of angst recently about the idea that there exists in human relations a “hierarchy” or “order” of loves (ordo amoris), which is to say: love must not be distributed indiscriminately, but instead be “rightly ordered” in a way that reflects God’s justice and ordering of the world. Augustine famously wrote in Chapter 22, Book 15 of his Confessions “that it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love.”

Thomas Aquinas expanded on this notion in Summa Theologica (II-II, Q. 26, Art. 1): “there must needs be some order in things loved out of charity, which order is in reference to the first principle of that love, which is God.” Aquinas then went on to describe how we must begin with a right love of God, moving to a proper love of self, and even that “the affection of our charity [should] be more intense towards those to whom we ought to behave with greater kindness” (II-II, Q. 26, Art. 6).

For Aquinas this entails that we should love our own families more than the families of others (II-II, Q. 26, Art. 8), as well as our fellow countrymen more than those of other countries: “for some neighbors are connected with us by their natural origin, a connection which cannot be severed, since that origin makes them to be what they are” (II-II, Q. 26, Art. 7).

As revered as Augustine and Aquinas are, they could be wrong. However, sound biblical and theological reasoning leads to the same conclusion. The family is an institution ordained by God for the well-being of humanity. Marriage and child-rearing are not only instituted by God, but are also regulated by God. While one must never place one’s family above faithfulness to God (see e.g., Luke 14:26), one nevertheless has an enhanced obligation toward one’s family members (see e.g., 1 Tim 5:8).

With regard to the nation, as I have argued elsewhere:

The Bible takes for granted that nations exist as distinct entities, with real authority (and corresponding duties) derived from God (Gen 10; Isa 2:2, 4; Matt 28:19; Rev 5:9; 22:2; etc.). Justice, therefore, demands that nations exist in a certain way: it is just for nations to protect their territorial integrity, defend themselves against unjust aggression, welcome guests as they see fit, and provide for the well-being of their citizens, just as nations are held accountable to God for the justice (or its absence) that exists within their borders. The question is not whether nations should exist, but whether they will exercise the power given to them by God justly or not.

In sum, I have a greater responsibility toward my children than toward the children of my next-door neighbor. This would be the case even if one of my children rejected Christ and my neighbor’s children were committed Christians. I would have a spiritual bond with my neighbor’s children that sadly I would not have with my own, but this would in no way negate the divinely mandated familial duty I have toward my own family. The nation is analogous to the family, but on a larger scale: I have a civic duty toward my fellow citizens that does not exist with regard to the citizens of other nations, even if they are Christians. I certainly must treat foreigners and foreign guests in a way that is consistent with the Bible’s ethical teaching, but the spiritual bond that exists among Christians does not negate the enhanced civic duties that exist among fellow citizens according to God’s creation design.

The concept of ordered loves has admittedly been put in provocative ways in some recent discussions. To get the point across, it has been argued, for example, that a Christian could in wartime be required to kill a fellow Christian in battle (which has sadly happened frequently enough throughout history). Whether this is the best way to get the idea across could be debated, but the point of framing the order of loves in such provocative ways usually seems to be to force people to confront certain realities they might otherwise easily ignore.

I think it is possible, however, to explain the order of loves in a way that might make more sense to more people. The foundational principle is simple: salvation in Christ does not subvert God’s creational design for individuals, families, or nations.

Immigration policy is a contemporary political application of ordered loves that shows how this concept can be profitably applied today. Salvation does not negate God’s creational design for nations. It also must not subvert basic principles of justice. Accordingly, it is perfectly legitimate for nations to welcome foreigners, whether temporarily (with work visas, etc.) or permanently (as they become citizens assimilated into the laws and customs of their host country), but there is no necessary Christian mandate to do either. Whether to admit foreigners into one’s country or not is purely a matter of prudence and national self-interest. It is right and just for nations to seek their own well-being, just as it is right for families and individuals to do so. In fact, it is perverse in the extreme to suggest that it would be sub-Christian for a nation to do so.

Christians are called to love their neighbors. They are even called to love their enemies. Loving one’s neighbor, however, can never necessitate one to act contrary to what is in accordance with God’s creation design or contrary to what is just. Using the example of illegal immigration, a scenario could exist where an illegal immigrant needed our help (perhaps suffering some immediate physical need, or a health emergency, or the like). A Christian must be willing to help. This is basic Christian ethics. But at the same time, we must guard against sentimentality masquerading as love, or from accepting the idea that love can be contrary to the divine creational (natural) order. It is not legitimate to extrapolate from the Christian’s basic ethical responsibility toward any individual they encounter to a stance, for example, regarding immigration on any scale. My responsibility toward the man in front of me does not necessitate transforming immigration policy so as to allow into one’s nation all who desire to be there. The idea of loving one’s enemies is instructive: every Christian is called to love his enemy; no Christian, in order to love his enemy, is called to allow his enemy to do evil or act unjustly with impunity. Love and justice must not be pitted against each other. Ensuring that immigration occurs (or does not occur) only in ways that are beneficial to one’s nation is a matter of basic justice.

Nature—God’s creational design—can become corrupted: the heightened duties one has to one’s family can be twisted into prioritizing family even over faithfulness to Christ, just as the heightened duties one has to one’s fellow countrymen can become twisted into ethnic or racial hatred. But the sinful corruption of nature is just that: a corruption of a divine ordering and hierarchy of loves that is good, and indispensably so. The solution to the corruption of the order of loves is correcting its application, rather than abandoning the idea altogether.

The correct application of rightly ordered loves would go far in addressing much contemporary evangelical confusion about political and cultural topics. Too often the demands of Christian love are stated in a such way as to overturn the demands of God’s law (whether in scripture or nature). Rightly ordering our loves toward those God has placed nearest to us (in particular: our families and nations) is not a justification for hating those in spheres further removed. Just as much is it the case that rightly ordering our loves does not require us to ignore the well-being of our families and nations. In a system where justice prevails there is no tension whatsoever between these two notions.

Image Credit: Unsplash