On January 30, 2025, U.S. Vice President JD Vance found himself embroiled in a heated online feud with British political commentator Rory Stewart over the interpretation of Christian teachings and their relevance to moral responsibilities. This confrontation kicked off when Vance, during an interview, proposed ideas reminiscent of Christian concepts about prioritizing love and obligations to family, community, and the wider world.
Vance opined on what he deemed a "hierarchy of responsibilities," likening it to Christian teachings where love should sequentially extend from family to neighbors and then to the broader community. He stated, "There’s this old school – and I think it’s a very Christian concept by the way – you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens of your own country, and then after all, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world," according to sources from social media.
Stewart, known for his outspoken views, did not take kindly to Vance's remarks. He criticized the Vice President's approach as being more "pagan tribal" than Christian. "A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 – less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love…" Stewart tweeted.
Vance was quick to respond, dismissing Stewart's critique and insisting it lack common sense. He encouraged followers to "just google 'ordo amoris'" to understand the concept he was presenting. He challenged Stewart's reasoning, asking if he truly believed one's obligations to their children compared equally to those of strangers worldwide. Vance emphasized, "The idea there isn't hierarchy of obligations violates common sense. Does anyone really think their duties to their own children are the same as to someone on the far side of the globe?"
The back-and-forth escalated when Vance made what many perceived as insulting remarks about Stewart's intellect, stating, "I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: the problem with Rory and people like him is he has an IQ of 110 and thinks he has an IQ of 130. This false arrogance drives so much elite failure over the last 40 years."
Not one to shy away from confrontation, Stewart fired back, highlighting the intellectual disparity indicated by Vance's comments. "An honor to have my IQ questioned by you, Mr. VP. But your attempts to speak for Christ are false and dangerous..." he replied, asserting the radical nature of Christian love. He contended the message of Christ challenges tribalism, noting, "When asked 'Who is my neighbor?' Jesus chose a Samaritan—an outsider and theological enemy of the Jews—as the moral exemplar..."
The public's response to this duel of ideologies has been largely one of approval for Stewart, with many praising him for articulately and theologically addressing the concerns raised by Vance. Social media posts echoed sentiments appreciating how he encapsulated the complexity of Christian teachings against simplistic interpretations. On the flip side, critics of Stewart argue he is using the debate to promote his own agenda rather than engaging constructively.
The clash has garnered millions of views online, illustrating how political and theological interpretations intertwine and resonate with broader societal sentiments. While Vance stands firmly by his view on moral hierarchies, Stewart defends the universality of Christian love, advocating for compassion extended to all, especially the marginalized and disenfranchised.
Vance has yet to respond to Stewart's more pastoral rebuttals on the radical principles behind the Christian doctrine he claims to champion. Observers await whether this theological debate will be explored more deeply or whether both will retreat to their respective positions as the media spotlight shifts.
This encounter between Vance and Stewart highlights the broader discourse on the intersection of faith, morality, and politics. It raises pressing questions on how religious principles can justify political ideologies and the potential dangers when politicians take on the mantle of theologians.