Inspired by the theological disagreement between two Christians: US Vice president JD Vance and podcaster and ex-MP Rory Stewart- who should our primary obligation be towards and how should we treat others?
JD Vance (on Fox News)- said it is a natural Christian concept to love and prioritise people in a certain order: our family, then our neighbours, our community, then our country's citizens and then the rest of the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOzfVslQjE
Rory Stewart (on Twitter)- argues that the opposite is true, and what made Christianity a radical departure from tribal religions, was the idea that everyone should be treated with compassion and dignity
Stewart: "When asked “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus chose a Samaritan—an outsider and theological enemy of the Jews—as the moral exemplar - to challenge the idea that obligation is primarily to one’s own people or community".
Join us on Zoom to discuss!
More Tweets from Rory Stewart:: http://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1885238686188536148
“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".
"This does not mean that Christians should not care for their families. St Augustine + Aquinas talk about why for practical and emotional reasons we focus on those closest to us. And they reflect on how difficult it can be to reconcile love with the demands of justice and mercy"
"But Christian love is radical precisely because it always extends to the most vulnerable and marginalised and to those we desperately do not want to love. Hence “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven".
"Christ’s message is astonishingly difficult. We all fall short magnificently. We all are drawn to care most for those closest to us. That is why it is so difficult to encourage people to support the poor in Africa or at home".
Thought for the Day
Rev Dr Giles Fraser considers the theological discussion between Vance and Stewart:
Comments