There has been recent interest in the theological notion of the ordo amoris in light of Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent use of the term.
The ordo amoris is an important concept for Christians to think through as it has many practical ramifications, including how a church stewards its resources.
But what is the ordo amoris? In short, it is the notion that there is an order of priority for how we love. Though we are to love all people, we are not responsible to love all people in equal measure.
Calvin, in discussing how we ought to show love to all men, nevertheless writes, “I do not deny that the more closely a man is linked to us, the more intimate obligation we have to assist him. It is the common habit of mankind that the more closely men are bound together by the ties of kinship, of acquaintanceship, or of neighborhood, the more responsibilities for one another they share. This does not offend God; for his providence, as it were, leads us to it.”[1]
In other words, people have more responsibility toward those they are more closely connected with. It is by God’s providence that these connections exist.
This notion is seen throughout Scripture.
For instance, in 1 Timothy, Paul writes, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)[2]
Paul says that if a Christian does not provide for his relatives he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Notice that this sort of indictment is never charged against Christians who do not provide for someone else’s relatives. It is particularly evil to not provide for one's own relatives. Furthermore, within the circle of relatives, people have an even greater responsibility to provide for their own household.
From this verse, we see the following priority list:
1. Our own household
2. Our own relatives
3. Others
Furthermore, in Galatians, we read, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” (Gal 6:8)
Christians have a particular responsibility to do good to other Christians. After that, as they have the opportunity, they are to do good to everyone.
From this verse, we see the following priority list:
1. Christians
2. Others
These two passages give evidence for Calvin’s notion that we have a greater responsibility to those whom we are more intimately connected with.
This idea is very counter-cultural. Many today think it is more noble to show a greater affection for those they are least connected to. This is why someone can feel morally superior about their zeal for the rights of animals even while they neglect the care of their elderly parents.
We must think biblically about how we are to prioritize the use of these resources God has entrusted us with. This does not give us the excuse to withhold love from those we are not connected to. We are indeed to do good to everyone as we have the opportunity. However, there are those we are particularly responsible for.
In thinking through the ordo amoris, I would suggest the following priority list. Though I am by no means dogmatic about the particulars of some of this list, I believe it provides a helping starting framework. There are certainly additional questions and other factors that this list does not address.[3]
1. God
2. Household
3. Relatives
4. Local church
5. Regional church
6. National church
7. Global church
8. Local unbelievers
9. Regional unbelievers
10. National unbelievers
11. Global unbelievers
At the onset, I stated that the ordo amoris has implications for how a church stewards its resources. Churches need to consider the ordo amoris as they seek to do good with what God has given them.
I believe that the stewardship of many churches reflects a worldly cultural view of how we are to order our love more than the biblical notion. Many churches prioritize spending on those they are least responsible for while neglecting those they are most responsible for. Again, this does not mean that we are not to do good to everyone. However, with our limited resources, we must make sure we prioritize those we are more responsible for.
How might this concept affect church finances? For one, it impacts how benevolence money should be spent. Local churches must prioritize those who are members of their church. After that a church has a responsibility to believers more broadly. Then, and only then, should a church provide for unbelievers as they have opportunity.
Secondly, it impacts missionary spending. I would argue that a church should first work to support their own pastor before they should support missionaries. They are responsible for taking care of their own “ox” before they can seek to take care of someone else’s. The man who tends the flock should be provided milk from his flock (1 Corinthians 9:7-12).
Furthermore, churches must recognize that they have a greater responsibility for church planting in their own backyard than in someone else's backyard. In a state like Nevada, there are numerous opportunities in rural areas for church planting and church support. Many of these areas will likely not be able to support a pastor on their own. Nevadans have a greater responsibility to make sure these areas are taken care of than they do for areas around the world. We have prioritized incorrectly if we are pursuing global missions at the neglect of regional missions. We are certainly not to downplay the importance of global missionary efforts, but we also must not ignore the missionary opportunities that are mere hours away.
In conclusion, the way we prioritize our love is an important concept to think through. God has providentially placed us in the context that we are in. Out of a desire to use the resources God has given us well, we ought to prioritize biblically the responsibility we have to our fellow man. May God help us to do so, first and foremost, out of love for him and to his glory!
[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.8.55.
[2] All Scripture references are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
[3] For instance, does a person have a greater responsibility to a believer in their local church or a distant relative who is an unbeliever? How much does opportunity, or lack thereof, play into obligation? These challenging questions, and others like them, are outside the scope of this article.
Stephen Duarte (ME, National University; MTS, Reformed Baptist Seminary) is a pastor at Parkside Bible Fellowship in Fallon, NV. He is husband to Debbie and father of three.
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of other contributors on this site.
Comments