The Theology of Right and Left (JD Vance vs Rory Stewart)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- Do the 321 course now, it's completely free. Sign up at 321course.com/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @speaklifemedia
LINKS//
Subscribe to this channel for videos that see all of life with Jesus at the centre:
www.youtube.co...
Subscribe to our other TH-cam channel, Reformed Mythologist, to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:
/ @reformedmythologist
The Speak Life Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts:
iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Amazon: music.amazon.c...
Speak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.
Learn more about us here: speaklife.org.uk/
CONNECT//
Would you like to join us in person for an intensive? Find out more here:
speaklife.org....
Discord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There’s bonus content and creative/theological discussion. You can join our Discord here:
speaklife.org....
Social Media:
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
In the age of social media I think there is a far greater draw to an easy form of "loving" people in the abstract vs. the gritty task of loving the embodied people right in front of us.
Definitely. Also you are exposed to infinite amount of people in need. For conservatives, it probably seems like drinking out of s water hose
This is an excellent point
Quite true but it dies not negate the point of the Good Samaritan that my neighbour may also be my enemy. Jesus, who trumps Aquinas, tells us to love both those who are distant and those who are near. Understanding “love” is also part of the teaching. Agape love is not emotional but a commitment to unconditional care and concern. As Christians we are to live as we were created to be prior to the fall in Genesis. Thar decision to rebel against God messed us all up.
totally. Its hard enough to love even your own family. Its work. If we can't do that....how can we know love even?
@@revdrjack14 Is that the point of the Good Samaritan parable? I would question who we (the reader\listener of the parable) are meant to identify with? The Samaritan or the person beaten and bloodied on the road being able to accept help from our enemy.
In the brothers Karamazov, elder Zosima recounts the words of a doctor to him. "The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. I know from experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs me and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he’s too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity."
Thank you.
And how very true this observation is!
This was my favorite quote from the entire book
Great quote.
@@matthewgoeglein-oj3lqIt's really good, but there's a lot of competition. It's a book full of great quotes.
Vance had an absent father and a drug addict mother incapable of caring for him. He knows what it is to have family fail in active love. He’s naturally encouraging starting with family. It’s not all abstract for Vance.
Mercy may reach beyond duty, but duty cannot be discarded in the name of mercy.
I'm not sure that 'mercy' and 'duty;' exist on the same analytical level.
@@MrJwgh They're directly linked. Mercy to a murderer eschews duty to protect innocent lives. The priority of mercy disregards duty. Mercy implies a legal transgression of one form or another. It over looks illegal behavior. Mercy collides with duty to protect. Duty to uphold the law vs. "mercy" that ignores the law.
All are preceded by justice. You must be just to those who are due what is due them. Before you give what is generous or merciful.
I love this. Love should never be limited just to me and mine. But neither should it merely be for the outsider. Love draws the outsider in, just as Christ does us.
Greetings ,
I met Mr.Gladd about a few weeks ago , as he visited my school in Wembley ,London.
I was fortunate enough to be sat on the same lunchtable as him . Me and my classmates shared a knowledgeful and lovely conversation with him , and he shared about his podcast (Speak Life) to us on the table. After watching his videos and meeting him ,
Mr.Gladd is a respectful and intelligent man with perspectives and notable opinions.
I feel advantaged to be able to have met him and know about his ideas and views.
Sincerly ,
-The boy on the lunchtable , at Michaela.
If you're on a plane and the masks drop from the ceiling, you are ordered to fix your own mask in place first, before helping others. That is basic causality.
By saving yourself and those in your row, you preserve the possibility of saving the whole plane. But basic prioritization is obviously crucial.
Humans are only capable of one action at a time.
The point isn’t human logic but Jesus’ teachings, which often defy it. Leaders like JD Vance and Trump, who claim to represent Christ, do what He condemned and ignore what He commanded. Vance's justifying it with non-biblical reasoning is truly ludicrous.
Just the opposite. The Bible clearly teaches a order of love. That's what JD said. Then he said of course we then love others.
@ I'm not even talking about logic or human understanding. We all know Proverbs 3:5, and it is objectively true.
I am referring to basic, obvious causality. If I neglect myself to the point where I die pointlessly, I am then useless to others.
Do you deny this?
@@sifx.z1524When did Jesus say to prioritize strangers above your family?
I think that this refers more to 1 Timothy 5:8, “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.”
This is not exclusionary though, it does not say to provide for your household before or instead of others.
@@katymcdonald5481 what does the word especially mean?
He mentions that in this video
@@Jaketv111 In this context it says “and especially” not just “especially” it’s not a directive to prioritise the household it’s illustrating that the immediate family is the bare minimum you should provide for. It is still not excluding those outside the household as it’s talking about all relatives nor does it exclude others beyond. It certainly doesn’t say that once your responsibilities to your relatives are fulfilled your responsibilities stop there. If you are saying that this should indicate that government should be providers for its citizens of shelter, healthcare, food programs and education I’d agree with you there, if this is a metaphor for government it is certainly suggestive of a more socialist structure who provides for its global “relatives” AND especially for its own citizens or “household”.
@@katymcdonald5481So you agree that it says to prioritize one's own family.
1 Timothy 5 comes to mind where is says "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever". We do have different spheres of responsibility.
Responsibility isn't love.
This is such a leap. This is why people don't trust "Christians". Does it say that therefore, you put your family first? Or does it simply say that you should take care of your family? How many men TODAY are desperate NOT to pay for their own children to live once they lose access to the mothers bed? You imagine that behaviour to be new?
That verse is about individual families - it can’t be applied to nation states, particularly on immigration policy when immigration actually benefits the country economically
Didn't you notice how exactly this verse that you quote is actually addressed here, 20:41?
I recommend that you at least listen from 15:45 till 20:59 before further commenting
Ofcourse, listening to the whole of the story will be a good optional alternative
How this elegantly draws clear lines of connection between nature and grace instead of disconnecting the two at great peril and loss
The verse you quoted does put family responsibility in opposition to loving neighbors, praying for enemies, or caring for foreigners, the sick, prisoners, orphans, and widows.
JD Vance never said only love your own, he said start with those nearest and work out. That seems to reflect the gospel, ie love your neighbour. Jesus's teachings about loving your enemies don't contradict that because he only gives examples of enemies that are spacially near or within your influence.
So your physical neighbor being deported is OK? JD was referring to people in the country, this goes back to how Southern Christians treated slaves, worthy of grace but nothing else.
@@joshuaerickson2458 The US government is responsible for US citizens first not people in other countries. If people from other countries illegally enter the US, then the US has a right and a duty to deport them in order to fulfill its duty to make the country safe and economically stable. A safe and economically stable country can then assist other countries to do the same, whereas an unsafe and economically poor country can't help anyone else.
As a teenager, I 'interviewed' the man who with his wife organised our local church's collection for the charity Christian Aid. I asked him what he thought about those who said that
'Charity should begin at home'. His reply was that he agreed that charity should and must begin at home but it does not have to and must not end there............
The world is our home.
How does that contradict Vance?
@@Strill_ Vance's view is of family circle first, then church, then friends and neighbours surrounding that circle, then outer circles, but my diagram is like three circles in a Venn diagram overlapping at the centre, at times with the need to follow Jesus helping others - balancing up the circles of giving to family, others and God with service of yourself through love, doing practical things and contributing financially.
@@marywarburton If you had the choice between either feeding your family, or letting them starve and feeding a stranger, which would you choose?
@@Strill_ It would depend on who was most hungry for a meal and I was able to feed at the time. I live in England and that isn't a decision I have to make thankfully.
????? Matthew 22:8-14 is not a prescription for wedding etiquette, it's an illustration of the eschaton. Moreover, "everyone" is invited because the guests who were chosen (likely "Israel" in the illustration) would not come. The solution is to fill the wedding with "whoever" will come.
On the controversy:
Vance didn't invoke Jesus and he definitely wasn't giving a "take" on John 15.
JD was not at all wrong that this is a "Christian" notion. The Ordo Amoris is articulated best in Aquinas but also appears in Augustine and 1 Tim 5:8; Gal 6:10. Aquinas is only making sense of what we find in scripture: Jesus' charge to love your neighbor and love your enemy does not mean that all love is flattened out so that one is to care for his enemy in the same way as he cares for his own child. Rather, it means that, although we are charged to prioritize our family (etc.), we are still to love the stranger.
Rory can dispute if this interpretative tradition represents or contradict the NT. That’s fine. But, he outright rejected this reading as “Christian” and pretended that Vance was giving a commentary on John 15. He’s wrong here and was clearly (and presumptuously) trying to score cheap political points against a politician he doesn’t like.
Love your enemies; prioritize your family. These two are not in conflict. Vance made this clear. Rory was out of his depth and straw-manned Vance (of course).
As a Christian it is Very biblical to put your family first ahead of any foreigner or immigrant:
See 1 Timothy 5:8
- 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.
Locking your house door isnt hating the foreigner, but loving your family first as above
Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?
This verse is about what comes first: the bound by faith or the bound by blood.
It's not about how to follow the 4th commandment - which includes the duties towards the fatherland and how to organize it.
Timothy doesn't include the words of Jesus. However these people are providing or using resources to deport immigrants because they hate the foreigner. Maybe they should focus more on providing for relatives.
Important topic, so thanks for speaking about it. But I did find your repeated labelling of conservatives as "blood and soil and nature" love and of "liberals" as on the "grace" side unhelpful as an analogy or description and actually extremely misleading. The culture wars are primarily between people with traditional values - that is oriented to family, country and God - and those with progressive values who reject the importance of God and traditional hierarchies based on faith. The French revolution was the origin or the political labels right and left. Those seated on the right were for the king and traditional social institutions including the Church.. Those on the left rejected God, executed the king and many believers, abolished Christianity and desecrated churxhes, and put humanity as an abstract concept above all, and literally worshipped human reason divorced from God. They worked to overthrow religion and establish society purely on faith in humanistic rational grounds, and their subsequent modern leftist followers including Marx and post modernists like Foucault have continued the same agenda. So to call the left leaning liberals those on the side of grace is absolutely disingenuous. And to neglect the importance of traditional religious values to conservatives likewise is to create a straw man. There are other studies showing conservatives are much more practical in their charity and that liberals are much more intolerant and even cut off family for political differences.
What Christ wants is for us each individually to embody his sacrificial love. If the Good Samaritan parable condemns some conservatives as embodying the Priest, it also condemns the liberals perhaps as the Levites who fail to deign to lift their own finger to help those in need around them. I also hear the words of the Lord condemning the Pharisees, who burden the poor with taxes as speaking today to liberal groups who would steal the labour of their fellow citizens to spend on their preferred disadvantaged group, rather than themselves show the love through hard deeds in the flesh and emptying their own purses.
God came to save individuals, not nations. But leftists and liberals believe the role of Government is to usurp religion and save the world. Belonging to the USA is not how God planned to save humanity but through individuals turning to Christ and taking up his cross daily in following bim. It is nice if government policies and laws do not make that more difficult for us as individuals but if we look to government for salvation of the poor and disadvantaged we are worshipping a false god.
Im reminded of the movie the Black Robe. Missionaries convinced a Canadian tribe to love their enemies. The tribe was wiped off the face of the Earth by a neighboring enemy tribe. A country is different from an individual and a church. The government is given a sword for a reason.
Really good, convicting, and helpful message thank you! ☺
I have heard “If I love my children I can empathise with those who love their children, and if I love my nation or tribe I can empathise with those who love their nation or tribe.”
If this is the case then surely love for one’s tribe or nation is important?
No, it's just admitting that humans are tribal by their earthly nature and it needs real effort to raise above that.
@@hyvakoira Hatred for one's tribe or nation is surely an evil, would you agree?
@GRIFFIN1238 Yes, what's your point? We all know how politics work. You have your tribe on which depends your own survival, you pray to your gods (values), you oppose yourselves to other tribes and gods. Christian faith offers you something radically different, that transcends tribalism, nationalism, state boundaries. etc. Economically and politically, we're not yet ready to be truly Christian. Maybe we'll never will. I only wish politicians stopped quoting the Bible when explaining to us why they want to extradite migrants or buy Greenland, that's all.
@@hyvakoira a large influx of immigrants put a huge strain on local inhabitants particularly the poor who don’t own a house or live in a nice neighbourhood. Rent is scarce and expensive and house prices skyrocket.
The poor always suffer the most, while the rich are oblivious or benefit from high immigration.
@@hyvakoira amen
This is so thoughtful and nuanced. Thank you.
This is the most brilliant explanation of the holy trinity I’ve seen put into the modern context. Absolutely intrigued listening to this. Thanks 🙏🏻
Glad you enjoyed it!
Brilliant work here! Helpful in making sense of it. Thank you
Thanks for the clear and helpful analysis.
The way I see it is immigration is essential and I welcome it as I think many Canadians do. The issue for me, and I would hazard a guess for many others, is the ridiculous pace of immigration in recent years. I also do not believe in illegal immigration, hence why it is called illegal, nor do I believe that immigrants have no obligation to play by a country's rules. I am not an isolationist nor am I a just let everyone in. I am a Christian. I use my reason as God would have me do. A balanced position is a challenge at the best of times but in recent years, I haven't seen much balance. God bless you Glen. I appreciate you ... From Victoria, BC, Canada
As an overview of the topic, this is a fantastically balanced video.
As for it's role, hopefully it can be a dampener to stop the pendulum from swinging too violently.
We are none of us ready.
1 John 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
One might add, if you don't love your neighbor whom you have seen, how will you love the stranger who you have not seen.
I appreciate your thorough analysis of the unification of nature and grace. It deals with the individual and the church. How a nation should apply these principles isn’t so clear. Political Theology is a tough one for America, lest we infer “Christian Nationalism.” A Roman Catholic VP married to a Hindu illustrates the difficulty.
Luther’s two spheres is helpful for that…
This reminds me of Dickens’ character Mrs Jellyby in Bleak House. A chapter named Telescopic Philanthropy. One can learn a lot from reading that.
I am not a scholar. Just a garden variety Christian trying to navigate the shark infested waters of today’s political climate. I love that this video highlights the hypocrisy on both sides and it’s given me a lot to ponder.
I love my country. I love my country to the point that I find myself getting upset when someone criticizes it or its people. I want to defend and preserve it. That said, I feel that Christian should position themselves in the middle in most political things.
The reason I say that is because… concerning immigration… no one is really opposing immigration. They are opposing illegal immigration, which is much different. In order for me to advocate for completely open borders, I would have to say i am willing to risk causing harm to those in my family, neighborhood, city, state and country as a result of that policy. By doing that, I am prioritizing others above those in the natural order of love. However, if I don’t allow anyone in, I am utterly forsaking the immeasurable love of Christ and limiting it only to me and, as you said, staying within myself.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the laws should reflect grace and allow for the love of Christ to bring people in, but not so much so that it endangers those in our own country.
I'm not a scholar either, i'm not from a christian background, so not totally versed in it beyond the basics, I used to be in the left before i coverted, then i probably over-compensated in the other direction, but usually when I see something like this, I pop here to see the take of it here in this channel,
So, I feel what you are saying,
I look at that heat map, and think, we probably should have both heat maps at the same time, then we can make the correct judgements, and ofc just have faith that our ways may be made straight
I think Glen is the only modern youtuber, and maybe Tom Holland (historian) who have made the correct assessment of the culture war from what I've seen.
Human nature is to protect and love the people closest to you. Denying that is denying what makes us human and gives us purpose.
That is well and good; but, following Jesus does require completely denying human nature. You cannot have it both ways!
@ False dichotomy.
I suppose neither of you watched the video then?
@@petethorne5094 Go away Pete
@@sifx.z1524Following Jesus requires us to love and protect our families in particular. There is no contradiction there.
Hi Glen, I have often seen the questions of the Pharisees and others as attempts to see what the limits of love are (what can I get away with?) Whereas Jesus always pushed back way beyond where they started. Thanks for your video and thoughts
Love self.
Love neighbour.
Love stranger.
Love enemy.
Cultivate universal loving-kindness.
That isn't the order the Bible gives. It is:
1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor
2a) Love His Church
2b) Love your family
2c) Love your fellow citizens
2d) Love the weak (orphan, widow, stranger, etc)
2e) Love your enemies
Love of self is a deadly sin that must be constantly mortified.
@@SimplyReformed Are you not conflating self-love and narcicissm here? Christ explicitly commands us to love our neighbour as we love ourself, that is the second greatest commandment. How are you defining love of self as a deadly sin?
@ I would argue no. Self-love is by definition narcissism and an extremely deadly sin.
Matthew 19:19 is not commanding self love, it is assuming we do that be default.
I know of no Christian theologian, until very modern times, who thinks self love is a good thing. In fact they all universally condemn self love as the problem with fallen humanity. It is only with our narcissistic godless pop-culture did we get the crazy idea that "we have to love ourselves first before we can love others."
Agape love is by definition the "love of the other - first God and then our neighbor." The greatest commandment of the Law is about God, not ourselves.
When Paul lists many grievous sins in 2Timothy 3:2, what is the first one? "Lovers of self."
As the Lord Jesus taught, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me." - Matt 16:24.
Loving yourself is the exact opposite of denying yourself.
To love the neighbour like thyself (thy own, not oneself) as you can lay down your life for your familiar self, but not for your individual self
@SimplyReformed Thank you for your response, brother. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you don't practice contemplative prayer and that, if you do pray, it's in a discursive way only. To someone who knows God in this contemplative way, self-hatred is as much a barrier as narcissism. Love of self is right there in the greatest commandment; we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. If we hate ourselves, how can we love our neighbour? Loving all people without any self-referential conditions, as God does, is the prerequisite for entering into the living stream that is God. By comparison, the Biblical verses you cited are mere buckets of water, separated from the stream, and passed on to us as a second-hand echo of the experiences of those stream-enterers who came before us. Put down your Law and come and swim in the Spirit!
Those who loved their enemies and acted on it consistently, either never had REAL enemies, counted of reciprocity of kindness or found powerful protectors. Egypt used to be full of Coptic Christians, Lebanon was mostly Christian, and all Levant had large Christian communities. They have almost disappeared now. It is just not survivable. As an individual you are free to practice suicidal beliefs, but it is immoral to demand it of your country.
Very true and disconcerting
If I'm not mistaken, Egypt, Lebanon, and most of the countries of the Levant still exist. Your argument would therefore seem to be that the _church_ within a country should not "practice suicidal beliefs," since the church is what has dwindled there. I'm mostly unfamiliar with the particular churches in those regions, but do you have any evidence for your position? Surely they haven't almost disappeared because the non-Christian governments of the countries they were located in were loving people too much?
As for a counterexample, consider the early church under Nero, Caligula, and other hostile Roman emperors. How could it possibly have survived while teaching people that they should _all_ love their enemies? And yet it not only survived, but thrived and spread throughout the empire. The Roman Empire fell shortly after the emperors converted to Christianity, and I've heard it said that some scholars believe that was due to the Christian teaching to love enemies--the Pax Romana depended on strict military enforcement, which later emperors cut back on. But, frankly, I would much rather have Christians all over the world than Romans (or, to be blunt, Americans).
Good vid, Glen
Thanks Glen, but I think this has very little to do with immigration policy. As individuals, we should love our neighbour, but do we think the state should act like a Christian?
When one refugee turns up, the people who meet him at the beach may be gracious and help him. But what happens when 10,000 turn up? Or 1 million? This is the problem faced by those living on the front line, like the island of Lampedusa. There are waves of people turning up in response to national or supra-national policies. The people on the front-line suffer the impact. There are other people in the community living below the poverty line who are affected because they are pushed back in the queue. But the people who prioritise government spending generally live in comfortable circumstances, safely remote from the trouble spots. They can be munificent with other people's wealth.
People likeJD Vance want religion to be the guiding principle of the government. They are pushing religion into government but don’t want to push all of the doctrines. If they seeming want to make America great through the imposition of religion, then they should include ALL of the aspects and transcend our baser instincts.
The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Luke 4 17
I enjoyed following your reasoning, and it makes perfect sense to me even as a non-believer. But it also seems entirely alien to the position of everyday people, be they christians or not.
How do we keep from falling out of the boat on either side?
Stay focused on Christ.
GREAT teaching!
Thank you!
Interesting analysis! As a side comment the more I study the OT the more I realise that Jesus's teaching was not reinventing it, but actively reflecting it.
Thank you
That you Love your Familiar First, doesn’t mean you hate the stranger. It's not either or. You cannot go about loving every other person and neglecting the ones immediate to you.
And i struggle to Wonder if this moral doctrine of christ should be applied to the state. Like the state loving their enemies. Should we give grace to an unrepentant enemy state sworn to destroy others? Or should be prevent them for the sake of the vulnerable. Should the state turn the other cheek?
I can’t help but wonder if JD believes that Common Sense “trumps” biblical exegesis! I can’t help visualising his response to the question and begging of the bishop of Washington at the funeral of Jimmy Carter.
Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick Ohio Sen. JD Vance was once a fervent critic of the former president. In private messages, he wondered ahead of Trump’s election whether he was “America’s Hitler” and in 2017 said Trump was a “moral disaster.” In public, he agreed Trump was a “total fraud” who didn’t care about regular people and called him “reprehensible. I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon or that he’s America’s Hitler,”
In 2016 and 2017, Vance said Trump was “cultural heroin” and “just another opioid” for Middle America. “Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us,” he tweeted after the “Access Hollywood” tape was published in 2016.
Vance also liked tweets that said Trump committed “serial sexual assault,” called him “one of USA’s most hated, villainous, douchey celebs”.
All true.
Vance is a strong defender of Trump today. Which raises some uncomfortable questions.
1) Does Vance think he was mistaken about Trump before?
2) Does Vance still believe Trump is awful, but has strategically repudiated his previous statements because he thinks he can influence Trump and it sets him up to become President in four years time and undo any damage Trump will have done?
3) Did Vance start thinking he was acting strategically, but is starting the believe the things following Trump has forced him to say? If so, has he become what he was previously horrified by?
I think it is probably 3).
Who are the robbers in the parable of The Good Samaritan? And what should you do if you are a beneficiary of their plunder?
What if your own spouse, family, neighbourhood, nation have stolen from others? Are you free to enjoy the spoils of their sin?
What if such a sin were committed against a long time ago to a people far far away?
If sin can be perpetrated at a distance to my benefit, cannot restorative love not also be remotely shown?
And how should we respond when the children of those we have injured at a distance ring the door bell?
The answer is that sin is performed by the individual. God judges the heart. He does not judge by association through blood guilt, nor by collective guilt. We know this because he would have spared Sodom and Gommorrah if there were even 10 righteous people in it, and God was still willing to rescue the few righteous people who were there before destroying the guilty. Because of this, we know there is no such thing as a neighborhood or nation sinning, unless each individual participated.
Your family is composed of individuals. If your family member sinned, then they should make restitution to the individual victim.
@ but what if I am the beneficiary of historic familial or national sin? Who makes restitution once the one sinning has died? I have because they have not. Does not the one inheriting the spoils of sin have a duty to make restitution to those wronged (and their descendants)?
@@pgdh There is no such thing as "national sin" or "familial sin". There are a bunch of individuals who are each accountable for their own sins.
The very term "familial sin" implies just from the name that you can hold any or all members of a family accountable for what another family member did, which is a recipe for a blood feud, like the Hatfields and McCoys.
@@pgdh Sin and restitution or reconciliation are two different things. Sin is to do with man's relation to God. Restitution is to do with man's relation with man. Sometimes restitution isn't possible. Sometimes it's unreasonable. Sometimes restitution is demanded of those who don't deserve it.
Christians are called to give generously to those in need, but are not called to claim responsibility for crimes they did not do. That would be bearing false witness.
In other words, you can try to make peace on behalf of someone else, but you should not claim guilt for things you did not do, any more than claim innocence for things you did.
@@Strill_ your definition of sin doesn't entirely match all scripture (e.g. Matthew 18.21-22). I don't disagree that the majority of scripture insists that sin is against God (e.g. Psalm 51.4) but I'm tired of the lazy reductionist proof-texting systematic theology that I grew up with.
But you are neatly side-stepping the issue. If once nation steals from another, its citizens benefit the plunder for generations.
Beware of human handed-down traditions that nullify the word of God. According to Jesus, we're prone to do many things like that (Mark 7.13)
Trying to justify ourselves with "biblical" or "theological" reasons for negating our moral responsibility is precisely what the parable is about.
Proximity breeds familiarity, but that isn't love. Being close to others is hard for some people. And others just enjoy company.
Proximity entails some rubbing here and there. This is the real territory for getting to know ourselves which helps us understand how equally fallen we all are. This is the soil to grow love from. Abstract love is for the agnostics not for Christians.
Absolutely! Thank you for this truth. Praise God.
"Part of Thy Name divinely stands
In all Thy creatures writ.
They speak the labor of Thy hands,
Or impress of Thy feet."
--William Cowper.
I've studied at Seminary but this was so in depth that it really deepened my understanding, esp of this dangerous Nature/ Grace dichotomy.
That was brilliant, thank you.
I think something is missing in this discussion. This isn’t about personal morality but about civic obligations.
A nation state operating under democratic principles lays out a social contract that obligates the citizens to act in the best interest of their civic community, the nation. The citizenry pool their treasure, and risk the lives of their fellow citizens to safeguard their ability organize their society and order it to reflect their moral and social obligations and responsibilities as they see it. And to do that, they vote their choice to hire the leaders that best serve their community and nation.
Without borders that define the limit of the responsibility and the obligation placed on the citizens and their communal authority to enforce the laws and to tax each other to finance their governance, democracy itself becomes impossible. It is the existence of a border that makes self determination possible. It is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for democratic governance by the people for the people.
When a nation taxes citizens of a foreign land without merging with them to create a union, we call that colonialism and exploitation.
This also works in inverse. Foreigners may not take for themselves the rights and obligations of a community without the permission of the citizens of that nation, especially since that permission is based on a democratically arrived decision of the citizens. To ignore this brings into question the very basis of democratic governance.
As if everyone doesn't start with those closes to them to love and support and move the circle outward. If you can't love your family and next door neighbor, you certainly will not "love the world".
Perfectly explained!
Thanks for this comprehensive and well-balanced representation of a unifying truth
This is an excellently balanced analysis of the merits and flaws of both sides of the "order of love" debate. Well done! As for the other stuff (culture wars, immigration, politics, etc.), I think that it is important to discuss the Biblical distinction between the roles of the church and the state. While the church (and individual Christians) are called to love in the way you describe in this video, the state has a different calling. Romans 13 explains that the government exists to preserve and protect the people by enforcing the law. The state bears the sword of justice so that the church can be free to focus on mercy. The state enforces civil laws to save people's bodies in the physical world, and the church preaches divine gospel to save people's souls in the spiritual world. It's all well and good to debate what the policy should be on immigration, etc. - but the government should enforce the existing laws impartially and with justice rather than mercy.
Some laws are unjust, slavery was legal based on the laws at that time, the holocaust was legal under the German laws at the time. The current administration has a record of separating families and using dehumanising language about immigrants I don’t think it’s unreasonable to fear they will go beyond steps to maintain social order and move into terrorising and traumatising people.
In and of itself, I consider your statement about the role of the state as correct and in line with Bible and early tradition, e.g., Augustine
Beside fortune and progress though, history has brought us secular conservatism and speculative liberalism, the first having chained such state with the chattels of financial perogatives, and the latter having unleashed that same state as a whipping master of everyone's mind
Both do not acknowledge the real origin of the state and the only source of its sword's power.
Therefore, they don't know how to submit to the state's monopoly on violence
Both are detrimental to the order of nature as well as that of grace
Universalism is essential to Christianity, but particularism is no less essential. It’s a key feature of Christianity that the universal does not subsume the particular. We see this first of all in the Incarnation itself, which gives us a basic pattern for any genuinely Christian ethic: the universal and the particular must make room for each other. The ethic of communism, whereby the particular (whether family, tribe, language or nation) is subordinated to the universal, is just as foreign to Christian belief as the ethic of tribalism.
St. Paul on Christianity vs. nationalism: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. C.S. Lewis on Christianity vs. nationalism: If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of the state or civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.
Except St Paul wasn't speaking about Christianity vs. nationalism.....it is wrong to read into the Bible the politics of the modern age.....and neither was CS Lewis speaking about Christianity vs nationalism....ironically CS Lewis upheld what Vance said about the 'order of loves'....
Except Paul clearly loved his own people (Jews) more than others as is clear where he says he's only preaching to gentiles to make Jews jealous
@ Well, if your interpretation of St. Paul's words is limited to viewing them merely as an attempt to alleviate the concerns of his fellow converted Jews regarding their departure from Jewish religious law, rather than appreciating the profound Christian ideals of human equality before God that emerged from these words, then you may be overlooking a fundamental aspect of your denomination (in case you're a believer). Regarding C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves, these are his thoughts on various forms of love that humans can experience, not a priority list.
@ By he way, I wholeheartedly agree that it is inappropriate for Vance or any politician to wave the Bible to advance their personal agenda. I'd rather listen to the clergy or folks with appropriate university degrees if I need a fresh perspective on a quote from the Gospel.
Thank you Glen!
The Bible tells you to love the stranger in several places.
Paying attention to politicians speak about Christianity is a dangerous dangerous slope.
People object some moral mandates because they are hard and problematic. But that is how it is, being a good christian is hard. Making excuses is easier that admit sometimes we are not the persons we should be. And that is pride.
Tory is a former Tory MP, hardly left wing.
Relative to the US he is
@, fair
@@nlbmHow are the tories right wing?
The Tories haven't been right wing for years.
@@nickright7747 😂
Hi Glen, great video but, could you manage that in 10-15 mins? It’s useful to dwell briefly on this kind of stuff but 40 mins feels like wasting time. Really appreciate the analysis though.
Tom, I think Glen should focus on his strengths. If he feels he is best at long in depth videos, I think he should focus on those, though it might be good to do a few summary videos as well.
For myself, I really liked way he dealt with the issue in such depth.
We love because we are loved. 1 John 4:19. True love is of God. Love manifest through His sovereign will and the gift of faith leading to selfless and fearless love. The grace of God begets grace to man.
Very interesting thank you. I wonder though when we think about the people we see showing real love - they are often loving more than most. They are loviing those near them, loving those in their own communities, as well as often raising awareness of those far away, while many of the rest of us (myself very much included) just want to complain other people are doing it wrong.
You don't feed the stranger over your family. If you have to make a choice, you have to begin with love at home. There's nothing non-Christian about that. The early church definitely prioritized serving the orphans and widows inside the church before they served the ones outside it.
Liberals tend to live with a mindset that there are infinite resources to help everyone. There aren't. Conservatives are realists. We realize that no person has the time or resources to provide charity for everyone. Therefore, sometimes difficult choices have to be made regarding who is prioritized.
Do you know any Liberals who don't feed their families before they help strangers? Presumably there are some, but I don't any.
Do you know any Conservatives who want to cut all overseas aid?
There's good and bad among Liberals and Conservatives. We are at our worst when we refuse to see the fault in our own people, and only see fault in those who are not.
Was the samaritan helping his enemy or someone in desperate need? Helping someone in need is different from associating with an enemy. Isn't that why jesus said PRAY for your enemies? Jesus wants us to be free from hate. It is necessary to know the level of association we can have. What do you say?
I think the idea of helping his enemy comes from the fact that there was significant hostility between Samaritans and Jewish people at the time of Christ?
This is excellent
But Glenn, the ones who are invited to the wedding feast that are not natural relations are invited into the feast because the natural relations that are invited have rejected the invitation to come to the wedding. This parable seems to be about the Jews rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and the Gentiles acceptance (or eventual acceptance) of Jesus as Messiah. No?
Perhaps it's about the Jews - perhaps it's about people ostensibly in the Church who in fact reject Christ.
Absolutely. It is going well beyond the expected natural relations in order to invite outsiders to the feast.
@@SpeakLifeMedia it's starting with the expected natural relations and only going beyond that when those natural relations refuse
Quote from an astronaut if you dont concur with the bible or the teachings of Jesus
"The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were aware of only one Earth."
We have 1 home and 1 family, the family of humanity.
Nice - thank you! I remember transforming emotionally from a 'nature' viewpoint to a 'grace' viewpoint and my identity became primarily that of an equal human being. It was very profound and entirely irreversible.
Jesus also said be as innocent as doves but as shrewd as serpents, ie don't let your love become foolish, letting other people con you.
Predictable and bland "third way" response. Rather "...as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith." (Gal 6v10)
Whose response is bland here? 🤔 🤔 🤔
@@SpeakLifeMedia Another predictable response. Responses from both Gavin Ortland and Mike Winger were more biblical and a humble in tone. You can do better
@@SpeakLifeMedia Truth and love is valuable, being "clever" all the time is boring and not a virtue.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I think your video was very Biblical and reflected the wider truth that the twitter spat has ignored. I particular like your generosity to both Vance and Stewart. And where you may have disagreed with them, you avoided the personal and were very specific about what might have been wrong.
Titus 3:2 "to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone."
Love your neighbour as yourself. Sounds like you start with yourself and not the other. Vance is spot on as I see it.
It's an identity - it works both ways - you could re-phrase it "Love yourself as your neighbour". We are all equal human beings.
Jesus also washed the feet of prostitutes. Let's not forget the many verses that portray Jesus treating the lowest members of society with more compassion than the elite.
@@qwertyuiop123-q7f selective comment.
@@tjipjoustra4359 selective comment.
@@vixenfire You have no idea what he thinks nor evidence to support what you write.
Videos like this one are bound to not go viral, because Matthew 11:25-26. Thank you Glen, God bless you.
Jesus was an immigrant child in Nazareth, no?
Really excellent, biblical, and helpful take.
Boo to knocking paganism in passing
Concern for others arises from our basic animal nature. That is why we owe those in our immediate lives our highest level of loving concern. And this is why it can be very painful to travel to poor countries. How do you walk by some impoverished beggar and not give even though they are not part of your community? Vance is only partly right.
"ordo amoris" very much at play in Mark 7.9-13 where it is callously used as a cover for the love of money.
Here, something that sounds virtuous - even as if it has scriptural warrant - is exposed as a cultural norm that nullifies the unequivocal word of God.
"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
That last sentence should rock us to the core.
Are you objecting here to the very notion of an ordo amoris, or to its misapplication for cynical ends? If it’s the latter, I don’t think anyone would disagree. If the former, well, I think you’re on shakier ground, certainly when it comes to Mark 7.
@ misapplication. I can see it misapplied by the Pharisees in Mark 7, can't you?
@ yeah, of course. If that's all you're saying, I agree: it's bad to use the notion of a hierarchy of duties/loves (which, in itself, is perfectly legitimate) in a self-centred and cynical way.
What the pharisees had set up was not scriptural at all, and it was the complete inversion of ordo amoris. The pharisees set up a system of indulgences where if you donated money to the temple, the pharisees counted it as honoring your father and mother, who you could then ignore. St. Jermone writes that because of this, many elderly people were destitute, since children would donate to the temple rather than care for their elderly parents. The point is that these children had a special duty to their parents, which they ignored. That is a point in support of Ordo Amoris, not against it.
"am I my brother's keeper?"
Not sure why left & right are mentioned here when they both belong in the 'right' camp. Rory Stewart is a former UK Conservative minister and a candidate for leadership of the Conservative Party.
He is to the left of Vance just as the conservatives are to the left of the republicans. And on these issues he is very much an avatar of (the best of) the left.
The Conservatives are generally a centre-right party. And Rory Stewart has used the term "right-wing" as a pejorative term, being further left to the British Conservatives. Rory from a British perspective would probably be considered centre to centre-left.
@@captainnice1881 no he isn’t. I’m British and he’s considered Centre or Centre-Right. He ran for leader of the Conservative Party.
@@memyaify who cares what his former party affiliation was? The fact is, he's making a progressive logic argument and Vance is making a conservative logic argument. That's obvious to anyone listening
@@memyaify And he got kicked out of the Conservative Party for the reason that he was in no way right wing. He is Centre-Left.
Thanks Glen. I think the polar positions do often pander to our sinful desires. Those who stress our duty to those who are close to us can often ignore the challenges to love wider and to turn inwards in selfishness. If you can demonise the "outsider" by suggesting they are all criminals and mentally insane (or eat your pets) that turn inwards can feel increasingly justified morally. But I definitely have seen the moral signalling of those who stand on soap boxes telling us that love is love who show astonishing hatred towards those they rub shoulders with each day with whom they disagree. It was helpful to see the problems of both views where nature and grace are not brought together, ultimately in Jesus.
For this discussion, you have to pretend that the two people debating are on different Rory and Vance are on different sides of the broad spectrum. Rory is actually a conservative.
He is to the left of Vance (just as the Tories are to the left of the Republicans). On this issue they are giving very representative right/left positions, no matter the party-political journeys they’ve both been in.
@SpeakLifeMedia While I understand your perspective, I believe there are some nuances to consider. Rory’s approach seems to align more closely with a traditional interpretation of scripture. Additionally, he appears to be responding to JD Vance's use of scripture to support his political views. You make valid points regarding this issue; however, it seems there may be an attempt to frame Rory's remarks within a political context, even though he isn’t solely focused on politics.
Your informative segment presents a viewpoint that could unintentionally create a false dichotomy that isn’t necessarily reflected in the original debate.
@SpeakLifeMedia The Tories are not a monolith and so can't be described necessarily as left of the republicans as a whole.
Wow! One day and there is already 211 comments.If we get more specifically into immigration, can we give text proof, one to one argument, or due to context and culture, only go so far as principles? Plato/Glen's dialogue did a great job of bringing up subsidiarity and sphere of influence, natural and close obligations and humanity obligations. Sidebar reflections: 1) Everyone loves mom, but no one wants to do the dishes 2) If I ask 10 middle school students to write down 10 wrongs they have done (100 wrongs total), not one will include a parent 3) Peter Singer exercise if i can save a nearby person from drowning and ruin by leather boots or just go sell my leather boots and save many by buying mosquito net, what should I do?
It's not either or it's both!. We are called to love without distinction, race, creed, religion. That's why Christianity is radical.
JD Vance utterance has now clarified to me why white supremacy, racism tends to sit more comfortably on the right you love only those in your circle, those that look like you a rather different message from that preached by Jesus in the gospels.
We are called to love both, but we are called to prioritize loving some people before others.
1 Timothy 3:4-5 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
Show justice towards indigenous peoples, while showing mercy to the needy stranger. At some point though immigration will cause harm to a countries resources and political order unless it is done slowly and with assimilation.
Luke 14:25-27
Matthew 19:29
Matthew 10:37-39
Also ask the wife and children of Moses who's on first
Hi Glen from Speak Life
Like ALL of theological concepts it’s BOTH. So both Rory and JD are wrong and right. Grace and works. Fully human and fully divine. Freewill and predestination et al
I'm suspect Rory would agree with you.
What worries me about Trump is his rhetoric and action seems to disdain loving strangers. The effect of suspending all aid for 90 days will have a devastating effect on many people.
I am curious, where in the Bible does it say our Lord died for His enemies?
Romans 5
@@stephenglasse9756verses 9 and 10
@@stephenglasse9756 If you are referring to Romans 5:10, the "we" in that verse clearly refers to Christians, not everyone.
Christ died for everyone so that we may be forgiven, and choose to follow him. He dies for all of mankind
"Forgive them father, for they know not what they do!" - Luke 23:34
@@SimplyReformed well that may be correct but the original question was, "where in the Bible does it say our Lord died for his enemies" and Romans 5:10 reads "while we were *enemies* we were reconciled to God through the death of his son"(NASB).
God so loved the world
God desires that all men should be saved
God is love
Christ is the Savior of all men ESPECIALLY those who are being saved.
The grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men
I love as all the Christian here are doing everything but quoting scriptures 😂😂.
Or watching the video
Send Rory to those he loves most. Simples
What makes you think Rory doesn't love his wife and two children?
14:46 conservatives tend to think of themselves as individuals.
Oh Glen… it almost sounds like you are saying that conservatives “are just liberals driving the speed limit”
What a fascinating observation sir!
*post-Christian* conservatives. The post-Christian bit is important. Individualism ruins both left and right.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Caused by the atomizing effects of the market under neoliberalism and technology, not "post-Christianity".
@@SpeakLifeMedia Atomization is caused by the infiltration of market values under neoliberalism into every corner of everyday life, accompanied by the diminution of embodied, face-to-face relations accelerated by technology in an age of screens - not 'post-Christianity'.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Atomism is caused by the infiltration of market values under neoliberalism into every facet of everyday life, exacerbated by the diminution of embodied, face-to-face relations by technology in an age of screens - not 'post -Christianity'.
Atomism is caused by the infiltration of market values under neoliberalism into every facet of everyday life, exacerbated by the diminution of embodied, face-to-face relations by technology in an age of screens - not 'post -Christianity'.
The idea of concentric circles of care for others is not a Christian concept, but a Roman one, first codified in Cicero. Augustine was reflecting on the tension between Christ's commandment to love one another and the Roman ideas of loyalty to family household and clan and to Rome. Aquinas too. However the idea that this means one does not care for the stranger, or somehow cares less for an immigrant is flagrantly against what Christ said and the teaching of the Church. One does not care less as the circles go outside, and so Stewart was completely correct in stating this is a pagan idea that has invaded Christianity. The teaching of Christ in the gospels is abundantly clear. The fact that Vance has to appeal to human philosphers and distort what they say to make his point is clear indication of this.
If you don't acknowledge your basic personal loyalties and responsibilities to your friends before a Taliban supporter you have lost me.
It sounds like you haven't thought through what "prioritize" actually means. If I have excess, I can share it with the poor. But if there is a famine, and I only have enough food for my family, I don't take that food from my family and give it to a stranger.
The bible includes many explicit, special obligations to care for one's own family in particular, that do not apply to others. From that you can say that you should love your family more than a stranger.
@@Strill_ I would politely disagree although my disagreement is really aimed at people who acknowledge their primary responsibility to their family but Don't feel any need to help their local community, or pic up a piece of litter on the floor in front of them but still feel the urge to donate to causes abroad. They are missing the middle step. I recently listened to a testimonial at a funeral of a 90 year old man, the number of things he had done for his local community truly amazed me. It's the younger generation who don't even understand what community spirit is, that really saddens me.
at what point does love your enemy mean give them everything you own and leave yourself as their slave? If I'm wrong why did we fight the nazis ?
12:00 You are misreading the study, the "finite moral units" is not graphed here, rather the graph refers to a different part of the study where participants were asked how far their moral considerations extended to. The liberal moral considerations tended to extend to the range of "all animals on earth", while conservative moral considerations tended to extend to the range of all acquaintances. I think your reading of the study's conclusion on liberals is absurd if you think about it. Do you truly think liberals would prioritize rocks over their family members? If you do, I don't think you know enough liberals.
Yes, you're right, the participants were selecting the widest circle of moral concern, not the only. I've edited what I say at 12:00.
@@SpeakLifeMedia So as liberals have a larger circle of moral considerations beyond only family/friends/acquaintances/nation (which they also regard as important and which in citing the study you failed to emphasise) and towards the universal they are further advanced towards your ideal - as a whole liberals attempt to integrate what you refer to as 'nature' and 'grace', while conservatives emphasise 'nature'.
I don't agree that Nature and Grace are seen in conservativism and liberal approaches and are just different. There is more moral value in loving those further from me BECAUSE loving those close to me (my family, friends) is so easy, natural and occurs in all humans. Jesus preaches something extra, something that goes beyond. It doesn't follow that people who love beyond their immediate circle somehow love their family less. Love isn't finite like that. I admire your attempt to bring the sides together but it veers close to an apology for some Christians not having Christ-like love.
I think you’ve misunderstood. I’m saying that we need to integrate nature and grace - it’s both-and as you argue for.
I would challenge that with my experience as a father and family member etc. It is ongoing work to love my wife and family. It is here and now. It is where rhe rubber hits the road. I can't avoid it. Love IS work. Through that I build that muscle of mercy and compassion for myself and for all. The human condition.
@@daddycool228 but there’s nothing particularly Christian about it. It’s part of the human condition as you say. Universal. The Christian bit is the love that goes beyond the natural.
@@daddycool228 th-cam.com/video/q3Jd0kmZ1ck/w-d-xo.htmlsi=sh2UQKJ3fkmxVQYG
Most balanced argument I've heard so far. Thank you.
Could have also taken from the prophets about looking after the most vulnerable and needy as a priority too. And Jesus also speaks about loving those that don't have the means to return it.
I don't think the example about there being no mention about caring for those outside your land (your example of malaria nets etc.) holds up, simply because that was out of the realm possibility when Jesus spoke. The foreigner in your land probably was the most distant person that most people could have had any interaction with. Just a thought.
I agree on vertue signalling, all giving must be done in secret (left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing).
I also think on the chart the question is what is most moral, the liberal one surely doesn't mean they think wouldn't love those who are close and love them, but presumably think that's a given and gets few "moral points" because of course you're going to do that, but you only get points for loving beyond what is natural "Even the pagans..." sort of thing.
I know lots of conservatives and liberals, but I know plenty of conservatives that sponsor a child overseas and liberals that love those closest to them most... and that are the first to do the dishes 😂 so I don't think it's a black or white distinction for most in reality... or at least over here in the UK.
Very interesting though, thank you.
God bless you
If loving everyone equally is the highest virtue, regardless of how far away they are, then you can "love" people you've never even seen. That is to say, you abstractly think positive things about them to get approval from your friends.
It's the same reason that the pharisees prayed loudly in public with their fancy robes. They want public approval.
Your neighbor is the people around you that you can actually meet and talk to, not some abstract imaginary person that you've never met and don't intend to meet.
There’s a difference between civil government and personal ethics. The state is a separate category. The state exists to reward good and punish evil.
The current system does not allow illegal immigrants to be embraced as though they are brothers who can be seamlessly integrated into fellowship. True fellowship requires traditions (or a common mode) and healthy boundaries. However, the power structure discourages illegal immigrants from developing these traditions and respecting these boundaries, making it impossible for them to truly become brethren.
Within any community, if a brother from within the tribe abuses laws and boundaries, they are also removed-not out of hatred, but out of love-to uphold the sanctity of the fellowship (extended to the principle of a society).
Turning the other cheek in personal matters is Christlike. But so is flipping the tables when sacred things are being abused.
Did you invite complete strangers to yourself and your wife to your wedding? I suspect this parable is symbolic of the kingdom rather than prescriptive for how we should organize our own weddings.
While I profoundly disagree with much of what you profess, you are correct on this issue (even though the motivation and strength to behave with compassion, goodness and kindness to all others is not the sole domain of Christianity. Indeed, a disturbing amount of bigotry is sadly fuelled by Christianity).