Christian ethics often appear paradoxical at first glance. We are called to love indiscriminately yet also to prioritize certain relationships. We are commanded to show mercy to strangers yet also to provide for our own households first. These tensions are not contradictions but rather a framework for rightly ordered love—one that reflects the very heart of God.
Recently, Vice President J.D. Vance’s comments on prioritizing care for those closest to us have sparked discussion, particularly regarding how they align with Biblical teachings. Some critics argue that such an approach narrows the scope of Christian love, making it exclusive rather than expansive. However, a proper understanding of Scripture reveals that prioritizing one’s own household does not negate universal mercy. Rather, it structures it in a way that mirrors God’s design for human relationships.
Two passages seem to stand in tension that explain the debate concerning Vance’s remarks: Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) and Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 5:8 that “anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
The Good Samaritan exemplifies the radical love of Christ. In response to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus tells a story where the hero is an outcast—one who crosses ethnic and social boundaries to show mercy to a wounded stranger. This parable establishes that neighborly love extends beyond cultural or national identity. The Samaritan did not ask, “Is this man part of my community?” before helping him. He simply saw the need and responded with mercy, while those who thought of themselves as superiors to the Samaritan avoided rendering care.
At the same time, Paul’s command in 1 Timothy establishes that there are levels of responsibility in care. He is writing to a church that was grappling with issues of neglect, urging Christians to take responsibility for their own family members first. This does not contradict the Good Samaritan’s actions. Rather, it ensures that Christian love is practiced faithfully at every relationship level.
Scripture does not contradict itself, nor does it demand that we choose between family responsibility and universal charity. Instead, it teaches an ethic of ordered love. In practical terms, this means three things.
First, every person is our neighbor. Christian love does not discriminate. The Good Samaritan reminds us that mercy is not confined by borders, ethnicity, or familiarity. When someone is in urgent need and we have the means to help, we should.
Second, some neighbors have a greater claim on our care. While we are called to love all, Scripture acknowledges that we have unique obligations to those closest to us. Parents have a special duty to their children, spouses to each other, and members of a church to fellow believers (Galatians 6:10). This prioritization does not diminish the value of others but acknowledges that care begins in concentric circles—moving outward from family to community to the broader world.
Third, radical hospitality and responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Prioritizing our family and immediate community does not mean ignoring others. The Good Samaritan acted because he had both the proximity and the means to help. Likewise, when we encounter those in dire need, we are called to respond in love, regardless of their background.
The criticism that Vance’s comments reflect an exclusionary or narrow-minded ethic misunderstands a fundamental aspect of Christian teaching. It also betrays the long tradition of Christian thought dating back to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, who all taught that Christians have a special obligation to care for those with whom they have deeper ties. The Christian tradition has long held that love must be rightly ordered. This is not a rejection of universal compassion but rather a reflection of how God structured human relationships.
The problem arises when we either neglect those closest to us in pursuit of distant acts of charity or use familial duty as an excuse to ignore the suffering of others. Neither extreme is Biblical. Instead, the model of Christ is one of sacrificial love that begins in the home and extends outward.
Christians should reject any false dichotomy between caring for one’s own and loving the broader world. We must hold both truths: that we have a special obligation to those closest to us and that we are called to extend mercy beyond those immediate relationships when the opportunity arises.
Ultimately, the Good Samaritan and Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy are not at odds. Rather, they together paint a picture of holistic Christian love—one that begins at home, remains open to the needs of others, and refuses to be bound by tribalism or prejudice. This is the ethic that has shaped Christian thought for centuries, and it remains just as relevant today.
This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on February 3, 2024.
