When I first heard news of the spat on Elon Musk’s X between US Vice President JD Vance and former Tory politician, Rory Stewart it brought to mind the Sunday school classes  I reluctantly attended over sixty years ago. JD Vance, a practising Roman Catholic, has been attempting to justify his alliance with Donald Trump’s America First agenda, particularly its hostility toward migrants and its cancellation of overseas aid programmes.

My Sunday School teacher for that half hour each week, Tommy Caldwell, was a small and earnest man, but I was a poor pupil. One  detail of his instruction, however,  has remained with me: his insistence that the church of which we were members was ‘catholic’ in the universal sense. That seemed odd, for in Northern Ireland when one spoke of “the Catholic Church” one was referring to the Roman Catholic church, and I assumed that the word ‘catholic’ was reserved for that purpose. But no, insisted Tommy. Our church, the Church of Ireland was a catholic church. Tommy may perhaps have explained that the word catholic comes from the Greek and means “universal”, “world-wide” or “all inclusive.” The message is a simple one: a catholic church is open to every person, without exception. 

JD Vance’s argument is a simple one: Charity begins—and, it would seem, ends—at home. He has, apparently, drawn on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas to build a theological case in support of his position.

 It is an idea that clearly has much appeal to those who prefer not to see the problems of people elsewhere in the world as their business. The increasing flow of migration from poorer to richer countries has heightened suspicion of philanthropy. This, in turn, has fueled the rise of right-wing populism and nationalism.

But how then can JD Vance square this with the idea of a catholic church based on  the principle that none are excluded and all should be made welcome?  Indeed, consistent with the principle of inclusion is the missionary idea, shared in general by Christian churches, that it is a duty to spread biblical teaching throughout the world. Perhaps JD Vance would not argue with this obligation, but would insist that spreading the word of God is quite distinct from an obligation to be charitable beyond the national boundary. Splitting hairs, I think.

In the pre Christian era, the Roman Empire showed neither missionary zeal nor charity in its conquest of the world. In general it permitted the different subject tribal groups within the boundaries of the empire to follow the religious practices which had defined them prior to conquest; it was a policy which, in general, made for stability. As in the case of all empires prior to the Romans, conquest was concerned principally with the enrichment of the imperial elite. In the case of the Romans this was achieved by means of their military prowess and ability to build a sophisticated infrastructure of roads and settlements sufficient to sustain their empire. Those who resisted were taken as slaves, used as fodder for gladiatorial contests, or crucified. The notion that those living in and working for the interests of the Roman Empire should all be raised up as equal citizens was completely absent. It was very much a “Rome First” approach to the government of the Empire. Perhaps this is the vision JD Vance has for America, presumably absent the fodder for gladiatorial contests and the crucifixions.

Christians, however, were exceptional  in being systematically persecuted by Rome. Only when Constantine became emperor from AD306 to 337, and converted to Christianity, did things begin to change. Critical to these changes was the universalist character of the Christian religion, a foundation of which was the revolutionary notion that all members of the faith were equal before God, regardless of their tribal, ethnic, or cultural antecedents. The same idea was to become integral to Islam when it emerged in the 7th century CE, and so it too became a world religion.

The historian Tom Holland presents a strong case that Christianity is a foundation stone of western liberal enlightenment thinking. He is clear that this is true even where those ideas are expressed in a secular context. And so, in his poem ‘A Man’s A Man For A’ That,’ Robert Burns expresses an idea that would have been inconceivable before the Christian era.

For a’ that, an’ a’ that, 

   It’s coming yet for a’ that, 

That Man to Man, the world o’er, 

   Shall brothers be for a’ that.

And when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,  in the Communist Manifesto say, Workers of the world unite!  they too are inheritors of an idea that first came to fruition in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Variations of this theme persist in modern politics and appear across the political spectrum.

However, the Roman Catholic church was to become the first truly international expression of these ideas and in so doing, developed an institutional character and theology designed to protect and extend  its influence. Such a vast enterprise was inevitably susceptible to corruption, as is evidenced by the rebellion of Martin Luther and the emergence of the Protestant churches. 

I notice that, in discussing his disagreement with JD Vance on BBC Radio, Rory Stewart cites the parable of The Good Samaritan as evidence that Christianity challenges its adherents to look beyond tribal allegiances when considering their obligations.”

The story is told by Jesus in response to a challenging question from a Rabbi, an expert in Jewish law. He asks: “And who is my neighbour?”

Anyone brought up in the Christian faith will be familiar with the narrative, but others may not or, like myself, not have paid the story much attention for many years. Here’s a quick summary. 

A traveller is robbed, beaten and left for dead at the side of a road. It is implicit in the telling of the story that the victim of this crime is  Jewish, as was Jesus and the Rabbi who asked the challenging question. 

A Jewish priest passes by but avoids the man, as does a Levite, a member of a tribe within the larger Jewish family. Eventually a Samaritan arrives at the scene.  Samaritans and Jews were generally antagonistic toward each other, but this individual binds up the wounds of the injured man, takes him to an Inn and provides money so that he can be cared for as he recovers. At the conclusion of the story, Jesus asks:

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

The Samaritan makes no attempt at a deal in his philanthropic transaction. He does not ask the injured man, in exchange for help, to be anything other than what he is. There is no suggestion in the parable that one should not help family and friends who are in need. That is a natural and proper thing to do and in general something  that comes easily. 

The point really is that humans have the capacity to transcend the condition of their animal and tribal nature and to empathise with others who are different or not known to them personally. Christ makes it clear that this is a  challenge to which we should all rise.  His concluding words bear repetition:  “Go and do likewise.”

In arguing what seems a contrary position JD Vance, someone with a record of high academic achievement, resorts to an ad hominem attack on Rory Stewart, suggesting that he has a low IQ. It’s rather as if Vance instinctively realises he  may do better in a street fight, all snapping and snarling, than in a civilised theological discussion. Perhaps he might prefer to think of himself in more gladiatorial terms, as a man trained to fight in an arena with other men, or animals. 

The online commentary on the spat seems to relish the fight more than engage with the argument. It reminds me of the playground of my youth where, on the odd occasion when a fight would break out, a tight circle would immediately gather round to witness the spectacle. 

I’ve listened to Rory Stewart in discussion with others on a number of occasions and he is quite capable of becoming tetchy with his interlocutor.  On this occasion he is maintaining a more characteristic equilibrium.  JD Vance, however, has fully aligned himself with the presidency of Donald Trump, a man who has no interest in civility and has built his career on such ad hominem attacks. But here’s the thing: Trump’s enablers do not represent America. The coalition which holds him in power will come apart.  

But not just yet. Until then, the spectacle continues.

End Notes

Rory Stewart interviewed on BBC about his argument with JD Vance  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0knl0zy 

Parable of the Good Samaritan, explained on Wikipedia. 

Tom Holland, Dominion, The Making of the Western Mind  It is a book I have yet to read. I am familiar with Tom Holland’s thoughts on the subject mostly through following the podcast he hosts with Dominic Sandbrook, The Rest is History