This is the fourth in a series, “Putting the ‘Calvin’ back in Calvinism”

Here is a sentence I could never have predicted writing even five years ago: On January 30, 2025, Vice-President J.D. Vance posted on X and made reference to the Christian idea of the ordo amoris. Vance, who is a Catholic, also referred to the theological concept in a TV interview on Fox News.

The concept of ordo amoris, literally “the order of loves,” refers to the Christian doctrine that rightly ordered love is aimed at God above all and, as a result, love of others, self, and creation. Vance’s remarks received a response from the late Pope Francis, who wrote a letter to US Catholic Bishops in which he explains the “true ordo amoris” references a love that is, countering Vance’s explanation, “not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.”

A debate among Catholics may seem out of place in a blog post about Calvin and Calvinism, but Calvinist voices soon entered the fray and joined discussions about ordo amoris, with many defending Vance’s approach. The theological concept has Christian roots stretching back to Augustine, and Reformed theologians have long used the concept and the phrase, as well.

While some Neo-Calvinist and contemporary Reformed voices emphasize ordo amoris to prioritize love in intimate relationships, such as family, that idea can (and has) be misused to create a hierarchy of loves in which love need not be extended to others, such as immigrants and refugees,

What I hope to show is that although Calvin acknowledges the implications of ordo amoris in that Christian love does have differing practical demands based on the relationships we have, he quickly and emphatically emphasizes argues that Christian love is due to everyone without exception. His perspective finds resonance with Pope Francis and challenges Christians, especially Neo-Calvinist-Reformed ones, to holistically embrace the Christian obligations of love.

Two passages from Calvin’s Institutes are immediately relevant. The first is Calvin’s exposition of the moral law in II.8.55. Having gone through the 10 Commandments, Calvin admits that the love of others finds different expressions based on human limitation and providential relationships:

I deny not that the closer the relation the more frequent our offices of kindness should be. For the condition of humanity requires that there be more duties in common between those who are more nearly connected by the ties of relationship, or friendship, or neighborhood.

Calvin clearly acknowledges that Christian love is enacted differently based on our own relationships and contexts. He clearly sees, for example, that a parent’s love for a child will directly seek to provide food and shelter, whereas that same parent may not be able to directly provide food and shelter for a person living in a geographically distant country.

What is crucial to note here is that Calvin’s acknowledgement of something akin to the ordo amoris is actually part of his refutation of errors, aimed primarily at Catholics. Calvin thinks the limiting of love in any way is actually a serious theological mistake! The error Calvin is refuting is that there is somehow a limit to Christian love. Immediately after the quote above, Calvin continues, “But I say that the whole human race, without exception, are to be embraced with one feel of charity.” Thus, while Calvin acknowledges that how love is enacted will vary based on one’s relationship, his main point is to emphasize the total call of love for others, regardless of one’s relationship with the other(s).

Another relevant section from Calvin’s Institutes is his famous “Christian Life” chapters in Book 3. In particular, let’s focus on Chapter 7, Section 6 (III.7.6). Prior to that particular section, Calvin has argued that the Christian life requires self-denial since we belong not to ourselves — thank God — but to Jesus Christ. While our self-denial is in relationship to God it is also in relationship to others. On the latter point, Calvin describes how the Christian life is dedicated to seeking the good of neighbor, which requires works of love. In Section 6 Calvin describes how expansive the requirements of this love are for Christians.

Calvin is clear. Christians are to love everyone without exception. Calvin acknowledges that many people, when judged on their own merit, are unworthy of our love. However, Calvin writes (beautifully, I might add—one of my favorite lines in the whole of the Institutes): “But Scripture helps in the best way when it teaches that we are not to consider that people merit of themselves but to look upon the image of God in all people, to which we owe all honor and love.”

Calvin goes on to emphasize the point. Whoever shows up in need of assistance, even a “stranger,” is made in the image of God and, thus, is “worth of your giving yourself and all your possessions (emphasis added).” Calvin goes even further. Even if someone has acted unjustly towards us and sinned against us, even this is not a justified reason for why you should cease to embrace the person in love and “perform the duties of love on his behalf.” It’s worth noting, I think, that for Calvin the universality of Christian love is rooted in the image of God and requires action.

Last week I sat with members of my church and listened as they described their fears about going around my hometown of Sioux Center, Iowa. Some were afraid their undocumented status would result in their deportation and others feared their current legal status would be taken away. Others shared about children at our local public school who discuss at their tables what will happen to them if family members are taken away while they are at school.

Without wishing to oversimplify issues of immigration in the US, I was left with the question of what it looks like to love those in such situations. Calvin’s theological point is relevant, I think. Calvin says even if a person has acted unjustly, perhaps breaking laws as they immigrated to the US, they still deserve our love.

How will I love my neighbor? That question is not some abstract wondering but a call, as Calvin says, to consider how we will give of ourselves. Calvin concludes his section by speaking of how remarkably difficult it is to love our neighbors, not to mention our enemies. It is possible, he says, only when we “look upon the image of God in them, which cancels and effaces their transgressions, and with its beauty and dignity allures us to love and embrace them.”

May God give us all the wisdom to know how best to love those near to us and far, each one reflecting the glorious image of God. As the Spirit leads us deeper into Calvin’s vision of expansive love, then we might find our loves properly ordered more and more, a true ordo amoris.

Childen photo by Claudia Fahlbusch on Unsplash