Rory Stewart Was Wrong: Another Missed Opportunity

Why name-calling is the lowest form of reasoning

First, we had Bishop Budde get up close and personal with the President of the United States in a church service. Close on the heels of this; we have now had Rory Stewart—a former British diplomat, politician, and co-host of one of the most popular political podcasts in the UK; The Rest is Politics—launch a broadside at the Vice President of the United States of America.

As with Bishop Budde, it all seems to have led to a deeper polarisation of people. There was a missed opportunity with Bishop Budde (which I have outlined already), and now there is, I believe, another one here.

The fallout online was immediate: those who suddenly grabbed hold of Rory Stewart as their defender of the Gospel and Christianity or those with J D Vance as theirs. And all seemed to have missed something. This interaction should never have happened, or if one did, it could and should have been conducted differently and with the potential for a much better outcome.

How it all started and how it went wrong

Vice President of the USA, J D Vance, a Christian and recent Catholic convert, expressed some beliefs in a TV interview about how the love of self, family, neighbour and world should be ordered as a Christian.

Upon watching this, Rory Stewart took offence, and I chose that word carefully. The offence is apparent because of what happened next. With his over 500k X/Twitter followers, Rory did not ask a question but made an accusation and judgment. And he did not just say he disagreed; he accused J D Vance of paganism.

Rory Stewart is not known for his public online defence of Christianity on X/Twitter; he is, after all, British, but he is known for his forceful desire to see Kamal Harris as President. So, I suspect politics provided the animus and catalyst for his post.

And an online pile-on ensued. Those Christians on the left, democrat, progressive, and similar, lauded Rory. Here was a hero calling out the repugnant false Gospel of the new Republican vice president.

Something continues to be writ large here. We have reached a point with Christians in the West believing fully and ardently that other groups of Christians, different to them, are not Christians at all. It's evident in Stewart's claim. The problem is not that he disagreed with Vance, but our climate is such that he could accuse him of holding pagan beliefs.

So Vance shot back, mentioning ordo amoris, which refers to St Augustine and his explication of the right ordering of love.

It all went downhill from there, with Vance accusing Stewart of having a low IQ and Stewart accusing the electorate who voted for Vance of being the ones with a low IQ. People around the world started googling ordo amoris, and Christians who had never heard of the term nor understood it took umbrage over it.

And the outcome? Nothing but animosity and furore.

This serves as another diagnostic. If you think Stewart's judgement was warranted, righteous, and deserved in its mode, assessments, and delivery, it likely shows the kind of Christianity you follow and your political beliefs.

What J D Vance said was not incorrect, but it is not the whole picture (as he would undoubtedly agree). If and how love should be ordered is beyond my post here (but for a view I agree with, see here. Also, I think we see with Stewart how for “late stage, liberalism’s cosmopolitan egalitarians, hierarchies of the heart are as suspicious and objectionable”).

My main issue is the mode, manner, and what Stewart generated, which is my post's biggest problem and reason.

Why can't people just ask a question?

Stewart failed in his stated values for public discourse.

A view on politics at home and abroad, while bringing back the lost art of disagreeing agreeably.

Stewart utterly failed the raison d'etre of his podcast. Instead, he accused the Vice President of America of propagating paganism and of speaking inappropriately for Jesus.

Why, could he not just have asked a question?

No matter his Kamala Harris supporting frustrations, why were his values on public discourse not enough to restrain his frustrations and start a civil conversation? Name-calling is the lowest form of debate and reasoning.

I find myself saddened that two such prominent people - Christians - have become the ping-pong ball of Christian identity politics. And what might have been if Stewart had been faithful to his values, asked a question and started a conversation.

He could have tweeted, asking J D Vance to say more. He could have acknowledged that he wondered how ordo amor is related to other dimensions of the gospel and love for Christians. He could have said, "Help me understand what you were saying from all the other things you must know." He could have also affirmed Vance's strong Catholic faith and how Catholics have a long tradition of thoughtful engagement in public life out of love for Christ.

And maybe a conversation might have started. A connection that could be kindled. One day, Vance could have been on the Rest is Politics for a robust conversation under the rubric of "the lost art of disagreeing agreeably.” And maybe we'd all have learned more about Christianity and considered the nature of our ordering of love and relationships instead of being sucked into the online morass of condemnation and outrage.