The Christian moral obligation to refugees (or why I'm sick every time I open Facebook these days)

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

This passage has always been a stumbling block for me. It fits alongside several other examples from Jesus' teaching of leaving family behind for the sake of becoming a disciple (cf. Mark 10:29, Luke 14:20, etc). I've always assumed Jesus talks like this to emphasize the importance of the kind of life that God offers over the life we can find in the world; that even love of family cannot hold a candle to the love of God. Contrasting these verses with Jesus on the cross in John's Gospel telling the beloved disciple that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is now to serve as his mother, and vice versa, has always struck me as a difficult tension. A person can't seriously argue that Jesus doesn't value family, but a person can't really argue that family is the most important thing either.

I think about this quite often, but it hit a sweet spot for me in the last couple days as the political world has erupted on the subject of refugees in light of terrorism in Paris, ISIS, Syrian ties and all that. The reason this strikes me is because I see many Christians opposed to refugees coming to America (or Europe, or wherever they might be), and I must confess I have a hard time understanding the logic. I understand if my atheist friends don't want Syrians in their towns; after all, that feels pragmatic and they have no political-moral obligation to them. But Christians do have a moral-ethical obligation to refugees. It's about as clear as any ethical obligation in the Bible, and I am struggling to understand how Christians can come to the understanding that it is OK to close their doors to those in need on the off chance they might do them harm.

I can think of few subjects that the Bible is clearer on than welcoming strangers, including--yes--foreign ones. It starts with Abraham welcoming two men (who turned out to be angels) at the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18), which is echoed in the New Testament with the reference in Hebrews 13:2, "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it." But, actually that's maybe not even the first or best example; there's Sodom and Gomorrah (a warning about failure to show hospitality), the book of Ruth, the widow of Zarephath,  the Good Samaritan, and, well, just about every story of Jesus entering some offbeat town in and around Galilee. That's even apart from direct scriptural commands. Here are a few excerpts:

Deuteronomy 10:19, "You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Leviticus 19:34, "The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."
Matthew 5:43-44 "‘You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Matthew 25:35,"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me."
Romans 12:13, "Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers."

There are many, many more. This isn't proof-texting; it's just reading the Bible. I honestly don't think a person can faithfully argue that the Bible is "anti-strangers" in any convincing way. Nevertheless, there are plenty of justifications contrived for being "anti-refugee." It's assumed that if some of them are extremists, then they are all somewhat to blame. It's assumed that if some of them come from places of power (i.e. that the ones who successfully make it out are young men with a little money and status to make it this far), then all of them are to pay for it. A person can believe this, but I can't imagine making a biblical argument for it. I can't imagine what that argument looks like, because the Bible doesn't attach strings. You welcome strangers... even if they might kill you.

And that's where I find myself wrestling with the Jesus who tells us to hate our families. I find myself thinking that maybe it isn't just a matter of putting primary importance on faith in God. Maybe there's a really simple, straightforward reason not to lay that importance on our families, which is that no amount of security will completely protect our loved ones. So, when Jesus says to leave your family behind and follow him he is hinting at a reality we already know, which is that no extent we can go to will save those we love. Your spouse, your children, they are all vulnerable. Always. And no degree of protectionism will change that. It's only following Jesus that saves.

Politics seeks to protect the home-front. Jesus seems to suggest that the home-front is everywhere. And unless you can protect all people you can't really protect anyone. Unless you're housing all refugees you can't protect those closest to you. That's the backwards claim of the Gospels. It's Mary's Magnificat in action.

Now, all of this is secondary to the promise of faith in Jesus' call to discipleship. I'm not saying that housing refugees is what saves us. Jesus does that on a cross where he (ironically?) calls the beloved disciple to a new family. Maybe that's the image we need: a new family. Whoever needs us. As Paul says in Colossians, "There is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!" (3:11).