When we were thinking about taking children into our home, back in 1982—half a lifetime ago—one of the motivations for us was trying to be good Christians. We read and pondered the New Testament text, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress ..." (James 1:27). It seemed right to us then, and still does, that if you are serious about your religion or spirituality, then it must have some practical effect in the world. A Jewish prophet in exile critiqued religion that was merely talk or ritual. He said, "In not this the fast I choose ... to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house ..." (Isaiah 58:7). Muslims too, share the consensus that hospitality, and care for others, is a paramount moral imperative, “So do not be harsh with the orphan and do not chide the one who asks for help…” (Q.93:11).
Here's what we say in our book:
There are two narratives concerning strangers. The first is that the stranger is a threat to us, not to be trusted. “Don’t talk to strangers,” “Never accept a ride from a stranger,” we tell our children. When someone we do not know stops us in the street, often our first reaction is one of guardedness as we check out the genuineness of the new person. Our sympathetic nervous system takes over: heart beat gets faster, muscles tense, tummy flutters, breath becomes shorter as the primitive fight or flight response kicks in. A guarded defensiveness might turn to a smile when we realize that this stranger is not a threat, for he is one not to be afraid of.
The second narrative of the stranger is to provide hospitality to others, for we are all strangers. The Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,” dictates that we provide hospitality and care for the stranger, for we too would want that for ourselves.
When talking about the natural right of self defense, philosopher Michael Walzer speaks of the "domestic analogy." He says that just as the individual has a right to defend themselves and their family against aggressors, so too does the nation. The "natural right" is for individual people to defend their family, but by the "domestic analogy" Walzer claims that it is the government's right to protect its people against aggressors. In other words, you start with the individual and the family, and make similar claims for the nation.
If you have followed me so far, you have likely already jumped ahead! If there is a moral imperative to care for the stranger for individuals and families, then is there also a "domestic analogy" that makes the leap to say that nations, too, ought to care for the stranger? In other words is there a moral imperative to welcome into our national home those who are homeless, outcast, the refugee? I think there is.
Yet this is impotent too: to welcome strangers is costly. It is quite likely disturbing. It means that life changes in unexpected ways. It involves risk. It's best if you welcome strangers with your eyes open, ready to count the cost, ready to take the risk. You do it regardless. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.
+Ab. Andy
Incidentally, if you haven't read our book, you can find it on Amazon: