Is There Only One Christian Response to Syrian Refugee Crisis?

Is it wrong for Christians to consider reasons to not admit Syrian refugees? Many believe it is and are denouncing Christians who believe otherwise, especially politicians.

"After the terror attacks in Paris last week, it didn't take long for the League of Super Christians currently running for president to begin contradicting everything Jesus and every prophet in the Bible ever uttered about extending grace to the poor, the refugee, the destitute and the strangers among us," wrote Tony Norman, a professing Christian and columnist with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Looking around for an issue to demagogue, a good chunk of the presidential field and a bunch of Republican governors decided that the 10,000 Syrian refugees America has already agreed to take in now represent an unacceptable terrorist threat."

Similarly, an article at Think Progress accused Christian governors who are refusing refugees of being hypocritical and asserted "that's not what Jesus would do." Citing Matthew 25:41-43, the article said the Bible calls on Christians to "welcome the stranger."

Certainly, the Bible includes multiple references in the New and Old Testament to "love (the foreigner) as yourself" and even to "love your enemy." So, these journalists have a point. I also appreciate the admonition by Christian leaders like Stephan Bauman, CEO and President of World Relief, to "ground ourselves in love and open our arms to these refugees." Similarly, Rich Stearns, President of World Vision U.S. said, "Instead of fearfully turning away from Syrian refugees, we need to see the amazing opportunity we have to show the love of Christ. This is an unprecedented moment for the church."

Certainly, this should be Christians' general attitude and posture concerning refugees. However, does this mean it's wrong for Christian policy-makers to consider the security risks refugees might pose and balance those with Scripture's admonition to be welcoming?

I appreciated Pastor (function(w,q){w[q]=w[q]||[];w[q].push(["_mgc.load"])})(window,"_mgq");

DeYoung is right. Christians, and especially government leaders, have a moral obligation to love not only foreigners, but their citizens, as well. Unfortunately, the Syrian refugee crisis may be one of those situations where these two valid concerns are in conflict.

Christian leaders like Bauman are assuring Americans that they have nothing to fear from Syrian refugees: "Each refugee who comes to the United States has undergone a thorough vetting and security screening that generally lasts at least 18 months." Yet another prominent Christian leader, Franklin Graham, President and CEO of Samaritan's Purse, is sounding the alarm. "We cannot allow Muslim immigrants to come across our borders unchecked while we are fighting this war on terror. If we continue to allow Muslim immigration, we'll see much more of what happened in Paris — it's on our doorstep."

Certainly, anytime America opens its doors to immigrants, she is exposing the country to risk. But, she's also acting in accordance with her national ethos, which is rooted in Judeo-Christian values. The question is how much risk is acceptable and specifically, how much risk do the Syrian refugees pose?

I think at least asking that question is valid. After all, God established nations in the Old Testament, which as Danny Carroll, the national spokesperson on immigration for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference says, "suggests that borders are important." If you have a nation and you have a border, then you must necessarily have stipulations for entering that border. And, those stipulations must take into account both the interest of immigrant and the resident.