Last week we looked at Ruth 2, in which Boaz shows unusual kindness to the ancient equivalent of
an asylum seeker. This topic has caused no small amount of controversy in recent years, due to
important factors such as stopping people smugglers, stopping deaths at sea, stopping que jumpers,
and stopping terrorists from entering our country.
Another important factor is how many asylum seekers Australia should take in. The main argument
against increasing our intake is that it will put extra strain on things like the housing sector, the
education sector, the health sector, and the welfare sector. On top of this, Australian culture will be
dramatically changed for good. Yet does the Bible allow Christians to use such an argument?
The average Australian enjoys the highest standard of living in history. Yet most asylum seeker
usually comes from a life of war, persecution, malnourishment, poor medical facilities, dirty drinking
water, or a combination of all. As such, the above argument is basically saying ‘I don’t want my
extremely high standard of living affected, just so some of the poorest and most oppressed people
on the planet can receive the basics needed for human dignity (food, water, medicine and freedom).
As Christians, we have been shown infinite compassion through the cross, where God gave up his
high living standards, so that we could receive ‘life to the full’. Something about turning around and
declaring that we don’t want to show that same compassion to image bearers of God, who are
lacking the basics, just doesn’t feel right. While we need to be discerning about which individuals we
let in, we should also come from a place of compassion; for that’s how Jesus treats us.
