You Shall Love the Stranger as Yourself

The Bible, Refugees and Asylum

Fleur S Houston

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317509820
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

You Shall Love the Stranger as Yourself addresses the complex political, legal, and humanitarian challenges raised by asylum-seekers and refugees from a Biblical perspective. The book explores the themes of humanity and justice through exegesis of relevant passages in the Old and New Testaments, skillfully woven into accounts of contemporary refugee situations. Applying Biblical analysis to one of the most pressing humanitarian concerns of modern times, Houston creates a timely work that will be of interest to students and scholars of theology, religion, and human rights.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315717388-1

As the number of desperate people forced to leave their homes in 2013 exceeded fifty million for the first time since the Second World War, the political, legal, and humanitarian challenges raised by the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers are amongst the most significant and complex in our world today. Refugee camps are overflowing, the Mediterranean has become a huge cemetery, and, from the US to Ukraine, walls and borders are being reinforced not to protect, but to exclude.

This book tries to do justice to the complexity of the issues, many of which are contested, but it offers no easy solutions. It does seek, however, to move the reader to a deeper awareness that throws into perspective the posturing of politicians and the ideological arguments that are so often a feature of national discourse. And it does this by an examination of Biblical texts which enable us to discern the broad thrust of Biblical teaching. As it does so, it explores how this Biblical perspective may shape the lives of the faithful today and provide a basis upon which the institutions, structures, and policies of our societies may be challenged.

A definition of terms

Although I try as much as possible for present purposes to differentiate the category of refugees from the general category of migrants, and the category of asylum-seekers from the category of other immigrants, a hard and fast distinction is not always possible. With this in mind, some sort of working definition of terms may be helpful.

The word “refugee” is used in three ways: first, in the most general sense of a person who has been forced to leave his or her home on a temporary or permanent basis chiefly because of war or persecution; second, in terms of the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951, which defines a refugee more narrowly as a person who is judged to have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” and who “is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable … or … unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (Article 1A(2)); and third, the term is used of a person who has been granted asylum. The term is used in this book in all three of these senses, and I hope that the meaning in each case will be clear from the context.

The term asylum-seeker is used in a technical sense to refer to a person who has arrived at an international border claiming to be a refugee, but who has not yet been given official recognition as such. It is also used more generally to mean a person whose asylum claim has been refused, yet who continues to live in the country without leave to remain.

Those who cross international borders to settle in another country, for a short or long period of time, are described as immigrants. The move may be for a variety of reasons – economic, political, or personal – and these may or may not be refugees. These persons are frequently described as illegal if they lack appropriate documentation. But they are not criminals, and so I prefer to use the term undocumented.

How can the Bible inform the debate?

In the first volume of the series Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World, John Rogerson has this to say: “Any responsible use of the Bible must acknowledge that it comes from a culture completely different from that of modern western society … Further, it must be acknowledged that the Bible says nothing about many modern problems … This does not mean that the Bible cannot be used to address modern issues. It does mean that … against all the odds, the Bible can bring light and hope into a world still darkened by so much ignorance and inhumanity” (2007: 105). But how may this best be achieved? The question is hermeneutical: the Scriptural text is one link in a chain of communication between the original speaker, the situation of their hearers, and those who read the text in a different time and place, whose experiences shape the act of interpretation. For those who maintain that Biblical study and theological reflection have a significant role to play, it is not an option just to read off from the text to the issues of today. But for the life of faith, it cannot be right either simply to treat the Biblical literature as ancient texts, of purely archaeological interest, with no particular relevance to today’s world.

A middle way between the two alternatives is posited by Paul Ricoeur, the distinguished French philosopher and theologian, who steers a careful path between a “literalist” approach to the Bible and a “critical” approach (Stiver 2001: 77–79), and this is the method I adopt in this book. There are, he suggests, three stages in finding meaning, what he calls a “hermeneutical arc”. First, we read the passage carefully and allow it to “speak” to us as it stands. Then we make a careful critical examination of the text, allowing for form and redaction criticism and reflecting on the narrative in its historical context. And finally, we go back to the passage, now rich with meaning and giving us new understandings and insights (Ricoeur 1981, 1984: 77–81; Mudge 2001: 114). The text now seems different from the way it did on the first reading. It projects a world which may or may not coincide with the intentions of the author or editor, a “world in front of the text” (Stiver 2001: 92), and the reader experiences a new way of living, of feeling, and of seeing. Ricoeur describes this process as mimesis, a dynamic link between life and the text (1982). But the process doesn’t rest there. It invites the reader to make a creative response using “ethical imagination” (Thomasset 2005: 525–541). This highlights a tension between the world as it is and the world as it ought to be, and it calls inhumanity and injustice into question.

This ethical imagination comes into play in two main respects. First, it stirs solicitude and compassion, as it invites the reader to stand in another person’s shoes (Ricoeur 1986). Second, imagination keeps human relations personal. It combats the anonymity of relationships in bureaucratic societies. It feeds into a sense of justice. With this exercise of creative imagination, the Biblical texts educate our moral and affective sensibilities and inspire our ethical vision, as well as our relations to our neighbours and to our social institutions.

The Biblical texts in chapters three to eight have been chosen because they are relevant. While not exhaustive, they cover a broad range of experiences. Different perspectives avoid foreclosing debate and embracing easy conclusions. I explore the texts in some detail, bringing them as appropriate into conversation with archaeology, sociology, refugee and diaspora studies, and disaster and trauma studies. Although these have to be brought into contact carefully – comparisons of this type between ancient and modern societies involve critical reflection as to whether such insights are comparable – they can enable us to gain a more realistic estimation of human experience and ethical responsibility both in the world of the Bible and in the world of today. Some contemporary narrative sources are legal. Tribunal judges work with a logic of uncertainty and qualitative probability (Stiver 2007: 152). This can involve arguments, evidence, and conclusions that are probable but that are not proofs. Knowing the technicalities of the law is not enough to guide the difficult decisions they have to make; rather, the capacity to imagine and feel how a “reasonable person” in a very different situation might respond is critical. This capacity for empathetic imagination varies from judge to judge.

References are made chiefly to the policies and practices of three countries: the US, traditionally the largest provider of refugee protection, Australia, with a particular emphasis on “unauthorized” asylum-seekers who try to reach the country by sea, and the UK, where the humanitarian process of refugee resettlement is being turned into a politically motivated form of refugee deterrence. But the issues raised are not, by any means, exclusive to these three countries.

After looking in some detail at the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers in today’s world in chapters two and three, we turn to the Biblical texts that concern the sojourner in chapter four, with particular reference to the Torah and narratives. We then examine the ambiguities of the Exodus narrative and the trauma associated with the Babylonian Exile in chapter five before moving on to explore the challenges of “return” in chapter six. The evangelists highlight the way in which Jesus’ life and teaching exemplifies and develops the Torah in chapter seven, and in chapter eight we further explore the relevance of this for the life of the early church and the church of today. Texts that illustrate hospitality to the stranger, fundamental to both Testaments, are examined in chapter eight. Chapter nine then draws some conclusions.

2 A world of refugees

DOI: 10.4324/9781315717388-2

This chapter examines the protection that is available for refugees under international law and the relationship between this and the need for humanitarian protection. It considers the bearing of international refugee law on inter-state relationships and the rights and duties of states towards refugees before going to explore a series of questions that arise.

The need for protection

When families in Mustafa’s neighbourhood were brutally killed, including his sister, and her husband and children, he took his family and left Syria. Hungry and sick, he eventually reached Jordan – but as winter storms sweep the country, refugee families like Mustafa’s are at risk.

This story illustrates the appeal for aid in 2014 by the international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Islamic Aid. Mustafa’s story is that of millions of people in our world today. Men, women, and children are forced to leave their homes in fear for their lives. Immediate humanitarian needs are imperative, but so is political protection. The two provisions are distinct but interlinked, and this is reflected in international law. The general principle of the right to seek and enjoy asylum is part of international customary law, as it is part of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But it was not until 1951 with the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that the international obligations of states towards refugees, based on broad humanitarian principles, were set out in international law. A legal definition of “refugee” was internationally agreed upon, and a controversial label was thereby created (Zetter 1999: 46; see p. 1).

The Refugee Convention was designed to address the plight of Holocaust survivors and refugees from the Second World War, and, with the advent of the Cold War, new refugees from central and eastern Europe. In this respect, it was timely. However, its Eurocentric focus meant that it was not then applied to the huge population displacements that took place outside Europe. As fresh refugee-producing situations emerged worldwide, the 1967 Protocol was added to remove time restrictions and geographical limitations. Other legal instruments on refugees apply regionally in Africa, Latin America, and the European Union (EU), but the Refugee Convention remains the only global legal instrument dealing with the status and rights of refugees. Amongst the first to accede to the Convention in 1954 were Australia and the UK, the latter having been amongst the first signatory nations. While the US did not at the time ratify the Refugee Convention, it did ratify the New York Protocol in 1968, thereby binding itself derivatively to it. And the governing statute in the US, namely, the Refugee Act of 1980, generally follows the Convention’s definition of “refugee”. While each individual state has discretion to decide whether a person on its threshold qualifies for refugee status, the Convention obliges the host state to protect those who have reached its borders from forced return to the country from which they have fled; this is the principle of non-refoulement (Article 33).

State protection

Forcibly displaced over the border

International law until recently dealt primarily with inter-state relationships and with the rights and duties of states. The role of the state in protection has been stretched to the limit by the increasingly huge numbers of people who have had to take refuge across the border in “countries of overspill”. The majority of refugees flee, like Mustafa and his family, over the borders of their own country to take refuge in a neighbouring territory. Studies suggest that “local populations in receiving countries have shown remarkable signs of tolerance and solidarity with fleeing victims of colonial oppression in earlier decades and of ethnopolitical violence in the most recent ones” (Westin 1999: 29). A possible explanation may lie in the fact that “refugees from one country will generally be treated kindly by ethnic or tribal compatriots on the other side of the border”. The different host countries in Africa show “incredible generosity and openness” (Türk 2012b), but the huge numbers of displaced people stretch their resources, already scarce, to the limit. There is an urgent need for an international humanitarian response. With the agreement of the host country, this is supplied by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in close partnership with NGOs who deliver and operate the relief programme. Fundraising is imperative. The bulk of the UNHCR’s activities are entirely funded by voluntary contributions: “UNHCR’s funding arrangements put a political and diplomatic price on the lives of refugees depending on the effectiveness of its appeals and the claim an emergency makes on the world’s humanitarian conscience” (Zetter 1999: 58). But does the perception that the UNHCR is “the servant to the world’s humanitarian conscience” allow individual states to abdicate responsibility? In the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (1966), Articles 2(1) and 11 are usually interpreted as implying an obligation to contribute to international aid for the benefit of refugees in poor countries, though “under present interpretations of international human rights law, the failure of a government to provide foreign aid … is probably not legally actionable” (Hathaway 2005: 495).

Unlike the industrialized nations of the West, these “countries of overspill” have usually no domestic asylum procedures and institutions; where possible, registration, documentation, and refugee status determination are carried out by the UNHCR. This can take very many years – the primary focus of the organization has to be on ensuring that basic survival needs for food, shelter, and hygiene are met. Desperate to escape the misery of war, thousands of these men, women, and children make their homes in refugee camps. Some, like the camps for refugees from Syria or South Sudan, may have been set up relatively recently; others, like the Somalian or Palestinian refugee camps, may be of longer standing, reflecting the intractability of the conflicts that brought them into being.

Somalia presents one of the world’s worst refugee crises. The conflict situation was exacerbated by the worst drought to hit the Horn of Africa in sixty years. Around half the population live in forced displacement from their own homes, some across borders and around half a million of them in the Dadaab camp in Kenya. Many had trekked for thousands of miles; when they reached the border town of Liboi, some were too weak to walk any more – the onward journey to Dadaab could take up to four days. In 2012, hundreds of thousands of refugees in Dadaab were facing a humanitarian emergency. In a sobering report, Médecins sans Frontières states:

The refugees in Dadaab – and others on their way – need the continuous support of the UNHCR, the Kenyan government and humanitarian organisations to be able to survive. It is the responsibility of the decision makers to find solutions to reverse the current trends where refugees are paying the price for a conflict they are trying to escape and are at risk of becoming victims of the system that should assist them. The priority should remain the provision of assistance and protection to the thousands of refugees.

(MSF 2012)

As fighting escalated in Syria in August 2012, the flow of refugees into neighbouring countries increased dramatically, giving rise to a serious humani...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Halftitle Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Table Of Contents
• Abbreviations
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 A world of refugees
• 3 Asylum
• 4 The stranger in your midst
• 5 How to sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?
• 6 A stake in the place
• 7 Jesus
• 8 Welcoming the stranger
• 9 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of biblical references
• Subject and author index