Sacred hospitality

Recently, Greenleaf, Idaho passed a law suggesting that locals arm themselves against possible refugees from natural disaster. At first, it was opposed by the local Quaker minister, but then he talked to the item's sponsor who toned down the language a little bit, and then the minister went along, saying he wanted to be "a team player".

Excuse me?

Are you really suggesting that it is better to be a "team player" than to oppose the idea that one should add to the misery of refugees by threatening them with guns (at least)? What kind of "ministry" is this? And since when is being a minister about being a "team player"? Ignorant me, I thought it would have to do with ministering to the suffering, rather than approving suggestions to make their lives harder.

I think on the story of the Samaritan who helps the man that was robbed and beaten, and wonder if the man shouldn't have considered himself lucky that the next town he came to didn't offer to kill him. Who is my neighbor, teacher?

Bauccus and Philemon, in the new script, should apparantly have met their divine guests with an ambush and demand to know what Zeus and Mercury were doing on their land. Abraham should apparantly have tied up the angels until they'd properly explained themselves. Apparantly, we should ask with Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" And what is this nonsense about treating the stranger well, "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt..."? "Whatsoever you do to the least of these..." Ring a bell? Apparantly not.

Because, of course, we know those refugees are out to commit murder and mayhem, and we've gotta show 'em that their criminal selves are unwelcome in our community. We'll show 'em that we're a decent, Christian community, and those strangers better stay out.

And if one of 'em happens to be pregnant, well, maybe they can use the barn.