There is a rising cry within Australia today to tighten immigration policy. This is partly in response to the December massacre at Bondi Beach and other recent shocking terrorist attacks by radicalised extremists and their supporters. Many Australians, including some who have historically supported an open immigration policy, are now starting to ask serious questions. Have we been too naïve and open minded regarding those we have allowed into our country? This ideological shift is evident in the remarkable rise in popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in recent polls. Similar sentiment is evident in America’s current move toward tighter border security under the Trump administration.
What is the Christian response to this fraught issue? At the risk of foolishly rushing in where angels fear to tread, let me highlight two seemingly opposing biblical themes that need to be held in tension and which should guide us through these turbulent waters: the theme of welcoming the stranger and the theme of protective gatekeeping.
WELCOMING THE STRANGER
Few themes are more deeply embedded in Scripture than the call to show hospitality to the outsider. In the Old Testament, Israel’s national identity was forged in the crucible of displacement. “You shall love the sojourner, therefore,” Moses declares, “for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt” (Deut 10:19). The Hebrew term for sojourners, ger, refers not to a casual visitor, but to a resident alien — someone living within Israel’s borders without ethnic or covenantal status. Remarkably, the law commands not mere tolerance but love.
Leviticus 19:33–34 reflects this mandate: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong… you shall love him as yourself.” The language deliberately echoes the command to love one’s neighbour (Lev 19:18), suggesting that covenant fidelity includes social inclusion.
This theme carries forward into the New Testament. Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus became refugees, fleeing Herod’s violence and finding asylum in Egypt (Matt 2:13–15). Jesus identifies himself with the displaced: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Matt 25:35). Hospitality (philoxenia — literally “love of the stranger”) is repeatedly commended (Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2).
Historically, Christians have taken this seriously. Early Christian communities were known for caring for migrants and the poor in Roman cities. In modern times, Christian charities have played significant roles in refugee resettlement and humanitarian relief.
The theological implication is clear. Every human being bears the image of God (Gen 1:27). National boundaries do not erase “imago Dei” dignity. Furthermore, the gospel transcends ethnic and territorial lines. In Christ, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28). The Church is a transnational community.
Thus, any Christian approach to immigration that descends into xenophobia, racial prejudice, or fear-driven hostility is a betrayal of biblical values. A superficially reactive suspicion and hatred of foreigners simply because they are foreign cannot be squared with Scripture.
PROTECTIVE GATEKEEPING
Yet Scripture also affirms another reality: the legitimacy of ordered boundaries and the moral responsibility of governing authorities to protect those within their care.
Nations are not modern inventions. In Genesis 10, the “Table of Nations” describes distinct peoples, languages, and territories as part of God’s providential ordering of humanity. Deuteronomy 32:8 speaks of God “fixing the borders of the peoples.” Boundaries, in biblical thought, are not inherently oppressive; they can be protective and stabilising.
The image of the gate is helpful. Ancient cities had walls and gates not because they hated outsiders, but because they recognised vulnerability. To have a gate is not to reject hospitality; it is to exercise discernment.
Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls (Neh 2–6) provides a biblical picture of responsible leadership. After exile, he did not abolish the city’s boundaries in the name of inclusivity. He restored them for the safety and stability of the people living within.
Applied to contemporary Australia, this suggests that border control, vetting processes, and security measures are not intrinsically unchristian. Governments have a God-given responsibility to protect citizens from violence and instability. To ignore credible threats in the name of moral idealism would be a failure of responsibility.
HOLDING THE TENSION
The challenge is to hold these two themes together without collapsing one into the other. We are called to welcome the stranger who is genuinely in need, while at the same time protecting ourselves from enemies who would do us harm.
If we emphasise welcome without prudence, we risk placing our safety and the safety of our loved ones in great jeopardy. If we emphasis protection without compassion, we risk descending into racism and selfish isolation.
The balanced Christian position, therefore, resists partisan reduction. It will not fit neatly into the platforms of either progressive politics or nationalist populism. It recognises legitimate public concern about terrorism, crime, and cultural cohesion — especially in the wake of recent traumatic events. But it also insists that collective punishment, racial profiling, and inflammatory rhetoric are incompatible with Christian ethics.
Some may advocate for wide-open borders, pointing to Jesus’ teaching to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). But this exhortation by Jesus was simply a plea to turn away from personal hatred and unforgiveness, not an encouragement to invite hostile enemies into our homes. To do so would be foolish and irresponsible, endangering the lives of our loved ones.
A CALL TO DISCERNMENT
Australia faces deep challenges. We have been naïve and lax in our gatekeeping to date. We have allowed enemies into our national home; people who are hostile toward our values and our way of life and who mean us harm. The result is the current rise in terrorism by ideological extremists and by ordinary Australians who have been radicalised by them. We are now paying the price for the open-minded, progressive idealism that has characterised our immigration policies in recent decades. These policies are now revealed to have been foolishly naïve.
We urgently need to review our gatekeeping. But this requires a nuanced approach that avoids lurching toward simplistic racial profiling. Not everyone from a particular ethnic background poses a threat. We need to slam the door to our national home firmly shut to keep out our enemies, while at the same time leaving it ajar to welcome those in genuine need.
Welcoming the stranger and guarding the gate are not mutually exclusive commands. They are twin obligations. The morally nuanced task is not to choose between them, but to balance them rightly — ensuring that our borders are neither porous to violence nor sealed against compassion.
What this looks like in practice is the question we must now answer.
Practically, this may mean supporting robust but fair screening processes; distinguishing clearly between genuine refugees fleeing persecution and those who seek to infiltrate our national home with evil intent; investing in integration and education programs that promote shared civic values; and ensuring that detention practices respect human dignity and accurately identify those who are in genuine humanitarian need.
This is not advocating for any particular political party or platform. It is a call for Australians of all political persuasions to join together in calling for the rebuilding our gates – gates which, for too long, have been left ajar to the detriment of our national safety.