The risky rhetoric of “stranger” danger
By Savitri Hensman
Years ago, “stranger danger” was often emphasised in awareness campaigns aimed at keeping children safe. Words and images warned them to stay away from adults they did not know. Views on the best approach have changed since then. While young listeners and viewers are still taught not to go off with an unknown grown-up, messages tend to be less frightening but more precise about what to do and avoid. For instance in an emergency, strangers can be a source of help as well as harm; and being around family members or their friends, however familiar, may sometimes be unsafe.
Still at a wider level, members of groups in society other than one’s own, or who fit certain norms, may be seen as “strangers” to be feared, looked down on (or up to), resented or even hated, even if a few are personally known. Though there have also been friendlier meetings across difference, this has happened in many societies through the ages. But perhaps it has taken on a new edge in modern times as social ties have become more frayed, leaving many people with a sense of isolation and loss.
In the UK and elsewhere, job patterns changed, stoking insecurity and scattering communities. Globally, armed conflict and environmental damage further disrupted lives. Large numbers moved long distances within or beyond their countries to escape persecution and violence or seek work; or, if they stayed, found themselves far from those once close to them. Against this backdrop, positive patriotism risked being undermined by narrow nationalism and ethnic and religious hostility.
Powerful media figures and politicians in the West increasingly used negative language to describe these “outsider” groups. They were blamed for all kinds of social ills, even if recruited directly to boost the economy or plug gaps in public services or were fleeing horrific situations to which multiple states had contributed. Locally-descended minorities too, such as disabled people, could also be a lightning-rod for broader frustrations – again not new but taking increasingly sophisticated forms. Members of targeted groups sometimes learned to despise themselves or mirrored this negativity, while well-wishers might romanticise them, again glossing over personal differences and shared human weaknesses as well as strengths.
In May 2025, UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer pledged to “take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter.” He claimed that, though some immigrants had contributed to society, this had gone too far and Britain risked becoming “an island of strangers.”
The same day, as a stark reminder of how tightly controlled borders in fact were, it was reported that a senior officer had been allowed to block thousands of Afghans who had fought alongside UK forces there from being allowed to come here. Some had since been tortured and killed by the Taliban. While few regard the current system as satisfactory, the remarks were seen by many as unjust and divisive.
“Our concern is that the current narrative, which presents only one side of the debate, will only drive public anxiety and entrench polarization. When you refer to the ‘“incalculable’ damage done by uncontrolled migration, you are in danger of harming migrant members of our communities and strengthening those who would divide us,” over twenty faith leaders (including several Church of England bishops) wrote. “We recognise that there is public concern around migration and what it means for our society, which of course must be addressed. But this must be done in a way which is principled, and lowers the temperature of the debate, respecting the dignity of all who make up our nation.”
It is not only Western leaders who have gone in for such approaches. For example Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, and other top leaders of the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have long stoked anti-minority sentiment, despite occasional gestures towards integration.
Fear of enemies, within and without, can help politicians to gain and hold on to power but brings many risks, especially for the vulnerable (including Christians across the region, who are sometimes accused of eroding national culture and values, among other things). The Bible offers a different take, From the beginning it underlines that all humans are made in God’s image, valued, capable and creative. Yet it is realistic about the tendency of humankind in general to go astray and act wrongly, with failure to heed divine warnings and rivalry even between brothers spilling over into murder. However love continues. There are various strands, sometimes emphasising danger from without, but also core themes of justice, generosity and the stranger as gift-bearer.
Abraham’s hospitality to three strangers leads to abundant blessing (Genesis 18.1-14). His descendants are told that “the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them with food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10.17-19). The foreigner Ruth’s faithful love and openness as she immigrates with her mother-in-law (Ruth) will lead to the birth of a great leader, David, and points to God’s own trustworthy covenant. This is echoed elsewhere and picked up in the New Testament.
For instance, travellers from a far-off land are drawn by a star and come with gifts and recognition to the infant Christ, who then, with Mary and Joseph, himself becomes a stranger in the land of Egypt (Matthew 2.1-14). It is a Samaritan, a mistrusted outsider, who comes to the aid of the injured traveller (Luke 10:25- 37). In welcoming the stranger, alongside others in need (Matthew 25.31-46), the Son of Man is welcomed, while rejection has damaging consequences.
Those who follow Jesus are called into a fellowship which will care for, and invite in, people from many backgrounds – and challenged to love even enemies.
Where human wisdom and strength fall short, God can fill the gap, making peace through the Cross (Ephesians 2.11-22) and gift of the Spirit. The walls of hostility are broken down, so those once on the outside are no longer strangers and aliens but citizens and members of God’s household. In the light of this good news, and profound challenge to humankind’s more troubling tendencies, alongside the work of Christian thinkers and communities through the ages, it is possible to revisit today’s burning issues in ways which seek the good of all. This is not about naivety: all groups, for example, may be at risk of closing themselves off and seeking only their own good.
Sorting out public services, housing and the economy are genuine concerns, without quick- fix solutions. And many people would prefer not to have to flee their homelands in terror, or be under pressure to migrate away from family, friends and neighbourhoods, unable to watch their children or nieces and nephews growing up or say goodbye to elderly parents nearing the ends of their lives. But the resources of faith, and joint action with other people of goodwill, may make it easier to shift away from rhetoric which scapegoats, or draws attention from the failings of the powerful, towards realistically confronting present-day problems, together.