politics

Flashback Friday: Sanctuary

Frank

Given current headlines I thought this repost was appropriate.  Although originally published way back in 2007, not a lot has changed in this debate. My stance has changed somewhat since then, however (and especially given the enormity of what’s presently dominating headlines). I’d now argue a less passive, and more aggressive, response that what I write below. We cannot ignore the Biblical mandate to love the “least of these”. And the theme of God’s people being refugees, sojourners, and strangers runs deeply throughout the whole Bible. So, as Christians, we cannot be silent in the face of this oppression.

****

Do you remember Elvira Arellano? She was an illegal immigrant who made headlines in fall of 2007 for claiming sanctuary in a Chicago church. This headline led me to study my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. At the time, the debate over illegal immigration died down, although as current headlines show the debate never went away.

Also in the fall of 2007, the city of Simi Valley, California sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since by their actions, allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that made perfect sense.

If this would have held up, it would have set a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? At the time, most agreed that this was an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in in the first place? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kind of like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They are here for a reason, after all; Mexico is an absolute mess between its economy, political corruption, and rampant violence between rival drug lords. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic du jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to help the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Or are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected, and depending on where you live chances are there is someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.

Lamenting Protest?

Frank

Given our political and cultural climate, I’ve begun the year reading Prophetic Lament: A Call for Justice in Troubled Times by  Soong-Chan Rah. I want to orient my heart towards God’s sovereignty in spite of the environment I see around me and am in search of the right personal response.

In the second chapter, ‘The Funeral Dirge,’ Rah describes lament as expressing historical suffering. He then quotes from Brown and Miller, eds Lament: Reclaiming Practices in Pulpit, Pew and Public Square how lament takes the form of “arguing with and complaining to God about one’s situation and protesting its continuation”. Protest jumps out from that quote so Rah continues to say,

“Lament is an act of protest as the lamenter is allowed to express indignation and even outrage about the experience of suffering.” (Prophetic Lament, pg 44)

These quotes burned in my heart over the weekend as millions marched in protest of the current administration. In an act of insufficient solidarity I posted the latter quote on Facebook. Meanwhile my wife, indignant over the response she saw from many who called themselves Christian on Facebook, stood up for the protesters.

I wasn’t surprised by the response. But it does beg the question, should Christians protest?

Theologian Pete Enns wrote a post this morning addressing that very point. Enns doesn’t ignore the paradox of our dual-citizenship as Christians. Although Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, Enns notes that it is our civic duty to “hold powers to account when we see injustice being done”. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I have come to the conviction that Christians cannot remain silent in the face of injustice. Our voices can take different tones- vocal, relational, or financial support for the marginalized and oppressed, active protest, civil disobedience, and even lament.

Zack Hunt, author of the blog formerly known as American Jesus (that’s not really its name, but that’s what I like to call it) marched on Saturday. In doing so, he invited the online ire of many Christians. What would Jesus do? Would Jesus demand rights? Would Jesus incite violence? Would Jesus use vulgar language? (Would Jesus deal in alternate facts?)

I think those questions are immaterial. Jesus would listen. Jesus would welcome the protester into fellowship. Jesus would love because Jesus is love.

So why protest? Why not just sit comfortably behind a computer screen (like I’m doing now, I admit) and share platitudes like “Jesus loves you!”

Occupy Wall Street co-founder Micah White, in an article published by The Guardian, describes protest this way: “Sometimes, the people march. Other times we hold general assemblies, tar and feather opponents, occupy pipelines, go on strike, dance in a circle, riot in the streets or pray together. In each case, behind every act of protest is an often unarticulated theory of social change: a story we tell ourselves about why the disobedient behavior we’ve chosen will usher in the change we desire.”

Doesn’t this describe Christianity? Isn’t this movement started by a band of working class, under educated, minorities an intentional lifestyle meant to usher in the change we desire? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus taught us to pray, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done?”

And when we fail to see the answer to this prayer, “on earth as it is in heaven” isn’t the appropriate response lament?

So that is why Christians should support protest. Because to live a Christ-like life in a culture that opposes it is, in itself, an act of protest.

A New Era

Frank
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
-Martin Neimöller
I lost count of the number of times I wanted to dust off this old blog during the election season. Every news article I read about broad-brushing Christians and who they were voting for, every pushback against major candidates in the name of religion, and every headline about yet another injustice urged me to speak up.
But who would listen? That’s ultimately what stopped me. I convinced myself that my voice didn’t matter- there were already well-known pastors, bloggers, and theologians who were speaking up (some of whom now mocked for it)- and my audience was limited anyway. And to be honest, i felt like it didn’t matter. Most everyone I talked to had their mind made up and no bombshell headline or “October surprise” was going to get them to change it. Yet there were also many I knew who felt marginalized, who felt they didn’t have a voice, who felt like none of their brothers or sisters in Christ could ever understand where they were coming from.
So I prayed about it. A lot. And I finally heard an answer: “don’t be afraid of your voice.”
“But if I say, “I will not mention his word or speak anymore in his name,” his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.”-Jeremiah 20:9
I honestly didn’t think Trump was going to win. Yet despite the polling, I could sense the political winds blowing in his favor so I expected he would make it close. At the same time, I couldn’t believe it as I was watching the returns with my family as Hillary lost Ohio, then Pennsylvania, then Michigan (although they stayed too close to call, the momentum was already well in Trump’s favor).
I wanted to be hopeful. So many of my friends reassured me that he’s surround himself with good people and that his tone would change once the magnitude of his office set in. Neither happened in my opinion. So over the holidays, with this blog looming over my shoulder, I continued to watch the news for every irresponsible tweet, every unqualified nomination, and still more injustice.
And then there were the talking-heads asking the question that ultimately brought me to this point, “what is the church to do now?”
I’ve been teaching adult Sunday school for the past year and I’ve been surprised how so much of the Bible is political. I always recognized Jesus-as-Messiah as being counter-political. I recognized the political subversiveness in his teaching. But it wasn’t until we studied the book of Revelation that this point really set in. The Gospel is political, there is no denying it. But how we apply that ‘Gospel-politic’ has been debated for centuries. Obviously, I’m not going to solve that here.
But I will offer my take. This blog began motivated by the unholy marriage between the church and American politics. It returns in a new era, but the motivation is the same.
Today, Donald Trump will be sworn in as President of the United States. Today, I am a Christian. And I will no longer be silent.

(Don’t get me wrong, I will continue to blog about many of the same things I did before. But I plan on digging more deeply into the political messages of the New Testament. This isn’t all about Trump, rather our misguided expectations putting too much of our faith into politics, regardless of which sides we’re coming from.)

God the Politician

Frank

When I was in high school I wrote a paper in my psychology class about if you apply Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Jungian psychology that religion is tied to the subconscious, then the logical conclusion is that man invented the notion of God. (In hindsight, even in high school I was a religious studies nerd.) Recent studies have gone a step further detailing how certain chemical reactions in our brains give us a sense of pleasure during worship and even create the so-called “light” that many have described seeing on their deathbeds. Even physics has its “god particle”.

This only reveals the truth that throughout history we have been trying to mold God into a person that we can accept. (Maybe that was the wisdom behind God the Father sending his son Jesus?) When we see injustice we cry out to God that it isn’t fair. But unfair to whom? When we find a difficult passage of scripture that is counter to ever-evolving cultural norms, we dance around it saying “God didn’t really mean that.” A.W. Tozer writes in The Pursuit of God, “Much of our difficulty as seeking Christians stems from our unwillingness to take God as He is and adjust our lives accordingly. We insist upon trying to modify Him and to bring Him nearer to our own image.” (pg 71)

It is like a politician who will vacillate on issues at the whim of public sentiment or to capture a certain demographic. I remember President Clinton being criticized for “waffling” and the jokes about how he’d take a poll before making a decision on what to have for dinner. What many found unacceptable just a few years ago is now considered common practice. We the people, are a fickle bunch. Are we surprised that we approach God the same way?

Tozer writes later, “The whole course of the life is upset by failure to put God where He belongs. We exalt ourselves instead of God and the curse follows.” (pg 76) When we fail to let God be who He is, we essentially put ourselves- our desires, our priorities, our definitions of right and wrong- above Him. We call Jesus “Lord” but only because we get something out of it. But only when we exalt God above all else, even ourselves, can we truly find peace with Him. Without doing so we will constantly struggle against God’s way because we want to get our way.

God’s truths are eternal. Our morals are the signs of the times and are ever shifting through history.

In the end, the only thing that really matters is whose Truth do you trust?

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
(Hebrews 13:8)

This blog is part of a book club reading The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer. Please join the discussion here and at our hosts, Jason Stasyszen and Sarah Salter. Need a copy of the book? You can get it for free on Kindle.

The Day After

Frank

I looked outside my window and I saw something that surprised me. The sun was peeking over the horizon. It might actually rise today. I opened by Bible and found that the words haven’t changed and that Jesus is still Lord. So with that comfort I can sit back and enjoy my coffee.

I don’t want to mock those whom are justifiably upset about the election results last night nor do I want to minimize their legitimate concerns. There are those whose jobs are at risk because of last night’s outcome. There are lifestyles that will be threatened. I am sympathetic, but at the same time I think that would have been true regardless- just for a different set of people.

In this month’s Coffee Break from the ministry of Living on the Edge, Chip Ingram asks us to imagine sitting around a table with some of the Bible’s greatest heroes and to picture laying our concerns out on that table. What would they say? What advice would they give? Regardless of who won last night, half of us were destined to be upset about the results, so this exercise applies to all of us.

  • Abraham would say: “Trust God” Focus on God’s promises, not the world’s problems (Romans 4:20-21)
  • Joseph would say: “Forgive the Opposition” God’s Will will prevail. (Genesis 50:20)
  • Moses would say: “Confront the Culture” The truth sets people free. (John 8:32)
  • Esther would say: “Risk Rejection” You are where you are for just a time as this. (Esther 4:14)
  • David would say: “Fight the Giants” God uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things. (1 Samuel 17)
  • Daniel would say: “Pray Fervently” God can move rulers and authorities through prayer. (Proverbs 21:1)
  • Paul would say: “Preach the Word” The Gospel is the only thing that can change people, cultures, and countries. (Romans 1:16)

And last but not least,

  • Jesus would say: “Go Make Disciples” Our work here is not done. (Matthew 28:18-20)

What do you think these heroes of the faith would say to you right now?

Vote Schmote

Frank

You don’t have to worry about voting tomorrow. The outcome is already determined by the results from a football field. If you think that is crazy (statistics cannot lie) some could argue the same for believing that the election results are pre-ordained, or guided by some form of supernatural providence. You could call this karma, or fate, or just open your Bible to Romans and come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter what your political leanings may be- God has already chosen the victor. With such a conviction it might be tempting to sit this one out (at least it’s tempting for me). Yet despite nothing happening outside of God’s will, we are still fallen and broken humans making a choice based on feelings that therefore can only lead to an imperfect outcome.

I started a longer post, but couldn’t keep myself from ranting and raving. That’s not what this space needs and that’s not what needs to be communicated prior to Election Day. What we need are humble hearts in submission to Jesus. For the right attitude and approach, check out these posts:

And leading in to tomorrow, here are some fun quotes to keep in mind when you pull that lever:

“democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”
–Winston Churchill
“Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half the time.”
-E.B. White
“Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority are ignorant.”
-John Simon
“Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.”
-Laurence J. Peter
“A democratic people gets the kind of government it deserves”
-Father Charles Coughlin (interestingly after stating “A godless people will chose a godless leader” while critiquing FDR.)

God Knows Your Vote!

Frank

Sometimes the choice seems so clear.

“God and a religious president, or _____ and no God!”

“We must prevent the election of ____. If he is elected president, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible!”

This candidate has broken every one of the 10 Commandments, but to go into detail “would be too shocking, too disgusting to appear in print.”

And if you needed any extra motivation, if you vote for the wrong candidate you “will go to hell”.

None of these scare tactics are new. The first quote was used against Thomas Jefferson by John Adams in the third ever presidential election. The second was against Alfred Smith who was running against Herbert Hoover. What makes this quote even more remarkable by today’s standards was that it was in a newsletter sent home from school by a local school board. Take that, separation of church and state! The third quote is hilarious in that James Polk didn’t have to prove his allegations against Henry Clay because they were just… too…disturbing!

And you might not recognize the last one because it is so new. This is a reactionary headline to an advocacy ad put out by Mike Huckabee yesterday against President Obama. Never mind that Huckabee never uses those exact words, the headline is enough to get your attention.

Using religion as a tool to manipulate campaigns is nothing new. We expect candidates to sling mud. What is concerning to me however, is when sincere Christians use their faith to defend their unique political positions.

What do you think of this picture? Do you want to cheer, or do you scratch your head trying to figure out what the scripture has to do with gun control? Or how about my favorite prayer from Billy Graham:

‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!’

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, ‘The Rest of the Story,’ and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called ‘One nation under God.’

And even though someone just the other day posted this on Facebook as if these words were uttered recently, this is not a new prayer. Not only that, but neither Billy Graham or Paul Harvey had anything to do with it. This was a variation of prayer by Bob Russell in 1995 at the Kentucky Governor’s Prayer Breakfast and recited by Joe Wright as the opening prayer of the Kansas House of Representatives in 1996. Sadly, neither Russell or Wright are big enough names to start an email chain or to get quoted on Facebook, so we end up with the version we see here. What really gets under my skin though, is that somewhere along the line someone claiming to be Christian chose to lie in order to advance an agenda.

If we are to believe the statistics that roughly 80% of Americans claim the label “christian” and political polls show the country to be pretty evenly divided over the presidential candidates, then chances are that you and I aren’t likely to agree on politics even though we agree that Jesus is Lord. Does that mean I hate you or that you are going to hell because of how you vote? To suggest such a thing is abusing the faith that should be uniting us. Besides, if electing an alleged atheist 212 years ago didn’t force closed the doors of every church in America, then the results of this election are unlikely to affect my citizenship in the only Kingdom that matters. The only thing I know for sure, is that come Wednesday half of us are going to be upset.

“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:23)

“You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow [Romney],” and another, “I follow [Obama],” are you not mere men?” (1 Corinthians 3:3-4)

“Welcome all the Lord’s followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don’t criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours ” (Romans 14:1, CEV)

Crunch Time

Frank

I’ve been putting off this topic for weeks. I look at my bookshelf and a few specific titles jump out at me. I log onto Facebook and cannot avoid it. And as I turn one more page on the calendar I am forced to face this reality.

The next presidential election is just over a week away. When I first started this blog one of my observations that drove me to this was the uncomfortable marriage between faith and politics. One show on Christian-talk defines politics as “faith put into action”. I wonder if Jesus would agree. I heard another Christian talkshow host hang up on a caller who disagreed about homosexuality. No honest open debate, rather he literally hung up on the caller mid sentence as he was trying to quote a scripture. And now, six years after I started this blog, twelve years after George W. Bush and the “value-voter” Christians are identified as much by how they vote than by how they live, if not more.

I had wanted to do a series of blogs on some of the stickier issues this election but I just couldn’t bring myself around to it. I hate to say that I just haven’t cared that much about this election cycle. But that doesn’t mean my apathy is acceptable or that my vote is not important.

I won’t get around to hitting on every hot-topic between now and then, in fact I’m not even going to try. But to be consistent with the theme and intent of this blog, I do want to focus our hearts and minds towards the Word of God so that we can make political decisions based on God’s Will rather than any political party.

I’m not the only one who has this ambition. I’m sure if you looked around enough and listened to enough lessons, you’ll find someone who agrees with you politically. I’m not interested in that. I want to hear from someone who is going to challenge the way I think and convictions I may hold because of my upbringing, my race, my socioeconomics, or my geography.

I’m a big fan of the ministries of Living on the Edge and Ransomed Heart (just look at the buttons on my sidebar). I encourage you to listen to the series Culture Shock over at Living on the Edge and the last few podcasts from Ransomed Heart. Set aside your preconceptions. Set aside your political affiliations. Open your heart and your mind and just listen. There’s a lot there to catch up on (I’m not totally caught up myself) but at least start with Chip’s lesson on “The Church and Politics” and John’s discussion on “Voting” and “Jesus’ View on Government”. Then come back here later this week and we’ll talk about this some more.

Political Expediency, Todd Akin, and the Religious Right

Frank

As the days become shorter and begin to cool, it can only mean one thing. Summer is drawing to a close. And being an even-numbered year, that also means election season is right around the corner. Election season, in other words, when I am usually embarrassed to call myself a Christian.

This election cycle is holding to form with the latest soundbite flub of Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin. In case you haven’t heard, Akin made a comment about “legitimate rape” not causing pregnancy because a woman’s body automatically shuts down its reproductive ability due to the trauma. When I first heard this, I didn’t blink and I didn’t flinch. I just chalked it up as a politician trying to score some pro-life points. But the statement itself did not phase me. I am a data-nerd so I take any claim by a politician without data to back it up with a grain of salt. So I was surprised to see so much backlash come against Akin. Did he say something stupid? Absolutely. Should he be vilified for it? No, but…

Like I said, it’s election season and there’s this thing called political expediency. You might also hear discussion on electoral math or listen to prognosticators speculate who will gain or lose seats in Congress to maintain, or regain, control of one or both houses. This is the time of year when logic is set aside for the sake of votes- see Palin, Sarah. (And let’s be honest, doesn’t most of the pandering for votes by either party defy logic?) So political expediency demands that Akin take the fall for his comments for the greater good of his party. Is that right or is that fair? Well it doesn’t matter in the cutthroat world of politics.

But then something strange happened. I knew we were in trouble when I saw the headline, “Kirk Cameron defends Akin“. After first asking myself why I should care what Kirk Cameron thinks, I was compelled to click on the link to find out why exactly Cameron was stepping into this political mess. Come to find out, Akin is a favorite of Conservative Christians (somehow I failed to get that memo) so it was only natural during an interview with Cameron on something completely different for the hosts of the Today show to ask him about it. Cameron’s comments opened the door for the Religious-Right to come out to support Akin in defiance of their party’s wishes.

First Kirk Cameron, then Mike Huckabee and David Barton (really?). Although they have the platform, it is important to note that not everyone who calls themselves Christian agrees. And now there are children conceived by rape and mothers who are the victims of rape stepping out to add their voice to the debate. So now the debate is no longer about an abstract theory, but about real people.

What worries me about this whole ordeal is the precedence it sets. I knew Christian Conservatives were a significant voting block to be pandered to, but I did not expect them to wield this big of a stick to get their way. This also doesn’t help the perception that Christianity is anti-science. Add crazy fertilization science to the growing list of anti-global warming, anti-evolution, anti-sun being the center of the Solar System, and so on. Meanwhile this anti-everything faction of the Republican Party is risking derailing the party altogether. Remember what I said about political expediency? Well you can forget about that when these Christians get a bur in their saddle.

And I’m again reminded why I loathe this time of year.

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” (Titus 3:9)

Repost: Sanctuary

Frank

I’m dusting off this old post in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s illegal immigration law yesterday. Though written five years ago (!) the issues are still the same and the Word of God hasn’t changed.

***

Do you remember Elvira Arellano? She was an illegal immigrant who made headlines in fall of 2007 for claiming sanctuary in a Chicago church. This headline led me to study my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. At the time, the debate over illegal immigration died down, although as current headlines show the debate never went away.

Also in the fall of 2007, the city of Simi Valley, California sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since by their actions, allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that made perfect sense.

If this would have held up, it would have set a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? At the time, most agreed that this was an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in in the first place? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kind of like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They are here for a reason, after all; Mexico is an absolute mess between its economy, political corruption, and rampant violence between rival drug lords. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic du jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to help the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Or are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected, and depending on where you live chances are there is someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.