Misinterpretation of Sanctuary: A Growing Concern

To fully understand the current sanctuary city movement in the United States, it is essential to acknowledge its historical roots, which many people forget trace back to the 1980s. The sanctuary movement emerged as a response to the wars in Central America, particularly the conflict in Nicaragua. Activists sought to provide refuge for individuals fleeing persecution and violence, often at significant personal risk. This movement was characterized by a network of churches, synagogues, and grassroots organizations that openly defied federal immigration laws to protect those they believed were unjustly targeted.

Founders and Civil Disobedience

Key figures in the sanctuary movement included religious leaders and activists who viewed their actions as a moral imperative. These individuals founded organizations that publicly claimed to provide sanctuary to refugees, emphasizing a commitment to social justice. Many of these activists engaged in civil disobedience, believing the laws they were breaking were unjust. Those arrested often claimed immunity from prosecution, asserting that their acts of civil disobedience fell within a framework of sanctity that protected them, akin to the biblical notion of sanctuary.

As a law student at the time, I wrote a paper exploring whether there was a legal basis for such claims of immunity. While I didn’t consider myself conservative then, my research led me to reflect critically on the concept of sanctuary related to biblical principles. The biblical cities of refuge served a specific purpose: for individuals who had committed unintentional acts, not those who willfully broke the law.

The Essence of Accountability

The essence of civil disobedience is the willingness to acknowledge the laws one disobeys – and accept the consequences of that choice. True integrity is holding firm to one’s beliefs while also recognizing personal responsibility. The idea that someone could claim sanctuary and thereby evade the consequences of their actions distorts the very nature of civil disobedience. Unfortunately, this misinterpretation continues to evolve today.

The current landscape of sanctuary cities highlights a troubling shift. While the 1980s activists were often well-meaning individuals committed to nonviolent protest, the contemporary uses of the sanctuary label have broadened to include individuals who may evade accountability for heinous crimes, such as murder, rape, child exploitation, etc. The assertion of sanctuary has somehow been twisted to extend protections to those destabilizing the very society they inhabit.

The Modern Sanctuary City Movement

Today, sanctuary cities are municipalities that have enacted policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Advocates argue that these policies protect vulnerable populations, promote public safety, and foster community trust. However, heartbreaking news of serious crimes committed by illegal aliens has increased from the occasional horrifying story to now daily fare.

And yet, many leaders of cities and states post-election are doubling down to continue reaffirming their status as sanctuaries. Yet, the reality of these policies diverges sharply from the biblical foundation of sanctuary cities.

Biblical Sanctuary Cities: A Different Framework

The concept of sanctuary cities has its roots in biblical law, particularly in the Old Testament, which prescribes cities of refuge as places for individuals who committed unintentional manslaughter. Numbers 35:9-34 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13 outline clear guidelines: these cities were established to provide safety for those who had caused death unintentionally, distinguishing between accidental harm and willful violence.

In modern American practice, the term “sanctuary” is often misappropriated to champion policies that obscure criminal accountability. Those who openly circumvent federal immigration laws, assert a moral high ground based on a misuse of biblical principles.

However, protecting individuals engaged in serious criminal activity is far removed from the accidental nature of crimes that warranted biblical sanctuary, which reveals a sharp dissonance between the historical intent of sanctuary laws and their current application. Several key aspects of the biblical framework stand in stark contrast to today’s interpretations:

• • Mandated by Law:

Unlike contemporary sanctuary policies, which are aspirational and defy existing immigration laws, biblical cities of refuge were mandated as part of society’s legal and moral code. These cities were integral to the community’s legal fabric, reflecting a commitment to justice.

• • Intentionality of Crimes:

The biblical prescription specifically dealt with unintentional manslaughter, not violent crimes such as homicide, rape, or assault. The perpetrator could seek refuge but was required to remain in the city and engage in repentance until the High Priest’s death, reinforcing the notion of accountability and moral consequence.

The Distortion of Intent

The laws of the Bible were designed to create a just and moral society. They emphasize accountability, define categories of harm, and insist upon a framework for redemption. To truly honor the spirit of sanctuary, we must avoid misrepresenting it for political convenience and carefully assess its implications for public safety and justice.

The age-old saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” Yet, in today’s discourse surrounding sanctuary cities, just because something is labeled a “sanctuary” does not mean it embodies the principles inherent in the biblical concept.

In our quest for justice and compassion, let’s ensure our actions match our labels, lest we find ourselves misidentifying what the real ducks are in this complex ethical landscape.