House of Protection

With the new laws allowing immigration officers to enter schools and churches, the concept of sanctuary has been on my mind. Sacred spaces have offered protection for millennia. There was an understanding that even a fugitive had the right to worship unimpeded. Greek and Roman temples offered this protection, and the early Christian churches did the same. In Rome, by law, a criminal claiming sanctuary in a sacred space could not be harmed, removed, or arrested. This gave the person and the authorities time to calm down and make rational decisions as well as gave the person claiming sanctuary permission to pray or repent. Further, it protected the church from being the site of violent clashes between authorities and criminals.

After the fall of Rome, Christian states still practiced sanctuary. It was seen as distasteful to bring weapons or secular authority into the sacred space of a church. Fugitives claiming sanctuary were often expected to convert (if not Christian), repent, or work to negotiate a peaceful resolution (such as exile without pursuit).

Over time, the practiced became less common, particularly after wealthy men abused the system, finding way to stay in sanctuary for long periods of time to avoid punishment rather than using it for immediate safety. In 1623, England outlawed the practice.

Most European countries didn’t have actual laws around sanctuary; it was just an understood practice that to enter a church in order to arrest someone was a violation of the sacred space.

Similarly, the U.S. held an unofficial practice of sanctuary—at times more respected than others. Churches protected escaping slaves in the nineteenth century and draft dodgers in the twentieth century.

In modern times, sanctuary is still occasionally applied, often in cases of immigrants facing deportation.

In the 1980s, Central Americans coming to the U.S. often trusted churches over the government and would turn to churches for information, aid, and in some cases, protection. In 2014, a Mexican immigrant spent a month in a Tucson Presbyterian church which granted him family sanctuary.

A few years ago, a Dutch church kept services going for 96 hours in order to protect a family seeking asylum from deportation. Under Dutch law, the police could not enter the church during active rites, so the church maintained a constant service until the family was granted more time.

In 2011 the Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo instructed U.S. ICE agents and officers not to arrest people in "sensitive locations" such as churches, schools, hospitals, and public demonstrations unless a clear danger or other exceptions existed. The current repeal of this memo is what has driven concerns about sanctuary no longer being respected.

More often than not, sanctuary has been a traditional practice, not a law. It works when the secular authorities acknowledge the sacredness and the goodwill of the church. It also works when the system is used to harbor temporary protection of a person in order to reduce violence or negotiate a different solution; long-term sanctuary merely to avoid legal consequences diminishes the practice.

I believe it is good to have sacred spaces—common spaces where one is free to worship without fear of reprisal, where one finds rest in God. One should not have to keep one’s guard up in the house of God. But the reality is that churches are not immune to the secular authorities of the state—sanctuary is not guaranteed. I think it is a beautiful practice, and it has surely protected desperate people over the centuries. I do believe authorities will still be loathe to perform arrests inside a church, if merely for the optics, and that people can still find peace and protection in the houses of God.