Normally a column is for expressing opinions, and I’m known for approaching every issue with an open mouth.
But this column may contain more questions than answers, and I am writing to urge people to think about some important issues of the Two Kingdoms, church and state.
Those who know me are aware that I strongly support President Trump and that I believe the invasion of illegal immigrants is dangerous to America. But I also believe we must be alert to possible encroachments on our constitutional liberties, even if those encroachments come from the Trump administration.
That’s why the following headline concerns me: “27 religious groups sue Trump administration to protect houses of worship from immigration arrests.” These denominations are fighting a newly-announced Trump administration policy that immigration officers need not obtain approval from higher headquarters before entering a church and arresting illegal aliens during a worship service. They have established their churches as sanctuaries in which illegal aliens may worship and receive help without fear of arrest.
These are liberal churches, including the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Church, Reform Judaism, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and several regional United Methodist groups. I strongly disagree with their theology. Nevertheless, they are protected by the First Amendment.
Their use of Scripture in their legal complaint doesn’t impress me. They cite Leviticus 19:34 (“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”) and Matthew 25:35 (“For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.”) Certainly, we are to be kind to strangers, but these passages assume the stranger in our gates is here legally and with honorable intentions. Still, the Constitution protects their right to (mis)interpret Scripture.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel disagrees. “Places of worship are for worship and are not sanctuaries for illegal activity or for harboring people engaged in illegal activity,” he says.
Staver is my friend, and our Foundation for Moral Law frequently works with Liberty Counsel. But the Scripture gives some basis for the church serving as a sanctuary for those in trouble with the law.
Consider the cities of refuge. Of the cities set aside for the Levites, six (Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan, according to Joshua 20:7-8) were designated as cities of refuge. Someone who killed another person could flee to a city of refuge (Exodus 21:13), where he could be safe from the avenger until the Levites completed their investigation and determined whether this was murder or an unintentional killing. If the former, the defendant was handed over to the avengers to face death. If the killing was unintentional, the defendant was allowed to live in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, at which time he could safely return home.
Consider also the horns of the altar in the tabernacle. These were projections on each of the four corners of the altar, and they appear to have constituted a refuge for penitent sinners. When Solomon became king, his older brother Adonijah feared for his life because he had been a rival for the throne. So he fled to the tabernacle and grasped the horns of the altar, claiming sanctuary. When informed of this, Solomon granted him clemency (I Kings 1:50). But when Joab, David’s general who had supported Adonijah over Solomon, grasped the horns of the altar, Solomon’s general Benaiah demanded that he come forth. Joab answered, “Nay, but I will die here.” (I Kings 2:30). Informed of this, Solomon ordered Benaiah to slay him at the altar, and it was done (2:31-34).
And consider also Athaliah, the ultra-wicked queen of Israel who tried to slay her grandchildren to preserve her power. But she missed young Joash, who was hidden and raised by the priest Jehoiada. When it was time for Jehoiada to coronate Joash as king, Queen Athaliah entered the temple and cried “Treason!” Jehoiada ordered that she be taken out of the temple and slain, for “Let her not be slain in the house of the Lord” (II Kings 11:4-16).
So there is some basis for considering the church a sanctuary from arrest or punishment, although the proper application of these Scriptures is open to different interpretations. And I ask the readers – those few who haven’t already thrown up their hands in disgust at this column – to consider the implications of the new policy of allowing agents to disrupt worship services to arrest illegal aliens for church-state relations.
God has established two kingdoms, church and state, and given each of them authority: to the Church, the authority to proclaim the Word of God and care for the souls of believers, and to the State, the authority to preserve law and order and to punish crime. Neither of these kingdoms is superior to the other.
Christians are citizens of both kingdoms, and we must obey the commands of the civil magistrate (Romans 13:1-7) unless those commands violate the Word of God, in which case we ought to obey God rather than men (Romans 5:29). But it is one thing for the state to command believers as individual persons. It is another entirely for the state to interfere with the church as an institution, because the church is divinely-established and not subordinate to the state.
Also, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides that the government may intrude upon the free exercise of religion only if it can demonstrate that it has a compelling interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means. Are there less restrictive means than invading church services? Instead, could the officials wait outside and arrest the illegal alien when he leaves the church, or at least wait until the worship service is finished?
I am writing this column not to argue for one or another position but to ask questions. If I were the judge on this case, I’m not sure how I’d rule. I’d search the Scriptures and pray to God for guidance, I’d study the Constitution and case precedents, and I’d consider not just the facts of this case but the long-term implications for church-state relations.
Finally, suppose the facts were different. Instead of illegal aliens, what if the church were serving as a sanctuary for pro-life activists wrongly convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act? Should there be a different standard for lawbreakers we like?
My contact information is below. I’m interested in your thoughts.
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Pastor of Woodland Presbyterian Church (woodlandpca.org) of Notasulga. He may be reached for speaking engagements at eidsmoeja@juno.com.
