What is Sanctuary?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2025, the Trump administration reversed a decade old guidance which previously restricted key immigration enforcement agencies from carrying out enforcement in sensitive locations like schools and churches.  “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murderers and rapists — who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”

Time for a new question inserted and this question is mine.  

What is Sanctuary and how important is it?   

It’s one that came to my mind from the news above.  And one I feel needs to be continued to be reviewed again and again. 

What follows is a revision of a discussion that has been posted here before.  And one I imagine that will continue to be added to and revised throughout the tenure of this blog.

See, I love The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I've been listening to the cast album from the Paper Mill Playhouse production and it has quickly become one of my favorite musical compositions. The moment, of course, that always stands out to me is when Quasimodo finally breaks his chains and fights back against Frollo, yelling "Sanctuary" over and over, claiming Notre Dame as a place of refuge for all.

And that got me thinking...

When did the Church stop being a Sanctuary for all?

I know the specific laws of Sanctuary have long been overturned and those had their own unique problems, but there is something truly Christ-like about the image of anyone regardless of their background and sin being able to enter the church and claim sanctuary.

And it just doesn't seem like we live up to that any more. It seems we are more interested in the privileges and perks afforded our members, making sure they are well taken care of, than in providing refuge to the weary. A spa or country club as opposed to a fortress and refuge from the battle outside.

It's time to be honest. How do we act when a stranger comes in to the church? Does it depend on the stranger?

If a Muslim sought protection from a group of persecutors or if a homosexual person sought refuge from the same, would it be extended? Or would the church and its members be more likely to be the ones persecuting them?

Is the church out there speaking up for Black lives, or is it insisting the whole thing has just been stirred up by the media?  Claiming "All Lives Matter" in the face of specific hurts to specific populations?  Generally true, but not helpful?  

Perhaps most pressing today - will the church stand in the gap and declare itself holy ground and refuse to allow ICE to raid the building?

Do we believe in that separation of church and state?  Do we believe in protecting the family that needs protection?  Do we believe in hospitality to the stranger among us?  

Do we believe the words of Jesus, or do we not?

Are we just another arm of the government?

Does it even matter to anyone but me?

We have got to as the body of Christ take a very hard look at ourselves and what we’ve aligned ourselves with.  How we’ve allowed ourselves to be seen and where we are taking Christ’s name.    It’s the broader question in what is a Christian, but this part just needed to be asked today.  

Because this goes more to the distinction between church and Christianity.  Even begging the question what is church or what is a church?  Is there something special about a church, that distinguishes it from any other space.  Prior to this revocation, we recognized it as something set apart.  Something that should not be invaded.  People should be able to be safe in their place of worship and we should not interfere with that.  

Likewise, the church has an important function that makes it separate from the government.  The government’s focus should be on the health, safety, and prosperity of the physical state of their populace.  The church focuses on the health, safety, and prosperity of the populace’s soul.  

Often the two intertwine.  Meeting physical needs and caring for the least of these helps not only lift spirits but take care of the physical body.  To that end, we’ve often relied on the nations churches for their charity work in taking care of the physical needs of the greater population (sometimes improperly at the expense of government intervention).  

Similarly, the our government’s founding documents make preserving the right to free exercise of religion, a protection of the physical act that also leads to the care for the soul.

The differences between the two mean that there comes a point where two also hold each other accountable.  Government is supposed to intervene and protect its citizens from abuse by the church.  Government should absolutely be called to bring those pastors, priests, and lay leadership who have committed sexual abuse under the “protection” of church leadership, for example.  That is not something that could or should be left to the church.

Further, the church must be responsible to hold government of all stripes accountable for its actions and policies.  To demand justice where appropriate.  To seek peace where needed.  And to ask for mercy as is appropriate, as Bishop Budde just plead.

That call for mercy is appropriate here.  A call for mercy and for thoughtfulness in how to resolve this issue.  A call for justice beyond the letter of the law, appealing to its spirit.

And I know, I’m going to hear the constant replies of how the families and individuals at the heart of these raids are breaking the law and how we have to be apart of making sure the laws of our country are followed.  

Perhaps it’s just me, and I’m sorry, but all I keep hearing are repeated questions of “Who is my neighbor?” and repeated attempts to redefine what that parable actually meant.  I’ve seen that whole discourse online before.  

I know many are trying. I just pray that we can do better, because it seems as a whole we keep missing the point.

“God help the outcasts, or nobody will.”

Because, if we needed any other reason beyond empathy - at some point, we’ll be the outcast and there will be no one there for us.

I’m including below a graphic on reminders for how to proceed if ICE does try to raid your church.  It’s really a good reminder for how to interact with law enforcement in order to preserve your rights in any respect, especially if you suspect you will be going through prosecution.  The biggest piece of advice I can give is to have an attorney you are prepared to consult in the event of a raid.  

"Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place." Jeremiah 22:3

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35

What is an Oligarchy?

“That’s why, in my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is the dangerous concer- — and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.

We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before, more than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts.

They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy pay the by — play by the rules everybody else had to. Workers won rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class and the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen, and we’ve got to do that again.”

President Joe Biden, Farewell Address, January 15, 2025

President Biden delivered his farewell address on January 15, 2025.  While Biden himself would admit he is not the greatest orator, the speech is a good speech.  It’s well written and reflective and accomplishes what a farewell address is supposed to do.  He highlighted America’s strengths and reflected on the accomplishments of his administration.  Then he provided a warning for the future.  One in which he warned Americans of the concentration of power in the hands of select few.  

He warned Americans of an oligarchy taking root.

And so, for the rest of the day and into January 16, 2025, the top trending search no Google was “what is an oligarchy?”

I don’t know if this speaks more to interest or to a failure in our Civics education that we are googling the answer, but here we are.  Our first Big Question of 2025.   One whose importance was highlighted at Trump’s second inauguration.

And one I wish I still had my notes from a certain “-Isms” test to answer, but I’ll do my best in the interim.  For at least this question has a definitional answer.  We can talk about what constitutes an oligarchy and discuss examples of it.  Beyond that, we also have to discuss why it matters now.

First, definitions.

An oligarchy is government by the few.  A power structure in which the power rests with a small number of people.  We contrast this with a monarchy, in which power rests with one person, or a democracy, where power rests with a large number of people.  The oligarchy rests somewhere in between.  No set number, but just recognizing all the power rests with a defined subset of people.

The people in the group are usually distinguishable from the general populace in certain specific ways.  Nobility, education, fame, wealth, or some sort of degree of control.  Military control, religious control, economic control, political control.

Generally, today, we focus on economic control.  A group of the wealthy.  As it goes, money makes the world go round.  Money buys influence and political power.  Money can buy fame.  

This puts us in a subset of the oligarchy - the plutocracy.  Rule by the wealthy elite, where wealth rather than merit controls.

Our most recognized current example is Russia.  Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the general view is that Russia has been ruled by a class of individuals with significant economic power intertwined with the role of the President. A group of individual leaders in the energy, natural resources, and metals sectors, overseeing and working through President Putin.  A list of around 13 individuals controlling the direction of the Russian Federation.  These are the people our sanctions against Russia have targeted - not the country specifically, but these wealthy individuals that can effectuate change in the country.

In America, we can look at examples in our past of economic oligarchies.  We called these trusts or monopolies.  Collusion by a few companies to control a particular market.  Standard Oil, American Tobacco, US Steel.  Power in the hands of specific conglomerates, allowing for rampant abuse in the market.  Price fixing, income inequality, strong arm elimination of competition, worker abuse.  All so the small group in charge could remain in charge.

Commentators have been more recently rising alarms about an oligarchy in modern America, as we’ve seen continued increases in the power of the financial elites.  The Supreme Court in Citizens United removed campaign donation limits, seemingly okay with the wealthy being able to buy politicians.  Former President Jimmy Carter described America afterwards as “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” 

A 2014 political science study found evidence that the United States’ political system does not primarily reflect the preferences of its average citizens.  Analysis of policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002 suggested that the wealthy and business groups held substantial and disproportionate influence over political decisions, to the detriment of the majority of Americans.

Which brings us to today.  

To the inauguration on Monday in which the seats normally reserved for state governors were filled by the tech industry elites.   Tech industry billionaires all currying favor with the incoming and returning president.  Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Shou Zi Chew, Sunar Pichai, and Sam Altman.  Tesla/SpaceX,Twitter, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Apple, TikTok, Google, and OpenAI.  Combined they represent around over $1 trillion in wealth.  To put that in perspective, the combined wealth of the bottom fifty percent of Americans or around 170 million people is just less than $4 trillion.   Disparity and income inequality on a factor it’s hard to fathom. All there in seats of prominence at this most recent transfer of power.

The more concerning part is that all of these CEOs represent control over our modern media.  Social media platforms, devices, satellite internet, and servers.  That does not even start on e-commerce.  Put simply, these CEOs can control the information that we receive and how it flows between us.  They can decide what is acceptable information and what is misinformation.  What fits their agenda and what does not.

The power of these companies and their leaders is concerning in and of itself.  Their intertwining with President Trump is downright alarming.  This is why so many people have had concerns regarding Elon’s connectedness to the President.  There have already been questions about his election interference in this recent election via Twitter(X).  We will only see those grow.  

America is structured as a constitutional republic because we recognize that real power should belong to the people and should be acted on by their representatives to prevent mob mentality.  It should be purposefully diffused.  It’s why we have separation of powers, why we wrote in checks and balances, why we have historically busted trusts and fought against monopolies.  

This should be an apolitical issue.  Something all sides could agree upon.  

We should all refuse to allow any group of wealthy elites to exert influence over our government and country.  But I fear, this has just become another political hotbed.  The Republican Party and MAGA sect seem to love and respect Elon Musk and are excited for his influence in the government, thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency push.  Trump has scored major points by reinstating TikTok, and Zuckerberg is showing his alignment by removing fact checking.  

What remains to us is to resist.  

We should hold our representatives accountable to oppose the oligarchic intrusion.  We should push our representatives for strong antitrust measures.  To reinstate common sense campaign finance restrictions.  To demand our elected officials make appropriate divestitures and not profit off their time in office (looking at you TrumpCoin). 

You know, things we used to expect and demand.

In the interim, we just have to keep reminding ourselves this is not normal.  This is not how things are supposed to work.

That will remain a thread in all of these entries coming up.

A Question About Masks

I have a question about face masks, face coverings that I am generally curious about, especially given some of the response to them that I have seen online.

If we could open up everything tomorrow, almost completely like normal, but the requirement was that it would be required to wear a face mask for the next 30 days, to the point of it being a fineable offense, would you wear it?  Or would you protest such a law?

Does it matter if it is a state or a federal law?

I'm really curious as to where the fight against this is coming from.  Yesterday I saw a summarization on social media that I felt too close to home.  It posited that we as Americans have moved beyond an understanding of freedom as an underpinning of society required to make government work, to essentially viewing it as "you can't tell me what to do."

And from some of the other discussion that I am seeing, that seems eerily accurate.  Even when we act against our own best interest.

I understand concerns over government overreach, but I fail to see how requiring the wearing of a face cover for a limited time during a pandemic fits that description.  It would seem to be the definition of good governance.  Like requiring seatbelts while driving.

Likewise, I've read a lot of constitutional arguments online, and it is genuinely surprising to see how many Constitutional scholars that we have.  I've yet to see one that actually discusses Constitutional law as it really exists.  And I've yet to see what right the requirement to wear a mask would impinge.

I know that we fumbled the execution on this terribly.  We started far too late, we have communicated mixed messages on the subject, we have done a horrible job at stamping out false narratives like Covid being lab created.  And there has been mixed messaging on the mask issue.  Done with good reason, to prevent the hoarding of N95 masks when the general public does not need them, when a cloth face covering will suffice for most purposes, but confusing nonetheless.

The amount of people that bristle at this just surprise me.  Just as the number of people who are convinced a future vaccine is some sort of conspiracy surprise me.

These same people would not hesitate to put on protective gear, like gloves and a mask, if they entered an ICU room to visit a loved one who was immunocompromised.

And yet, when the world is essentially immunocompromised, such precaution is seen as overreach, overreacting, and being fearful.

I'm reposting an image so that it is taken in the spirit in which it was originally offered.  And to serve as a reminder - WEARING A MASK IS NOT ABOUT YOU.   It is about showing care and concern for the world around you.  It is about making sure that we reduce transmission levels to as small a percentage as possible to move past this virus.  It's not forever, it's temporary, even though it may go on longer than you like.

This is especially important for the Church.  It is especially important for us to show our care, our love for the world around us.  During this difficult time, we should be doing all we can to make sure the church is not a source of continuing the spread of this virus.  Wearing a mask is a big part of that. 

It is quite literally the least we can do.

So, I ask again, will you wear one?

I'm of the belief it should be required for the next interim period, but I know it won't be at the necessary scale.  So, without it being required, without it being forced, will you wear one to show the rest of the world how much you care about them?  Not about how you look, not about your preferences, not about the comfort of the mask, but because you care about those around you.