I just returned from a week in Milwaukee at the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly, the triannual gathering of rostered and lay leaders to conduct the business of the Churchwide body. We accomplished a lot in a packed week, and I left feeling mostly grateful for a church committed to growing. We approved a Strategy Towards Authentic Diversity, a much-needed guide and commitment in the whitest denomination in the US. We passed and celebrated a Declaration of Inter-Religious Commitment, doubling down on our vow to work across religious boundaries that have far too often been barriers. We also approved a Declaration of the ELCA to People of African Descent, apologizing to our Black and Brown family for the sin of chattel slavery, the continued perpetuation of white supremacy, and the church’s complicity in each. But it was one decision in particular that has garnered national attention.

As the memorial committee brought forth their recommendations based on memorials concerning the ELCA’s engagement with issues around immigration, an amendment was proposed; that the ELCA declare itself a Sanctuary churchbody.

There was significant discussion on this amendment ranging from the ludicrous (i.e. How many showers does the churchwide office have?) to the thoughtful and passionate. There was an energy and a zeal, and it was clear that this gathered assembly was committed to stating in the strongest possible terms that anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy runs counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the end the amendment was adopted, and the news media began to pick up the story of the first denomination to declare itself a “Sanctuary Churchbody”.

I voted in favor of the amendment. I too wanted to say without reservation that immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are Beloved and that no tyrannical government would prevent this church from standing with our neighbors.

However, as the days carried on, I began to feel uncomfortable and unsettled by the decision, especially as it made the rounds on MPR, the Washington Post, and other news media channels. I find myself now in the uncomfortable space of regretting the decision to declare the ELCA a “Sanctuary Church”.

A large portion of my work as an organizer in Minneapolis has been centered on immigrant rights, and the Sanctuary movement in MN in particular. I am on the leadership team of ISAIAH’s Sanctuary Network, a cohort of nearly 60 congregations who have declared themselves either sanctuary or sanctuary supporting. I work at a congregation that discerned and wrestled with the call to be a sanctuary congregation and ultimately decided it was what God had been calling us to do.

I have been in many conversations with Immigrant Neighbors about the fear and threat that ICE and this administration pose, and I have had to consider what congregations I knew would be safe and welcoming for my immigrant friends and neighbors. Who can I trust to offer protection and safety? Which congregation has done the work to ensure that their entire community can be trusted with the responsibility, the conviction, to shelter an immigrant fleeing from ICE? And, this is where I find myself struggling with the ELCA’s decision to declare itself a Sanctuary church-body.

Sanctuary means something. It means something particularly for our immigrant neighbors fleeing ICE. However, in the ELCA’s declaration, sanctuary covers a lot of ground and not all of it what has traditionally been known as “sanctuary”.

In the US, the sanctuary movement has been almost exclusively the practice of faith communities using the public and institutional power they have to house immigrants at risk of deportation. It is the public collateral that faith communities hold that offers a level of protection for immigrants and others who are fleeing persecution. In fact, a 2011 DHS memo prevents ICE from entering what are known as “sensitive locations”; i.e. churches, hospitals, schools, and even protests. It is a tenuous protection but one that gives faith communities some cover in offering safety to immigrants fleeing ICE. Sanctuary requires churches to lay down their own institutional power for the sake of their neighbor. This is what our immigrant neighbors know sanctuary to be, and when they hear that a church is a sanctuary church, this is what they expect at the door.

However, under the ELCA’s declaration this definition has been blown open. Yesterday, in response to an absurd Fox News report, a pastoral letter was circulated on social media wherein Pastor Andrew Lewis stated,

The ELCA’s designation as a “sanctuary churchbody” means that our denomination will continue to support refugees as they are resettled in the US through our partnership with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, provide legal assistance to immigrants pursuing their legally-protected right to seek asylum, and ensuring that undocumented immigrants are aware of their rights under US law. Moreover, it means that the ELCA will continue to advocate for just and humane treatment of detained immigrants, such as calling for adequate housing at detainment centers and accompanying minors through immigration court as part of the ELCA’s AMMPARO program. Congregations that have the resources to do so may provide food, shelter, and financial assistance to migrants in need. Finally, it also means that the ELCA will speak out against xenophobia, racism, and fear-mongering against all people.[1]

Pastor Andrew goes on to say that these are longstanding ELCA practices, and we should therefore not be overly concerned with the implications of declaring ourselves a sanctuary churchbody. This my friends, is part of the problem.

In response to Pastor Andrew’s letter, Clint Schnekloth penned an article correctly stating that this definition of “sanctuary” is revisionist at best[2]. However, Clint then goes on to claim the ELCA’s declaration does in fact mean that the ELCA will house and protect immigrants, which is of course, not true. Some may, others never will. This lack of clarity and confusion, even within our own church body is frustrating enough, but all our immigrant neighbors want to know is where can they go when they are in need.

I fear the day that one of our immigrant neighbors in need enters the doors of an ELCA church seeking sanctuary, asking for protection for their family as ICE pursues them, only to find that this “sanctuary” church isn’t really willing or able to provide the level of security and protection they need. Or worse, a congregation in the ELCA that does not in fact support the idea that undocumented immigrants deserve protection and support (of which there are MANY) decides to turn a neighbor in to ICE.

I think we need to ask the question, “Who did we declare sanctuary for?”.

I fear that this move was not in the best interests of those at risk but was in fact for our own benefit. This church body, the whitest denomination in the US, was able to co-opt the language of the Sanctuary Movement without any of the requisite work, risk, or relationship. In doing so we may have put our neighbors at risk. The ELCA is not a monolithic body and I can personally think of at least ten congregations that I would tell my immigrant neighbors to avoid out of fear for their safety.

Consistently the progressive wing of the ELCA, of which I am a part, wants to push back against the voices in our church who deny the humanity of others and who hear law and judgement in a gospel that sounds like nothing but grace to us. But this impulse cannot overshadow the fact that, whether we like it or not (I don’t), this church body runs the gamut when it comes to theological and political positions. By declaring ourselves a sanctuary churchbody, I fear we have made promises to our immigrant neighbors that we simply cannot uphold. Instead, we have created another field of battle between the conservative and progressive wings, all the while failing to honestly consider the impact, on churches already offering sanctuary, on immigrants in those churches, and on those who may need protection in the future.

I pray for the day that this church that I love can authentically say that from coast to coast our churches will exercise the power we have at our fingertips in solidarity with the poor, the immigrant, and outcast. I pray for the day when I can confidently say to my immigrant neighbors, “Look for the ELCA’s logo and you’ll be certain to be safe”. But that time has not come.

This past week we made promises to our neighbors that we cannot keep. In the immortal words of John Snow, “When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything…”. I pray that each of our communities will wrestle with how best to respond to this declaration, and I pray that no immigrant will find opposition in an ELCA congregation. I hope that in the future we can all think with more intention about what is right and what is strategic. What is hopeful and what is true. Our neighbors deserve to know where we stand. If we can’t say something with integrity, I think it’s best not to say it at all.

Humbly,

Yours truly.

[1] https://mailchi.mp/e3e7afed628a/a-pastoral-letter-regarding-the-churchwide-assembly?fbclid=IwAR0ZOEwUXca6RpQOmxxoEm6P5zUAsqloUEcbdoySNCdEuEJ1WeV7AwV74cs

[2] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/clintschnekloth/2019/08/elca-first-sanctuary-denomination-but-then-that-time-a-white-male-pastor-waits-two-days-to-neuter-a-radical-denominational-statement/?fbclid=IwAR2zCA-597wVQunY7JBg5ZFc5rE2qSvrzpYQXJb3d0MhbgECrB9Y3_n5i5M