Thursday, November 17, 2016

Sanctuary Cities: Sanctuary From What?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray told the Seattle Times Monday, that he intends to stand firm with other major US cities in maintaining Seattle's status as a "Sanctuary City."

"Seattle has always been a welcoming city. The last thing I want for us is to start turning on our neighbors," he said.

However, Mayor Murray is rather selective in which neighbors he is "concerned" about turning on.

What do sanctuary cities actually provide sanctuary from?


While Ed Murray's concerns for immigrants may be authentic, his concern is selective.

When Chick-fil-A bought land to build restaurants in Seattle, Ed Murray was quick to publicly point out that unfortunately, there were no laws that could be used to keep them out of the city.

In fact, Murray told KIRO TV 7, "If they want to come to Seattle they have to obey the civil rights laws that protect our citizens, civil rights laws that I passed."

State Representative, later Senator Ed Murray was the architect of redefining marriage in Washington State.

Chick-fil-A owners believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Because that runs contrary to the Mayor's beliefs, he wished out loud that he could keep them from doing business in the city, while threatening punishment if they disobeyed the law.

Selective concern. Selective morality.

Thousands of Seattle residents wanted Chick-fil-A. If you don't believe me, drive to one and see how long you sit in line.

While the Mayor didn't actually turn on his neighbors who wanted Chick-fil-A, he was restrained only by the laws, like zoning laws, etc., according to his own words. There was no moral restraint, of expression or tolerance in his response.

Murray's agenda to redefine marriage in the state also turned people against one another. In fact, on Tuesday in Bellevue the state's highest court turned on a 71-year-old florist Barronelle Stutzman because of her biblical beliefs regarding marriage.

We're not sure how the court will ultimately rule, but it was clear by the tone of the hearings the court was not thinking "sanctuary" for the grandmother who believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

The "sanctuary city" movement is now morphing into "sanctuary campuses."

Students at Stanford are demanding the campus be turned into a shelter for illegal aliens, Yale and other universities are following with similar demands.

The Times points out, there's no real legal definition for the term. It's more a concept than a designation.

The "concept" is most always framed in spiritual and biblical terms of compassion by those who selectively choose to disregard America's laws.

The religious Left carries the banner for this movement, giving it legitimacy based on Scripture, but the biblical model of cities of refuge is very different from the movement we see in our country today.

Biblical "Cities of Refuge" are described in Numbers 35: 9-34.

In these Scriptures, there were 6 cities of refuge to which a person who had accidentally killed someone could seek refuge. Three were on the east side of the Jordan River and three were on the west side, in the early days of the nation of Israel.

The key verse and main reason these cities existed, and the laws that supported the cities existence, is found in verse 34. "You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwells in the midst of the people of Israel."

The other key verse is 15: "These six cities shall be for the refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there."

The cities were for citizens and non-citizens.

The "stranger" received most of the rights of the Israelites in the land and were protected by the laws of the land with the expectation that they would abide by the laws of the land---the same as the citizens.

In her book, "The Devil In DC: Winning Back The Country From The Beast In DC", Cheryl Chumley correctly points out that "the 'sojourner' did not have the same rights as the stranger and were not covered by the same laws."

Cities of Refuge (Sanctuary Cities) were places for an individual who killed another without intent, to enter "until"---"until he stands before the congregation for judgment" (v 12). If there was no intent, the person was freed.

There are major differences between our so-called "sanctuary cities" and cities of refuge in the Bible.

Israel was a theocracy, we are not. However, we are subject to man's laws, and we have trials with a jury of peers which is a fair and speedy trial.

God's laws and those of America do not accommodate housing criminals in these sanctuary cities so they can escape the consequences when they have broken the laws of the land, yet some Christians and politicians on the Left try to justify doing so on the basis of biblical authority.

This nation has always been open to immigrants---our families were immigrants at one time---with a few exceptions. But they came to America to assimilate, create a new life and abide by the laws of the land.

Cities of refuge, or sanctuary cities were never seen as a place to hide, rather a place to await justice for a crime.

Chumley notes that some leaders in the Christian community are either confused or have chosen to ignore the truth regarding this matter.

Proverbs is clear on the matter: "Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. Even men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely."

The "morality" that Seattle's Mayor Ed Murray and others attach to "sanctuary cities" is not based on biblical teaching---it's very difficult to make a case for morality while shielding criminals from the law---And entering the United States illegally is just that. Illegal.

If Kate Steinle had been killed by a US citizen, the killer would have been charged with murder. Why is it that the murderer, who was deported numerous times because of felonies, was able to come back to this nation repeatedly and then each time receive protection by the authorities even after committing crimes?

How can it possibly be Godly to give a free pass of amnesty to those who break the law to be here?

You tell me.

The sanctuary cities here in the US bear no resemblance to cities of refuge in the Bible. Neither does the so-called corresponding morality.

Chumley writes, "We cannot have one set of laws for citizens and another lenient set for non-citizens. As a moral people, we must insist that all people in this country, even the sojourners, abide by the laws of the land."

Author Chumley says, "If we do not, we can only descend into a state of anarchy and chaos

The descent is under way.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Faithful.


4 comments:

  1. Anything contrary to our laws which protect us. That's what they want. This has to change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sanctuary from law...sanctuary from the truth..sanctuary from righteousness...from sanctification, even, is what I'm thinking. There are many that find the message of the cross of greater comfort than hot cocoa.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hope President-elect Trump will hold true to his campaign promise and with hold federal funds from sanctuary cities, counties, universities, etc. What I would suggest to Mr. Trump is direct all withheld funds to the construction of the border wall. A good start, I think.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.