This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

Throughout history, oppressed groups and dissidents have often withdrawn into safe havens to resist persecution. This tactic, known as “Sanctuary,” transforms churches, homes, campuses, and even entire cities into protective refuges.

By removing people from the immediate reach of unjust authorities, sanctuary creates space for dissent to survive and movements to grow. From the Underground Railroad’s secret shelters for escaping slaves to modern churches shielding refugees, the power of sanctuary lies in its blend of physical safety, moral symbolism, and community solidarity.

What is the “Sanctuary” Method?

Defining Sanctuary

In Gene Sharp’s catalogue of nonviolent resistance, Sanctuary is a form of social noncooperation in which people withdraw from the dominant social system to places of refuge. Essentially, activists or threatened individuals move to a safe space where the authority’s power cannot easily reach them without breaching social or legal norms. As Sharp describes, it means withdrawing to a place where you cannot be touched without violation of religious, moral, social or legal prohibitions. In practical terms, a sanctuary might be a church, temple, university, embassy, or any space the regime hesitates to invade.

How It Works as Resistance

Sanctuary undermines unjust authority in two key ways. First, it denies the oppressor their target – the people in sanctuary refuse to be taken or to participate in the oppressive system. This noncooperation forces the regime into a dilemma: either respect the sanctuary (letting the dissidents remain free) or violate it and risk public outrage. Second, sanctuary carries powerful symbolic weight. When persecuted people seek shelter in a house of worship or a community-designated safe zone, it frames their cause in moral terms. The act of providing refuge implicitly accuses the authorities of injustice (why else would ordinary citizens hide people from them?). Sanctuary spaces often become centers of resistance, where like-minded people gather, support each other, and continue organizing – all under the protective umbrella of the sanctuary’s special status.

Withdrawing from the Social System

The sanctuary method is classified under withdrawal from the social system because it involves stepping outside normal civic life to refuse cooperation with injustice. By creating protective parallel spaces, sanctuary challenges the legitimacy of the prevailing order. Historical sanctuaries have ranged from literal sanctuaries in medieval churches (where fugitives could claim the right of asylum) to modern “sanctuary cities” that refuse to assist in deportations. In each case, the oppressed assert their rights by occupying a safe haven rather than submitting. Sanctuary, therefore, is not passive hiding; it is an act of collective defiance, proclaiming that the community’s duty to justice outweighs obedience to unjust laws.

Strategies for Effective Use of Sanctuary

Implementing sanctuary as a protest tactic requires careful planning and strong community support. Key strategies to use this method effectively include:

Choose Inviolable Spaces

Sanctuary works best in locations that carry social, religious, or legal protection. Houses of worship are common because many societies regard them as holy places where violence or arrests would be scandalous. Universities, union halls, or even family homes can serve if they have community respect. The chosen sanctuary should be viewed by the public as a legitimate refuge – this gives the occupants moral leverage. For example, churches often declare themselves “sanctuaries” knowing that authorities are reluctant to storm religious sites.

Build Community and Institutional Support

A sanctuary cannot stand alone. Broad support from the community or institution hosting it is critical. This might mean a whole congregation, campus, or neighborhood commits to protecting those inside. Institutional backing (from church clergy, university officials, local government, etc.) lends legitimacy. It shows that respected community leaders are willing to defy authorities in defense of the sanctuary, increasing pressure on officials to back down. During the 1980s Sanctuary Movement, hundreds of churches and synagogues across the U.S. publicly vowed to shelter refugees – a network that provided not just space, but food, legal aid, and moral cover.

Announce or Conceal Tactically

Sanctuary can be either openly declared or quietly secret, depending on what will better protect people. An open sanctuary (widely publicized) can rally public opinion and shame authorities. It effectively says, “Here we stand, come arrest us in a church if you dare.” This was the case when American churches openly harbored Central American refugees as an act of civil disobedience. Conversely, a secret sanctuary (like the Underground Railroad’s safe houses) works by stealth – keeping fugitives out of sight until they can escape entirely. In either approach, safety and sustainability are paramount: organizers must weigh whether publicity will bring helpful attention or dangerous backlash.

Provide Material and Legal Support

A sanctuary is more than a location – it’s a support system. Those in sanctuary may be unable to leave for long periods, so logistical arrangements are vital. Supporters should organize food, clothing, medical care, and other necessities for anyone in hiding. If possible, legal advocacy is also important: lawyers can challenge warrants, file appeals, or negotiate safe passage. Effective sanctuaries often develop self-sustaining routines (schedules for volunteers, donations, communication protocols) so they can hold out for weeks or months if needed. This endurance builds pressure on the authorities to find a resolution.

Leverage the Moral High Ground

The sanctuary tactic inherently carries a message – use it. Sanctuary organizers often publicize the moral reasons behind the action: protecting innocent lives, defending human rights, upholding religious or humanitarian principles. By highlighting these values, they attract sympathy from the broader public and even moderate elements within the power structure. The contrast is clear: on one side, a nonviolent group sheltering vulnerable people; on the other, an authority willing to drag people out of a church or home. This dynamic can erode the oppressor’s legitimacy. Successful sanctuaries typically engage the media and local communities with compelling personal stories of those they protect, turning individual acts of refuge into a broader statement against injustice.

By combining these strategies – choosing the right space, shoring it up with community support, attending to practical needs, and framing the narrative – movements increase the chances that sanctuary will hold firm. When done effectively, a sanctuary becomes a focal point of resistance, drawing support and buy-in, and forcing those in power to either relent or risk a reputational crisis.

Historical Examples of Sanctuary in Action

Sanctuary tactics have played pivotal roles in many social justice struggles. The following examples illustrate how sanctuary has been used – sometimes quietly, sometimes boldly – to shield people from harm and empower broader movements.

Underground Railroad: Safe Houses for Escaping Slavery

One of the earliest and most famous uses of sanctuary was the Underground Railroad in the United States. In the decades before the Civil War, enslaved African Americans fled bondage in the South by traveling north through a clandestine network of safe houses and “stations.” Sympathetic abolitionists (both Black and white) operated these homes, churches, and barns as secret sanctuaries where escapees could hide from slave catchers. The Underground Railroad wasn’t a literal railroad, but an organized web of safe havens stretching from Southern states to the free states and Canada. Each stop offered sanctuary for a night or a few days: food, rest, and guidance to the next “station.” Crucially, these sanctuaries withdrew escaping slaves from the reach of the law (like the Fugitive Slave Act) long enough to get them to freedom.

The Lewis and Harriet Hayden House in Boston, a known Underground Railroad safe house. This boardinghouse sheltered many freedom seekers in the 1850s. Such “stations” provided food, hiding places, and help for escaping enslaved people on their journey north. The impact of this sanctuary network was profound. By the 1850s, an estimated 100,000 enslaved people had reached freedom via the Underground Railroad. Safe houses not only saved individual lives but also undermined the institution of slavery itself. Every escape was a blow to slaveholders’ power and a moral indictment of slavery. The very existence of these secret sanctuaries proved that many Americans rejected the law requiring fugitive slaves to be returned. This quiet revolt built pressure toward abolition.

Sanctuary in this context was illegal (helpers faced fines or jail), yet operators of the Railroad persisted, guided by higher principles. Their success showed how withdrawing from the social system of slavery – in this case, by physically removing people from it – could advance a greater cause. The Underground Railroad’s legacy continues to inspire modern sanctuary movements as a model of courage, coordination, and compassion in the face of injustice.

Sanctuary for Refugees and Undocumented Migrants

Sanctuary as a public, organized movement truly re-emerged in the 1980s, when churches in the United States launched the Sanctuary Movement to protect refugees from Central America. At that time, people were fleeing brutal civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, seeking asylum in the U.S. However, the U.S. government, aligning with those countries’ regimes, was denying most asylum claims.

In response, a network of religious congregations began openly offering refuge to undocumented migrants. In March 1982, a coalition of churches – including Southside Presbyterian in Tucson, AZ and several churches in California – publicly declared they would provide sanctuary to Central Americans escaping violence. This was an explicit act of civil disobedience (harboring undocumented migrants violated federal law), yet it was grounded in faith and humanitarian duty.

Over the next few years, the Sanctuary Movement spread nationwide: over 500 churches, synagogues, and faith communities joined in pledging shelter and support for refugees. They turned their fellowship halls and rectories into safe havens – much like the Underground Railroad, but this time in the light of day and backed by clerical collars. Sanctuary workers provided food, legal aid, and often helped refugees travel to more immigrant-friendly jurisdictions. Importantly, they also went public with their cause, holding press conferences and prayer services to announce sanctuary for specific individuals or families.

By taking in refugees on sacred ground, these churches cast the issue as a moral one. They invoked the ancient tradition of the right of sanctuary (drawn from medieval law and scripture) to justify their defiance.

Activists rally in the early 1980s to support the Sanctuary Movement, which called for an end to U.S. deportations and intervention in Central America. Hundreds of churches declared themselves sanctuaries, providing shelter and protection to refugees from war.

Sanctuary for immigrants has continued into the present day. In the 2000s and 2010s, as deportations rose, some churches and even city governments (designating “sanctuary cities”) offered refuge to undocumented people facing removal. For example, in 2007 a woman named Elvira Arellano took sanctuary for months in a Chicago church to avoid separation from her U.S.-born son. Federal authorities, aware of public sentiment, hesitated to storm the church.

While such cases do not always end in victory (sometimes the individuals are eventually detained outside the sanctuary), the movement created public pressure for policy changes. The 1980s Sanctuary Movement raised awareness of U.S. involvement in Central American violence and helped win temporary protected status for many Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees in later years. More broadly, the idea of sanctuary cities – where local authorities refuse to cooperate in immigration raids – stems directly from this legacy of church-based sanctuary. It shows how a tactic that began with a few brave congregations can redefine government policy. Sanctuary in this context provided immediate safety to vulnerable people and also galvanized a larger immigrant-rights movement that continues today.

Churches as Sanctuaries under Repressive Regimes (Latin America)

Sanctuary tactics have also appeared within countries under dictatorship, often with churches playing the protector role. In several Latin American nations during the 1970s and 1980s, authoritarian regimes carried out kidnappings, torture, and “disappearances” of political opponents. In this dangerous climate, certain churches became de facto sanctuaries for dissidents and endangered citizens. Religious leaders leveraged their moral authority to shield people and document abuses.

For instance, under Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship (1973–1990), the Catholic Church’s Vicariate of Solidarity and the interfaith Committee for Peace provided legal aid, hiding places, and escape assistance to thousands of regime victims. Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez in Chile famously offered church resources to protect those persecuted by the junta, establishing safe houses and helping some flee the country under church auspices.

While not always a literal “sanctuary” in the sense of people sleeping in a cathedral, the church created a network of sanctuary – a combination of physical refuge, financial help, and moral coverage that saved lives and preserved opposition underground. Similar patterns occurred in other Latin American countries. In El Salvador’s civil war (1980–1992) and Guatemala’s even longer civil conflict, priests and nuns sometimes hid activists or villagers targeted by death squads. Simply wearing a clerical collar while accompanying a wanted person could dissuade soldiers from acting, effectively extending the sanctuary of the Church to the streets.

In Brazil and Argentina, where military regimes cracked down on dissidents, segments of the Catholic Church (and some Protestant churches) publicly opposed the repression and at times opened their buildings as sanctuaries for organizing. These churches used their status to hold “safe” meetings for human rights groups and to give refuge to those on the run. The risk was real – clergy were threatened, even killed, in some cases (e.g. Archbishop Óscar Romero was assassinated in El Salvador while saying Mass). Yet, the tradition of sanctuary inspired many clergymen and laypeople to act.

A World Council of Churches report notes that in the wake of Chile’s coup, the WCC helped local churches establish safe havens for people fleeing persecution, including shelters and refugee assistance in neighboring countries. By carving out these sanctuaries, churches in Latin America maintained a flame of resistance that regimes could not easily extinguish without backlash from the public or the international community.

The impact of these sanctuaries under dictatorship was significant. They saved countless individuals from imprisonment or death. They also helped expose the regimes’ crimes: documentation gathered in church-sponsored sanctuary programs later served as evidence for truth commissions and trials. Moreover, the moral stance of church sanctuaries often rallied international pressure. When a regime is seen attacking priests or raiding churches to grab dissidents, it loses legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

In countries like Chile and Brazil, the church’s sanctuary role contributed to the eventual restoration of democracy by sustaining civil society through the darkest times. Sanctuary, in these cases, wasn’t just about one location – it was an ethos of protective camaraderie fostered by trusted institutions, keeping hope alive until oppression relented.

Black Churches in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement

During the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, African-American churches served as both the heart and the haven of the struggle. Black churches were among the only institutions under Black control in the segregated South, making them natural sanctuaries for community organizing. They doubled as meeting halls, communication hubs, and refuge sites in times of danger.

Civil rights leaders (many of whom were ministers, like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) deliberately held rallies and mass meetings in churches, knowing these spaces provided a relative shield from police interference and white violence. For example, during the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955–56, weekly mass meetings were held at churches such as Holt Street Baptist – inspiring and coordinating thousands of protesters in a safe setting. Police and city authorities, wary of attacking a church full of worshippers, generally avoided direct assaults on these gatherings. This gave the movement critical breathing room to strategize and strengthen.

Church sanctuary was dramatically tested during the Freedom Rides of 1961. When Freedom Rider activists were violently attacked in Alabama, local Black churches gave them shelter. On May 21, 1961, over a thousand supporters and civil rights activists, including Dr. King, packed into First Baptist Church in Montgomery for a solidarity service. As they met, an angry white mob surrounded the building, intent on harming those inside. The church, however, functioned as a fortress: the mob did not breach its walls. Federal marshals and the National Guard were eventually called in to disperse the attackers outside, and the people inside the church emerged safely at midnight.

This dramatic “standoff” highlighted how a church’s sanctity could hold violence at bay – had the gathering been in a non-religious venue, it might have ended in a massacre. Black churches, in effect, put a moral spotlight on any violence. Attacking unarmed men, women, and children inside a house of God would have been a public relations nightmare for segregationists; thus, the church sanctuary blunted the oppressors’ usual tactics of intimidation.

Beyond these high-profile incidents, Black churches offered everyday sanctuary. They were places where activists could speak freely, plan boycotts, and find encouragement anchored in shared faith. Many participants later described the church as a psychological sanctuary as well – a source of courage and unity. When protesters risked their lives in marches, they knew they could return to the church basement for a meal, medical care, or a place to sleep. Even the children and teens in campaigns like the Birmingham Children’s Crusade (1963) were organized out of church assemblies.

Unfortunately, sanctuary was not always respected – the bombing of Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church, which killed four young girls, showed the ruthlessness of white supremacists. Yet, such violence only underscored the moral contrast: the brutality of the attackers versus the nonviolent sanctity of the church. National outrage at that bombing helped build support for civil rights legislation.

In sum, Black churches were indispensable sanctuaries that sustained the civil rights movement. Their stance of spiritual resistance gave the movement deeper resonance and protected it at critical junctures, contributing mightily to its ultimate successes (like the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act).

Safe Zones in the Anti-Apartheid Struggle

Under South Africa’s apartheid regime (1948–1994), the oppression of the Black majority was codified in law, and dissent was often met with harsh crackdowns. In this context, certain universities, churches, and other institutions became pockets of sanctuary for anti-apartheid activists. Apartheid security forces had expansive powers, but they were sometimes hesitant to raid prominent ecclesiastical or academic sites, especially if international eyes were watching.

One notable example was St. George’s Cathedral in Cape Town, where Archbishop Desmond Tutu presided. During the 1980s, Tutu and other clergy used the cathedral as a safe meeting place for activists and hosted prayer vigils against apartheid. Father Edwin Arrison, who was part of Tutu’s team, recalled that “the cathedral was really a home and ‘safe space’ … for those of us who were activists.” It became “a sanctuary” where they “found community and encouragement… especially in the darkest moments.”.

In Black townships like Soweto or Mitchells Plain, churches often provided literal refuge from police raids, giving protesters a place to duck into when chased. “Churches were often the safe space for activists being targeted by the apartheid police,” Arrison noted of that era.

University campuses in South Africa also played a role as relative sanctuaries. Certain liberal English-language universities (like University of Witwatersrand and University of Cape Town) allowed anti-apartheid student groups to organize and demonstrate on campus grounds, which were seen as slightly beyond the daily reach of state police (at least until things escalated). Students and professors created “autonomous zones” of debate and dissent that nurtured future leaders of the movement.

When government forces did violate these spaces – such as firing on protesters inside a church or campus – it often backfired by drawing public condemnation. For instance, in 1988 police stormed St. George’s Cathedral to arrest protesters who had taken refuge there; the incident only heightened the cathedral’s profile as a site of moral resistance and embarrassed the regime in the press.

The sanctuary provided by religious and educational institutions helped the anti-apartheid cause in several ways. It protected key activists from early arrest, allowing them to continue their work. It gave the movement logistical advantages – places to store literature, hold secret meetings, or broadcast messages (the End Conscription Campaign, resisting the draft into the apartheid army, sometimes hid draft dodgers in sympathetic clergy’s homes). And it powerfully signaled that not all of South African society acquiesced to apartheid – when respected churches and schools defied the regime by harboring dissidents, it eroded the state’s claim to legitimacy.

Ultimately, apartheid fell due to a combination of internal resistance and external pressure. The sanctuary spaces maintained by courageous communities were small islands of freedom that kept the resistance alive. As Father Arrison’s memories show, the psychological boost of having a safe haven – “especially in the darkest moments” – kept activists going until brighter days arrived.

Impact and Legacy of the Sanctuary Method

The above cases demonstrate that the sanctuary method can be extraordinarily effective under the right conditions. Sanctuary directly saves lives and liberty: it is often the difference between someone being jailed or killed versus surviving to continue the struggle. The Underground Railroad sanctuaries freed tens of thousands from slavery, depriving slaveholders of their “property” and empowering Black communities in the North. Church sanctuaries for Central Americans in the 1980s saved refugees from deportation to warzones; many of those individuals went on to build new lives, and some later helped rebuild their home countries. Sanctuary gave immediate, concrete protection to people who had nowhere else to turn.

Beyond the individuals, sanctuary tactics have a catalytic effect on movements. By its very nature, a sanctuary shines a spotlight on injustice. Each person in sanctuary is a story that encapsulates the larger struggle – an enslaved family seeking freedom, a refugee mother and child fleeing death squads, a young student activist hunted by secret police. These human stories, situated in a sanctuary, can move the hearts of the broader public. In many instances, sanctuaries became rallying points that drew in allies who might not otherwise have joined the fight.

For example, numerous U.S. congregation members in the 1980s became politically active for the first time because their church took in refugees, making distant wars personal. Similarly, the image of Dr. King and hundreds of Black citizens trapped in a besieged Montgomery church in 1961, singing freedom songs as they waited for help, struck a chord nationwide – it dramatized the violence of segregation and the dignity of the civil rights movement.

Sanctuary also tends to force concessions from those in power, at least in situations where the oppressor cares about public perception or has some adherence to law. It’s no coincidence that many sanctuaries end not in bloodshed but in negotiations or stand-offs resolved in favor of the protesters. When medieval churches offered sanctuary, often the fugitive would eventually be allowed voluntary exile rather than execution. In modern times, we’ve seen that authorities often prefer to avoid the bad optics of breaching a sanctuary. This reluctance can buy time – time in which legal appeals are won, public campaigns exert pressure, or political changes occur. Even when authorities do crack down (e.g. a raid on a sanctuary), it can delegitimize them. The moral victory in such cases often goes to the sanctuary-providers, bolstering the resistance long-term.

Sanctuary is not a silver bullet and involves risks and limitations. It requires substantial resources and commitment – housing and feeding people for months, for example, can strain a community. Those in sanctuary can become isolated or unable to participate in direct actions outside. And if public opinion is not swayed, an intransigent regime may eventually move in by force. Thus, sanctuary works best as one part of a broader strategy of resistance, complementing protests, boycotts, and political advocacy. When sanctuary is strategically integrated, it serves as a powerful backbone of nonviolent struggle: it preserves the movement’s human capital (its people) and its moral capital (its principles).

The legacy of the sanctuary method is evident today. The term “sanctuary city” is in common use, reflecting the idea that whole communities can choose not to cooperate with policies they find unjust. Houses of worship continue to offer refuge to immigrants and others – drawing on a tradition that spans from ancient times (the “cities of refuge” in the Bible) to the present. We also see new forms of sanctuary emerging, such as online sanctuaries (secure digital safe spaces for dissidents under surveillance) and community-based protection networks for whistleblowers. Each adaptation reaffirms the core insight: withdrawing to a safe haven can be a formidable form of resistance. By saying “We will protect each other when the system is harmful,” sanctuary activists redefine who holds power in a society – asserting that conscience and solidarity can trump coercion.