Christians reflect on conversion and asylum claims as Church continues to return under fire

Christians have been weighing in on the query of whether churches are guilty for asylum seekers attempting to game the system with claims of conversion and persecution. 

Questions have been raised within the aftermath of the acid attack in London’s Clapham South area last week by which the fundamental suspect is Abdul Ezedi, a 35-year-old man from Afghanistan who was granted asylum, despite a sexual assault conviction, after claiming to be a Christian convert. His conversion was vouched for by an unnamed priest.

The Church has come under pressure since the suspect within the 2021 Liverpool terror attack was a failed asylum seeker who had also claimed conversion to Christianity. 

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman claimed in The Telegraph over the weekend that “too many churches are facilitating bogus asylum claims”. 

“Many asylum seekers are real and it’s right that we provide help when their cause is just. But far too many are bogus and using our laws against us,” she wrote. 

“Take the church for instance. While on the Home Office, I became aware of churches across the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims.

“They are well-known inside the migrant communities and, upon arrival within the UK, migrants are directed to those churches as a one-stop shop to bolster their asylum case. Attend Mass once every week for a number of months, befriend the vicar, get your baptism date within the diary and, bingo, you may be signed off by a member of the clergy that you just’re now a God-fearing Christian who will face certain persecution if removed to your Islamic country of origin.

“It has to stop. We must get sensible to the issue.” 

The Church of England said last week that it was the job of the Home Office to vet asylum seekers, not the Church. 

This position has been echoed by author and Anglican priest, Giles Fraser. Writing in Unherd, he said he didn’t judge the priest who baptised Ezedi “one bit”. 

“Baptism isn’t a certificate of excellent character. It is an outward expression of the need to be saved. And that is offered even to the very worst of us,” he said.

“But theology aside, it’s important to emphasize that the church has nothing to do with assessing the validity of asylum claims.”

He continued, “So, was the priest naive? What was he speculated to search for? Eyes too close together? Evidence of past wrongdoing? Polygraph before baptism? There isn’t any foolproof epistemological test for sincerity.” 

He also rubbished Braverman’s claims in The Telegraph as “desperate and pathetic stuff” and an attempt guilty the federal government’s track record on immigration on churches. 

“She was probably the most senior members of presidency, accountable for making our laws and enforcing them. But yes, it is your local vicar that’s guilty for mass immigration,” he said. 

Steve Kneale, pastor of Oldham Bethel Church, responded on his blog to calls from broadcaster and trade unionist Paul Embery for a “public inquiry into the phenomenon of asylum seekers converting to Christianity”.

“Justin Welby and and other church leaders needs to be called to provide evidence,” Embery wrote.

Responding to his comments, Kneale said “it isn’t churches who resolve asylum cases”.

“Nor, it needs to be said, do churches determine whether asylum claims are real or not. The sole query put to churches is, so far as you judge it, does this person seem like a reputable Christian,” he said.

“We make no judgement, indeed can offer no judgement, on the legitimacy of asylum claims. We don’t have any insight into the country of origin nor the necessity for asylum. We are only asked a narrow query: do you’re thinking that this person is a believer and why?” 

He went on to say that in considering conversion claims in asylum applications, the courts search for “credible evidence” that churches have “robust” processes in place and don’t simply “wave everyone through”. 

“The courts typically don’t accept the word of church leaders as gospel truth, but consider them do-gooder dupes who’re eager to think the most effective of individuals so that they can increase their membership rolls,” he said. 

“In many cases, I do not think the courts are entirely unjustified in that assumption and it signifies that the church must reveal the robustness of their processes and that they depend on credible evidence to make these judgements.”