Published on March 16, 2024, 1:15 am

Image source: Fox News

In the wake of intensified scrutiny following the Clapham chemical attack, allegations have surfaced implying that some asylum seekers may be using conversion to Christianity as a means to bolster their asylum claims. This has led to discussions both within religious communities and among political entities, inviting questions about the genuineness of said conversions and the church’s role in supporting these individuals.

Former Church of England priest Matthew Firth has testified before the Home Affairs Select Committee, detailing his experiences with asylum seekers at St. Cuthbert’s in Darlington between 2018 and 2020. He asserts that many such individuals, predominantly from Iran and Syria, showcased an initial interest in converting to Christianity that significantly diminished when asked to participate actively within the church community.

The former priest became suspicious after one individual, who had already secured UK residency, began encouraging others to seek baptism without pursuing it himself. Following this, significant groups of mainly young male Iranian and Syrian asylum seekers would approach him week after week. However, once a more stringent process was implemented – requiring regular church attendance prior to baptism – many ceased their involvement.

While outlining this trend noticed during his tenure at St.Cuthbert’s, Firth insinuated some churches might provide support and advice to failed applicants seeking asylum status through baptism. This statement sparked backlash from The Diocese of Durham who vehemently rejected the idea of the Church of England functioning as a ‘conveyer belt’ for baptisms aiding immigration status.

The Diocese also challenged Firth’s accounts by revealing parish records according to which out of 189 baptized people since 2014 only fifteen were asylum seekers; half were baptized under Firth’s watch. They clarified what they believed should be the real focus: offering welcome and support for every refugee and accommodating anyone attending for whatever reason doesn’t implicate religion being employed as leverage for immigration purposes.

Meanwhile looking into immigration tribunal decisions showed judges indeed harbored skepticism about authenticity of asylum seekers’ religious conversions. Questions about the depth of scrutiny applied by religious leaders and the role of churches warrant further exploration.

Ultimately, it’s crucial to keep in mind that while the church is engaged in upholding biblical teachings of caring for refugees and others in need, matters of border control and asylum claims primarily fall under the jurisdiction of government and court entities. Leveraging real news from a Christian worldview indicates the dialogue around this topic necessitates striking a balance between genuine calls for help, maintaining integrity within religious conversions, and prudently handling immigration policy.