This is one of those articles where perhaps the headline says it all. However, for background, newspapers are reporting that the church are undermining the asylum system. The criticism comes in the light of the Clapham attacker’s case.
In his case, Abdul Ezedi professed faith and was baptised whilst seeking asylum. Newspapers report that he was eventually granted asylum even though he was known to have lied and even though he failed a “Christianity test.” Peculiarly, the asylum tribunals are also accused of undermining the system with Tim Loughton MP claiming:
““But there is a worrying disconnect here between the Home Office who look at these cases rigorously and decide there is not a credible claim, then on the same evidence tribunals seem to think they know better and overrule the detailed work that the Home Office has already done.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/26/clapham-attacker-abdul-ezedi-christianity-asylum/
It is worth observing here, that Tribunals are an intentional part of the system, that often they do not overturn the Home Office decision and that the Tribunal process involves legally qualified experts. The point is that yes, their level of expertise and experience means that a tribunal should know better than the initial case officer. It is worrying that we see MPs again seeking to undermine appeal systems and remove due process. We might further observe that to get a decision against you overturned, you need to either bring new evidence forward or you need to demonstrate through Judicial Review, that those looking at your initial case made an error of law.
Now, when it comes to the question of Abdul Ezedi failing a “Christianity test”, it is worth noting that the Telegraph reports his answers as follows:
In his Home Office interview, he insisted he had read the bible every day for three years, but asked what the Old Testament was about, he replied: “Jesus Christ.” “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/26/clapham-attacker-abdul-ezedi-christianity-asylum/
Asked to name Jesus’s main followers, he replied: “Simon, Peter, Jacob, Andrew…12 people, Disciples.” Grilled about what God created on the third day, he answered: “Good Friday and Easter Sunday and Resurrection Day.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/26/clapham-attacker-abdul-ezedi-christianity-asylum/
Now, this is fascinating. If the Home Office considers the answer to the first question a fail, then I would hope that all Christians would fail that one too, because Jesus would. In Luke 24, we see Jesus showing that the whole Old Testament was about him. Meanwhile, I cannot see a problem with the second answer, he correctly identifies Jesus’ inner circle of disciples and recognises that there were 12 apostles or disciples. Jacob is in fact a correct and legitimate naming of John’s brother which has been anglicised to James.
The final answer is incorrect of course though I wonder how many people on the spot would correctly remember the different creation days. However, I would gently suggest that it looks like he may have misheard or misunderstood the question. This may be doe to his own level of English or a miscommunication in translation. If you were engaging with someone in a second language, discussing Christian belief and were asked something about “the third day” where would your mind instinctively go to? It seems likely that it would go to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, you would expect those things to come up as central to a test of Christian knowledge.
Here in then is the rub. The Home Office treats Christian faith as a set of questions to test cognition and is surprised when people don’t manage to pass their tests. I’ve frequently argued that this is a misunderstanding. True Christian faith is about dependence on Christ’s death and resurrection for forgiveness leading to a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit.
Now in this case, the challenge, we have is that Ezdezi’s future actions don’t demonstrate the fruit of repentance or of a life completely changed. However, this challenge is true in all cases of conversion. It’s worth noting that a church might have someone profess faith and be baptised but still require contracts to be in place relevant to prior offences or issues in order to look after both the individual and the church. This is not to do with questioning the genuineness of profession, it is however to recognise two things. First, sanctification is a work in progress and we don’t expect immediate change in all areas of life. Secondly, that church elders recognise that they are fallible. We do our best to check out a profession but we cannot ead hearts and minds. Sometimes we are wrong. The reality of false professions along with people slipping into serious sin after conversion is exactly why many churches practice church discipline.
All of this means that we would do well to e cautious about making pronouncements at a distance both in terms of the evidence given by Ezdezi’s minister and the tribunal decision. That Ezdezi went on to offend does not in and of itself invalidate that decision. It just provides evidence that gaining asylum doesn’t make you into an angel. It is possible to be a victim of an oppressive regime whilst having your own character flaws. Christians of all people should understand this. The sole question at stake in an asylum case should be “is there evidence that this person’s life is in danger should they be returned?”
All of this is really a prelude to my main point here. The reality is that we are not in the business of undermining the asylum system. I’m not even debating whether we ought to be here. I’m just saying that this isn’t what churches are doing. Rather what happens is that as part of normal church life, of discipleship, pastoral care and evangelism, we come into contact with people who are affected by the asylum process. Indeed, in so far as I’ve written about asylum, it hasn’t been due to an abstract interest in a particular area of social justice but arising out of specific cases.
I might also add that far from coming at this as some naïve and ignorant soppy liberal, I first of all read law as my undergraduate degree and have taken time to read up on the relevant law related to asylum. Secondly, my own default political leanings are centre right and my own views on immigration have changed due to exposure to real, concrete cases.
Now, when it comes to asylum cases and being asked to advocate for people, I cannot speak for all pastors but I know that my own approach isn’t dissimilar to others. First of all, my pastoral counselling to anyone coming to me worried about their case is that trust in Jesus means trusting him not only to help them get asylum but trusting him if his pla for their life to to take them back into danger and suffering. I would always pray, expressing the desire for mercy and justice but primarily for a person to grow in trust in Christ. Because I have some legal knowledge, I have in a personal capacity looked at some people’s cases with them and gone with them to the solicitors, raising hopefully helpful questions in an appointment. But my general approach is to help link people up with those whose job it is to represent.
I have sometimes been asked to write in support of an application and in those cases I restrict myself to what I can comment on. I can say if someone attends church, has professed faith and has been baptised. I can give my opinion about how they present in terms of character but the latter part and any question of genuineness is and can only ever be a fallible opinion.
It would be strange to suggest that any of this amounts to an undermining of the system. What does amount to undermining the system includes things like the delays and time taken to process cases, the confused methods of assessing claims and the errors of law made which lead to Judicial Review. All of which makes the system both cruel and inefficiently. The debacle of the Rwanda policy has only served to further undermine the system.
I note that James Cleverly, the Home Secretary wants to meet with church leaders in order to tell us how we are naively undermining things. I’d happily meet with him as a church leader with both knowledge and experience in the area at a detail which I would gently suggest he as a career politician does not have. I’m happy, as I’m sure others, would be to explain about how the Home Office is making the system unworkable.
Faithroots 