What accord has Christ with Belial?

Why Churches must not host Islamic religious celebrations and/or worship under any guise.

Picture this: For over ten years, you and your family have called the local Church of England parish home. You’ve raised our children there, led Bible studies, served in many ministries, and built deep friendships across the congregation – you love our church community and respect the clergy despite many differences. Then one day, as you are casually browsing the church Facebook page you find a notice for a Ramadan Iftar dinner at the church. After you have cleaned up the Yorkshire Tea you spat out with incredulity you further discover that your church building has been hosting Ramadan Iftar dinners for the past couple of years, perhaps complete with Quranic recitations and Islamic prayers. Sneaky because no-one really talked about it, it was never announced at any of the regular services and you didn’t get the newsletters. What’s your response (after the shock and “how did I not know this?”); Anger? Deep grief? Frustration? Dismay?

Perhaps we can understand the motivation, in our fractured communities, church leaders long to be agents of peace, to build bridges, to demonstrate Christian love and welcome. These are all good desires but we must ask ourselves a harder question: can we truly love our Muslim neighbours by hosting worship that explicitly denies the Lord who bought us? Can a building consecrated to the worship of the Triune God rightly accommodate prayers or celebrate elements if a religion clearly at odds with Christianity, that reject His very nature?

The elephant in the room: Biblical objection
Scripture speaks clearly to this situation. The Apostle Paul asks the Corinthian church, “What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:15-16). His answer is unambiguous: “Come out from them and be separate.” This is not about being unkind to our neighbours. It is about recognising that some boundaries matter because truth matters.

Paul isn’t saying that followers of other faiths (in this case Islam) are demons or that individual believers are agents of Belial rather, he’s establishing that there can be no spiritual accord, no religious partnership, between worship of Christ and any system that denies Him. Just as Christ and Belial are utterly incompatible, so too are Christian worship and Islamic worship incompatible in the same sacred space.

When/if Quranic passages are recited in a church building, they are not merely cultural expressions. For example, Surah Al-Ikhlas declares: “He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any equivalent.” This directly contradicts our confession that God the Father eternally begets the Son. Surah Al-Fatiha, recited in every Islamic prayer, asks Allah to guide Muslims away from “those who have evoked anger” and “those who are astray,” which Islamic tradition identifies as Jews and Christians respectively. These are not neutral statements but theological claims that stand opposed to the gospel we proclaim. Even if those two are not recited, ANY Quranic recitation in a consecrated church building is problematic and the event itself, whilst perhaps only being a celebration of a religious observance (Ramadan fasting), is one of the Five Pillars of Islam and therefore an act of worship to Allah

The Apostle John provides even starker language. He writes that “every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:3). Islam explicitly denies that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins, and that He rose bodily from the dead. These denials place Islamic teaching squarely within what Scripture calls antichrist, not because all Muslims are bad people but because the religious system fundamentally opposes the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The ecclesiastical objection

I am no church legal expert but beyond Scripture, we must surely consider our own Church of England formularies. Article XVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles states clearly that “they also are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth.” Our historic faith rejects the notion that all religions lead to God and this Article directly addresses religious pluralism and the question of whether people can be saved through religions other than Christianity. It makes two key assertions:

• First, it condemns (literally says they are “to be had accursed”) those who claim that people can be saved by whatever religion they follow, provided they sincerely follow it and live according to natural moral law. This was written against certain Renaissance humanist ideas that suggested sincere devotion in any religion was sufficient for salvation.
• Second, it affirms that Scripture teaches salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ. This reflects Acts 4:12: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

More practically, when a church building is consecrated, it is set apart specifically for Christian worship according to the Book of Common Prayer’s doctrine and discipline. The consecration service dedicates the building to the worship of Almighty God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thus to subsequently use that sacred space for worship that denies the Trinity and the deity of Christ profanes what has been set apart. This is not merely about property rights but about the integrity of consecrated space and the witness we bear to the community around us. When your church hosts Islamic worship, they are implicitly suggesting (even if unintentionally) that Islam is a valid path to God. But Article XVIII, which remains part of Anglican doctrine, explicitly condemns this view.

Consider also that Article XIII:

“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

which basically says works done outside of faith in Christ (including Islamic worship) are not pleasing to God so, using these two alone this event places the church id DIRECT opposition to its own formularies.

The confusion this sort of thing creates
Perhaps most troubling is the message such events send to three groups of people.

• For believers, particularly younger Christians, hosting Islamic worship/events suggests that Jesus’ claim to be the only way to the Father (John 14:6) was either mistaken or unimportant.
• For Muslims, it communicates that we do not truly believe our own gospel, confirming their narrative that Christians have corrupted the original monotheistic message.
• For genuine seekers exploring faith, it presents Christianity as uncertain about its own truth claims and willing to accommodate teachings that fundamentally contradict its core doctrines. This is particularly relevant in today’s world especially where the current c of E finds itself in regards doctrines and vibrant, truthful Christianity.

We can and should love our Muslim neighbours, we can share meals with them, work alongside them for the common good, build genuine friendships, and show them the hospitality of Christ. But there remains a crucial distinction between personal kindness to individuals and institutional participation in false worship or celebration of religions at odds with Christianity. Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, but He never participated in their sin – He loved them enough precisely to call them to repentance and faith.

A plea to church leaders
Now, I write this with genuine respect for our various clergy and Parochial Church Councils. I believe these events when hosted have been done so with good intentions, from a desire for community cohesion and peace. But good intentions cannot be allowed to override biblical fidelity and the question before us is not whether we love our Muslim neighbours but whether we love them enough to maintain a clear witness to the gospel that alone can save them.

I would ask any church leadership to reconsider ever hosting such events in the first place or again. More than that, I believe congregation deserves to hear the theological reasoning behind these decisions to host such events. What scriptural warrant exists for hosting worship or ceremonies that celebrate a religion that denies Christ’s deity, in a building consecrated to Him? How does this align with our consecration vows and Anglican formularies?

Ultimately, we must choose between worldly approval and God’s approval. We cannot serve two masters. When we open our sacred spaces to worship that explicitly rejects Jesus as Lord, we are not demonstrating love. We are turning our noses up at the One who died to save us, prioritising contemporary notions of tolerance over the clear teaching of Scripture and two thousand years of Christian witness.

May God grant us the courage to stand firm in the faith once delivered to the saints.