Should we ban public displays of non-Christian faiths?

A speaker at the recent Unite the Kingdom march in London called for banning all public displays of non-Christian religions. But is he right?

Here's what he said: “Ban any type of public expression in our Christian nation from other religions. Ban Halal, ban Burqas. Ban mosques, ban temples, ban shrines - we don’t want those in our countries."

The crowd cheers, but should we?

I recognise this way of thinking and speaking aligns more with some theological systems than others – a rather motley crew was represented at the march. However, I believe that those systems are often shaped by diverse histories and anxieties, and that we should strive instead not to be conformed to the image of the world and its cultural moment, but the image of Christ, through careful examination of His Word. For me, great starting places for exegetical interrogation of the above quote are Matthew 13v24-30 (the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares), John 18v36 (“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight…”), and 2 Corinthians 4.

I am a Baptist Christian, not by culture or convenience, but conviction and confession. I believe that my theological heritage, in application of the Scriptures, speaks helpful words of caution to those who desire both a well-functioning state, and healthy churches. Allow me to summon my own motley crew of nonconformists to respond to the question: “Should we ban any type of public expression of non-Christian religions in the UK?”

Historical voices respond

Thomas Helwys, Baptist pastor in Spitalfields, London died in prison after writing to King James I: "[The] king is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the immortal souls of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them."

Yes, but he is assuming all of his subjects are Christians, right? Helwys also wrote, in his book A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1612): "And if the king’s people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king, our lord the king can require no more. For men’s religion to God is between God and themselves. The king shall not answer for it. Neither may the king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure."

Or consider Leonard Busher, about whom little is known beyond his book, Religions Peace (1614). Busher does not want to see faith removed from the public square and would love to see Christ honoured and proclaimed by people in public office, but he is crystal clear: "Persecution is a work well pleasing to all false prophets and bishops, but it is contrary to the mind of Christ 'who came not to judge and destroy men’s lives, but to save them.'"

Busher also argued that a government persecuting people of other faiths in the name of Christ would encourage further persecution of Christians in lands where other faiths were represented by the majority.

More witnesses could be summoned.

John Murton, Helwys’s pastoral successor: "[No] man ought to be persecuted for his religion", on the basis that there is no New Testament command to do so and there is a clear distinction under the New Covenant between spiritual and civil authorities.

Roger Williams (who used the language of "Christendom" and "Christian world" only with regard to local churches and said "Christenings make not Christians"): "It is the will and command of God, that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Anti-Christian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries and they are only to be fought against with that Sword which is only (in soul matters), able to conquer, to wit, the Sword of God’s Spirit, the Word of God."

John Spilsbury, signer of the First London Baptist Confession: "[No] conscience out to be forced in the matters of religion, because no man can bear out another in his account to God, if in case he should cause him to sin."

Samuel Richardson, (also signer of the First London Baptist Confession, who in The Necessity of Toleration raises seventy questions against State interference against those of different religious beliefs): "[It] is God’s way to have religion free, and only to flow from an inward principle of faith and love; neither would God be worshipped by unwilling worshippers."

Christopher Blackwood, in confessing that he was previously wrong on the subject: "[Yea], I do think the Magistrate hath no power, as he is a Magistrate, in or about matters of religious worship, but only to preserve the peace, that no man be molested in or about his worship."

In addition to individuals and their fuller published arguments, there are documents outlining broader theological systems that are incompatible with calls for national bans on public expressions of non-Christian worship. Both what is said and what is not said in the First and Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith is significant. For a fuller treatment of this subject, have a look at my book Every Man’s Conscience: Early English Baptists and the Fight for Religious Liberty (H&E Academic, 2024). I daresay, evangelicals of all denominations and none, might find the story it tells and theology it conveys to be immensely relevant in considering and responding to today’s various narratives, across the political spectrum.

Concluding thoughts

In short, it is beyond the proper bounds of governments to intrude in matters of religion.

Where a person commits a crime, regardless of whether it is in the name of their religion, there are laws that must be upheld against that crime and the one committing it, without oppressing other unrelated people for their conscience, regardless of how wrong we think them to be.

Christ’s Kingdom is spiritual in nature, and the church (not the United Kingdom) is the holy nation recipient of Christ’s promises and covenant. That Kingdom is built and united through the welcome of gospel proclamation. Gospel clarity, church health, and justice in society demands more serious theological reflection and sober-minded realism than: “Ban them” or “Get them out”. But perhaps that is easier than intentional and distinctive Christian mission.

In any case, the Unite the Kingdom crowd can rest easy: surely the ability to hold such an event and say all manner of things unhindered demonstrates that the death of free speech in our country has been greatly exaggerated.