For Christians, living in a culture that has abandoned absolute truth and reason as its foundation means freedom to speak the truth about biblical truths crucial to our witness and influence within the culture. Jesus’ prayer to His Father in John 17 focuses on our role as witnesses who are not of the world (that is, not motivated or controlled by the world’s priorities), but who are in the world, where we are kept from the evil one (John 17:14-16). Jesus went on to pray, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:17-18).
For at least 150 of our country’s 247 years of existence, Christianity was the main influencer in how judgments were made about right and wrong. We are now in a post-truth world where personal autonomy and the satisfaction of the self are the chief aims of culture. In his book, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” Carl Truman writes that the modern world “is one in which the transcendent purpose collapses into the immanent and in which given purpose collapses into any purpose I choose to create or decide for myself.” In this world, truth becomes whatever we determine it to be apart from the facts that define reality. We are now living in a world where reality is in constant flux, tossed back and forth by the whims of individual desires.
So, how do we live in this world that not only celebrates but embraces confusion? We must begin by defending our right to speak the truth according to our belief that there is order in the universe — order that comes from God, who as Creator has a plan for how the world is supposed to work. Rather than swimming downstream with culture, we are now swimming upstream against a stream of thought that glorifies the self above all else.
We should get down on our knees and thank God for the wisdom of our founders, who realized religious liberty is a bedrock principle that must be protected. In his book, “A Free People’s Suicide,” Oz Guiness writes about what he calls the “Golden Triangle of Freedom” that states, “Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; and faith requires freedom.” In two important religious liberty cases, the Supreme Court acted to protect people of faith by granting them the freedom to say no when they are asked to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
The first case, Groff v. DeJoy, involved Gerald Groff, who requested an accommodation from the U.S. Postal Service to avoid working on Sundays. At first, the post office granted his request, but when the post office began making Sunday deliveries for Amazon, it insisted allowing Groff to have Sundays off represented an “undue hardship,” and they began scheduling him to work on Sundays. He was disciplined 24 times for not showing up to work on Sunday. He resigned and sued the post office for religious discrimination.
In the 1977 Supreme Court case, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Court set the standard for religious accommodation that has been in place for decades. The Court defined undue hardship as “more than de minimis burden,” the Latin term for minimal. In a stunning 9 to 0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Groff. Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in a substantial increased cost in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
In the second case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic designer sued to prevent her business from being forced to create a website that would promote a same-sex wedding. Her business is in Colorado, where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is still harassing Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. To prevent the same thing from happening to her, Smith filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit. No one questioned her standing until after the Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Since then, she has been subjected to a smear campaign designed to discredit her.
But the 6-3 decision will stand — not, as some say, as a setback for gay rights, but as a victory for religious liberty. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “As this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our republic strong.” Lorie Smith said she would not refuse service to anyone, but she refused to be compelled to create speech that violates her beliefs. The majority of the Court agreed.
These two decisions will go a long way toward protecting religious liberty for all Americans.