Faith Under Fire

How Modern Society Pressures Christians to Choose Between Conviction and Conformity

Illinois Baptist Association Defeated in Religious Freedom Battle

On September 4, 2024, the Seventh Circuit Court of Illinois denied the Illinois Baptist State Association’s (IBSA) request for a religious exemption from the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). The RHA mandates state health insurance plans to provide abortion care for all participants. The IBSA challenged this provision, arguing that it violated their religious beliefs by forcing them to provide abortion coverage to their employees.

The IBSA sought protection under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA), which prohibits the government from imposing civil burdens that infringe on a person’s right to religious freedom. They argued that the RHA mandate would burden their free exercise of religion by forcing them into a difficult choice: either comply with state law and violate their deeply held belief that abortion is sinful or withdraw from their insurance provider.

Judge Christopher G. Perrin of the Seventh Circuit ruled against the IBSA, stating they failed to prove a “substantial burden” on their religious exercise. He sided with the Illinois Department of Insurance, concluding that the mandate did not coerce the association into supporting or participating in abortion. This decision highlights a growing disconnect between secular authorities and religious convictions, as freedom of choice is increasingly prioritized over freedom of religion.

This case exposes a deeper, more complex issue at the heart of modern legal disputes: how do we define truth, and whose truth prevails? For Christians, the court’s decision raises challenging questions: Must religious beliefs be proven by empirical evidence to satisfy secular standards? Can faith, which is inherently transcendent, be subject to the same scrutiny as law or science? And, more importantly, should it be?

This litigation reveals a broader cultural shift. Modern Christians must acknowledge that we live in a post-Christian society where truth is no longer defined by God-centered principles but by subjective, personal preferences. What was once rooted in divine absolutes has become fluid, shaped by individual perspectives and evolving cultural contexts.

Abortion on Demand—No Religious Exemption

The court’s demand for empirical proof highlights the divide between people of faith and the non-religious. From a Christian standpoint, God is beyond measurement—He is incalculable and incomprehensible. Yet, in a society that values what can be quantified, the supernatural and spiritual are often dismissed as irrelevant.

The Apostle Paul addressed this divide when he wrote, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Apart from the work of God’s Spirit, people cannot grasp spiritual truths. As a result, they will not recognize the Bible’s authority or acknowledge its claims.

The Illinois case is just one of many that suggest secular culture will continue to encroach upon the sacred, demanding that individuals and faith-based organizations compromise their beliefs for the sake of progressive ideology. IBSA Executive Director Nate Adams rightly noted, “The September 4 ruling discounts the beliefs of over 150,000 Illinois Baptists, as well as all Illinoisans who hold these same sacred convictions, by requiring all insurance coverage in our state to pay for abortion on demand, without a clear pathway for religious exemptions for churches or faith-based ministries.”

I call this the “COVID test”—not the one up your nose, but a test of how far regulations can push the religious community before they compromise their beliefs. The pandemic revealed an opportunity to measure the tolerance for faith under adversity. How far could religious conviction be bent before it breaks? We may be nearing a time when society will no longer tolerate Christianity. Soon, Christian truth could be labeled discrimination, hate speech, or even unlawful. If that day comes, will you stand firm in your faith, no matter the cost? Are you prepared to be sued, fined, canceled, or even imprisoned for your beliefs?

The tension between religious convictions and progressive policies is not new. History is filled with examples of those labeled “dissenters” and “nonconformists” for standing firm in their beliefs. Take Isaac Backus (1724-1806), for example, a pioneer for religious freedom in America. In the mid-eighteenth century, New England authorities prohibited Christians from gathering for worship. Those who defied these orders were persecuted. Backus, along with other Baptist leaders, endured imprisonment, physical attacks, and even assassination attempts for resisting the state’s interference in their religious practices.

At the time, these actions were considered necessary for the “greater good.” Today, they are recognized as misguided laws that persecuted people of faith. Those early Christian dissenters, many of whom were beaten or imprisoned, remained steadfast under brutal and unjust conditions. Even in more recent times, religious persecution continues. In 2021, an Indiana couple lost custody of their child for refusing to endorse transgender ideology due to their Catholic faith. Last month, they appealed to the Supreme Court for relief. Earlier this month, Irish teacher Enoch Burke was arrested a third time for refusing to endorse transgender ideology.

Will you stand firm when civil authorities challenge your faith? Will you endure hardship for something transcendent and incomprehensible? When the choice is between culture and Christ, will you be a faithful nonconformist?