Christian Education and the US Supreme Court

10/18/24 • -1 min

In this episode, we are joined by Jeffrey C. Tuomala, Professor of Law at Liberty University, to examine two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in light of two articles by Ned Stonehouse. Professor Tuomala, with his deep commitment to restoring the moral foundations of law, will offer his legal expertise to comment on Stonehouse’s reflections regarding McCollum v. Board of Education and Everson v. Board of Education. These cases addressed the relationship between church and state, religious education, and the issue of secularism in public schools.

We explore the deeper issues Stonehouse raised, such as the dangers of secularism in public education, the role of Christian education, and the balance between religious liberty and state control. Professor Tuomala provides a thoughtful legal and moral analysis of how these cases continue to influence contemporary debates about faith, law, and education in America. This conversation is a rich discussion on the intersection of theology, law, and Christian education in the modern world. Listen for a compelling exploration of these pivotal court decisions and their ongoing impact on religious freedom and Christian education.

Chapters

00:00:07 Introduction
00:08:49 Ned Stonehouse’s Comments on Two SCOTUS Decisions
00:14:00 The Context of SCOTUS during the 1940s
00:17:09 Everson v. Board of Education
00:19:13 Thinking Critically and Defining Terms
00:25:23 Religion, Secularism, and Neutrality
00:38:53 Rethinking the State’s Relation to Education
00:51:04 Vouchers for Private Education
00:58:28 Improving Stonehouse’s Case
01:02:59 Resources for Going Deeper
01:06:03 Conclusion

Articles

Ned B. Stonehouse, “A Differing Opinion on the School Bus Issue,” The Presbyterian Guardian 16, no. 6 (March 25, 1947): 83–84.
Ned B. Stonehouse, “Whither Religious Education?,” The Presbyterian Guardian 17, no. 9 (May 25, 1948): 99.
Jeffrey C. Tuomala (2024) “Is Tax-Funded Education Unconstitutional?,” Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 18: Iss. 4, Article 6.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Tuomala

Chapters

00:00:07 Introduction
00:08:49 Ned Stonehouse’s Comments on Two SCOTUS Decisions
00:14:00 The Context of SCOTUS during the 1940s
00:17:09 Everson v. Board of Education
00:19:13 Thinking Critically and Defining Terms
00:25:23 Religion, Secularism, and Neutrality
00:38:53 Rethinking the State’s Relation to Education
00:51:04 Vouchers for Private Education
00:58:28 Improving Stonehouse’s Case
01:02:59 Resources for Going Deeper
01:06:03 Conclusion

Articles

Ned B. Stonehouse, “A Differing Opinion on the School Bus Issue,” The Presbyterian Guardian 16, no. 6 (March 25, 1947): 83–84.
Ned B. Stonehouse, “Whither Religious Education?,” The Presbyterian Guardian 17, no. 9 (May 25, 1948): 99.
Jeffrey C. Tuomala (2024) “Is Tax-Funded Education Unconstitutional?,” Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 18: Iss. 4, Article 6.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Tuomala

Previous Episode

Vos Group #91 — The Development and Method of Jesus’s Teaching

In this episode, we open Geerhardus Vos’s Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (pp. 348–352), exploring insights on the development and method of Jesus’s teaching. We examine Vos’s distinction between subjective and objective development, discussing why Vos rejects the idea that Jesus’s understanding evolved over time. Instead, we explore the progression of Jesus’s teachings as a deeper unfolding of divine truth, perfectly aligned with his dual nature as both fully divine and fully human.

We also explore the unique teaching methods Jesus employed during his ministry, focusing on his use of parables and concrete imagery to communicate the mysteries of the kingdom of God. From the simple similitudes comparing natural processes to spiritual realities, to the complex parables proper, Vos illustrates how Jesus’s teachings were both profound and adaptable, responding to the readiness of his disciples and the opposition of his critics.

Join us as we unpack these key theological themes and discuss the implications of Vos’s analysis for understanding the unchanging yet progressively revealing nature of Christ’s teaching ministry. Learn how the divine and human natures of Christ shape his perfect teaching and how Vos’s theological insights continue to challenge modern interpretations of Jesus’s life and ministry.

Watch on YouTube and Vimeo.

Chapters

[00:07] Introduction
[01:48] Development in Jesus’s Teaching
[04:53] Subjective Development of Jesus’s Teaching
[17:38] Objective Development of Jesus’s Teaching
[34:03] The Method of Jesus’s Teaching
[38:46] Teaching through Parables
[50:13] Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton

Next Episode

Van Til Group #14 — Ethics and the Christian Philosophy of Reality

In pp. 77–79 of The Defense of the Faith (first edition), Cornelius Van Til addresses the fundamental differences between Christian and non-Christian perspectives on ethics, particularly focusing on the role of the will of God as foundational to ethical systems. Van Til begins by asserting that God’s will is absolute and self-determinative. God is eternally good, not becoming good through a process, but being so by his very nature. Unlike humans, God does not have to achieve goodness; it is intrinsic to his eternal character. Therefore, God is both absolutely necessary and absolutely free.

Van Til introduces a key distinction between Christian and non-Christian viewpoints. Christians uphold the concept of an absolutely self-determinative God, who is the necessary presupposition for all human activity. Non-Christian ethics, however, assume that if the Christian God were real, he would stifle ethical activity. This is because non-theistic views perceive God and man as having wills conditioned by an environment, implying that God must also achieve goodness through a process.

Van Til critiques Platonic philosophy, noting that Plato’s conception of “the Good” was ultimate, but his god was not. For Plato, “the Good” was abstract and separated from a fully personal God, leaving the ultimate reality as dependent on the element of Chance. Thus, even if Plato spoke of the Good, it was not self-determined or sovereign in the Christian sense. Modern idealist philosophers tried to build on Platonic thought by proposing an “absolutely self-determinative Experience,” but ultimately failed, according to Van Til, because they made God dependent on the space-time universe, blending time and eternity. As a result, God became dependent on external processes rather than being sovereign over them.

The core ethical difference between Christianity and non-Christian systems is the acceptance or rejection of an ultimately self-determinative God. Van Til argues that without the presupposition of God as absolute, there can be no coherent or purposeful human experience, including ethics. The absolute sovereignty of God is not a hindrance to human responsibility but rather its foundation.

Van Til makes a point to distinguish Christian doctrine from philosophical determinism. While both affirm necessity, philosophical determinism is impersonal, suggesting that everything is determined by blind, impersonal forces. Christianity, in contrast, asserts that the ultimate reality is personal; God’s sovereign will underlies the possibility of genuine human freedom and responsibility.

Watch on YouTube and Vimeo.