There is something about a Virginia Guardsman being denied state tuition assistance for a religious degree that bothers me.
I do not know how the courts will decide this case. After more than 26 years in the Army, I know what it means to raise your right hand and accept the obligations that follow.
That is why I keep coming back to Virginia National Guard member Trace Stevens.
Stevens enrolled in Liberty University’s Bachelor of Science in Religion program and applied for assistance through Virginia’s National Guard State Tuition Assistance Program. According to the federal court’s account of his complaint, the state told him Liberty’s online programs could qualify, but his religious degree could not. His application was denied. He has since sought assistance for a Master of Divinity program.
I am an Army retiree, a Christian and a Liberty University graduate. My experience is not Stevens’s experience. Still, his Guard service made him eligible to seek this state benefit. Virginia rejected the degree he chose.
Why should the religious character of his education change how the state treats a benefit tied to his service?
The benefit begins with service
Virginia does not offer this grant without conditions. State law ties eligibility to Guard membership, initial active-duty training, satisfactory performance, enrollment and a remaining service obligation. The member gives time and readiness. The Commonwealth receives service.
The law describes which schools qualify. It does not expressly exclude every religious degree at an eligible school. The Guard’s policy does exclude religious or theology degrees. That difference between the law’s wording and the Guard’s rule is part of this case.
In Stevens’s case, the distinction was concrete: Liberty could qualify as a school, while his chosen degree did not qualify for this state grant. The court records also say he received federal Army tuition assistance for the religion program. That matters because this article concerns Virginia’s state program, not every form of military education support.
Virginia has a serious answer. Its law lets the Adjutant General set rules for this program, and the Supreme Court has allowed a state to decline funding for training aimed at ministry. The Guard says its exclusion follows those limits. But the statute describes eligible schools, while the Guard’s rule also excludes certain degrees at an eligible school. That difference deserves a clear explanation to the people who serve under it.
Faith does not make someone less of a soldier
Military service asks people of different beliefs to work together under a common mission. It does not ask them to become the same person.
A Christian does not offer less service because he studies Christianity. The same principle should make us attentive whenever a servicemember’s faith becomes relevant to an earned public benefit, regardless of the tradition involved. My earlier essay on religious accommodation at work addresses a related concern, although this state Guard benefit raises a different legal question.
I do not expect government to fund every religious pursuit. I do expect care and consistency in explaining why one otherwise eligible Guard member can use a service-linked grant for his degree and another cannot.
That is a practical leadership question as much as a legal one. What message does the rule send to the person who has already accepted the burden of service?
Why a religious degree matters for chaplains
The Army National Guard has chaplains because Soldiers need religious support. It also expects those chaplains to be trained. Its current chaplain requirements call for an accredited master’s degree of at least 72 semester hours, including at least 36 hours in theology, along with endorsement by a faith group. The Guard also has a candidate path for students preparing for chaplaincy.
Stevens says chaplaincy is his primary plan, although it is not his only career interest. A theology requirement for chaplains does not by itself decide which program Virginia must fund. But it makes the policy tension difficult to ignore: the military recognizes theological training as necessary for this role, while this state Guard tuition program excludes religious or theological degrees.
If that distinction is sound, it ought to be explained clearly to the people asked to serve under it.
The religious degree dispute is still open
I understand the concern on the other side. Government must respect constitutional limits around religion and public money. In Locke v. Davey, the Supreme Court upheld a state scholarship rule that did not fund devotional theology training.
That precedent remains a real obstacle for Stevens. In March 2026, a federal judge dismissed two other students’ claims under Virginia’s separate tuition program. The judge let Stevens’s claims over the Guard program continue because the record did not yet show enough about how officials apply the degree rule. The judge also refused temporary relief, finding Stevens had not shown he was likely to win. None of that is a final ruling that the Guard’s policy is right or wrong.
In May 2026, the Fourth Circuit upheld a similar exclusion in Hall v. Fleming under that separate tuition program and said Locke still binds lower courts. Hall did not decide Stevens’s Guard claim. His lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to take Johnson v. Fleming before the appeal is finished and to reconsider Locke. As of October 12, 2026, the Court has asked Virginia for a response by November 4. It has not agreed to hear the case or ruled on the merits.
I am not telling the courts how to rule. I am asking what standard we should expect when a public benefit tied to service meets a servicemember’s religious education.
The uniform does not erase conviction
The uniform asks for commitment, discipline and readiness. It should never require us to pretend that convictions disappear when someone enters public service.
Stevens raised his hand to serve. The courts will decide the legal questions in time. Meanwhile, those of us who value both service and religious liberty should be willing to ask a serious question without pretending the answer is easy:
When someone meets the standard of service, what reason is strong enough to make his religious education the dividing line?
That question reaches beyond one Guardsman and one degree. It asks how carefully we treat the convictions of people we ask to serve.