American State Governments, Locke, and The Bible
Jeremiah Schaefer
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
GOVT 327: State and Local Government
Professor Aaron S. Van Allen
December 8, 2020
2
Federalism: Divergent Paths
America was established upon the bedrock of Lockean principles, and its Federal
government bore many similarities to the colonial governments which had existed for far longer
at the time of its founding. It was built entirely on the principle of separation of power, both
within governments and between governments, hence the federal instead of unitary system. The
Founding Fathers drew upon Aristotle’s theory of mixed constitutions and Locke’s idea of
separation of power to establish a system of government in which it limited itself, at least
theoretically. (Dooley and Patten, 2015) The Founding Fathers created a Constitution that
instituted a republican governmental system in which the power surrendered to the government
by the people was divided into governments with overlapping and competing jurisdictions.
(Madison, 1788) While the role of Locke remains clear in the Federal government up to today,
even in its much diminished and tainted form, many state governments have muddled the waters
with successive reforms and alterations. The Biblical backing for the current structure of
American government is less direct but it is very much present in Scripture.
State Legislatures
The state legislatures have their roots in the colonial legislatures which were borne out of
English common law and Parliament. At the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the
oldest colonial legislative body in America was the Virginia House of Burgesses which was 157
years old. (National Park Service, 2019) Parliament began as an advisory body to the king but
took control for itself and established the notion of Parliamentary supremacy in aftermath of the
Glorious Revolution by Prince William of Orange and Protestant forces in 1688 and 1689.
(Vallance, 2011) Although the nature and powers of the state governments have greatly shifted in
the centuries since those precedents, the justifications for their legitimacy and their core
3
functions are still in accordance with Locke’s theories of separation of powers and accountable
government. One of the key Biblical stories in which Locke found legitimacy for his theory of
self-determination was the story of Jephthah found in Judges 11. In it, Jephthah was appointed
leader of Israel by the elders of Gilead and his appointment was in turn blessed by God. To
Locke, this gave credence to the idea that the people may select their own leaders. Furthermore,
the fact that God blessed a rebellion against the established but unjust authorities provided
Biblical precedence for the radical at that time idea that men had a right to rebel against unjust
government. (Gordon, 2019)
Reapportionment
The philosophical underpinning of all of Locke’s theories was that the political power
which gave governments legitimacy was derived from the sovereignty of every individual man.
The most direct application of this is voting. Since every man is fundamentally equal, their votes
should be apportioned equally as well. The reapportionment process which uses census data to
shift House of Representatives Seats as needed to permit equal representation of the population
across the states is fundamentally in-line with Lockean theory. In Deuteronomy 1, Moses, God’s
chosen leader of the Israelites, told the tribes to choose for themselves leaders who he will then
appoint. Since God chose Moses to lead the Israelites and directed his actions, Moses’ action in
this case can be assumed to be according to God’s will. Even though the Israelite society was, for
all intents and purposes, a theocracy, the people still had direct say in choosing at least some of
their leaders. Romans 13:1-4 says:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except
from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the
authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For
rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who
is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's
servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in
4
vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the
wrongdoer. (ESV)
It very specifically directs Christians that they are to obey governing authorities put in place by
God because those who do right will have nothing to fear from them. The most important aspect
of this verse, for this discussion, is what it does not say: it implies that leaders who do not do
what is right, and punish the righteous, have not been appointed by God and have no legitimacy
for their authority. Although the verse makes no mention of it so it must be drawn from the
implications of what it does say, the verse would seem to offer support for a system in which
God allows the people to hold their leaders accountable on His behalf.
State Courts
One of the most important aspects of civilization, according to Locke, was the
monopolization of justice (achieved by consent and monopolization of force) by the state and the
delegation of sovereignty from each individual to the state to act on their behalf. Justice without
such a framework is, as demonstrated countless times in the Old Testament, a subjective and
vengeful affair that is too often arbitrary and leaves all parties dissatisfied. If the validity of the
assertion in the last section that Scripture, in particular Romans 13:1-4, implies Biblical backing
for a system in which leaders are accountable to their people is assumed, then it must also be
assumed that Scripture endorses a judicial system which is measured and fair in its approach to
the law. The structure of the courts and the process by which its judges and officers are appointed
is not necessarily of significance, biblically speaking; what is important is the manner in which
they act. In this light, it is obvious that judicial restraint, in which faithfulness to the law is of
paramount importance rather than judicial activism in which subversion of the law to arbitrary
and ever-changing goals is the modus operandi.
5
Judicial Federalism
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing about judicial federalism, emphasized the
synergistic relationship between the state and Federal courts. She stated, “In 1982, more than
thirteen million civil suits and twelve million criminal actions were filed in the fifty state court
systems and the District of Columbia. By comparison, only 234,139 civil and 38,449 criminal
actions were filed in the federal courts that same year.” (O’Connor, 1984) O’Connor drew from
the broader concept of Federalism and referred to Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in Younger v.
Harris in which he stated about Federalism:
The concept does not mean blind deference to "States' Rights" any more than it means
centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its
courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a
system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National
Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to
vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in
ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States. (Younger v.
Harris)
Although Locke did not specifically advocate for the establishment of courts as a separate branch
of government, he strongly asserted the need for separation of powers within government and the
need to keep the government accountable to the people. (Locke, 1690) The fact of Judicial
Federalism, in which judicial power is divided into different levels and different sovereign
governments, the Federal government and the state governments, merely furthers this principle.
Since the implication of Biblical backing for accountable government has already been
established, it can be applied here as well. The best way to ensure accountable and honest
governance is through competition and divided power; Judicial Federalism serves this purpose.
The Christian Researcher
Christians are called to follow Christ in everything they do, there is no Biblical back for
segmentation in the life of a Christian. Therefore, it is imperative that a Christian researcher
6
brings the morality and ethics of their faith into their workplace. The harder task, many times, is
to integrate Scripture into secular projects and worldviews when there is not necessarily a
fittingly direct passage in the Bible that relates. As was demonstrated earlier with Romans 13:1-
4, it is not always necessary for Scripture to directly say something. Much of the work required
in translating Biblical teachings to the modern world is in trying to understand how to apply 2-
3000-year-old culture-specific commands to today. They must always exercise caution to guard
against twisting Scripture or finding justifications for things that don’t bear up to common sense
as Biblical.
7
References
Dooley, K. L., & Patten, J. N. (2015). Why politics matters: an introduction to political science.
Cengage Mindtap. Cengage Learning.
https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?eISBN=9780357040690&id=312339
820&nbId=813059&snapshotId=813059&dockAppUid=16&.
Gordon, E. (2019, February 27). John Locke, the Bible and Western political tradition. Jewish
News Syndicate. https://www.jns.org/opinion/john-locke-the-bible-and-the-western-
political-tradition/.
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government. Awnsham Churchill. https://web-b-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzEwODU5NDhfX0FO0?
sid=8d625da7-0da6-4a42-819f-581544907ba9@pdc-v-
sessmgr06&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1.
Madison, J. (1788, February 6). FEDERALIST No. 51 The Structure of the Government Must
Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.
Independent Journal. New York City. https://web-a-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzEwODU1MzFfX0FO0?
sid=186b2fb9-1b4b-4a7e-96a9-e697d9bbef0c@sdc-v-
sessmgr03&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1.
National Park Service. (2019, July 22). The First Legislative Assembly. Historic Jamestowne.
https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/the-first-legislative-assembly.htm.
O'Connor, S. D. (1984). Our Judicial Federalism. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 35(1).
https://case.edu/law/sites/case.edu.law/files/2019-08/Our%20Judicial%20Federalism.pdf.
8
Vallance, E. (2011, February 17). History - British History in depth: The Glorious Revolution.
BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.
shtml.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/4
01/37/.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
