Christians should want the state to bow to Christ just as we want all of God’s creatures to bow to Him. That doesn’t in the least mean that we are to use the power of the state to effect that submission in the populace. Quite the contrary — to desire the state to bow to Christ is to desire it to stay in its place.

You are right that a state that truly bows to Christ is one that stays in its place. It recognizes its Master. The state that recognizes _no_ master is the one to be feared.

I suspect that our disagreement here is deeper than government – it probably extends to free will vs. determinism – but I’ll go ahead and answer Robert’s question and see where it leads me.

*What source of authority should the state assert?*
The state should assert that it “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed”, to quote the Declaration of Independence. Paul’s comments about government in Romans should be taken in context – the preservation of the church in Rome – and should not be extended to a blanket approval of every tyrant and dictator who has ever ruled. God has given people the authority to act, even in ways that he may disapprove of, and in a representative democracy, the people grant this authority to the government.

*What stance should the state take toward Christ?*
The state should be totally ambivalent toward Christ. It should not approve or disapprove of his teachings, or claim to know anything about his divinity. This means that the state won’t bow to Christ, but it also means that the state won’t bow to Ishkabibble.

*How should the state determine the limits of its rule?*
Heh. I asked this question in a previous post, now I have to answer it. The state should be limited in the ways the people say it should be limited. Ideally, the federal government would be limited to preserving the liberties of its citizens.

*How should the state make decisions?*
The legislators, judges and executives that comprise the state should make decisions by considering the evidence about a problem, and then evaluating how various courses of action might uphold or degrade the things that its citizens value. If the citizens’ values align with Christian values, then the state’s laws will uphold Christian principles. And if the civil servants don’t observe the values of the citizens, then the citizens will vote their butts out of office.

To conclude, I think you set up a false dilemma when you insist that the choice between a secular and Christian government is between godliness and ungodliness. Legislators will make godly decisions if their constituents are really concerned about godly values.

You apparently believe that man is the source of all human authority. Some folks would call that idolatry.

That means that any human authority derives from God’s authority, right? Yes, I think it does.

But I don’t think the state should claim to know anything about God. So the highest authority that *the state* can claim is that of the people.

But (you knew that was coming) we do not live in anything like the system our Founding Fathers invented. What they created was a form of government based upon a Lockian / Naturalist interpretation of Christian scripture.

It was proper and successful until the middle of the 19th century. That was about the time people we would refer to as Neo-pagans, New Agers, and Social Activits began to crop up and we lost our way. The result was the War of Northern Agression (a.k.a The US Civil War) and our form of government fell in 1865 to be replaced by a highly socialist federal oligarcy. What you are talking about no longer exist.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but ruminating over what our government should or could be in our country is a pointless excersize. Start thinking about what it is and how we can get back to the original system so these correct and true ideas of goverment based upon Devine principle can be realized.