Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

>>Leaders must lead and citizens (legal or not) >>must submit to their authority.

Well, if they're not legal, they aren't citizens, but that's just nitpicking.

You do realize (I hope) that a lot of Americans, across the political spectrum, don't agree on a lot of issues? So why would you expect one side to just give up their beliefs so the other side could see theirs accomplished?

I support gay marriage, the impeachment of the corrupt administration of George W. Bush, the abolishment of the Christian Socialist Party (i.e, the former Republican Party), and increased troop levels in Iraq so we can finally do that job correctly (as opposed to incompetently, like the last three years).

I wish you'd stop redefining everything as "against Bush" and get on board with my goals which would work to make America a better place where citizens of all religious, political, ethnic, and racial backgrounds could enjoy the freedoms which they are constitutionally entitled to.

Regardless of your stance on the host of issues you’ve listed; there is nothing revealed here about your views on immigration.

I’m curious how a liberal libertarian would apply those constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to those that are not legally supposed to be in the country?

I still can't get it out of my head that we aren't "supposed" to be in this country either since we stole it from the native americans. I don't know how to handle this situation, but I don't think sending people "back home" is the answer. In Nicaragua alone, monetary aid sent home by family members working in other countries (legally and/or illegally) totals more than the ENTIRE amount of international aid provided by other countries (J.N. Poling, Render Unto God, 2002). If we just make people go back home, their economies will fall apart. I think it is important to think of everyone's best interest, not just "Americans." I think our country needs to stop being greedy and start living as stewards of our blessings that are intended to bless others, not to hoard for ourselves. In the long run this means helping other countries build sustainable economies. But this will not happen by just sending everyone back home. It will take a commitment from rich people to stop being stingy, from our government and the world's governments to actually DO something to end world poverty instead of trying to increase their own interests, and a change at the heart level so that we are all living in community and not just trying to pursue self-interested gains. That's my strong opinion on this topic.

I certainly appreciate the tension that exists with the Native Americans and the location of the United States and admit it is a hard one reconcile. I suppose at the same token what right did Israel have to leave Egypt, wander in the desert for 40 years and then take land that they did not own? Here we have God declaring that the land was to be theirs and the events of history unfolded. Many settlers to this country came over believing they were founding the New Israel and the events of human history have played out.

This country has been enormously blessed and fruitful since that time. You are absolutely right that we should not horde our wealth, which is exactly why our country gives more foreign aide to the world than anyone else. I believe where we differ on our views here is the role of government and our ability to end world poverty.

The government’s number role is to protect its citizens and to provide for their needs. Therefore the US government is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing by looking out for American interests first. That does not mean it does so at all costs. Secondly, because of the nature of sin and the falleness of the world – I don’t believe we will ever be rid of poverty or war until Christ’s return. And that doesn’t leave excuse for us not to act to help the helpless or prevent war.

There is a tight rope that must be walked when it comes to following the letter of the law and the dispensing of grace. The balance between God ordained government acting to protect order in society and that order becoming totalitarian rule. The balance between recognizing the effects of sin in the world and our role in stewardship along with the Heavenly Kingdom focus. The separation of Church/State exists – not as the ACLU defines it, but as the difference between the regenerate and unregenerate heart. And likewise, only by the power of the Holy Spirit and God’s grace are we going to see a resolution to the problem of immigration.

What wonderful discourse! And what a wonderful country we live in that would permit all of us, who hold such different opinions, to peacefully coexist. I have two questions based on the posts: (1) What exactly is a “God ordained government”? (2) What do you mean by the separation of church and state is “the difference between the regenerate and unregenerate heart”?

While I tend to agree with Jeff’s summary of a nation’s first priority (protecting its citizens and providing for their needs), I do not think that is what America does—unless of course, you define Americans in a specific way to exclude certain demographics. I have such a hard time putting much faith or trust in this administration that the idea of “submitting” to its authority is revolting to me. I think we’re called to be supportive of our government (paying taxes, voting, being civically involved), but at the same time the very nature of our country’s foundation is having the freedom to question it. As for the “left” getting on board, both the “left” and the “right” strategically use issues such as immigration in an attempt to garner votes come election time. This political strategy and game playing makes it so difficult to know what motives drive our elected officials and who, if anyone, is really doing what is right for the right reasons.

God Ordained Government would be what Paul talks about in Roman 13: 1 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” So that our government is one in which God has appointed our leaders for the good of society and He uses these leaders good or bad to bring about His ultimate purposes in the world.

The Separation of Church and State as I’m defining it here is not that the government should make no laws establishing religion or that they must remain ultimately neutral on religious issues. The problem with those definitions is that they fail to recognize Romans 13: 1. So the separation of Church and State is defined by those that have been born into the Holy Spirit or the regenerate heart or the Church. And those that are simply secular authorities (the state) that have not given their lives to Christ, that are unregenerate; yet are used by God as ordained authority. You can see here how the church or members of the Body of Christ can be a part of government, living out their faith and how the Lord rules over all.

I recognize there is a tension between what reigns in our hearts, the Constitution or the Lord. Our society beckons us to dissent and rebel, which is a reflection of our hearts rebellion against the truth of the light of Christ. I think we need to be more careful when it comes to our submission to both Church and State while standing for truth. Doing so may cause you to be less cynical of the role of government, especially when the current head of state is a professing brother in Christ.