Last Friday Lane broke down for us his interpretation of the phrase "God's still in control," and he explained at least three fundamental problems with that statement as a response to a decision, or specifically a political election, not going according to our ideal. (1) We are treating God's sovereignty as a consolation prize; (2) we are divorcing God's sovereignty from the results; and we are treating God's office as if it has term limits. After contemplating the teaching (and brief launch into discussion), I am responding to the question of how we can re-engage God's sovereignty in our lives-whether in the area of government or any other aspect of our lives.

I first want to say that I appreciate Lane's approach to the topic. It is important to approach these theological issues from the perspective of analyzing our language about them. Our informal, everyday language conveys our theological assumptions and beliefs more accurately than any formally constructed doctrine. By addressing specific phraseology common to our evangelical environment we are getting to the heart of our true beliefs, and we are then able to wrestle with those beliefs and subsequent actions more effectively. It is easy to talk about a topic, such as the sovereignty of God, abstractly and entirely overlook how we actually interact with this topic in our daily communication. What the teaching last week did was break down what we really mean when we use the phrase "God's still in control." Whether or not you agree with Lane's interpretation of the phrase is not as vital as understanding that our language gives away our true theological beliefs, and therefore we must constantly re-evaluate how the two match up.

Having said this, I believe that one significant way we re-engage God's sovereignty is through considering the language we use when we discuss His activity in our lives and in our world, which extends far beyond politics and government. This dialogue exists everywhere and anywhere: work, school, church, social gatherings, political events, personal conversations, small groups, etc. What image of God (we are His image bearers) is our language presenting?

When it comes to the issue of the sovereignty of God, my concern is that our language often presumes we know the will of God - that we know his preferences. I believe that we have confused our preferences with God's sovereignty, or perhaps, placed our preferences-influenced and constructed by the society in which we live-above God's sovereignty. Our language many times suggests that we know-absolutely-the will of God.

Here are some questions to ask ourselves:

Do we decide how we feel or what we think about an issue and then attach God's will to our inclination with certainty? Do we search scripture to find a reference that puts God's stamp of approval on our conclusions? In other words, are we linking God's sovereignty to our desires because it seems right to us? What if our conclusion is not the only conclusion that exists in God's truth and God's will? One of the most problematic aspects of language that attaches God's sovereignty to my preference is that it simultaneously detaches God's sovereignty from another competing perspective.

I think that we instinctively know that we can't fully understand God's sovereignty or fully know his will, but we aren't happy not knowing. So we sometimes do semantic gymnastics to give ourselves some concrete idea of what is God's will and what is not. I have heard the differentiation between God's will and His "perfect" will. While we might be able to concede that we don't always understand the mystery in God's daily interactions with humanity, we claim to know His "perfect" will; His first choice. In other words, we say something like, "This is what God would rather have happen, but He gives us free will and if we choose otherwise then we go to His plan B." I guess that makes us feel like we aren't compromising God's will, but we can still say with certainty what should ideally happen. So, when something happens that we interpret to be something God would never choose we say that it's not his perfect will; he's just allowed it to happen.

To me this is the wrong mentality - we are focuses on the wrong thing. Take the example of Christ. He told us in Matthew 6 how to pray: "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Then Christ lives out the example of the proper mentality in Gethsemane in Matt. 26 when He prayed: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." Christ-God incarnate-is separating His desires from those of the Father. He doesn't assume that the Father's perfect will would be for Him not to suffer and resolve Himself to plan "B". He clearly distinguished between His will and the will of the Father. He was aware of God's sovereignty.

Finally, I would like to offer a distinction between God's sovereign use of suffering or "bad things" and our labeling of things as "good" and "bad" - especially when it comes to the topic of government/politics/society. If we all agree that God Sovereignty has no term limits, is not divorced from the results, and is not a consolation prize, then we are acknowledging that good and bad things happen within God's sovereignty. Where we must be careful is when we take it upon ourselves to make judgments about what things are "bad" and what things are "good". These are judgments every person must make, but we must discerning as Christians in our categorizations of various political, governmental and societal decisions. This really opens up a whole new conversation that I'm not going to engage at this time. But the important point for us to resolve is the way our language represents Christ and represents what we believe about God's sovereignty. I believe we must first take a careful look at our theology, and then we must continually check our language. Language is a contagious thing-it spreads like wild fire. We have to make sure that we aren't just repeating mantras that float aimlessly around our Christian circles, but rather that we have precise and thoughtful language about God and our faith.