"sovereign of"

Trapped · 10-21-2018, 07:52 PM

This will probably be a short thread but I didn't see another place to tack this question on to.

One phrase I heard all growing up in the LCs was that something is "sovereign of the Lord". Usually this phrase is spoken in response to some type of setback. Someone gets sick, or the weather is terrible and a conference gets canceled, or something bad in general happens that we have no control over. "Surely this is sovereign of the Lord" is the phrase that is inevitably rolled out.

The problem for me is that it is usually spoken without further explanation, so in context, the phrase "sovereign of" ends up coming across as meaning "arranged by" or even just "of" or "from" or "with its source in" Him. So if some setback occurs and the response is "this is sovereign of the Lord", it sounds like "For sure this is of the Lord", or "For sure this is the Lord's arrangement", or "For sure the Lord is doing something here."

What this ends up doing is creating the expectation that some greater or better thing will result from this setback than had originally been planned.....which then creates a big letdown when that expectation is oftentimes not met.

It seems to me that the way the LCs use the word "sovereign" is not quite correct. I don't think that even grammatically that "something can be sovereign of someone". Am I wrong here? To me it seems like the accurate thing to say is "For sure the Lord is still sovereign", meaning the Lord is still over all. No matter what happens or has happened, God is sovereign, God is over all, God is still in control (whether or not He caused the "setback", or steps into the situation, or anything). God has the power, wisdom, and authority to do anything He pleases, and the setback doesn't change that and doesn't mean God no longer has that power/wisdom/authority.

To say that "something is sovereign of God" I don't think actually uses the word "sovereign" properly, and in that unusual context it ends up creating a misrepresented view of God and what He does or doesn't do, and His role in things when situations go awry. It ends up putting an emphasis on the reason or purpose of the situation, rather than on the unchanging fact that God is still God, no matter what happens or what He allows.

I can certainly get behind "something is permitted by the Lord who is sovereign" but I just can't swallow "sovereign of Him." Am I misunderstanding something here?

10-21-2018, 07:52 PM	#1
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	"sovereign of" This will probably be a short thread but I didn't see another place to tack this question on to. One phrase I heard all growing up in the LCs was that something is "sovereign of the Lord". Usually this phrase is spoken in response to some type of setback. Someone gets sick, or the weather is terrible and a conference gets canceled, or something bad in general happens that we have no control over. "Surely this is sovereign of the Lord" is the phrase that is inevitably rolled out. The problem for me is that it is usually spoken without further explanation, so in context, the phrase "sovereign of" ends up coming across as meaning "arranged by" or even just "of" or "from" or "with its source in" Him. So if some setback occurs and the response is "this is sovereign of the Lord", it sounds like "For sure this is of the Lord", or "For sure this is the Lord's arrangement", or "For sure the Lord is doing something here." What this ends up doing is creating the expectation that some greater or better thing will result from this setback than had originally been planned.....which then creates a big letdown when that expectation is oftentimes not met. It seems to me that the way the LCs use the word "sovereign" is not quite correct. I don't think that even grammatically that "something can be sovereign of someone". Am I wrong here? To me it seems like the accurate thing to say is "For sure the Lord is still sovereign", meaning the Lord is still over all. No matter what happens or has happened, God is sovereign, God is over all, God is still in control (whether or not He caused the "setback", or steps into the situation, or anything). God has the power, wisdom, and authority to do anything He pleases, and the setback doesn't change that and doesn't mean God no longer has that power/wisdom/authority. To say that "something is sovereign of God" I don't think actually uses the word "sovereign" properly, and in that unusual context it ends up creating a misrepresented view of God and what He does or doesn't do, and His role in things when situations go awry. It ends up putting an emphasis on the reason or purpose of the situation, rather than on the unchanging fact that God is still God, no matter what happens or what He allows. I can certainly get behind "something is permitted by the Lord who is sovereign" but I just can't swallow "sovereign of Him." Am I misunderstanding something here?