If you go on Twitter and type in the phrase “Jesus is on the throne” you will see a surprising divide in how that phrase should be used in this present moment. 

On the one hand, you have those using the phrase to encourage people not to worry. On the other hand, you will see those who say that this statement is insensitive and ignorant at the moment.

I didn’t think this phrase could be so divisive. (But why not? It’s 2020!) 

So who’s right? Should Christians be using this phrase during these tense political times (under the backdrop of a pandemic)? Or should Christians hold off?

In this post, I unpack the rationale some give as to why we shouldn’t use this phrase right now, followed by a few counterpoints before some closing thoughts.

Why Some Say We Shouldn’t Use This Phrase Right Now 

1. It’s Dismissive of People’s Realities

For some, the phrase ignores and spiritually bypasses people’s lived experiences. For example, there may be someone filled with anxiety and grief because he or she believes the outcome of this election directly affects one’s rights. Therefore, the phrase invalidates one’s current fears and experiences. 

2. It Promotes Inaction 

For others, the phrase becomes a mic drop of another keyboard warrior who won’t actually lift a finger to promote justice or care for those negatively affected. This view sees those who say the phrase hiding behind the theology of God’s sovereignty, where the sovereignty of God becomes the escape hatch from affecting reality.  

3. It’s a Platitude of the Privileged 

For some, the phrase reeks of privilege because it’s said by those who won’t be impacted financially or socially by the outcome of the election. They would say that one’s privilege allows one to stand above the outcome of the election making it easy for them to ask everyone else to relax. 

Why I Believe We Can and Should Say It

1. The Objection Itself Reveals Privilege 

The irony of it all is that objection on the basis of personal emotions and experiences is also born out of privilege.

It is a privilege to be able to center a discussion around one’s own feelings and emotions.

This is not a privilege many Christians around the world get to currently experience. This was not a privilege experienced by the Christians who were hunted by Domitian the Roman Emperor in the late 1st century. This is why when they received the book of Revelation, they didn’t tell John the Apostle that he should’ve waited a few more chapters before writing about the vision of Jesus on the throne. For them, any moment was a matter of life and death.

(The same can be said of Jesus when he entrusted himself to God’s sovereignty in Gethsemane after sweating stress induced drops of blood.)

2. Trust Is An Action In It of Itself

Trust in God’s sovereignty should propel Christians to actions. The notion of using the idea of sovereignty for inaction should be rejected.

But what shouldn’t be rejected is taking the idea of God’s sovereignty seriously enough to actually trust it. That is not easy.

It is easier to let one’s mind wander and let emotions rule than disciplining one’s mind to dwell on God’s sovereignty enough so that one’s emotions begin to follow and bow to the subscribed truth.

3. Theology Doesn’t Have To Dismiss Reality

Theology should not be used to spiritually bypass emotions and experiences.

But reality and theology aren’t binary. They’re intensely interconnected.

Theology, therefore, can and should be used to form and inform us. What we feel and live are real because (and only because) God is real. As my seminary professor eloquently quipped, “God is ultimate reality.” His existence and reality creates my existence and reality.

Therefore, it’s entirely possible to hold the sovereignty of God in one hand, and the reality of my fears and anxieties on the other. Isn’t that trust? It’s when we allow our realities to collide with the reality that’s ultimate. 

To bypass feelings in the name of theology may be toxic, but the converse may be just as toxic.

Concluding Thoughts 

“Jesus on the throne” is not a mere coping mechanism. It’s not “toxic theology” or “toxic positivity.” 

And yet, maybe those who post it (and I admit I did) could be more mindful of how it’s received by others, especially those in a vulnerable place. Maybe better timing or greater clarification is the way to go.

And maybe what’s needed most is wisdom and love in how we approach social media. Wisdom to know how something may be perceived by others. Love to give the benefit of the doubt when we may question the motive or impact. 

So will I continue to use the phrase? Absolutely, but I hope to do so with greater wisdom and love.

And I hope you’ll join me in the pursuit of love and wisdom, whether you agree with using the phrase or not.