Calvin's Institutes, Battles edition: page 97

Why does Calvin have the reputation for being austere and impersonal? Commenting on Exodus 34:6-7, he writes, "Thereupon his powers are mentioned, by which he is shown to us not as he is in himself, but as he is toward us: so that this recognition of him consists more in living experience than in vain and high-flown speculation."

Inferno

Since I'm on holiday, I read an update and rewrite of Dante's Inferno by two science-fiction writers, largely on the strength of a favorable write-up on the First Things website. While it wasn't bad by a long shot, it also wasn't particularly engaging. Part of the problem was I couldn't be bothered to care much about the protaganist; a larger part was that once it became apparent that there was an escape from Hell, it didn't seem so awful to be consigned there.

Perhaps there's a reason the Bible doesn't give too many details about either Heaven or Hell: they're both more interesting when their particulars are left up to the imagination.

Theses on Preaching: Pronouns

Mrs. Curmudgeon and I are visiting Canadian Pastor and Pastor's Wife outside of Toronto in celebration of our 10th anniversary, and I was graciously invited to preach yesterday. (Yes, on Independence Day and while the Queen of Canada was in the actual neighborhood. My new motto: "barely avoiding international incidents since 1970".) During the post-game analysis, Canadian Pastor noted I had used the first person plural during the afternoon sermon. This was notable because the single greatest homiletical influence on me has been Jay Adams' Preaching with Purpose, where he argues (forcefully) that preachers should use the second person when addressing the congregation. Adams observes that this is how God addresses his people throughout Scripture, and therefore contends this is how God's ambassador ought address them as well.

The thing is, the first person plural has been creeping into my sermons over the last few years. Since I work from an outline, my preaching has a large improvisational component, and so what actually comes out of my mouth is largely an intuitive choice. Consequently, I don't know why my practice has been changing, although (surprise!) I now have a theory.

English is interesting not because it lacks a second person plural, but because (outside the American South) the second person singular and plural are indistinguishable. During a sermon, the congregation has no way of telling whether the pastor's "you" addresses the individual or the assembled group. While reflection would almost necessarily dictate the latter, I suspect that during the homiletical moment the individual unreflectively hears the former; that is, he tends to think the pastor is preaching at him directly. In that psychological context, "us" is useful not so much to bring the pastor into the group being addressed, but instead to make clear that the entire congregation is addressed. In other words, the first person plural substitutes for a second person plural.

That, at least, is my theory.