Using English Historic Present Tense in a Sermon

[KMK]

People seem to use the Historic Present Tense more often these days. I understand that in the past English has eschewed it more than other languages, but it still sounds awkward to me. I am used to sermons leaning toward the academic side of writing, and find historic present tense distracting in sermons. Am I just getting old? Is it acceptable to use historic present in a modern sermon? Can I say, "So Elijah lays the sacrifice on the wood and digs a trench around it. Then he dowses the whole thing with water three times, etc." It seems to me the Bible is interesting enough without extraneous rhetorical devices.

 

[Taylor]

The Greek does this, too. Of course, English and Greek are different, but both languages have aspects (pun intended) where verbs communicate more than mere time (past, present, future, etc.). They can communicate focus and vantage point. For example, I could say, "I went (simple past tense) to the store. I was walking (imperfect tense) down the aisle, and a man approaches (present tense) me." I am communicating more than time in my progressive use of these tenses. By moving closer to the present tense, I am drawing the reader into the event taking place.

In short, I think using the present tense in this way can add color and vividness to language. Of course, like many good things, it can be overdone.

 

[KMK]

"I went (simple past tense) to the store. I was walking (imperfect tense) down the aisle, and a man approaches (present tense) me."

To my reading ears, that nonsensical shift is distracting. Perhaps in conversation, but I don't know. I am sure it is my age. It sounds the way drunk guys tell uninteresting anecdotes. "I was out with Brenda, see, and Jennifer walks right up to me and says, "Hi". Then my phone rings and it's Lisa!" And all the rest of the drunks say, "No Way! That is the most awesome story ever!"

If you have something to say that is truly interesting, you should be able to say it without the historic present tense. I am open to the younger guys correcting me on this.

 

[Taylor]

To my reading ears, that nonsensical shift is distracting. Perhaps in conversation, but I don't know. I am sure it is my age. It sounds the way drunk guys tell uninteresting anecdotes. "I was out with Brenda, see, and Jennifer walks right up to me and says, "Hi". Then my phone rings and it's Lisa!" And all the rest of the drunks say, "No Way! That is the most awesome story ever!"

If you have something to say that is truly interesting, you should be able to say it without the historic present tense. I am open to the younger guys correcting me on this.

I’m just saying, this is just the way language works. It’s not something drunks made up. And it’s certainly not nonsensical; it’s perfectly legitimate English. Tense communicates more than time. I would wager you yourself do it without realizing in conversation.

 

[KMK]

I’m just saying, this is just the way language works. It’s not something drunks made up. And it’s certainly not nonsensical; it’s perfectly legitimate English. Tense communicates more than time. I would wager you yourself do it without realizing in conversation.

I didn't (don't) mean to imply drunks made it up. I doubt I use historic past tense in conversation, and that is probably why it sounds manipulative to me. I understand its use in conversation, but wonder if there are conventions governing its use in academic writing and preaching.

 

[Taylor]

I didn't (don't) mean to imply drunks made it up. I doubt I use historic past tense in conversation, and that is probably why it sounds manipulative to me. I understand its use in conversation, but wonder if there are conventions governing its use in academic writing and preaching.

I think it depends on what one is trying to do with what they’re saying. Again, Scripture itself uses it, and I think to great effect. I think it could work in preaching. It probably shouldn’t be used that much in academic writing (unless, of course, it can be used skillfully and with good reason; it is a tool, after all).

 

[EmilyF]

Hello, brothers,
Of course I don’t know much about writing sermons, but I believe describing the Bible narrative in the past historic makes the listener:
1. Feel closer to the story
2. Follow you along the journey of the story and thus engage with it.
It also enables the preacher to pause at any point to exegete, and, when returning to the narrative, maintain the same momentum and keep the congregation on track.
I don’t believe it makes someone sound too formal or that it’s manipulative. It seems perfectly fine for spoken English in the context of a speech, explanation, tutorial, or, in this case, a sermon.
I would in fact prefer it to other tenses, as this tends to happen:
Preterite (Moses walked): stagnant and makes the Bible seem distant
Past continuous (Moses was walking): as if you’re telling your friends what happened last week
Present continuous (Moses is walking): too invasive and strange to me; perhaps could be used to emphasise a part of the story in a particular segment between exegeses
Pluperfect (Moses had been walking): again, too distant; should only be used to refer to the previous chapters in a recap or something.
To conclude, I’d say this is the best tense to use when following the narrative with the congregation. I’d use the preterite when describing one particular action someone did.
Hope that’s helpful.

 

[KMK]

Preterite (Moses walked): stagnant and makes the Bible seem distant

Thank you for your thoughts. They are very helpful. But sermons in the book of Acts always (I think) use aorist indicative which is past tense (as I understand it.)

 

[iainduguid]

Thank you for your thoughts. They are very helpful. But sermons in the book of Acts always (I think) use aorist indicative which is past tense (as I understand it.)

I'm not a Greek grammarian, but surely more recent grammars have stressed the fact that Greek "tenses" such as the aorist are not simply about time. This site also claims that the historic present is frequent in the gospels (which are undoubtedly sermons in their own right):

Aktionsart & the Present Tense

I'm also not sure that we can derive the approved grammatical structure of our sermons from the inspired text, not least because Hebrew and Greek each have quite distinct grammatical structures.

None of that suggests that we have to use the historic present in our preaching; for what it is worth, I edit a lot of sermons for publication (including my own) and not infrequently change historic presents into past tenses because in written form it works better. But as an oral presentation I think there are times and settings where it may work well. You need to know your audience. If any particular grammatical form would get in the way of people hearing the gospel, let's get rid of it. But if it helps people to engage with the sermon, I see no reason not to use it, especially since the NT apparently does.

 

[KMK]

This is from a sermon by Spurgeon.

"Taking the first point, the children of Israel just now had THREE DIFFICULTIES—three exceeding great dangers. And so I believe that every heir of heaven, within a very short period after the time of his deliverance, will meet with the same...The first they had was a great trial sent by God himself. There was the Red Sea in the front of them...Then the children of Israel had a second difficulty....But there was a third difficulty, which perhaps wrought them more misery than either of the other two: these poor children of Israel had such faint hearts. They no sooner saw the Egyptians than they began to cry out; and when they beheld the Red Sea before them, they murmured against their deliverer."

Would today's listeners feel closer to the story it he had said, "The first they have is a great trial sent by God himself. There is the Red Sea in the front of them...Then the children of Israel have a second difficulty...But there is a third difficulty, which perhaps works them more misery than either of the other two: these poor children of Israel have such faint hearts. They see the Egyptians and begin to cry out; and when they behold the Red Sea before them, they murmur against their deliverer."

I think the use of historic present tense in English is more of a fad than a refinement. Nevertheless, a preacher must use the conventions of the day.

 

[KMK]

for what it is worth, I edit a lot of sermons for publication (including my own) and not infrequently change historic presents into past tenses because in written form it works better

Thank you for your post Dr. Duguid. I wonder if Spurgeon's and other's editors did the same thing. Maybe English preachers have been using historic present all along.

 

[iainduguid]

Thank you for your post Dr. Duguid. I wonder if Spurgeon's and other's editors did the same thing. Maybe English preachers have been using historic present all along.

I think that's probably true. Phillips Brooks was certainly using it in the mid 19th century as did Luther before him, so I don't think it's a modern fad. I think it's a way of showing rather than telling. And one source reckons Mark uses the historic present 151 times in his gospel, so there is good precedent.

 

[Taylor]

…more recent grammars have stressed the fact that Greek "tenses" such as the aorist are not simply about time.

This is what I was getting at with the following:

English and Greek are different, but both languages have aspects (pun intended) where verbs communicate more than mere time (past, present, future, etc.).

 

[KMK]

This gives me much to think about. Thanks.

 

[Jack K]

So, I see a fair number of sermons that I or an author are contracted to turn into book chapters or articles. English allows for the use of present tense when recounting a past event, and I often run across sermons that go back and forth between using past tense and present tense when recounting biblical events. Some of these are highly effective sermons, even when put in print. Others sound fine when I listen to the audio but don't seem to work on paper. Much depends on the speaker, his tone, his audience, how comfortable he is with his own voice, etc.

In general, when converting a spoken sermon into a published document, I urge authors to be consistent and to remember this maxim: The Scripture speaks in the present, but Scripture's past events happened in the past. This results in a construction like, "Luke tells us (present tense) that Jesus stopped (past tense) at Martha and Mary's house." I will tell authors to be consistent in this when writing for publication, since this usually works best in print.

But—and this is important—there also needs to be room to break that "rule" when it's effective to do so. If a writer is skillful, little things like a change of tense can communicate subtleties that are hard to communicate otherwise. I actually broke my rule when writing about Jesus' visit with Martha and Mary in one of my own books. I'd been writing about the incident in the past tense, and then switched to something like this: "Let's slow down now and look closely at what the text shows us about Jesus. Notice how he includes Mary. At the same time, he also sees right into Martha's heart." In that case, I hope my change of tense accomplished a few subtleties: (1) reminding my reader that I'm peering into the text right now and (2) taking my reader into the biblical scene a bit for a sense of immediacy. At the time I was writing, I didn't even notice that I changed tenses. I just did it because it felt right. An author needs room to do that sort of thing lest a book become wooden and lack flair.

Even more with preaching, which is spoken communication, we need to allow room for some flair. Imposing a rigid rule, or imagining there's a single "right" style of preaching in English based on biblical Greek or Hebrew written style, will deny the sermon's delivery part of the human element it's supposed to have. A sermon is not an academic paper; it's a man speaking God's word of life to God's people, and it shouldn't feel lifeless.

Certainly, a preacher who's annoyingly inconsistent or seems to be trying too hard to add unnecessary flair will benefit from imposing a rule on himself like the one I give authors. So yes, I could see the point about resisting rhetorical devices being good counsel in many cases. But also beware of overthinking the sermon's delivery and ending up with a rule that imposes plainness. English is a wonderfully adaptive language that allows for much subtlety when handled well. Surely, the living word of God should come to us with all the vibrancy our language allows. For a skillful preacher, that might include playing with the tenses—perhaps without hardly realizing it.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The (extremely renowned) linguist William Labov goes into the motivations for using historical present in The Language of Life and Death. That is to say, the historical present has always been a part of Indo-European languages, but its use is not completely arbitrary. Rhetorically, it helps to bring the event closer to the listener, often in combination with a number of other rhetorical devices. To give an example, when speaking of the ten commandments, "God says thou shalt not" more immediately impresses upon the listener their duty than "God said...", even though in either case the speaker is certainly aware that the commandments were given on Mt. Sinai upwards of 3000 years ago.