Pronouns matter...

I have said many a time a favorite bit of liturgy of mine is the "Agnus Dei" from Divine Service Setting III:

O Christ, Thou Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the World, have mercy upon us.
O Christ, Thou Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the World, have mercy upon us.
O Christ, Thou Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the World, grant us Thy peace.

For nearly four years, the pronoun "that" being used for Christ has bothered me, the ex-literacy professor.  Back when I was at a church that uses the setting regularly, I would always note what I thought to be an error and struggle a bit, wanting to sing instead:

O Christ, Thou Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us.

In a way, I had forgotten about the pronoun, since, when I am able to get to church, I hear the "Agnus Dei" from Divine Service Setting I:

Lamb of God, You take away the sin of the world; have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, You take away the sin of the world; have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, You take away the sin of the world; grant us peace.

I prefer the words and the form and the tune of the former version.  In part, I do because of that semi-colon.  It seems to be a command more than a petition.  To me it does.  No matter if it makes no sense to you, but it is the same as how I feel about receiving the Lord's Supper, rather than taking it.  I want the pastor to give Christ's body and blood to me, rather than to take it from a paten or mini-cup holder.  I do not even want Christ's body placed in my hands.  I want no part of the taking, for then every doubt begins to assail me.  I want the external; I want someone else deciding that it is meet, right, and salutary that I, the wretched sinner, be gifted so.

I read—see—the latter as saying:  "You are God.  So, do Your job."  I read—see—the former as pleading for mercy, not demanding it.  Yes, I am probably a tad nuts in holding that stance.

But it is not altogether strange that I was bothered by the pronoun.  People are "who" and "whom;" objects/concepts/things are "that" and "which."  Always.  So, I had a certain sense of grammatical outrage that the editors of the hymnal would refer to Jesus as not a person, but as a thing!

However, last Tuesday, when my pastor came to talk with me, to hear my confession, and to bring me the good gifts of Christ, he used Divine Service Setting III, because he knows that I prefer it, that I savor the words and the Word in it.

There I was, laying in the GREEN chair, eyes affixed on the bread and the wine—as they were for much of the visit—singing the "Agnus Dei "when the reason for the pronoun "that" suddenly struck me.

Jesus the Lamb.
Jesus the sacrifice.
Jesus the substitute ... for me ... to take away my sin.

I wanted to ask the pastor to stop singing for a moment. I wanted to savor the reason, the purpose, the utter rightness of the pronoun. But, of course, I did not.  Though, in my head ... and my heart ... I was rejoicing.

Back in the days of being the teacher, the professor, the writing tutor, I would always tell my students that pronouns matter.  Teaching proper pronoun antecedent agreement is a key part of learning grammar.  Grammar is not only about proper writing, but about clarity of meaning.  As a part of making meaning, pronouns matter.

Here, oh, how it mattered!  To me.  For me.


Lord, I believe.  Help my unbelief!