In "John Calvin on Mystical Union" (the third and final coursepack reading centered on Calvin), Dennis Tamburello's writing is replete with sentences like, "Calvin's understanding ... Calvin himself speaks of ... Calvin's conviction ... Calvin's own words on this point ... Calvin actually speaks of ... Calvin is referring here to ... Calvin is tireless in ... Calvin's rejection of... Calvin wishes to ... Calvin does not make much use of ... Calvin sees it as ... When Calvin brings up ... images used by Calvin in ... Calvin remarks ... It is clear that for Calvin ... Calvin does not characteristically speak explicitly of ... Calvin's tendency is to speak most often of ... Calvin's comment on ... Calvin does not forget that ... Calvin himself shuns ... Calvin would make such a distinction ... Calvin is not opposed to speaking of ... Calvin assigns different roles of ... Calvin's notion of ... Calvin's answer to ... Calvin recognizes a time when ... it is fair to say that for Calvin ... Calvin directly connects ... Calvin rejects any interpretation that...."

I don't care.

More accurately, I am weary of articles that seem written merely to clarify a minor point in an academic field such as "Calvin Studies." I am, for instance, interested in Calvin's theology on unio mystica only in as much as his writing encourages, strengthens, or clarifies experience in the present of unitivity -- which is why I'm glad, at least for now, that I am serving in a church (and not a classroom) and pursuing a Diploma in the Art of Spiritual -- and perhaps eventually a D.Min. (and not a Ph.D.). Theory is vital, but without application and practice, it its fruit withers on the vine. And arguably the best theology emerges out of actual church practice, not vice-versa.