Jonathan Edwards' overwhelming, smothering style in "Sinners in the Hand of God" makes a reader glad the puritans' zeitgeist has been eclipsed by a new time and a new spirit. Paragraph seven of his essay is actually one rambling sentence, never allowing the full breath of a period, but rather giving stunning fragments joined only by semi-colons and commas. As he assesses a reader, he never allows anything remotely resembling the benefit of the doubt, but rather badgers the reader with the handiest cutting, bone-chilling comparisons. Anyone familiar with his work would know, if made to choose, that one of his lines would be "you are ten-thousand times more abominable in his sight than the most hateful, venomous serpent is in ours..." rather than "never be content with the degree of goodness you have achieved for God is far better than anything you could ever fathom". The second phrase provides a mandate, a solid rule. The first is only a condemnation, provoking desperation in the revelation of a severely displeasing situation.

Edwards' technique is to use the most stunning metaphors, words, and examples to deluge a reader with feelings of guilt and hopelessness. Considering the audience he intended this for, this was probably quite effective. Puritans felt their godliness was so imperative, so all-consuming, they secluded themselves in small communities and ceased to take advantage of technological and economic advances beyond colonial times. Religious leaders like Edwards could drive a person to the point where he feels hopelessly doomed by his own sinfulness--lacking clear-cut reasons for this fate and devoid of salvation.

Edwards' imagery is certainly fitting. How many of us have not experienced the revulsion towards an insect that, if it still does not inspire us to toss it into a fire, certainly makes it easy to imagine such an action? Edwards uses such imagery mercilessly. His words and phrases, such as "dreadfully provoked", "loathsome", and "worthy of nothing else" are characteristic of his pessimistic view towards humans. His sentences are meticulously worded so that there can be no doubt of their incisiveness, their disgust at those who set their eyes upon them. If Edwards were a mudslinger on a politician's staff today, his boss would never lose.

Although Edwards proved his skill as a writer, and even a persuasive writer, with Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, today anyone set on arguing against him easily do so: Edwards has opted to push emotional buttons in his essay rather than state solid facts and reasons. Any godly old woman sitting in his church who has never read anything other than the bible would have been subjected to the same type of terrifying evaluation as an immoral drunkard, with nothing in Edwards' speech to reassure her that she is not entirely as bad as is possible--and nothing to prove that she is. Of course the Puritan zeitgeist allowed for the effective use of this style. Today, Edwards would be criticized effectively dozens who would jump at the opportunity.