Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

114
together, relatively close to the center. Each felt that
preaching should bring the hearers to both knowled ge and
decision. Knowledge without decision is fruitless;
decision without knowledge is baseless. We can
distinguish between the theologians, though, on the
priority each one gave to his side of the issue.
The distinctions between them, however, do not
always make for easy linear placement on the continuum.
For example, Rudolf Bultmann and Martyn Lloyd-Jones take
the positions to the right of the spectrum, but the
question of which encouraged greater call to decision in
preaching receives no simple answer. Harry Emerson
Fosdick and James Stewart's theologies g ive a similar
problem.
A strong argument can be made for placing Bultmann
closest to the ri ght on the continuum of purpose. Of the
seven, he most denigrates preachin g which only offers
truth for the intellect.
Christian preaching, in so far as it is
preaching of the Word of God by God's command
and in His name, does not offer a doctrine
which can be accepted either by reason or by a
sacrificium intellectus. Christian preaching
is kervqma, that is, a proclamation addressed
not to the theoretical reason, but to the
hearer as self.1
Of course, even Bultmannian preaching is not without
content. Preaching is "exposition of the [Biblical)
text," but that exposition "must lead to an existential
encounter with the text." 2 "Preaching is address, and
as address it demands answer, decision".