Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

164
dilemmas. Tillich could not, therefore, write a
book setting out the homiletical method.
Bultmann's theology of preaching centered on the
necessity of choice; each person must, when confronted
with the Gospel, accept or reject God's way. Similarly,
he wrote that man speaks of God (preaches) because he
'must'; he feels necessity laid upon him.72--5
Just as these theologians did, teachers of preaching
are likely to structure their teaching (thinking on
preaching practice) in a manner similar to the way in
which they structure their preaching (thinking on
preaching theology). If so, what hypotheses (based on
the broad differences between 'subjective' and
'objective' schools of theological thought) can be
suggested about the teaching of preaching?
In answer to that question, we first look to
teaching content.
'Objective' theologies tend to view statements of
theological truth in terms of permanence. Therefore,
lecturers of preaching in 'objective' colleges are likely
to see both theological statements and principles of
preaching practice as equally unchanging. They more
readily inculcate specific homiletical concepts. These
lecturers are also more likely to venerate preaching
models from the past.
'Subjective' theologies see statements of
theological truth as flexible. Although any period's
statements may be relevant for people of that time, those