Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

199
As stated above, chapter four proposes hypothetical
differences in the teaching of preaching between
'objective' and 'sublective' lecturers. (See above,
pages 164-66.)
The first set of these hypotheses deal with the
content of teaching.
'Objective' theologies tend to view
statements of theological truth in terms of
permanence. Therefore, lecturers of preaching
in 'oblective' 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 statements, as times
chancre, require revision. Following these
lines, the teaching of preaching in
'subjective' colleges should be more open to
Innovation. Seeing the potential change in
mindset from generation to aeneration, these
lecturers are more likely to see the need to
continually contemporize preaching content and
methodology in their teaching.
The information gleaned from the survey indicates at
least partial support for those hypotheses. "5 The
survey results speak to the stability of 'oblective'
preachina content (and, conversely, the flexibility of
'subjective' preaching content) more strongly than to
principles of preaching methodology. The relationship,
in terms of stability (or flexibility), between preaching
content and methodology may not be as strong as the
hypothesis states. Yet the evidence does not indicate
that 'objective' lecturers are particularly eager to