Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

204
"communication skills," than do their 'objective'
counterparts, while the hypotheses predict that
'subjective' lecturers would give greater priority to
these skills.
Chapter Four goes on to hypothesize other
differences in the teaching of preaching between
'objective' and 'subjective' settings. It points out
potential attitude differences between the two types of
lecturers. The 'objective' lecturer would be expected to
view himself as an 'authority', offering reliable
instruction to which his students should conform.
Conversely, the 'subjective' lecturer would view himself
as a 'guide', one seeking, along with his students, for
the best methods of presenting God's message to an ever
changing world. The latter would never proclaim one best
preaching style for all times and all preachers. Rather,
he would help each student to use individual abilities to
best advantage in reaching his congregation. (For a
fuller statement of these hypotheses, see page 165.)
Again, the survey offers support for these
hypotheses. Consider the following comparisons between
'objective' and 'subjective' responses.
Students learning to preach at 'objective' colleges
are more likely to preach their first sermons in
'contrived' settings. Survey responses (question 14,
table 19) tell us that a greater percentage of
'objective' lecturers require their students to preach in
an artificial classroom setting. Similarly, 'objective'