Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

208
'objective'/'subjective' distinction causes, or merely
reflects, the statistical differences. Might not
denominational factors partially control the teaching of
preaching? Also, differences in educational philosophy
between university settings and independent theological
colleges could play a large role in determining
instructional content and methods.
Again, the 'oblective'rsubjective' distinction does
not allow for differences within either of the two
categories. For example, though Karl Rahner and Paul
Tillich fell close to each other on chapter four's
'oblective'Psublective' composite continuum. chapter
three pointed out disagreements between their theologies.
Could there not be equally important differences between
a Rahnerian and a Tillichian style teaching of preaching?
In order to understand more precisely the variations
in homiletical instruction, we need to consider these
questions.
III. Theological Subgroup Responses
A more accurate presentation of the survey data
comes when we divide the lecturers into seven groups
whose membership is determined by the lecturers'
selection of the preacher/theologian with whom they
identify. This enables a direct comparison of the
composite responses within each of those subgroups.
Unfortunately, the small number of lecturers who chose
three of the theologians does not lend itself well to a