Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

213
settings where the theology of one of the seven
preacher/theologians dominates (to the exclusion of the
others). (See p. 175-82.) A comparison of those
hypothetical statements with the actual teaching of
preaching at colleges where the preaching lecturer
identifies closely with one of those theologians proves
interesting, although not conclusive.
The survey responses frequently concur with the
hypotheses of how a theologian's system (if taken
exclusively) would affect the teaching of preaching. Two
facts help explain discrepancies between the hypotheses
and actual fact. First. as chapter four states, no ideal
setting exists where the thinking of any one theologian,
to the exclusion of all others, predominates. For
example. even colleges whose preaching lecturers identify
with Lloyd-Jones have been influenced by the thought of
Stewart, Barth, and many others. And, second, the survey
was not designed to test the hypotheses stated in the
last section of cha p ter four. The survey questions
sought to discover and potentially explain general
similarities and differences in the teaching of preaching
In various settings, not to document specific theological
or methodological characteristics in those settings.
Yet, I feel it worthwhile to offer the survey data's
limited verification of those hy potheses. Because of the
small number of lecturers who chose Barth, Bultmann, and
Fosdick, I limit my discussion to Lloyd-Jones, Stewart,
Tillich, and Rahner.