Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

226
the process of discovering and preaching truth. As
mentioned above, they see a greater need for
interdisciplinary input in education for preaching
(question 16.a.). Also, more 'Rahner'+'Tillich
lecturers' see the need, in their lectures, to discuss
the purpose of preaching (10:purpose), thus bringing
congregational factors into play. Fewer of them state
preaching content in simple terms of the "gospel," or the
"truth" (7:theological construct). These lecturers are
more reluctant to lecture on matters relating to methods
of sermon construction (10). This hesitance to state
princi p les of homiletics, which might simplify, for their
students, the task of preaching is also evidenced in the
fact that none of these lecturers require students to
prepare outlines of sermon content (14). They,
evidently, see little value in a mere outline which
offers no gauge to the quality of the complete sermon.
They, likewise, refuse to accept the simple hermeneutical
principle: "Keep the text in context" (12).
The only data lines where 'Rahner'+'Tillich
lecturers' responded in greater percentages are those
which, rather than simplifying preaching, add further
factors to sermon preparation. The questions of
"purpose" (10) and "modification" (7) raise a number of
congregational issues. The question of "other
theological disciplines" brings into play the complex
matters of systematic theology and church history.
But the most important contrast between these pairs