Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

230
though in varying emphases.)
'Lloyd-Jones'+'Rahner lecturers' are more likely to
take the simpler approach. They feel that someone--i.e.,
God (or something--i.e., tradition) outside the preacher
determines for him the content of his preaching. As
already pointed out, these lecturers feel far greater
need "to help students see God as the ultimate source of
preaching" (as opposed to the other primary goal of
preaching education: "helping students to understand the
purpose of preaching"--table 41, survey question 8).
Also, these lecturers are more likely to say that
"Preaching must be true to God" (question 9). 'Making
preaching relevant to the congregation' takes lower
precedence (12,9).
In contrast, 'Stewart'+'Tillich lecturers' are more
likely to teach that, in order to preach effectively, the
preacher must select specific content which is relevant
to his congregation (table 41, survey questions 12,9).
When asked to choose between two essential priorities in
teaching preaching, they more likely choose "purpose"
(i.e., relevance to congregational need) over "God as
source" (8). Thus, they give greater precedence, in
determining sermon content (evaluating sermon
effectiveness), to those who receive preaching than to
the One (or the tradition) from whom preachers receive
preaching content.
It is also interesting to note that a greater
percentage of 'Stewart'+'Tillich lecturers' see the