Philip Arthur Bence PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

237
division, it offers hypotheses which state the manner in
which lecturers in those groups teach preaching. As
described in section II above, those hypotheses have
proved useful and largely accurate. But far more
accurate and enlightening is the further subdivision of
the lecturers, using as the criterion for division the
individual theologian with whom they identify.
Some questions, however, remain.
One such question is the degree to which the survey
data, and conclusions drawn from that data (as presented
within the pairing scheme: tables 40-42 and the
discussions that follow), corresponds to the thought of
the theologians themselves.
We may find that the composite opinions the lecturer
croups state concur with those of the theologians whose
names are associated with those groups. Or, the
lecturers may have further developed, or stepped back
from, positions taken by the theologians. Chapter VI
discusses this question.
But, first, we consider two other questions. The
survey data demonstrates a correlation between a
lecturer's theology (as represented by the theologian
with whom he identifies) and the manner in which he
teaches preaching. A lecturer's theology does, at least
partially, determine his teaching in this field.
But, might not other more external factors also
influence the teaching of preaching? Having demonstrated