An Analysis of the Effect of Contrasting Theologies of Preaching on the Teaching of Preaching in British Institutions of Higher Learning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF CONTRASTING THEOLOGIES OF PREACHING ON THE TEACHING OF PREACHING IN BRITISH INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING Philip Arthur Bence A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews 1988 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2769 This item is protected by original copyright This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF CONTRASTING THEOLOGIES OF PREACHING ON THE TEACHING OF PREACHING IN BRITISH INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING PHILIP ARTHUR BENCE ST. MARY'S COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS JANUARY 1989 This dissertation partially fulfills the requirements for completion of the degree, doctor of philosophy. ABSTRACT This study examines the efforts of British universities and colleges to educate students for the ministry of preaching. It evaluates the hypothesis that a preaching lecturer's theology significantly influences his teaching, both in its content and methodology. A summary and comparison of seven twentieth century theologies of preaching serves as the foundation for this study. The research considered each theology as presented by either its originator or a leading exponent: Harry Emerson Fosdick, Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, James Stewart, and Karl Rahner. Surveys completed by fifty-five lecturers in preaching provided the second primary focus of research. These surveys both described current practices in homiletical education and offered a means of dividina the lecturers into subgroups for purposes of comparing their teaching. In order to evaluate the primary hypothesis that theology exerts great influence on the teaching of preaching, the study compares the teaching practices of theological subgroupings of lecturers (each grouping matched with one of the theologians mentioned above). Likewise, it compares the teaching of other lecturer subaroupings formed on the basis of contrasting institutional and denominational settings. Institutional and denominational setting does affect the teaching of preaching, but, as hypothesized, not to the degree theology does. The manner in which a lecturer's theology determines his teaching is most noticeable in relation to three questions relating to teaching content: (1) From what source(s) should preachers seek preaching content? (2) On what basis should preachers select content from their source(s)? (3) Once the content has been determined, by what criteria should preachers prepare material for delivery? A comparison of contemporary preaching theologies (and the resultant contrasts in homiletical education) bespeak the rich breadth within the Western Christian tradition. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to offer my sincere thanks to: my advisor, Professor James Whyte, for his warm—hearted support and wise counsel. my wife, Kathy, for her critical mind and loving heart. D.W.D. Shaw, Principal of St. Mary's College; David Lyall, Lecturer in Practical Theology at St. Mary's College; and Clarence Bence, Academic Dean at Houghton College (USA) for their insightful ideas for improving the text of this study. everyone who. throughout my life, has helped develop my love for God and the preaching of his word. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO Seven Theologies of Preaching-- Considered Individually 12 I. Harry Emerson Fosdick 14 II. Rudolf Bultmann 25 III. Karl Barth 37 IV. Paul Tillich 49 V. James Stewart 61 VI. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones 70 VII. Karl Rahner 81 CHAPTER THREE Selected Issues in Preaching-- Seven Theologies Compared 92 I. Content--Atonement 93 II. Source--Inspiration 101 III. Setting--Consequences 107 IV. Purpose--Change in Hearer 113 V. Communication--Adaptability 120 VI. Sermon--Revelation 127 VII. Evaluation 134 A. Harry Emerson Fosdick 135 B. Rudolf Bultmann 136 C. Karl Barth 138 D. Paul Tillich 139 E. James Stewart 140 F. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones 141 G. Karl Rahner 143 H. Conclusion 144 CHAPTER FOUR Further Consideration of the Seven Theologies--Statement of Secondary Hvpotheses.146 I. A Consensus among the Theologies 146 II. 'Objective'/'Subjective' Groupings of Theologies 155 III. Hypotheses Based on 'Oblective'/ 'Subjective Groupings 162 IV. Hypotheses Relating to the Importance of the Teaching of Preaching in Academic Institutions 166 V. The Potential Effect of 'Objectivity/'Sublectivity' on Student Spiritual Development 173 VI. Hypotheses Relating to the Seven Individual Theologies 174 A. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones 175 B. James Stewart 177 C. Karl Barth 178 D. Rudolf Bultmann 179 E. Paul Tillich 179 F. Karl Rahner 180 G. Harry Emerson Fosdick 181 CHAPTER FIVE Analysis of the Survey Data 183 I. Overall Survey Response 183 II. 'Objective'/'Subjective' Lecturer Subgroup Responses 194 III. Theological Subgroup Responses 208 A. Individual Theological Subgroups... 212 1. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones 214 2. James Stewart 216 3. Paul Tillich 218 4. Karl Rahner 219 B. Pairs of Theological Subgroups 221 1. Lloyd-Jones+Stewart /// Rahner+ Tillich 222 2. Lloyd-Jones+Rahner /// Stewart+ Tillich 227 3. Lloyd-Jones+Tillich /// Stewart+ Rahner 232 IV. Institutional Subgroup Responses 238 V. Denominational Subgroup Responses 250 VI. Conclusion 264 CHAPTER SIX Further Consideration and Conclusion 265 I. Introduction 265 II. Comparison of Survey Responses to Theologians' Positions 267 A. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones 267 1. Sources 267 2. Selection of Material from Sources 269 3. Preparation and Delivery of Chosen Material 271 B. James Stewart 274 1. Sources 274 2. Selection of Material from Sources 276 3. Preparation and Delivery of Chosen Material 279 C. Karl Rahner 281 1. Sources 281 2. Selection of Material from Sources 283 3. Preparation and Delivery of Chosen Material 285 D. Paul Tillich 286 1. Sources 286 2. Selection of Material from Sources 290 3. Preparation and Delivery of Chosen Material 291 III. Reconsideration of the Three Questions 295 A. Sources 296 B. Selection of Material from Sources. 299 C. Preparation and Delivery of Chosen Material 302 D. Summary 306 IV. The Resultant Teaching of Preachina 306 V. Overall Conclusions 312 ENDNOTES CHAPTER ONE 315 CHAPTER TWO 316 I. Harry Emerson Fosdick 316 II. Rudolf Bultmann 319 III. Karl Barth 324 IV. Paul Tillich 328 V. James Stewart 332 VI. D. Martyn Lloyd—Jones 335 V. Karl Rahner 337 CHAPTER THREE 341 I. Content--Atonement 341 II. Source--Inspiration 343 III. Setting--Consequences 344 IV. Purpose--Change in Hearer 345 V. Communication--Adaptability 347 VI. Sermon--Revelation 348 VII. Evaluation 350 CHAPTER FOUR 353 CHAPTER FIVE 359 CHAPTER SIX 367 APPENDICES ONE 376 TWO 379 THREE 381 FOUR. 383 FIVE 391 SIX 392 BIBLIOGRAPHY 397 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION On any given Sunday in Great Britain, over 49,000 men and women'. preach God's Word to congregations with memberships totalling over 6.9 million persons. 2 These preaching events possess common features, but the differences among them remain vast. St. Andrews, the city in which I work, might be a typical community. A new student in town could taste the sermonic offerings in a wide variety of settings. Denominational affiliation, congregational size, and building architecture would vary among the Holy Trinity parish church, the Baptist Church, St. James Roman Catholic Church, the Gospel Hall, and others. But, even if, by some miracle of ecumenical cooperation, denominational labels could be dropped for a week, and all local pastors preached sermons in the same building to an equal mix of people from all religious backgrounds, there would still be an enormous difference between the Reverends MacGregor, Donaldson, Taylor, and McLeod. Some of the contrasts one could attribute to the accidents of nature: age, size, shape, and voice tone. But behind each of these incidental details lie real differences in preaching theology and practice. Many factors contribute to these differences. One such factor, the homiletic training preachers receive in college or university, forms the central focus of this study. Another critical influence would be the example of preaching models under whose ministry today's preachers have sat. But who taught the teachers? Who served as an example to the examples? The chain goes back, indeterminate in distance, to the beginning of human society. No single volume could hope to answer the broad questions the last paragraph raises. In order to suit the goals of this research project, I narrowed the questions significantly. Rather than all history, I propose an examination of contemporary teaching of preaching. Various organizations around the world prepare persons for preaching; I limit this study to Great Britain. And, within that narrower field, I closely examine only full-time (primarily residential) institutions of higher education. No one, at least within recent years, has undertaken a large-scale examination of education for preaching within British institutions of higher learning. Within this context, I set out to answer the questions: to what degree, and in what manner, does theology determine contemporary British teaching of preaching? This study evaluates this hypothesis: the theology a preaching lecturer holds (or, more generally, the theology generally accepted within an educational institution) determines more than other factors, that lecturer's (and institution's) teaching of preaching. In due course, this paper offers and evaluates other more specific hypotheses.