筆者主張以浪漫主義的觀點詮釋布胥納的講道，將能更精確解 讀他的講道及神學中所呈現的不一致性。深受浪漫主義思潮的影響， 布胥納認為神學是「基督教經驗之系統表達」，強調宗教經驗對真實 信仰的重要性。以布胥納的理解，信仰絕非停止的狀態，乃是持續進 行的過程，他自己的靈性歷程也同樣反映出四階段的發展。因此，筆 者提出一個研究布胥納的講道之新方法，即將它置於此四階段的宗教 發展之架構下解讀：1802–1830、1831–1847、1848–1860， 及 1861– 1876。如此一來，它將精確指出布胥納的宗教經驗如何影響他的講道， 以及在靈性發展的歷程中，他的講道如何逐漸轉向福音佈道性的講道。 關於這後者，正是長期以來被學者們忽略的一項重要事實。 這種對布胥納的福音佈道性講道之新發現，將糾正兩個長期以來 關於布胥納的講道之錯誤看法：第一，由於布胥納早期對奮興主義的 嚴厲批判，許多人因而誤解他完全否定重生的必要性。第二，傳統將 布胥納與芬尼作為對照的二分法（基督教培育的講道 vs. 福音佈道性的 講道），也是對布胥納的講道之錯誤解讀。本研究將幫助當代講道學 者能更正確地瞭解布胥納所留給教會的講道遺產，並重新評估他在美 國講道歷史上的重要性。

Scholars of nineteenth-century American religion have long been interested in Horace Bushnell’s (1802–1876) critiques of revivalism. Based on these critiques, scholars have regularly juxtaposed the revivalist teaching that salvation comes through conversion over against Bushnell’s claim that a baptized and properly nurtured person should need no additional conversion. Consequently, Bushnell’s preaching has conventionally been described by scholars as “Christian nurture preaching,” in direct opposition to Charles Finney’s “evangelistic preaching.” However, in light of broader historical evidence the extreme contrast drawn between Bushnell and Finney must be called into question. It is clear that Bushnell’s views on revival started to change in the early 1850s. I argue that we have overemphasized the role of Christian nurture when interpreting Bushnell’s preaching and homiletical method, and because of this overemphasis, we have misunderstood Bushnell himself. Moreover, scholars have tended to accept the conventional, theological view of Bushnell’s preaching based on Bushnell’s theological publications without comparing them to what his sermons say. This neglect has allowed a major error in scholarship to go uncorrected. In this article, I claim that Bushnell’s homiletical work ought to be viewed in light of the intellectual and literary trend of Romanticism. In the style of Romantic sensibilities, Bushnell held that theology is “formulated Christian experience.” This claim becomes definitive in his theological and homiletical method; it asserts the centrality of Christian experience for genuine faith and sees faith as the beginning of theology. Just as Bushnell perceives faith not as an unchanging state but as an ongoing process, his own spiritual journey accordingly demonstrates a four-stage religious development toward a Christocentric experience. I therefore propose a more contextually sensitive approach to Bushnell’s preaching by looking at it within the frame of the four stages of religious development that Bushnell himself described in one of his letters: 1802– 1830, 1831–1847, 1848–1860, and 1861–1876. By examining Bushnell’s homiletical work in this way, this study sheds light on how Bushnell’s religious experience influenced his preaching and theology, and how that experience encouraged Bushnell’s gradual development specifically in evangelistic preaching — something that scholars have completely overlooked. This new understanding thus corrects two popular but wrong impressions about Bushnell and his preaching. Due to Bushnell’s sharp criticism of revivalism, many people have incorrectly concluded that Bushnell utterly denies the necessity of regeneration. Similarly, the conventional dualistic view that contrasts Bushnell with Finney also inaccurately represents Bushnell’s preaching. It is in identifying and appreciating Bushnell’s evangelistic preaching — something no established scholar in the field has yet done — that this study contributes most substantially to the field of homiletics. This study therefore helps contemporary homileticians more accurately recover Bushnell’s homiletical legacy and thus inspires a reevaluation of Bushnell’s place in the history of American preaching.