No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University / One of the most controversial theological subjects today is the doctrine of man. In this area, too, lies some of the sharp criticism of Protestant liberal thought. Hence there should be value in analysing some recognized liberal thinker's doctrine of man. Harry Emerson Fosdick was an especially well-known liberal preacher of the first half of the twentieth century. He received both great praise and severe negative criticism. While much has been written concerning his preaching methods, there has been little effort to analyse any of his theological doctrines. This dissertation has sought to make clear and to evaluate Fosdick's doctrine of man. An effort has also been made to discover what implications this doctrine has for Fosdick's type of liberalism. The method followed has been a careful reading of all Fosdick's work pertinent to any phase of the doctrine of man, supplemented by correspondence and personal interview with Fosdick himself. Fosdick is not a systematic theologian. He has not fully expounded any theological doctrine in any one place. Therefore, it was necessary to select different emphases from different works and to try to bring them together into a coherent whole. The resulting doctrine of man was then analysed for its liberal elements. These elements were compared with those found in concepts of liberalism expressed in the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr and Walter Marshall Horton. These two theologians hold widely differing views of what constitutes liberalism. The comparison between their concepts of liberalism and that revealed in Fosdick's doctrine of man served to clarify Fosdick's type of liberalism. The study established the fact that Fosdick's doctrine of man is fundamentally Christian, true to the emphases of the Bible and general Christian thought. Fosdick does not reveal the tendency, often found today, to over-emphasize one aspect of man's nature to the exclusion of others. He balances the idea of man's goodness with clear recognition of his sin; reason is important but revelation is primary; man is both free and limited; man is a spiritual being but the physical body is a necessary vehicle for its expression; eternal life, which is both present and future, is open to man. What man should be, as a total person, is seen in Christ, the revelation of both God and man. In insisting on the sacredness of personality Fosdick is true to the spirit of Jesus. Fosdick is clearly a liberal. He is not guilty, however, of the excesses of liberalism which gave rise to severe criticism. His liberalism has always been moderate and he has remained close to central Biblical affirmations. A critic himself of much early liberalism, he expressed neo-liberal ideas before the term "neo-liberal" came into existence. No adequate grasp of Fosdick's theology can be gained unless one reads all his work. Much of his theolo gical thought is expressed in writing other than his published sermons upon which many are prone to base their criticism. A thorough study of all his work shows that he deserves more recognition than he has received in theological circles. Appreciated as he has been for his important contribution to early liberal thought, he has not been recognized for his solid contribution to what is now often called neo-liberalism. In the advance guard of both the critics of early liberalism and the adherents of a new, more realistic, and soberly considered liberal viewpoint, he deserves consideration in modern thought.

This dissertation argues that in the heyday of radio, religious-radio preachers sought to use their programs to counter the secularization of American culture. Ultimately, however, their programs contributed to secularization by accelerating changes already evident in both the conservative and liberal streams of American Christianity. To reach a vast American audience, radio preachers transformed their sectarian messages into a religion more suitable to the masses, thereby altering the very religion it aimed to preserve. This was one of the unintended consequences of American religious radio. Chapter 2 argues that Harry Emerson Fosdick's ministry contributed to a movement away from Protestant orthodoxy. Radio played an important role in Fosdick's successful effort to blaze a new theological trail for the modern era. Chapter 3 shows that Aimee Semple McPherson's experiential religion had an ecumenical appeal that reached areas across the world. As one of the most celebrated Christian figures of the early twentieth century, McPherson's ministry helped make the American church more accepting of important aspects of secularization. Chapter 4 argues that Walter Maier's ministry encouraged millions of people to believe in a simple orthodoxy. The message he broadcast eschewed Lutheran particulars for the bold proclamation of the basic convictions shared by Christian fundamentalists generally. Chapter 5 argues that Charles Fuller's ministry contributed to the transformation of American religion by defining it primarily in terms of evangelism. His success uncovered a particular mood in America: one tired of the militant fundamentalism of the early decades of the century but not ready to abandon the fundamentals of the faith for theological liberalism. Chapter 6 considers religious radio against the backdrop of the emergence of television as the dominant communication medium in America and draws out implications for religion in the modern age of the Internet. To make religion accessible to large and diverse audiences, radio preachers accommodated their messages in ways suited to the medium of radio. Although religious-radio preachers set forth to advance the influence of religion in American society, their choice to limit theological substance ironically promoted the secularization of the American church.