Thesis (S.T.D.)--Catholic University of America, 1941.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Ashland Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 284-294).

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 57-58).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 237-246).

Thesis (M.A.P.S.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [68]-69).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. "May 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 69-74).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. "May 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 69-74).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Baylor University, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 266-278).

The aim of this thesis is to examine advertising from the point of view of Christian ethics: how it works, what is wrong with it and how it might go right as a practice. It argues that much existing criticism of advertising is justified, but that its power to create desire might be turned towards serving the good of the education of desire, leading us towards, or strengthening, a love of God, and helping us relate to products and services based on this love. This is significant because learning to desire well is central to living a Christian life, and because advertising influences how many people desire today. In contrast to authors who simply criticise advertising, often as part of a general critique of consumer culture, this thesis offers a constructive and detailed examination of the practice itself, looking at how its techniques work and how they might be reformed into an 'art of advertising'. In making this argument the thesis draws primarily on Augustine, in addition to Plato, and modern critics of advertising. First, it describes desire, before examining how advertisements create desire, followed by an assessment of existing criticisms of this process. It then develops an account of the education of desire, identifying what an art of advertising should aim to achieve, before examining the techniques by which an advertisement might achieve this. The argument is intended to contribute to a project within Christian ethics of critiquing advertising, and presenting a workable ethical vision for the future of the industry.

At least from the time of Augustine, Christians have been reflecting on the question of moral conflicts. Since the mid-1960s this issue has become the center of attention for several scholars, including Norman L. Geisler, who developed ethical hierarchicalism in an attempt to resolve these conflicts. The question therefore arises: Is ethical hierarchicalism comprehensive, consistent, and biblically sound, and the only viable approach for Christians, as Geisler claims? Because Geisler is the most articulate and influential proponent of this strategy, his ethical method was selected for this research. To provide some framework, a brief survey was made of various methods relating to ethical dilemmas. In addition to observing the contrasting ways in which eminent early Christians, Reformation leaders, post-Reformation thinkers, and twentieth-century scholars have dealt with moral conflicts, this overview examined utilitarianism, situationism, non-conflicting absolutism, conflicting absolutism, hierarchicalism and the principle of double effect. Additional background traced Geisler's philosophical, theological, and ethical development over the years. Then, after outlining what Geisler considers the fundamental presuppositions of theistic morality and Christian ethics, hierarchicalism was delineated. Next, Geisler's moral methodology was critiqued, firstly against his own basic presuppositions, then by comparing contradictory concepts within hierarchicalism, and finally by contrasting his theories with those of other Christian thinkers, and with the biblical passages that Geisler uses. Following this, positive aspects of hierarchicalism were enumerated, a synopsis and recommendations made, and a final conclusion drafted. This study indicates that ethical hierarchicalism contradicts most of the essential characteristics of theistic morality and Christian ethics as specified by Geisler himself. careful research suggests that, while this theory holds to divinely-derived objective moral norms, it also embraces relativistic, utilitarian, situational, antinomian, and teleological components. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that hierarchicalism is based on falsely assumed responsibilities, inaccurately specified absolutes, naturalistic definitions, a descriptive approach to Scripture, a bifurcation in God's law, and subtle semantic strategies. Though hierarchicalism does grapple with difficult issues, emphasize personhood and individual responsibility, and offer relief from false guilt, this method of moral reasoning appears unacceptable for Christians since it is incoherent, inconsistent, self-contradictory, and unscriptural. / Theological Ethics / D.Th, (Theological Ethics)