University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Harry Emerson Fosdick and his impact on liberalism in religion in the United States

(USC Thesis Other)

Harry Emerson Fosdick and his impact on liberalism in religion in the United States

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK AND HIS IMPACT
ON LIBERALISM IN RELIGION
IN THE UNI'tED STATES
by
Robert Hardwick Firth
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment ot the
Requirement tor the Deg~ee
MASTER OF ARTS
(Religion)
June 1957
'I
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ADUATE SCHOOL
U IVERSITY PAR!<
LOS A GELES 7
TI i .;· t lz es i · , r i I I e 11
l
•
•
u, d "r .h gnidr11zrt of hJ.JJ ___ F(lclllty Con11nitte
(llld apjJ:-ured by all it. 1nen1ber., has been pre
s e 1 t e d ;' rJ on d o cc e pl e d h y I he J /1t cu
I
t y of I he
Cr '(!rl1 tt le /._ ch o! in part;ol [11///lln1 cnl rJ/ tlu
'f(JUire n1 cnts fo · tlze d"!Jree of
;...I., . .... - ... - - -
J) an
Dat e. . . .
1
Faculty Co111mittc '
)
/
,
.. , ........ .
Chairman
. I
-
... (t.~~---"-- ............ -~~~~--::- .~ ...... <-/ .. --'t.-
_,.,_
t
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
P AGE
0
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ~
• • • • • • • • • •
1
II. BIOGRAPHY OF
HARRY EMERSON l4'0SDICK •
• • • • •
6
III. BACKGROUND OF
T HE FUNDAMENTALIST- M ODERNIST
CONTROVERSY
• • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • •
34
IV• THE FUNDAMENTALIST ATTACK OF
1922- 1925
• • • •
53
v.
THE THEOLOGY
OF HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK
• • • •
71
VI. CONCLUSION
• • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
96
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
• • • • • • •
• •
• • • •
•
•
•
• • •
103
)
u
0
CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
For many years Harry Emerson Foadiok has been
acknowledged by numbers of Protestant ministers to be the
leader of liberal pr achers in the United States. His
clarity or mind, brilliance o iting and deep conviction
regardin liberal Christianity have brought inspiration to
millions of religious people throughout the world. His
books have sold in the millions of copies and have been
reprinted in many foreign languages. His shortwave radio
broadcasts have been beamed around the globe. For several
decades, in countless pulpits all over the United States,
ministers quoted what Dr. Fosdick had said on bi latest
radio program or had written in his most recent book or
sermon.
The problem this writer set tor himself as to
discover what made Harry Emerson Fosdick the vital source
or liberal religious beliefs that he was. The questions
asked by this writer er: What problem.a did he have to
face in his ministry? What ere the underlying reasons
for the fundamentalist attack on him--in the 1920's
especially? What was Dr. Fosdick
1
s attitude on various
social problems ? Hor did Dr. Fosdiek
1
s theological
beliefs become the basis tor attacks from both the
2
humanists and tne fundamentalists? Wnat were some of his
bel e on salient Christian 1deas? Di Dr. Fosdick
change to a more conservative v ewpo1nt in his later
years? ttow did the neo-orthodox reaction affect his type
of religious liberalism?
Dr. Fosdick's sermons and writings have influenced
the thinking or American liberals in religion, especially
between the t wo world wars. He haa led the vanguard or
those ho rescued religion from the rigid, authoritarian
dogmas of some rotestant fundamentalist w and has
inspired countless tnousanda to think about their own
religion. In 1935 he warned of the excesses of identify ing r ligion with the intellectual climate of the secular
world. lie called for religious liberals to stand apart
and challenge modern culture. With this shift of emphasis
he led the ne liberal movement forwarai not to le ve he
tneistic position as some religious extremists did, nor to
join the ne -or hodox groups who were to emphasize the
transcendence of God and the relative impotence of man.
Dr. Fosdic~ believed that within the liberal
tradition of ~rotestant iam there was room for wide range
of interpretation. He has tried to retain the sub active
experiences of the religious life ~~th the transcendent
idea of a "seeking" God.
Dr. Fosdick has cited three tests for liberals of
the type he represents. First, he says, the religious
3
liberal has come into his n w t itud s through deepen-
i ng of his spiritual life. Second, the liberal plac s his
emph.asis on positiv convictions rath r than on n gative
deni la . mhird, h concludes, the ffective Christian
l iberal is in e rnest bout stablishing ~od's will in
this world.
1
Thi wi--iter, th n, will use the t rm "liberal" in
Dr. Fos ick s s ns of religious theism which is vital,
gr owing, changing--liberalism of a sort t t does not
ace pt religion on dogmatic authority by its 1 . it is
,:;he kind of f 1th tl1at finds God in the proc sses of th
orld of nature, and in man's own experiences .
At the op osit end of th th olo c 1 xis tha is
re resented by Dr. Fcsdick is fun ent li
•
hile th
system of orthodox rel ion · ot its mom um from h
publication of Th Fund s i sued n 1910 and ter,
i t became the label for the reactionary conse v t rs
when used later by Dr. c. c. Laws, ed tor of th B ptist
W atchman-Examiner. In this cons rv tiv, unoffici 1
or gan of the Baptists, he termed the "fund mentalists"
t os who "mean to do battle royal for the fun mentals"
of the Christian faith. From the appearance of th.at
statement in the July 1, 1920, issue of the magazin the
1
Harry Emerson Fosdick, Adventurous Reli~ion
(New York: H rper and Brothers, 1926), pp. 233- 8.
4
term came to take on a more significant meaning.
Fundamentalists, who have been on the defensive
for many years, have often had a negative view of the
Christian religion to proclaim. Some have reacted quite
belligerently to opposing viewpoints at times and many
exponents of this group have been called "fighting funda
mentalists.' It was against this conoept of religion that
Dr. Fosdick found himself called to protest. His famous
sermon of 1922, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" was a
plea for tolerance, but it was accepted by some reaction
aries as a c allenge to a fight instead.
This paper saeka to show the climate oft ought
and theolo ic 1 opinions into which Dr. Fosdick brought
his genial, persuasive and tol rant per~onality. The
following chapters revi w:
1 .
2.
Dr. Fosdick's life , with particular emphasis
on hls professional career~
A brief review of the modernist-fundamentalist
controversy from the latter part of the
nineteenth century to abou 1920.
A det iled study of Dr. Foadick's position in
regard to the fundamentalist controversy in
t e resbyterian Church durtng the early
1920
1
s.
A study of some of Dr. Fosdick•s theological
opinions and attacks made upon them.
Concluding statements raga di1g the impact of
Dr. Fosdick upon liberal ~eligion in the
Uni tet·: States .
Stewart G. Cole predicted that tho student of
fundamentalism in religion would have d~ .. fficulty in
tracing many of the publications issued by the forces
5
of conservatism.2 Many of th magazines, tracts and
books of earlier days hav disappeared. Howev , ther
are many books available representing th fundamentalist
vi ws of such men as J. Gresham Machen, Augustus Strong,
llilbur M . Smith and the younger fundament lists, including
Edward J . Carnell and Carl F. H. Henry.
This writer has utiliz d original sources wher ver
possible . Dr. Fosdick very kindly loaned three ch pters
of his recently published autobiography while they were
in manuscript form and also answered several questions
this writer h d asked in correspondence. In many cases
it was necessary to pursue problems through the pages
of journals such as The Literary Diges~, Time and The
Christian C ntury.
2
stewart G. Cole, Th T istori of Fundament lism
(N w York: Richarn R. Smith, Inc., 19Jl), p. x 11.
•
•
•
•
CHAPTER II
BIOGRAPHY OF HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK
This chapter deals with the 111'e of Harry Emerson
Fosdick and seeks to show those influences that caused
him to rise to his prominent position in the field of
religion. it surveys rapidly his personal and profes
sional 1 e from childhood through college and seminary
up to his place as unofficial spokesman for the liberal
cause 1n relig o in the 1ited States. Salient points
in his career are discussed. These include his call to
tne R_veraide Church of New York City, his radio and
pulpit preaching , lecturing, his views on pao1f1am and
nis general leadership ot progressive forces of the
Protestant churches . A full exploration of his relation
ship to tne ft1ndamentalist controversy is reserved for a
later chapter .
This writer has used Dr. Fosd1ck
1
a own recently
published autobiography, The Living of These Days, and
his oont ibut ion to Finkelstein' a Amer le an Spir 1 tual
!~tobiographies, plus many otner books ~ ~ magazine
articl s . A television program in which Dr. Fosdick
discussed various aspects of h1s lti'e was extr~mely
helpful . Tnese sources will be found either in the
footnotes or tha bibliography, or 1n bot.n. t is noped
•
•
that th s shor survey of important events n Dr.
Fosdick's life will aid in understanding the total view
of r ligion and his part in it.
Harry Emerson Fosdick was born in Buffalo, ew
York, on May 24, 1878. He was the oldest o~ three
children. Raymond and Edith, twins, were born to the
Fosd ck f mily on Jun 9, 1883, which is the earli st
memory Dr. Fosdick says he has.
1
His f ther, Frank
Sheldon Fosdick, born in Buf'falo on March 11, 1851, was
7
a school teacher and administrator there for fifty-rour
years, until 1926. Harry
1
s mother, Amy Inez Fosdick, was
born in Westfi ld, New York, Septemb~~ 4, 1852. Both his
g andfather and grandmother had been teachers and with
this family background in education it seems only natural
that Harry's life should reflect that exploratory,
searching attitude associated with scholarship.
Dr. Fosdick has said that to firrl one's place in
life and to do one's work well was taken for granted in
his household.
2
His brother, Raymond, rose to a position
of prominence as an international lawyer and later was
lHarry Emerson Fosdick, The Livi~ of These Days
(New York: Har ~rand Brothers, 1956), p. TI).
' ">
~Louis Fink lstein (ed.), American S£ir1tual
Autobiographies (New York: Harper and B1~otners, 1948),
pp. 106-07.
'I
ma.de the president of Tne Rocker ller Foundat on. Edith
nad a venturesome career as a teacher 1n colleges from
Gree e to Japan.
Harry Fosdick had the good fortune to gr up in a
family here individual rights and. liberties ere well
respected. lt as in the growing years of a close family
group that his loyalty to the ideal of fraedom or thought
8
as nurtured. Harry was precocious as a child, however,
and he relates that e made public profession of his faith
at the tender age of seven, despite his mother's fears
that he was too young.3
In a filmed television interview released over the
program "omnibus," Dr. Fosdick related some of the things
he had done as a small boy in the town of Lancaster, a
suburb of Buffalo. Like other typica boys he had
indulged :lll pranks that today might be considered more
serious, in our age of concern over j~ven1le delinquency.
For example, he had assisted h1a "gang" in removing the
clapper of the bell in the Methodist church steeple, and
spent several anxious days with it hidden under his bed.4
3rb1d., P• lob.
4columbia Broadcasting System Television, October
2. 5, 1955
9
Rural America before the tur of the century had
to invent its own entertainmen, and Dr. Fosdick nas
stated nis belief that even without tne formal recreation
programs we know today, he and his friends had a grand
time growi ng up "roaming the woods, fishing the streams,
building shanties by the brookside."5
Despite the meagre salary his father had, or the
illness of his mother which broke up the f amily for a
while, n has said that there was a "fierce tribal
loyalty" in the family. His parents managed to scrape
up enough to give t.be children what tney needed. ore
than that, Frank and Amy Fosdick gave the family an
ecumenical viewpoint towards Christianity early in life.
1hey were Baptists, but in the town where he grew up
there was no Baptist church, and Harry was brought up
mainly in a ~resbyterian Sunday Schoo and a Methodist
Young feople's eating. Dr. Fosdick has said:
It was never tne peculiarities of any sect that
either appeal ed to me or repelled me, but tne
gene r al problem of the Christian church witn its
mingled wisdom and obscurantism, reality and
convent onality, intelligent faith and irrational
credulity.6
After graduation from Central H1gh Scnool, Buffalo,
5tt iversid e Church,~ f l.me, XV I lOctober 6, 1930),
P• 72.
6F1 elate
cit., PP• 107-08.
10
Harry Fosdick went on to Co gate University. It was
there that his questioning mind aw ke to doubt, despite
his early boyish enthusiasm for religion.
The upheaval in nis mind shook his religious
convictions to the core, and the struggle for an intelli
gent, reasonable faith had a marked effect on his life.
lie has stated that the struggle was not primarily moral,
but centered around the current Bibliolatry, the battle
between science and anti-!c1entif1c categories in which
Christian truth was commonly presented. At the beginning
of his junior year in college ne told his mother he was
going to continue living as though there were a God, but
1n his thinking he was going to clear God out of the
universe and start all over to see what he could find.
Hia later lectures were often upon the problems he dealt
with in his youtn.7
Harry Fosdick was by nature religious and he
wanted to stay religious despite the situation he saw
in the churcnes. lie fought his way intellectually to a
position which was consistent with his lmowledge of
science and the worla, yet he retained a deep spiritual
reservoir to draw upon and from which to give help to
11
others. Graduatin from Colgate Un varsity with an A.B.
degree in 1900 at tne hea of nis cla , he ent to
Colgate Theological Seminary for a year. Here ne studied
under the great religious l1ber,al or that time, Dr.
William Newton ~1arke. Answering questions about his
teacher, Dr. Fosdick told this writer:
'rhe professor who influenced me most was Dr.
William Newton Clarke, who was teaching at tne
Colgate Tneological ~eminary at ttamilton, aw York,
before the seminary was combined with the one at
Rochester. If you can get Dr. Clarke's tnen famous
book, An Outline of Christian Theology:, you will sea
the sort of thing~hat he taught us. l suspect that
1 should not have gone into the ministry if it had
not been for his than liberal point of view.tl
When the old theology was cla~ning with the new,
and tne strug le brought forth bitterness on both sides,
"D~. ClarKe stood as tne proof to us that it was possible
to be a Christian and reasonable, a disciple and a modern
man, at once devout and intelligant ."lJ Dr. Fosdick
believes t.nat many men were attracte to the ministry
because of the liberal viewpoint of Dr. C arke, when
reactionary forces in the churches would have forced
tnem to find some otl1er outlet f'or the 1r desire to .._ rva .
Harry Emer on F osdic won a s cholarahip to Union
Theological em1nary in New York for hi last t. a rs
~Harry h1tl rson Fosdi k personal latter, ovember
8, 1955.
~William ewton Clarke: A Biography (New Iork;
Carles r bner's ons, 1916J,-p. 118~
•
12
of ministe ial training. The first year as extremely
hard for him physica ly and financially. He did not
kno hether to teach or to preach, but circumstances
ere putting him in a preaching position where life was
real. He was conducting a mission at Mariners' Temple
at Olive and Henry Streets, just off the Bowery. During
this time he as studying theology at Union and going to
Columbia University for a course.in philosophy.
10
Again we can see a contributing factor to his
later depth of insight in his work in the Bowery. He
held as many as nine services in the boarding houses of
t hat area in a single Sunday. He met all kinds and types
of persons. He learned at first-hand about sin and
failure . Human derelicts ere his first audiences and
they were critical ones for a young preacher just meeting
life in the raw for the first time. It was here that he
began to realize that religion had to have more than
intellectual respectability to have power.
On the threshold of a great career he suffered a
nervous breakdown during his first year at Union and did
no work for a year. The strain of over-work had sapped
the great nervous reserve he had and he collapsed.
1
~osdick, The Living or These Days, p. 70.
13
There wer periods or deep despondency. After a year or
e~otional depletion h rallied and finally was able to
enjoy a full nigbt•s Blee . 11
Gradually Harry Fosdick pulled hims lf out or this
slough or depression and found the meaning or prayer
through these perscnal problems . The result was a much
de p ned religious faith.
These trials wer alo ly put behind him and he
found ne courage to serve peo le. His last year at
Union as climaxed by ordination as a Baptist clergyman
and graduation with a B. D. degree summa cum laude . The
next summer he married Florence Allen Whitney. In the
next few years to daughters were born to this union,
Elinor and Dorothy.
Harry Fosdick stepped into the pulpit of the First
Baptist Church of Montclair , New Jersey, and held this
pastorate for eleven years . While serving this church,
he deepened his insight into the field of labor relations
aid obtained an M . A. degree in economics and sociology at
Columbia University in 1908. He as to put this back
ground to real use when he covered the Lawrence textile
strike in 1912 for the outlook magazine. Shocked by what
he observed, he as spurred on to kno more about our
economic lire and the problems it presented to people .
11
Ibid., PP• 72-74•
14
This cone rn for men and women and their real problems
brought some protests from certain members of the con
gregation. He had been too outspoken in his "new
theology" with its pointed reference to social conditions.
Offering to resign if his views were not accepted, the
church refused to accept the resignation and he was not
bothered again. "if they had complained of the quality
ot m.y sermons,' Fos di ck said, "they would have been
rightl nl
2
Dr • .1:t
1
osdick began to have a wide audience early
in his ministry when he started writing for national
magazines . tte attacked the type of rel igious attitude
whicn stopped any possibility for a re-thinking of basic
beliefs . In the Atlantic Mont nlz of · necember, 1911, he
saia, in part:
The pleasantly human and ingenious custom of
theology, as of all other organized systems of
thou ht , nasal eys been to kick a new trut h
around tha block- the welcome it as a long- lost
brotner.13
Dr. Fosdick was to have even more success in n1s
ministry and ne was called back to Union heo l ogi cal
Seminary four years after graduation to an instructorship
in homiletics , wtile nold1ng down the pastorate of the
12
James c. Gordon, "une Heaven of a allow,"
Coronet, XX 11 {Decem er , 1947) , P• 37.
1
3.Harry Emerson osdick, "Heckling the C hurch,"
'l'he At antic ontnlz , cv· I . l ece~ .. ber, 1911) , P• 737.
5
ontclair church. He a anted to teacn and to preach,
and he had his opportunity, as ne to d this writer:
When · n 1915 I as called to a full professorship
in Practical Theology, I ace pted. ln my early
theological 11 e I never quite kne whether ·
wanted more to teach or to preach, and the con
sequence nas been that 1 have done both.14
Aa Morris K. Jesup ~rofessor of the English Bible,
he taught dur n the weeks and spent the weekends lec
t1r1ng and preacning at colleges and churches.
hen World War 1 came, Dr. Fosdick was able to go
to Europe and speak th.rou hout Great Britain under the
auspices o the British Ministry of n ormation. In
France he spoke to American troops for the Young Men
1
s
Christian Asaocia t1on. Dr. r
1
osdick actively supported
United States intervention 1n tne war at tnat time.
He wrote a book on The Cl1allenge of tne ¥resent Cris ia
which was published in 1~17 and sold over two hundred
tnousand copies. The profits from this book ent to
wortny public causes. Ha has stated in his autobiography:
"It is the only book I ever \Trote that 1 wisn had not
been written."
15
While he granted tnat much of tne book
w~s fair to opposing views and that it was an attempt to
l4posdick personal letter.
1
~osdick, The Living of These Days, pp. 120-21.
16
remain as Christian as possible even while dedicating
the Christian gospel to support of the war, he now
repudiates the main objective of the book hich was the
defense of ar.
On of the grave problem.a Dr. Fosdick saw in ar
time France was the utter irrelevance of petty, sectarian
divisions of the churches back home which stopped them
in their attempt to speak to the world in its agony.
The Atlantic Monthlz published an article b~ him in which
he attacked this situation. He did this so well that he
was assailed from evecy side, not entirely by funda
mentalists alone, but also by his liberal friends.
Despite warm support by many, Fosdick was taken to task
by the religious press. He had simply said that the
armed forces ere a cross section of America, that they
were basically religious, but that in the grim business
of war he had round that their views on Christian hurchea
were a scathing commentary on the average run of American
religious institutions.
16
ln January, 1919, Dr. Fosdick was invited by the
First Presbyterian Church of New York City to be its
"Gu st Preacher," even though ha as not a member of that
16
Harry Emerson Fosdick, "The Tr nches and the
Church at Home," ThE! Atlantic Monthly, CXIII {January,
1919), PP• 22-23.
church. lt was to be an advent~a in ecumenicity.
Things went ell for a few s1ort years until the church
became involved i n the glare of national publicity as
the fundamentalists of several denominat1ons sought to
silence Dr . Fosdick. The church supported him to the
end, but that story is told in another chapter.
n the summer of 1921, Dr . Fosdick went to the
Orient under the aus pices of the Young Men's Christian
Association and addressed missionary conrerences in
Japan and China. He came back to the United States
to tell of the divisive influence the representatives
of fundamentalist groups were having there . The Bible
Union of China was causing untold confusion in the
ranks of missionaries. l t was here that Fosdick saw at
first-hand the full intensity of 1undamentaliam in
control .
During the next few months at the First Church,
D . F osdick preached sermons designed to awaken tne
American church-going public to the dangers presented
by the fundamentalist ract ons. He tried to make more
vital the role or the church in carrying out the social
service impl ications of the Gospel it proclaimed. ~his
Jed him i nto hea -on collision with powerful forces
17
in tne ~resbyterian Church in the Un ted States, as well
as in other denominations. When h e preached the sermon
18
"Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" in 1922, hoping to
temper the rising irritations of both fUndamentalist and
liberal churchmen, his remarks were taken by some to be
a challenge. After several more months of prolonged
activity by some fundamentali~ts attempting to oust him
from his position in the First Presbyterian Church, he
turned down an invitation to .join the ministry of that
denomination. Al though the attacks came from out ide
of First Church, he felt he should resign rather then go
against his conscience in signing the WeEtminster Con
fession. He enjoyed his position at First Church and had
no qualms about uni ting wi tb. a church of another denomi
nation than his own, but felt that he could not lend his
endorsement to the creed as required.
Upon his resignation as preacher or First Church,
he was granted a sabbatical leave from Union Theological
Semi.nary and made a tour of Europe and the Near East with
his family.
Before Dr. Fosdick and his family left the United
States he had been approached by Jo.bn D. Rockefeller, Jr.,
and asked whether, in view of the imminent retirement of
Dr. Cornelius Woelfkin, he would accept the pastorate of
the Park Avenue Baptist Church it the call was extended.
Dr. Fosdick has related the story of the interview
very amusingly, expla.inin that he told Rockefeller that
l
he could not accept because of several reasons. Baptism
19
by immers on was required for full member ship and while
the ~ark Avenue Baptis t Church was brand new, it was
still too small. He also feared that people might feel
that he was accepting a position as chaplain to many
wealthy people, and while he admired Rockefeller, he
felt he could not accept. Rockefeller's remark helped
Dr. Fosdick accept tne offer when he said : "I like your
frankness, but do you think that more people will criti
cize you on account of my ~ealth, than will criticize
me on account of your theology?"
1
7
The church agreed to discontinue insisting on
immersion for full membership but would grant membership
to all Christians on an equal basis. The congregation
also agreed to build a plant in a less swank neighborhood
in order to render more effective community service.
The terms worked out by the official board of the church
and Dr. Fosdick were accepted by t he congregation and
he was appointed the new pastor. In addition to his
work at the church, it was agreed that Dr. Fosdick could
continue his teaching at Union and a salary or no more
than five thousand dollars was established. Other
ministers were call ed to assist Dr. Fosdick in his work.18
l7Fosdick, The Living fl!. These ~azs, PP• 177-78•
18
Ib1d., PP• 181-~2.
20
There were to be many difficulties in organizirig
a new church and building on a new location. During
the time of transition from the hectic years of the
heresy trial in the Presbyterian denomination and the
entry into the new Riverside Church, Dr. Fosdick began
his radio preaching. He was heard far and wide as more
stations were added. Beginning with the first years of
network broadcasting, he gave up his broadcasting only
when he retired from Riverside Church. There was an
active broadcast period of eight months of each year, and
an average of one hundred thousand individual requests
for copies of his sermons.19
With the new church in the process of building,
a disastrous million-dollar fire broke out on the
evening of December 21, 1928. The cause was believed
to be the electrical wiring. The wooden scaffolding
throughout the interior caught fire quickly and swept
throughout the auditorium, resulting in an extra year
of waiting. The church was to cost more than five
million dollars before it was completea.20
19Edgar DeWitt Jones, The RoJalty of the Pulpit
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 195 ), pp:;-39b-97.
20
John H. Preston, "Dr. Fosdick' s New Church,"
World's Work, LVIII (July, 1929), pp. 56-58.
..•
0
The twenty-two story- building nouses lassrooms
ror all sorts of activity, trom the care of infants to
recreation and study tor elderly people. Remarkable
art work, including sculpture in wood and stone, makes
it an attraction to visitors.
21
Part of Dr. Foadick
1
s influence on religion in
the United States was due to the strategic location of
the Riverside Church. Thousands of students attending
Columbia University, and other nearb1 colleges, were
able to attend his services on Sundays or hear some or
his mid-week lectures. His broadcasts were beamed all
over the English-speaking world from the tower of this
church and extended the liberal view to all who would
listen.
Despite the imm~nse wealth or some members of the
churcn, Dr. Fosdick was more concerned with getting at
average people with common problems, making available
to them all the possible services of a great organization.
Tne expenditures made 1n building this skyscraper church
during the depression years could be justified only
if the church made a definite contribution to the moral.
8mot1onal and physical needs or all who would come,
Dr. Fosdick believed. To that end the church offered
everything from physical recreation to assistance trom
psychiatrists and the inspiration and solace or religion.
The Christian C ntu;ry commented on th opening
s ervices at the Riverside Church by saying that Dr.
Fosdick deserved er dit for not showing any signs or
we ken1ng in his proclamation of the social a pect or
22
the gospel. In fairness to Mr Rockefeller, they com
plimented hjm by saying that "there is no rich man in
America who would be so slow to imped the liberty of a
preach r." This eading Protestant journal asked that
all religious people back Dr. Fos ick and the Riversid Church and give him support in his effort to take the
message of religion to the "questioning, individualistic •
i ndifferent and religiously 1rresponsive population
concentrated around Columbia University.n21
The new church building was finally occupied on
October 5, 1930. and was dedicated February 8, 1931.
For this crowning day, Dr. Fosdick wrote the great words
to that beautiful hynn1, "God or Grace and God of Glory . n22
As his responsibilities increaa d tremendou~ly ,
Dr. Fosdick resigned his Chair in English Bible at Union
Theologica Seminary in 1934. He continued to off r
courses in Homiletics as an adjunct professor, in
21
"nr. Fosdick Accepts the Chall nge," Th
Christian Centucy, XLVII lOctober 15, 1930), PP• 1239-4]..
22
Fosd1ck, The Living of These Day, P• 193.
23
ddition to wr i t ing boos and lecturing. His famous
book,! Guid t o Underst anding t he Bible, was an embodi
ment of l ee urea given at t he Riverside Church.
2
3
With the approaching shadow of war, Dr. Fosdick
increased his em pha sis on the need f or Christian concern
in preventing another global catastrophe. He broke
com l etely with any religious sponsorship or war, and in
a f a mou s sermon, "The U nlmown Soldier," h renounced the
p rt he had t aken in Worl d War I n rallying s oldiers to
fight . H e said, in part: "I renounce war and never
again, directl y or i ndirectly will I sanction or
suppor t another'"24
Harry Emerson Fosdick was one of the first church
men i n the United State s to recognize the anti-Chris t ian
make -up of t he N azi m ovement in Germany, and in several
actions t hrou.. ghout the 1930's he made his protest known.
He attacked the anti-Semitic campaign of Adolph Hitler
which was sending a flood of re£ugees t o the United
Stats . Prote st s were made to the United States govern
ment by the N az i s in connection with a film being shown
23Harr y Emerson Fosdick, A Guide to Understand1f!8
the Bi ble (New YorJ,:: Harper and Brothers-;-1938).
2
4Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Secret of Victorious
Living ( New York: Harper and Brothers, 19341, p. 98.
24
at Riverside Church relating to the plight of Je ish and
Christian refuge s.25
Dr. Fosdick was activ in the protest against ar
and he as activ ly against the Roos velt administr tion
here it concerned detense policies. He generally
approved the social eltare policies of the New Deal,
ho ever. He stated that he was not a socialist, but
believed that thing once done by individuals could best
be done by the community in many oases. He believed that
the conti uance of free nterpris lay in the amazing
capacity of capitalism to chang its old methods to meet
the demands of new times.
While approving "free enterprise," Dr Fosdick
applauded President Franklin D. Roose elt
1
s concern tor
l wa regulating wages and maximum hours, old-age and
unemployment insurance, reducing tarm tenancy, ending
of child labor, breaking up of monopolies, flood control,
soil conservat1on, protection or public lands, and many
other actions designed to make the government work for
all the people.
26
2
5The Chr st1an C ntucy, LIV, April 28, 1937,
PP• 540-4!.
2
6Fosd1ck, The Living ot These Days, PP• 275-77•
,
-
25
With the i ncreasing tensions resulting from a
threatening war , the theological world reflected the
chastened optimism with man and his works. It was
startling, however , when Dr. Fosdick preached what many
thought was a reversal of his s ocial gospel and came out
with a sermon, "The Church Must Go Beyond Modernism.n
2
7
While this was actuall y not a new philosophy tor
Dr. Fosdick, many thought he had renounced liberalism 1n
religion. He had , however, been proclairn:tng a "middle
of-the-road" pol icy in r eligion for many years, but now
felt impelled to c al l for a reawakening to the ins'llf
ticiency of modernism alone.
Dr. Fosdi ck believed that the Church had to go as
tar as mcdernism, but because of t he e s sential nat ure of
modernism it was r equired t o adapt, t o adjust and t o
accommodate the Christian faith to contemporary scientific
thinkj.ng. Herein, thought Dr. Fosdick, was modernism
1
s
shallowness and transiency. Coming out ot an intellectual
crisis , modernism t ook a particular type of scientific
thinking as standard, w hich forever col ored its viewpoint.
He listed four points in w hi ch he believed modernism fell
short.
Dr. Fosdick bel i eved that modernism had been
2
7Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Beyond Modernlsm," The
Christian C entury, LII (December 4. 1935), PP• 1549-~
JI
.... - . ...
.,
2
excessively preoccupied with intellectualism to the
exclusion of tl1e deepest experiences of life. econdly,
modernism had been dangerously sentimental, by which he
meant that it had an illusory belief in inevitable
progress. In the third plac, ha believed modernism
had watered down and thinned out the basic affirmation
or religion, which is the reality of God. While not
saying that modernists were atheists or agnostics, he
believed that many were often ''man-cantered" to the
point where God was relegated to the position of a
chairman of the board. Dr. Fosdickts fourth indictment
asserted that modernism had too often lost its ethical
standing ground and power of moral attack. Harmonizing,
temporizing, adjusting i tself to the social order, while
justified in such things as the new astronomy, new
geology, new biology, etc., was dangerous if it led to
co~patability with contemporary nationalism, imperialism,
capitalism or racialism. Christianity, he believed, was
called on to stand in judgment of the world. It had to
be maladjusted to the world if the world was not in
harmony with God's will.
Thia did not mean that Dr. Fosdick had renounced
the gains of modernism. He believed that the battle with
reactionary religion had been won. The Christian faith
had won the best intelligence of the day, while the
. '
''
;
27
churches had giv n the stronge t minds and best abi 1t1ea
to modern! m's cause. The tuture as in the hands of the
liberal~ he believed, but he insisted that" e must go
beyo1d modernism! And i n that new enterprise the watch
word will be not, Aoconnnodate yourself t o the prevailing
cultural but, Stand out from it and challenge ti" As
Dr. Fosdick ably stated it: "Christ cannot be harmonized
with modern culture. What Christ doe to modern culture
is to challenge it1
11
28
The depression of the 1930
1
s had precipitated the
trend to ard a more pessimistic attitude about man and
hi works. Dr. Fosdick sensed the need for balance
be ean the to extremes of despair and excessive optim
is . He spoke out at a time when churches ere caught
with large debts. Large edific shad been built and the
depression had left congregations with little money to
meat the bills. Dr. Fosdick cautioned modernism's
enthusiast~ at a time when colleges, churches and their
agencies ere struggling for existence.
The depression had hit har and had lett scars.
Many people began to look elsewhere for the meaning or
existence. Unfortunately, the t endency of some liberals
as to bewail their fate, castigate themselves for their
I •
28
unfound d opt mism and turn away from the hope of the
improvement o r man through the social gospel. This
turnabout f rom excessive optimism about man to excessive
pessimism with man resulted in the growth of th neo
orthodox m ovement in theology. Leading this swing in
the United States was a former liberal, Reinhold Niebuhr,
a colleague of Dr. Fosdick at Union Theological Seminary.
N ever having gone as far as some liberals 1n their
undue optimism, Dr. Fosdick did not have to reverse him
aelt. H e spoke out for a reasonable religion and his
action kept many liberals from swinging over to the neo
orthodox movement. Certainly, it one looked closely,
the times seemed to lend credence to the beliefs ot the
pessimists . The second world war was almost in sight
and many Protestant churches had not yet faced very
realisti call y the true meaning of the dictatorships or
Europe or the O rient. America was not aware that it was
linked irrevocably with the actions of other countries
around the w or l d.
Forces wi t hin Protestantism were divided on the
question of t he involvement of the United States 1n the
a.ffa rs of the rest or the globe. Many ministers felt
that we had made a mistake in participating in World War
I. With th coming ot war in Europe on September 1
1
1939, conscientious Christians were torn with anguish
I '
I
29
between the rescu of the democracies, the d fat of the
dictatorships and the bloodsh d and destruction th t
total war brings. out-and-out pacifists and isolation
ists had increased their numbers in the twenty-five years
since the end of World War I, but many, when faced with
yielding to ruthl ss totalitarianism or givin moral and
material aid to the Allies, chose the latter. Faced with
the bitter decision, Dr. Fosdick led the pacifist move
ment with vigor, pleading for the United States to stay
out of the war with such words as:
It makes little dirrerence who wins the war unless
Christ wins the peace. Is it not the special function
of the Christian Church in days like these to keep
clear in our devotion this higher world that war
obscures? It is not the function of the church of
Christ to help win a war The church that becomes
an adjunct of a War Department denies its ministry.
The function of the church of Christ is to keep
alive and alight this realm of spiritual judgment
and guidance, so that even amid the storm or war we
may not lose those faiths and values on which man's
hope at last depends.29
Dr. Fosdick was no neutral nd he tried to make
that plain. However he hop d, he has said, that the
country might be able to stay out of the war.30
Opposing the pacifist position which wanted no
participation in the war and no government conscription
29Harry Emerson Fosdick, Livi~ Under Tension
(New York: Harper and Brotrnrs, 1941, p. 1.
3ei.,osdick, The Living .Q.f. These Days, pp. 294-95.
i
30
or en, were Bishop iilliam T. Manning or Ne York,
Bishop Henry Hobson of Ohio, both Episcopalians, and other
distinguished churchmen including Dr. Henry s. Coffin,
Robert E. Speer and John R. Mott. These men, and many
others, believed that Christians were justified in oppos
ing the dictatorships with the use of fore when other
means tailed.3
1
Harry Emerson Fosdick has written that he expected
to have to resign from his pastorate at the Riverside
Church if ar came, despite the liberty with which he had
occupied the pulpit. He thought that, if the worst came,
he would become a. "full-fledged Quaker" and continue his
work in some other constructive position. That this
decision as not necessary, Dr. Fosdick has explained,
was "not to my change in nry attitude, but to the vecy
great change in the public attitude toward ar which
took place between the first world conflict and the
second."3
2
Dr. Fosdick believes that the consciences or
Christians ~ere touched by the statement of the Oxford
3
1
Anson Phelps Stoke, Church and State in the
United St tea, III (N w York: Harper and Brother's, 1950),
PP• 281-82.
32Foedick, The Living of These Days, p. 295.
31
Cont r nee held in 1937. In the R verside Church, he
said, even the passions ot wartime did not demand that
he forget this statement:
War involves compulsory enmity, diabolical out
rage against human personality, and a wanton dis
tortion or the truth. War is a particular demon
stration of the power or sin in this world and a
defiance of the righteousness of God as revealed
in Jesus Christ and him crucified. No justification
of war must be allowed to conceal or minimize this
fact.33
The morning of the attack on Pearl Harbor by the
Japanese, Dr. Fosdick preached on the subject: "Loyalty,
the Basic Condition of Liberty," in which he spok out
for the necessity of inner loyalty to something higher
than self. He co~t~aated the met od! of the dictators
and the democracies . In the afternoon he was stopped
in the middle -of a radio sermon by the announcement
that tne Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor.
Throughout the second world war Dr. Fosdick led
tne Riverside Church in serving the needs of a nation
at ar. All of the facilities ere at the disposal of
the thousand.a or Naval Reserve Midshipmen attending
Columbia University, as well as the students at various
colleges surrounding the church. The Riverside Church
as host to thousands of young men and women in the
armed forces . ore than that~ many marriages er
3.Jp,osdick, The Living of Jhese Days, PP• 295-96.
32
performed in the church. Dr. ~osdick recalls twenty-
seven weddings in one day.
Helping i ndividuals face the grim reality of the
times, keeping the Christian faith alive in spite ot
the forces bearing down upon it--these were the things
Dr. Fosdick saw as his duty during the war, even more
than in peace . Never a negative pacifist intent on
keeping his life untouched by the grim events around
him, Dr. Fosdick lifted up the Chri stian gospel as the
antidote to the poison of war.
With the end of the second World War, Dr. Fosdick
resigned i n May, 1946, from the Riverside Church and his
position with U nion Theological Seminary. He had con
tinued past his sixty-fifth birthday in May, 1943, upon
the request of the board of trustees that he serve
throughout the war emergency.
Harry Emerson Fosdick has been active in public
causes since his retirement anQ received signal honors
from Union and John D. Rockefeller III upon the occasion
of his seventy-fifth birthday in May, 1953. The notable
Harry Emerson Fosdick Visiting Professorship wa! then
established at U nion with a fund of two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars to bring distinguished scholars to this
country for lectures at Union and other schools through
out the United States. Th~ ~~casion was a happy one
'I
·t ,
fo ~. Fosdick. Time described it:
Th.is seminary made my min stry possible ••••
Over 50 years ago, I came here a confused and hungry
student, wisning above all else t teach and preach
the Christian gospel, but ndering ho I could do
it th intellectual integrity and self-respect.
And nere the door ere opened ••• "34
33
Reinhold Niebuhr paid a lengthy tribute to his
former colleague in hich ha eulogized his powers as a
preacher and a leader in theological opinion in America.
Ha praised Dr. Fosdick
1
s successful challenge to relig
ious obscurantists and his ab lity to make the Christian
gospel meaningful to the "cultured classes" More than
that, Niebuhr praised Dr. Fosd1ck
1
s warm personality,
saying:
In assessing Fosdiok
1
s religious influence, I hope
it will not seem irrelevant to observe that it as
so potent not only because of his remarkable gifts
of mind and heart both in the written ord and in
the pulpit, but also because he revealeg a remarkable
degree or Christian grace in his life.35
riting, lecturing and participating actively in
the field of humanitarian causes, Dr. Fosdick has con
tinued to make hi contribution to society in a ay which
is uniquely his own. His retirement bas only given him
more freedom to work for humanity.
34"The Liberal," Time, LXI lMay 25, 1953), P• 62.
35Reinhold Niebuhr, "Fosdick: Theologian and
Preacher," The Christian Century, LXX (June 3, 1953),
PP• 657- 65.
f
CHAP R iII
BACKGROUND OF Td:E FUNDAMENTALIST
MODERNIST CONTROVERSY
The history or the fundamentalist-modernist contro
versy goes back several decades before the explosions of
the 1920•s. While it seemed long in coming to a crisis,
the cause were there all the time. It took the pent-up
emotions and ~rustrations of certain religionists, who
believed that their cause was endangered by modernism, to
burst loose and boil over.
This chapter will discuss the growth of the funda
mentalist move ant. It seems necessary to study brietly
the history of this movement from the last quarter of the
nineteenth century to the end of the first orld war in
order to understand the background of the trouble that
were to center around Harry Emerson Fosdick in 1922 and
for a few years after. This writer has used certain funda
mentalist books, booklets and magazine articles, plus
extensive histories of the fundamentalist and modernist
controversy by liberal and conservative writers.
Dr. Foadick's historic sermon, "Shall the Punda-
:nentaliats Win?" s used as a lever by :f'undamenta.lista
to oust some liberals from church pulpits and theological
se,£11.naries. They pointed to it as an example of "anti-
_,
' .
...
35
Christ" in the modernist theolog cal seminaries, schools
and churches . This alarmed many sincere Christians to
doubt the character of the "new theology."
Bible com'erences antedated the fundamentalist
movement in America an:l the seeds f or it s growth were
planted by such conservative leaders as George c . Needham
and A. J . Gordon around 1877. These men proclaimed "the
perso nal an pre-m i l leni al r eturn of J·esus Christ" to the
earth, thus br ingi ng abo u t an early association between
fundamentalism and t ne
11
second coming. "1
Early f undarmntalist teachings, which were to
come out in dogmas i n later church formulations, revolved
around five points of "sound doctrine." The Niagara
Bible Conference formulated these dogmas in 1895.
Included among these controversial ideas were the deity
of Christ , the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin
birth, subst i tutionary atonement , the physical resur
rection and the bodily return of Christ. One writer,
Gius G. Atkins , ha s written of the great persuasive
power of these conference leaders and of their roof
texts taken from the Bi ble. H e says that hese texts
were definite and f inal, masterly marshaled and validated,
loaius G. Atkins, Reli9ion in Our Times (New York:
Round Table Press , Inc., 1932, pp-;-2~25.
36
as they believed, by divine revelation. The belief of
these conservatives that their message was thus authentic
ated "gave to their words and bearing some suggestion of
oonscious superiority which those less divinely validated
found trying," Atkins concluded.
2
One of the striking developments in Protestant
Christianity in the United States was the departure from
Calvinistic theology in the denominations which were
Calvinistic by tradition. These included the Congrega
tionalists, Eresbyteriana and the majority of Baptists.
According to church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette,
these denominations, except for conservative minorities,
had largely abandoned some of the most striking features
of that system of theology before the end of the nine
teenth century. Free will was substituted for the doc
trine or election. The pendulum swung rrom a belief in
the total depravity of man and his helpless inclination
to sinfulness to the extreme of belief in innate goodness
and the possibility of achieving on this planet the ideal
human society. From awe before God's sovereignty some
persons were inclined to swing to confidence in the
l
(1
31
human mind and spirit. There war still many who held
to a strict Calvinism, but generally the drift was away
from determinism and towards free will and humanism.3
While Calvinism was being modified or abandoned
1n the nineteenth century, the impact of science was
leading to other changes in the teachings of the churches.
Latourette points out that the theory of evolution which
was associated with the name of Charles R. Darwin, and
hence dubbed Darwinism, seemed to negate the traditional
beliefs about the creation and early history of man.
Geology and biology appeared to make the Biblical account
of the origin of the universe a mere myth. The new
science of antnropology, by tracing the origin of religion
and the belief in innnortality, seemed to discredit both.
Many sensitive, honest people felt that their faith was
undermin9d. Many critics welcomed the new weapons with
which to attack Christianity. In the churches strong
differences developed among the leaders. While some
hotly rejected the new ideas, said Latourette, others
accepted them in whole or in part and made room tor them
in their interpretation of Christianity.4
3Kenneth Scott Latourette, The Great Century!!!
Europe and the United States of America, IV lNew York:
Harper ana Brothers, 1~41), PP• 430-Jl.
4Ibid. P• 435.
,,
38
Countless Christians wee disturbed by the so
called "higher criticism," of which Dr. Fosdick once
wrote, in part:
Was there ever such an unfortunate label put upon
an entirely legitimate procedure as t~ name "Higher
Criticism"? Were one to search the dictionary for
two words suggestive of superciliousness, condes
cension and destructiveness, one could hardly find
any to surpass these.5
These new methods of scholarship alarmed many
people, even though higher criticism merely inquired into
the ori in of the books of the Bible--who wrote them,
why and when were they written, and to whom were they
addressed. Cherished convictions as to authorship of
certain books of the Bible, and their authenticity,
seemed to be threatened by new findings. To many the
Christian faith se e med to be in peril arrl it was natural
that strong diff erences should develop over these things.
The rev 1.valist in the last half of the nineteenth
century extended to many a hope that eventually there
would be "pie in the sl{y bye and bye." The revivalist
was threatened by the new learnil.18, and more often than
not, did not know how to cope with it except to fight
back. In the turmoil of an expanding economy and the
growth of the factory system, the emotional appeal of
the revivalist then, as it does today, promised a reward
5Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Modern Use of the
Bible (New York: The Macmillan Co., ·1924f, pp. 0-J.
I
for those who hewed to the line of the "reli ion once
delivered"--even though t·nged with emotional and
personal religious prejudices. Stewart G. Cole says
of revivalism, in part:
Revivals supplied the landmarks in Americ&n
Christianity until urban society developed. The
last oft~ great evangelists was Dwight L. Moody.
His notable campaigns in the early seventies marked
a dividing line in methods of religious propaganda.
The immense crowds drawn to the protracted meetings
of itinerant Methodism and the universal moral
suasion attending the efforts of Edwards, Whitfield
and Finney had waned. Moody's work surfered a
handicap unknown to former zealous gospelers. The
collapse of simple, pre-industrial community life
meant also the disintegration or those human ties
incident to successful large scale evangelism.6
39
Cole believed that the better understanding of the
development of religious experience helped to break the
naive appeal of the revivalist. The multiple challenges
of downtown institutions, on the other hand, satisfied
desires for personal security, social recognition ard
genuine pleasure which had been, hitherto, the special
contribution of the redemption cults. Revivalism
naturally retired in the race of the growth of the urban
community interests and parish evangelism. It has not
disappeared completely, however, by any means. While
it could not meet the successful challenge of the new
method of Biblical criticism, it stressed other features
6stewart G. Cole, The Historf of Fundamentalism
(1'Tel-1 York: Richard R • . , Smith, Inc., 9Jl), p. 36.
,·
calculated to appeal t o many peop e not touched by the
larger denominations.
The collages and seminaries came face to face with
the need to decide wha. t to do about the "new theology."
Increasingly many schools went over to the liberal point
of view, while others were able to cling to the orthodox
position in religion. Wheaton College in Illinois, for
example, trained youth consistently in such areas of
arts and sciences as could be accommodated to the ideals
of classical theology-. Suon insti tut ions looked upon
liberal colleges as a threat to the nold theology" and
fought vigorously against any encroachment of the "social
gospel." Cole points out that the University of Chicago
has been a special target f r om i ts beginning and that
church people were warned by fundamental is t leader s to
avoid this "so-called hot-bed of heresy."7
Union Theological Seminary had been in t.he fore
front of theological controversy for many years because
of its insistence on fre edom to investigate all areas of
religious thought. One of the outstanding cases of
attack on this freedom was that involving a professor,
Dr. Charles A. Briggs. When the transfer or Dr. Briggs
from the Seminary Chair or Hebrew to that of Biblical
)
J
I
41
Theology was reported to the Presbyterian General Assembly
in 1891, conservatives refused to conf'irm his appointment
and through the next two years pressed for his dismissal
from the seminary and the Presbyterian ministry. They
were able to suspend him from the ministry, but the
seminary refused to dispense with Dr. Briggs' services
and, in fact, the school withdrew from the agreement with
the Presbyterian Church upon legal advice. Union resumed
its independent status again.8
Other heresy trials were brought about in various
denominations at the turn of the century. Methodist
Bishops refused to sanction the reappointment of Boston
University professor Hinkley G. Mitchell. The Episcopal
Church deposed the Rev. Algernon s. Crapsey from the
ministry for questioning the historic basis of the virgin
birth of Christ. Professor George H. Gilbert was dropped
from the faculty of the Chicago Theological Seminary by
the Congregational authorities. The Roman Catholic Church
imposed an anti-modernist ban on their scholars. As
Dr. Henry Sloane Coffin said: "Fear of heresy was in the
air and legal methods of maintaining sound doctrine were
8Henry Sloane Coffin, A Half Century of Union
Theological Seminary (New YorK: Charles Scr10ller
1
s Sons,
1954), p. 18.
resorted to on both sides of the Atlantic and in many
communions."9
42
Dr. Coffin ent on to say that no , more than sixty
years later, the "heresies" that Dr. Briggs was condemned
for are taught in many of the most orthodox seminari a in
this country, and in practically all of those under the
supervision of the Presbyterian Church.lo
While 1 ading liberal seminaries were having their
troubles 1th conservatives, ultra- conservatives ere
taking steps to form their own schools. Col, in speaking
of thi movement, says:
Th history of Moody Bible Institute , established
in 1886, typified the intent of this educational move
ment. Dwight L. Moody, ita founder, specified that
its purpose was "to raise up men and women who will be
illing to lay their lives alongside the laboring
class and the poor, and to bring the gospel to bear
upon their lives." It should be observed that Moody's
desire did not remain its dominant purpose. Less than
a decade after its organization R. A. Torrey, the
first super ntendent, added another mission, "to
increase the spirituality of the church." This was
necessary owing to nthe advancing apostasy predicted
in the Bible." Thus he intimated slyly that his
school was fitted to provide ministers with more
spirituality than ere seminaries. The Chicago school
felt increasingly its self-importance to Providence
and avo ed openly that it had "come to the Kingdom
for such an apostate time as this."!l
Stress was laid on revivaliatic and missionary zeal
9
Ibid., P• 19 •
11
cole, .2E.• cit., PP• 42-43, citing Moody Bible
Institute Bulletin, Vol. rv, June, 1924, P• 6.
.)
l \
43
in thee Bible schools. They ere to convey "good news"
to inne~s and to bring light to the "heathen. " Exces iv
emotionalism was looked upon as avid no of the Spirit
orking. The program of these schools, then and no, was
to give a comprehensive system of Biblical proof-texts
calculated to provide fuel and ammunition to defeat the
liberals, the so-called enemies of "God's Word," and to
attract the simple, the unsophisticated, to their program
of evruigelism. Bible schools sought to check the rise of
liberalism in religion with its accompanying "social
gospel.
Tractarian propaganda for fundamentalist causes
abounded. Ne spapera such as Th Truth, edited by
J. H. Brookes, and The Watchword, edited by A. J. Gordon
in the seventies and eighties of the nineteenth century,
ere calculated to keep central the ultra-conservative
views and the pre-millenial message. Cole states that
fifty thousand copies of the proceedings of the 1878 Bible
Conference were circulated among the churches. Another
widely consulted weekly, The Christian Herald, promoted
the old faith. Men such as James Orr and Augustus Strong
dealt ably with the conservative view and wrote volumin
ously for periodicals, besides turning out their own books.
Strong's three-volume treatise on systematic theology 1a
sill in use in some Bible schools. Other writers ere
(
adding tneir eight to the volume of printed polemics
seeking to bring the churches back to the "old- time
re igion.•
12
The militant campaign of the conservatives was
v gorously prosecuted, especially in such publications as
The Bible Champion. The bitterness engendered by articles
printed in such magazines was uni'ortunate , but inevitable .
Intelligent liberals were using the methods of modern
scholarship with its insistence on sound principle or
reason and sc nt' ic i nqairy. Apologists for the ultra
conservatives ware concerned with preserving the stats
I
quo and cont nu ty with the past. Thay were bound to
eollide head- on. Conservatives and fundamentalists could
be truly concerned with the way modern scholarshi p was
heading in the seminaries . They sensed that the religion
of their ancestors would not be the same in the world of
the future .
The ranks of the fundamentalists ware not entirely
filled by the poor . There were also people of wealth who
poured the r fortunes into the fight to uphold the old
faith. The attack on the social gospel, however, was
not necessarily al ays due to a concern for preserving
12
cole , -2.E• cit., P• 45.
45
the theolo ical status quo, many liberals suspected.
According to Gaiu~ G. Atkins, quite a few liberals thought
that some American businessmen welcomed the fundamentalist
fi ht as a smoke screen in which the social gospel could
be "danmed to the glory of God" if only their particular
business ere not disturbed. Atkins has said:
There is little evidence that they felt their own
affairs likely to be prematurely brought to the
divine judgment seat; they were more disturbed by
c ntemporaneous curio ity as to their ethics and
profits. They had besides th sincere, water-tight
compartment piety, which has been one of tne para
doxes of religion, and were, both in religion and
economics, thorough-going individualists. Their
representative spokesmen have certainly insisted that
preaching confine itself to the "old gospel."13
Atkins believes that whether it was due to the
generous piety of supporters of the fundamentalist vie -
point or a desire to deflect the social gospel, the
leaders of fundamentalism had "an ample ar chest."14
An example of this "war cheat" can be seen in the
immense fortune of three hundred thousand dollars put at
the disposal of the fundamentalist cause in 1909 by to
oil tycoons, Lyman and 1'tll ton Ste art. They crune to th
rescue of the fundamentalist group by making possible the
publication of a series of booklets called The Funda
mentals. Tb.eae booklets, twelve in all, made a tremendous
1
3Atkins, .2.E cit.JP• 231.
l '
impact on the religious 1 fe o the United States and
circulated all over the globe . Articles appearing in the
publications were written by ultra-conservatives from
both the United States and Europe . Thy ere calculated
to gird conservatives in the de ense of the fa th.
These booklets were sent free to all Protestant
clergyman, missionaries, theological professors a.nd anyone
who was actively doing Christian work. It was stated that
approximately three million copies of these twelve prun-
ph __ ets had bean distributed, ith one-third going to
countries outside the United States . The editors, 1n
concluding the planned number of booklets, outlined a
continuation of similar articles in a magazine to be
published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles . 15
The effect of these millions of fundamentalist
booklets on the Protestant orld can be imagined. Book
lets of this nature, and in this quantity , supplied the
stimulus needed by this group ho were fighting a losing
battle against the trend of the times. The language of
The Fundamentals was understandable to conservative minds.
Fear for the gospel was undergirding the defense and over
the several years that they were published The Fundamentals
rallied the forces of conservatism.
15The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, XII
(Chicago: Testimony Publishing Co., t n:cl. J J, PP • 3-6.
47
The undamentalists identified the liberals with
the c ause of economic unrest and attacked the liberal
economic ideas, known as the social gospel, with vigor.
Dr . Charles R. Erdman, a profesaor at Princeton Theo
logical Seminary , attacked socialism through the pages or
The Fundamentals by pleading for an emphasis on better
indi viduals rather than a better society. He believed
that society could not be changed unless individual
persons changed first . He wanted to take the Church out
of the economic world end let the State do the job of
soci al reconstruction. The Church, the witness ot God on
eart h, he believed, was to promise the coming of the King
dom, bu t was not to meddle in social and economic affairs.
The job of the Church was to secure devotion and loyalty
to Chris t , a aiting his personal retum. This represents
the ideas of many conservative Christians who consider
the pr oblems of the Church and society. They do not
ident i fy the Chur ch with the secular world and believe
the socia l gospel was, and is, a mistake and a misrepre
sentat ion of t he message of Christ.16
This was the world of religious thought that came
into the twentieth century and challenged Dr. Fosdick to
stand up and be counted. Through the work of men like
16
charles R. Erdman, "The Church and Socialism,"
The Fundamentals, XII, PP• 115~19.
48
Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbuech and others, the
"Social Creed of the Churches" was adopted by the Federal
Council of the Churches of Christ in America, in December,
1908, giving momentum to the rise of the ocial gospel.
This directed the liberal views of young men just entering
the ministry, as Harry Emerson Fosdick was. The ideas
of the social gospel were not pleasing to most fundamen
talists because they feared they were too h,unanistic.
Many would have preferred no action on social questions
than for the Church to be concerned with causes rooted 1n
man's environment. Cole touches on this problem:
The social gospel attempted to orient Protestantism
amid the new industrial forces that shaped human char
ncter. There were grievous wrongs incident to con
gested urban quarters that required correction.
Spokesmen felt burdened for the sqlvaging of victims
of the liquor traffic. They knew from sad experience
that simply waiting upon God would not relieve the
national menace, but that public opinion inducing
legislative action was necessary. These reformers
preached temperancd and organized anti-saloon leagues
to demand constitutional reparation. Conservative
church leaders often called down anathemas upon their
brethren. The faultfinders insisted that the social
practitioners put the mundane welfare of man before
the will of God.17
Gradually the observer of the Protestant religious
scene in America could have detected the cleavage coming
between the fundamentalists and the liberals. Thus the
1
7cole, -2£• cit., P• 48
r
49
publication of The Fundamentals was a sort of gauntl t
thrown down to the liberal wing of the Church. Convinced
that they were defending the faith, and that the liber ls
were backing a "false Christianity," some cons rvatives
made extreme efforts to reinstate their control over
church conventions, seminaries, mission boards and
publications.
By 1910 the "battle lines" were fairly defin te
and clear. The relationships between some seminaries and
denominations, however, were in doubt in many instances.
Just prior to the first world war, in 1911, the issues
were fought out between the outstanding liberal seminary,
Union, and the Presbyterian General Assembly. Attempting
to conciliate the forces of conservatism in the Assembly,
Dr. Francis Brown, president of Union, found that he was
blocked. Leading a group of fundamentalist critics of
that school was a certain Dr. Mark A. Matthews of Seattle,
later to do battle with Harry Emerson Fosdick over issues
of liberalism in religion. The seminary decided to retain
their independent standing in following out the wishes of
of the founders of Union, thus evading control of the
ultra~conservatives in the Presbyterian Church.18
18 6
Coffin, .2E• cit., P• 3.
50
The coming of the first world war caught the
American churches in a precarious predicament. It put
aside for the moment much of the fundamentalist-modernist
contro·versy while feelings were turned against the
common enemy.
Cole speaks of the paganizing grip of the ar
which affected the Church deeply. Atrocity stories were
presented in lurid form to incite prejudice for anything
German. The churches, he states, joined in the crusade.
No pergons spent more energy for the cause than did the
Christiaru! in the churches throughout the country. The
lay people, he says, labored for the increase of war
efficiency while the clergy aroused social action and
pleaded with men to find their ethical ideals in the
world conflict.19
It was natural that the war would arouse deep
emotional feelings. Messianic prophecy was called upon
and God was summoned to rescue the faithful from the
"cursed world." The extreme fundamentalist did not
believe the world was worth saving or was capable of
being saved.
Atkins noted that the war arrested the fundamen
talist-modernist controversy, and then reversed itself
19
Cole , .2£• cit . , PP• 24-25.
IJ
t
51
and intensified the problem. ropaganda created a lust
for conflict in the average person. For those who got
to the fighting front, many got what Atkins called a
"clean~ing though costly outlet for their emotions." For
those at home, he said, there was no outlet.
20
Preaching, according to Atkins, naturally assumed
a more polemic temper. Preachers no had something to
come to grips with. The ar accented the crisis in
religion and the fundamentalists had definite adversaries
to wrestle with.
21
The fundamentalists pointed out that
the German nation had been the nseed-bed" for "higher
criticism." Evolution and disregard for the moral law,
the fundamentalists believed, ere linked together and
attributed to the influence of German philosophy. The
modernists in America were put on the defensive. The
end of the war found American churches involved in a
strug le for religious freedom.
Despite the controversies that wracked the unity
of the churches, there waa a glinnnering light of hope
The ecumenical movement of the churches pointed a way
out of the isolationism and parochialism of the divided
20Atkins, .2.E.• cit., P• 233.
21Ibid., P• 232.
I I
52
denominations. Coming out of the missionary movement,
the drive for a unified Christianity gre, particularly
after the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh,
Scotland, in 1910 Significant also was the growth of
the World's Student Christian Federation and the student
groups it established. From this organization came many
of the leaders of the ecumenical movement in post-rar
years.
Before the stage could be set for church unity,
however, the fundamentalist - modernist controversy was to
reach a climax in the United States between 1920 and 1927
The world conferences which ere to point to ards the
future World Council of Churches could only gain strength
when the divisiveness of the conflict as settled. The
missionary movement around the orld was in a state of
confusion and contradiction. Men like Augustus H. ~trong ,
former president of Rochester Theological Seminary, came
back from a tour of foreign missions shortly after the
war to attack liberalism in that field of Christian
service, proclaiming: "We Baptists must reform or die 1•22
The powder keg of frustrated fundamentalism in
America as just aiting for a spark to blo it up .
Harry Emerson Fosdick did not suspect that he as the
pers on to strike the spark.
22co1e, 2.£• cit . , P• 66
CHAPTER IV
THE FUNDAMENTALIST ATTACK OF 1922- 1925
This chapter considers the attempt by some con servatives and fundamentalists within the Presbyterian
Church to get Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick out of his pulpit
at the First Presbyterian Church of New York. Various
sources of information used include the minutes of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church for 1923
through 1925 and Dr. ~osdick
1
s autobiography
1
The Liv ing
of These Days . The Christian Century was especially help ful for news of this period. Thia chapter will attempt
to show the concerted effort which was made by some funda mentalists to prohibit Dr. Fosdick
1
s departure from the
accepted dogmas of that group while he was preaching in
the Presbyterian Church.
By the early 1920
1
s the situation over the funda mentalist-modernist controversy had reached the point
where the opposing factions had to collide . Dr . Fosdick •s
sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" preached to the
congregation of the First Church on May 21 , 1922
1
struck
the spark which set off the theological powder keg .
Having recent y returned from a trip to the Orient
where he had witness the divisive work of fundamentalism
n China, he had prepared the sermon as a plea for more
54
tolerance in the churches, both at home and abroad. It
was interpreted by "fighting fundamentalists" as an
attack on their position, however, and they rallied to
the defense of 'the faith once delivered." Since Dr.
~osdick was easily the most noted exponent of evangelical
liberalism, he became their target. In his sermon, he
had said, in part:
Already all of us must have heard about the people
who call themselves the Fundamentalists . Their
apparent intention is to dr·ve out of the evangelical
churches men and women of liberal opinions I speak
of them the more freely because there are not o
denominations more affected by them than the Baptists
and the Presbyterians . We should not identify Funda mental .sts with conservatives . All Fundamentalists
are conservatives but not all conservatives are
Fundamentalists. The best conservatives can often
give lessons to the liberals in true liberality of
spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is essentially
illiberal and intolerant.l
Dr. Fosdick, in this sermon, went on to speak of
the new body of knowledge which had come into man's pos
session. Thousands of Christians were having difficulty
keeping their new knowledge in one compartment of their
mind and their faith in another. They were striving
earnestly, he said, to find a way to keep both their
intellectual integrity and their religion. He pointed out
1
Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Shall the Fundamentalists
Win?" The Christian Century, XXXIX (June 8, 1922),
pp. 71".r-I7.
55
the dogmas stipulated by the ~~ndamentalists who insisted
on complete obedience on the part of everyone. He said
that his complaint was not against the right of the
fundamentalists to hold these opinions, but their right
to deny the name of Christian to those who were of a
different belief as to the essentiality of such things as
the special theory of inspiration of the Bible, the
inerrant Bible, special theory of atonement and the
substitutionary death and return of Christ to this earth.
All of this petty legalism had bothered Dr. Fosdick
as a young man in his search of a religion that could make
sense. Now he singled these dogmas out for penetrating
analysis. Despite his attempt to state the honest dif
ferences of opinion between liberals and fundamentalists
in a conciliatory manner, this sermon aroused just the
opposite result he wanted.
Dr. Fosdick believed that with all of his remarks,
there would have been no unusual result from them had it
not been for the work of Mr. Ivy Lee, the head of a large
publicity organization. Lee was a liberal Presbyterian
and an admirer of Dr. Fosdick. He asked for permission
to distribute the sermon to his nation-wide clientele.
With the publication of this sermon under a new title,
"The New Knowledge and the Christian Faith," many funda
mentalists throughout the country read it and lost their
,..
56
tempers .
2
The Literary Digest reported that one fundamental
ist minister had declared: "It is time for the Protestant
churches to clean house and banish every modernist minis
ter from his pulpit." It went on to report that The
Presbyterian had indignantly protested that Dr. Fosdick,
a Baptist , stood in a Presbyterian pulpit and decried the
do ctrine of that church by "pooh-poohing the virgin birth,
the Resurr ection and Christ 's coming to judge the world
at the last day.
11
3
The attack was begun by Dr. Clarence E. Macartney,
who was then minister of a Presbyterian church in the
conservative center of Philadelphia.
11
He was very decent
and d gnified in his attitude, n Dr. Fosdick said. "While
his theological position was in my judgment incredible,
he was per sonally f air-minded and courteous. "4 The corre
spondence between the two preachers did not lead to any
healing of the breach in theological opinions, and an
attempt at bringing the two men together for a concilia
tory meeting did not prove successful .
2
Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Living of These Days
(New York : Harper and Brothers,--n-56), pp.--Y45-46.
3rrhe Literary Digest, LXXV (November 18, 1922),
pp . 36-37.
4Fosdick, .Q.E• cit . , pp . 146-~7 .
,,
I..
57
After a s11mmar vacation in 1922, Dr. Fosdick had
returned to Ne York to find a threatening storm or con
troversy bra ing. The congregation of the church backed
him, as did college presidents and students, religious
leaders and laymen throughout the country. On the other
hand, ultra-conservatives under the leadership of Dr.
acartney and William Jennings Bryan launched an all-out
attack in an effort to get Dr. Fosdick removed from the
pulpit of First Church.
The Pre bytery of Philadelphia charged, in an over
ture to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of
1923, that there had been preaching 1n the First Church,
Ne York, which appeared to deny the essential doctrines
of the Presbyterian Church in the u.s.A. Twelve overtures
sent to the General Assembly dealt exclusively with the
"Public Proclamation ot the Word in the Pulpit of the
First Presbyterian Church of New York City.
11
.5
The Committee on Bills and overtures brought 1n a
majority report on the "Philadelphia Overture, referring
the Fosdick case to the Presbytery or New York for judg
ment. By a vote of 439 to 359, ho ever, a minority report
as adopted expressing "profound sorrow that doctrines
$Minutes of the General Assemblf of the Presby
terian Church Inthe u.s.~ , Thlrd Ser es, Vol. II
{Philadelphia:Offioe-o? the Gene~al Ass mbly, 1923),
P• 23.
)
58
contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church" had
been preached in First Church's pulpit. The Presbytery
of New York waa urged to take action toward the end that
the preaching and teachJ_ng should conform to the "system
of doctrines taught by the Confession of Faith," and that
a full report be made to the 136th General Assembly in
1924.
6
The General Assembly also reminded the Church of
five 'essential doctrines" affirmed by the 1911 Assembly
and called for a reaffirmation of belief in an inerrant
Bible, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement,
the physical resurrection of Jesus and "mighty miracles
of Christ. ,7
In answer to the minority report which directed the
New York Presbytery to take action to see that the preach
ing and teaching in First Church conformed to those doc, -.
trines, a representative group of liberals drew up an
"affi mation" which protested the interference by one
Presbytery in the affairs of another, the pa~sing of judg
ment without hearing, the insistence of doctrinal tests
other than, or in addition to, those in the Constitution
of the ~resbyterian Chur~h.
8
6
Ibid., PP• 252-53.
8
Ibid., P• 338.
7rbid.
59
Dr. Fosdick was placed in a difficult position by
the action of the conservatives in the Presbyterian Church.
He had wanted to conciliate and instead found that he waa
the focal point for attack. Hoping to restore harmony to
a divided denomination, he presented his resignation to
the session of the First Church. They unanimously refused
to accept it. Dr. Fosdick states that he let them have
their ay, hoping that the skirmish which was lost, might
turn out to be a victory in the larger battl e for freedom.
He elt that he could not leave his liberal friends in the
face of the attaek. 9
During the 1923-1924 church season, opposing forces
were gathering for the next battle at the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church. The pages of the religious
periodicals of that time are full of . . the controversy.
Dr. Fosdick had the full support of the leading journal
of liberal religious opinion, The Christian Century. It
proclaimed that "Christianity is hardly likely to last
much longer half fundwmntalist and half modernist." Two
orlds have clashed, the magazine said--the world of
tradition and the world of modernism. It contrasted the
scholastic , static, authoritarian, individualistic world
of the fundamentalist with what it called the vital,
9Foadick, The Living of These Days, PP• 148-49.
(
60
dynamic, free, social world of liberalism. Furt ermore,
it said that "the God of the Fundamentalist was one God
while the God of the Modernist was another." Such
scathing comments clearly indicate the friction which had
developed in the churches 1n the early 1920
1
s.
10
Dr. Fosdick, however, had not lost his sense of
balance, and his later remarks on the situation show this
sense of realism. He said, in part:
Much of the attack on me. especially in Presby
terian circles. was maintained upon a dignified
level. It represented the honest concern of dogmatic
minds to keep the church static in doctrine, and it
stated its case without descending to personal abuse.
Indeed the idea that the membership of the evan
gelical churches was sharply divided into two groups,
convinced liberals and militant reactionaries,
grossly misrepresents the situation.11
Nevertheles s , the attack on Dr. Fosdick grew in
intensity as the year went on. A sermon preached by a
leading fundamentalist scholar, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, in
the First Presbyterian Church of Princeton, New Jersey,
led the noted liberal, Dr. Henry Van Dyke, to withdraw
his membership in indignation at the attack on liberalism.
Dr. Machen had said: "The modern preacher affirms the
lOnFundamentalism and Modernism: Two Religions,"
The Christian Centµry, XLI (January 3, 1924), PP• 5-6.
llFosdick, .2E• cit., P• 154.
u
61
deity of Jesus not because e thinks high of Jesus but
because he thinks desperately low of God.n
12
Dr. Fosdick has said that he found all of the
"political" maneuvering of the ecclesiastical authorities
highly d·stasteful . The drafting and redrafting of st te
rnents designed to conciliate the fundamentalists in the
Presbyterian General Assembly was allowed by him solely
because he felt he owed an obllgation to his liberal
colleague s not to retreat. While the committee of the
New York Presbytery was sincerely trying to prepare a
case which would show him in a more orthodox light, he
was embarrassed that such a thing would seem necessary.
He found it impossible to apologize for his conciliatory
sermon, as some wanted him to do. He felt that ha could
not say anything which would contradict his basic beliefs.
Dr. Fosdick told the committee that he pictured his state
ment being read by young men and women who would detect
quickly whether he had "stood by his colors." Far from
having trouble with his conscience for having preached
the sermon, he thought he should have a desperate and
intolerable searching of his conscience if he had not.13
12
nnr. Machen Says the Modernists Are Not Honest,"
The Christian Century, XLI (January 31, 1924), P• 150.
13Foadick, The Living of These Days, PP• 149-52.
u
.,
0
C
62
Under the leadership or Dr. Clarence E. aoartney,
the elected moderator of the 136th General Ass mbly, the
problem or Dr. Fosdick'~ relationship to the Presbyterian
Church was raised. The New York Presbytery made a major~
ity report defending Dr. Fosdick to the General Assembly.
A minority -repor t signed by twenty- o of the New York
Presbytery' s members attacked his ministry at First
Church. These two rep orts were presented to the Judicial
Commission which recommended to the General Assembly that
if Dr. Fosdi ck ere to remain in the pulpit at First
Church, he should assume a "regular relationship," subject
to the jurisdicti~,1 and authority of the Church. If
Dr. Fosdick could accept the doctrinal standards of the
Church, the conservatives said, "much of the cause of
irritation would be removed. " If he could not, then they
believed he should not continue to occupy a Presbyterian
pulpit.
1
4
Dr. Fosdick was in Britain and Scotland during the
summer of 1924, while this critical General Assembly was
meeting. H e was attracting large and enthusiastic audi
ences for his preaching, hich as sponsored by th.e Com
mittee on the Interchange of Preachers and Speakers. His
~inutea of the General Assembly of the PresbI
terian Church In tlie u.s.A ., Third Seri s-;-vo1. III
(Philadelphia:Of fic e- of the General Assembly, 1924),
PP• 194-96.
63
friends asked h im not to make up his mind as to a course
of action to take until they could discuss it with him.
tie knew t ha t if he accepted the invitation to join the
Presbyterian Church, endorsing the doctrines, it would
be only the beginning of trouble, while many friends saw
in it the end of the controversy . "Once with n the regu
lar ranks of t he Presbyterian ministry I could be tried
for heresy the f irst time I uttered a liberal conviction."
He knaw m any " i rritated and watchful men were waiting for
the cha.nee.' 15
Wil l iam J ennings Bryan called the decision of the
Assembly a victory for the fundamentalists and said: "We
have on on eveey point." However , another fundamentalist
minister as not so pleased. Dr. Mark A. Matthews of
Seattle complained :
To leave the question this way will settle nothing.
If the r u ling had said that all relations between
Dr. Fosdick and the Church should cease until Dr.
Fosdick comes into the Church, I should ask for
nothing mora.16
The acti on of t he General Assembly in regard to
Dr. :B
1
osdick had been transmit t ed to t l1e .New York resbytary
in June , 1924. The Presbytery then referred the matter
1
5Fosdick , The Living of These Daya, PP• 170-71.
1
6The Li t erary Digest, LXXXI (June 21, 1924), P• 33.
)
to a committee of which the Rev. E. Work as chairman.
He wrote to Dr. Fosdick extending the invitation of the
Presb·ytery to consider member snip in that body •
1
7
64
After due consideration, Dr. Fosdick wrote to the
Presbytery declining the invitation on October 7, 1924.
Witn expressions or good ill for all, he also tendered
his resignation as associate minister of the First Presby
terian Churcn. He declared in his letter to Dr. Work that
his refusal to become a Presbyterian minister as not due
to denominational reasons but to his strong convictions
that 'creedal subscription to ancient confessions or
faitn is a practice dangerou~ to the welfare of tne church
and to the integrity or the individual conscience.
11
18
Ca ling the action of the General Aa~embly a
"revival of the inquisition in modern religion," The
Christian Centun editorialized on "Dr. Fosdick
1
a Puni h
ment." It said:
The sacr· fice of the most conspicuously successful
ministry in America to the assumptions of creedal and
ecclesiastical conformity is a commentary hich should
make the whole church blush. What is this Christian
ity of ours that not only tolerates but fosters this
sort of hate within the body of Christ?--a multitude
or sensitive souls will ask in the first heat of their
disillusionment.19
17"Fosd1ck Declines to Sign Cre d," The Christian
Century, XLI (October 16, 1924), P• 1341.
18Ibid., PP• 1341-47•
19'nr. Fosdick•s Punishment,' Ibid., P• 1326.
65
Thinkin tha t h i s resignation would settle things ,
Dr . Fosdick assum d t hat the whole controversy would be
ended. In r eply to Dr. Fosdick 's second resignation, the
session of First Church made a counter- proposal that he
continue with them a a a preacher w thout official con
nection with the church. Five ministers of the church
signed this reques t .
Dr. Fosdick was aware that such a position would
not be tolerated by the fundamentalists in the ~resby ter an Church. He realis t ically faced the problem and
stated that he coul d not believe, in the light of the
action of tho As sembly, that it v1ould be possible for him
to continue to oc cupy t he pulpit unless he became a
formally installed Presbyterian clergyman. He asked that
h s resignation bec ome effective at the end of March,
1925, the clos e of the church year .
20
Dr . Macartn y l oudly denounced the whole proceeding
from a sick- bed on October 24, 1924, saying, in part:
Were it not that this whole case were the history
of the e cclesiastically inconceivable and the
religiously impossible , one would have said that it
was absolutely inconceivable that a congregation of
the Pre sbyterian Church, finding that the highest
court of the chur ch bad declared the ecclesiastical
20
"Fosdi ck May Remain Until April " The Christian
Cen.t:ui:y, XLI (November 6, 1924), PP• 1488-55.
0
t
V
( '
(
66
relationship of their preacher anomalous and his
doctrines contrary to the standards of the church,
would still seek to retain his services by such a
shift and device as was adopted last night by the
congregation of the First Presbyterian Church in
New York.21
Such an example of church loyalty to a liberal like
Harry Emergon Fosdick must have been very difficult for
many fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives to under
stand. The attendance at First Church rose to great
numbers in the closing months of Dr. Fosdick
1
a ministry
there. Church loyalty to him was expressed in many ways.
He believed, however, that it was unfortunate so much time
and effort had been wasted on such an ia!ue as the funda
mentalist con roversy when considerably larger and more
important problems r emained for Christian churches to
cope with.
The idealism o:f the "war to end wars" had faded in
America and disillusionment had come. The diversion of
a religious battle provided the front pages of the news
papers with excitement. The New York Times said in an
editorial:
I
It is plain that the whole loss will not fall upon
Dr. Fosdick, but upon the Presbyterian Church. It will
have convicted itself in the eyes of the lay public not
only ot a certain denominational narrowness, but of
the folly of giving up the services of a preacher whose
good report has filled the whole city, become known
V
tbrou hout the anti e country and reached the know
ledge of the churches in England. Such a voice as
that of Dr. Fosdick
1
s is in no danger of being
silenced by any technical ecclesiastical veto . 22
The Homiletic Review commented editorially:
In the past the Presbyterian Church has taken a
leading part in the movement for Christianity ••••
To many earnest Christians of different co11ID1unions
the action of the First Church in welcoming Dr .
Fosdick to its pulpit as an Associate whi le still a
Baptist was a step forward on that path. They can
not but feel that the cessation of this ministry for
the reason assigned is a severe blow •••• The
position taken by the Presbyterian General Assembly
in refusing to approve the continued occupancy of a
Presbyterian pulpit by a Baptist clergyman of evan
gelical conviction sets a dangerous precedent . 23
Dr . Fosdick preached his last sermon at First
67
hurch to a packed congregation. The crowd was so great
that traffic was congested in the area of the church. A
great wave of emotion swept over the congregation as men
and women crowded about him in the pulpit as he finished.
For an hour after the service, he was in a receiving line
shaking hands with members and friends who wanted to wish
him success and to say farewell .
Harry Emerson Fosdick, in his masterly farewell
sermon, had reminded his audience that Paul had had
experiences with fundamentalists at Corinth. This was
the question of whether Christianity should carry on the
2
2Editorial in The New York Times, October 7, 1924.
2
3nThe Fosdick Case," The Homiletic Review, LXXXVIII
(Novembe~ , 1q24), PP• 370- 71. -
68
old Jewish observan ces such as circumcision, clean and
unclean foods, Sabbath ke eping , Temple ritual and sacri
fice. Paul had brushed thes e accumulations aeide, Dr.
Fosdick emphasized, insis t i ng that nothing mattered except
a living faith in Christ. "How respectable heretics do
grow in the retrospect of history , " he recalled.
Henry Ward Beecher--what a name to conjure with
now, but he was the best-hated heretic of his gener
ation. Beecher spoke once i n this city, and my
friend heard him say: "They call me a heretic now,
just as they called my rather and my grandfather.
But I notice that now folk begin to speak politely
about my father and grandfather , and some of you
young men will yet live t o hear Henry Ward Beecher
spoken of as a venerable m an of God. ~24
The First Presbyterian Church , Dr. Fosdick said,
had stood for tolerance . It r epr esented many doctrinal
traditions and had been an inclusive, not an exclusive,
church. It believed i n the right or people to think
through the abiding t ruth s of Christianity in modern
terms. He extolled the i deas which were behind the plan
that brought him, a member of another denomination, to
First Church to experiment in church unity. The tragedy
of Protestant· sm, he be l i eved, was that it too often
represented Christianity as the domain of exclusive
churches to which nobody belonged except those people, in
certain classes of socie t y , who had the same belief
2
4.rhe Ne York Times , March 2, 1925, p . , 5.
about some doctrine or eccl siaatical procedure. Then
Dr. Fosdick concluded:
We have lifted a standard that no one will pull
down. We have stated an issue that no man or
denomination is strong enough to brush aaide.25
69
Even after Dr. Fosdick was gone from the pulpit
of First Church, the fundamentalists attempted to chal
lenge the liberals in the Presbyterian Church on the
grounds that the Ne York Presbytery had been "tardy" in
releasing Dr. Fosdick. It was alleged that the New York
Presbytery was in contempt of court. After a stormy
session in 1925, the issue as settled when the Judicial
Commis91on decided that if the Presbytery had made an
error in retaining Dr. Fosdick so long, it as only an
error of judgment.
26
A commission of fifteen members as appointed
from both liberal and conservative wings or the Assembly
to make a study of the "spiritual conditions of the
Church" and the "causes making for unrest.n
2
7
Following the 1925 General Assembly, the funda
mentalist cause aho edit as eaken1ng. Not only in
25
Ibid., P• $.
26
Minutes of the General Ass~mbly of the Presby-
terian Church in the u.s.A ., Third Series, Vol. 'IV
fPhilade!phla:Office-o? the General Assembly, 1925),
PP• 78-82.
2
7Ibid.
70
the Presbyterian hu h, but in oth denominations,
incl ding the Northern Bap tist Convention, there were
sign that the controversy was running out.
In the attempt t o silence the voice of liberalism,
the fundamentalists actually brought more attention to
the very thing they wanted to suppress. The attempt to
d scredit Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick did not succeed and
he went on to preach to even more people who had heard
a out him through the fundamentalist-modernist contro-
v ray . The fundamentalist cause was lost , even though
they gained the dubious victory of seeing Dr. Fosdick
resign from the pulpit of First Church . He was free
now to accept the chall nge of a new church in which
ideas of freedom of thought and church unity could be
expressed.
)
j
CI-IAPI'ER V
THE THEOLOGY OF HARRY EMERSO?I FOSDICK
During most of Harry Emerson Fosdick
1
s professional
life he has had to face the attacks of those elements of
the social scene who could not understand him or co·uld not
grasp the living vitality of his adventurous faith. Dr .
Fosdick has always proclaimed that the on utter heresy
in Christianity is to believe that we have reached final
ity and can settle down with a complete theological
system. That, he said, is the essential denial of the
living God, who has not said the last word on any subject,
and who has not completed any task. Dr . Fosdick finds it
unfortunate that, in religion, many people cling to static,
settled, authoritative finality as though they could find
strength and security in it . l
As a result of his own wrestling with religious
insight, Dr. Fosdick has been able to challenge both the
fundamentalist and the skeptic to evaluate their beliefs .
He has dared both the reactionary and the radical to
pursue truth to its logical end. He believes that the
lHarry Emerson Fosdick, Adven~urous Religion
(New York~ Harper and Brothers, 1926), p. 5.
72
final result for both the dogmatic conservative and the
extreme liberal who may see only one side of an issue ,
will be a sort of mental stagnation.
While holding liberal opinions in religion, Dr.
Fosdick has always tried to respect the viewpoints of his
critics . The unceasing attacks on him over the many years
of his ministry have never made him lapse from his belief
in tolerance for others . On the other hand, he has had
excellent support from many of the great man representing
Protestant churches throughout the years of hia preaching
ministry . College presidents, deans of theological semi naries , great preachers and laymen of the churches backed
him strongly in hia fight to keep the churches free to
develop and grow His influence on thousands of students
was great because he respected the intellect while in sis ting on holding the great truths available in the
Christian faith . Reinhold Niebuhr commented on this
ability of Dr Fo~dick when he said, in part :
That was the basis of his tremendous influence on
the student generation two decade s ago and upon the
thinking people in all walks of life; for he not only
resisted the claims of the obscurantists but affirmed
the message of biblical faith in such a way as to
prove its relevance to the experience of modern men ,
who , it must be noted , were proved on analysis to be
real men with men
1
s perennial needs , however modern
they might be . 2
2Reinhold Niebuhr , "Fosdick: Theologian and
Preacher , " The Chr stian Century, LXX (June 3, 1953),
PP• 657-58.
73
It was not only modernists and fundamentalists who
participated in the controversy of the 1920
1
s. Another
group made up of left-wing radicals also joined the fight .
Dr. Fosdick states that these men were often former minis ters or members of evangelical churches who found the
constraints of such churches hard to bear.3
Some religious radicals had seen Dr . Fosdick as a
sort of "messiah" come to lead the forces of liberalism
out of the orthodox churches . However, the theological
point of view of Dr . Fosdick was that of an "evangelical
_
1
testant," and he could n t subscribe to a more human istic v ew. As a result of th s, he foun that he was
severely chastized by some who, possibly, had lost their
sense of proportion. One champ on of the reliw·ous left wing view was A. c. Dieffenbach, the spirited editor of
The Christian Registe~, a Unitarian publication. He
mourned the lost ca se of the modernist min sters who
had, he said, tried to " ma..r;ce a gre at adventure." They
were "trying to make a new heaven° but had retreated,
he concluded. "To call the roll," he added, "would be
like a solemn ceremony over the innumerable departed."
First on Dieffenbach
1
s list was Harry Emerson Fosdiclr.
3Ha ry Emerson Fosdick , The Living of These Days
(New York : Harper and Brothers,~56), p .7:'62-63.
74
" He once looked like the Captain of the Host,"
wrote Dr . Dieffenbach, ftwho would liberate the Churches
from their dogmatic bonds and their political intolerance."
He praised what he called Dr . Fosdicl{
1
a revolutionary
challeng to the fundamentalists. Dr . Dieffenbach' s words
were colorful , to say the least:
But when the Fundamentalists in the Baptist Church
threatened its disruption, he preached, arter some
urging, the famous sermon, ''Shall the Fundamentalists
Win?" He was set upon by a pack of them, ravening,
am from t ha t time forth he has lived in safety, far
from the battle of the Modernists, 'Which, with him as
its leader, would probably have been victorious and
the wor)..d would have had a new Reforn1ation, or very
nearly. 4
Dr . Fosdick has said of this left-handed compliment:
"I suppose that I should have felt complimented by all
th s, for what Dr . Dieffenbach wanted was that I should
join him in becoming a Unitarian .
11
He added that his
methods , however, were certainly not persuasive.5
Dr . Dieffenbach solemnly pointed out that in Dr.
Fosdick' s creed , presented to th.e Presbyterian General
Assembly, "there is not a syllable here that Dr . J . Gresham
Machen, the chief of the Presbyterian Fundamentalists,
could find fault with." 6
4A. c . Dieffenbac h , Religious Libertz (New York:
William Morrow and Co., 1927), p. 86.
SFosdick, The Liviqg of These Days, p. 167.
6
nieffenbach, .Q.E• cit . p . 92.
,I
)
75
This still did not explain why Dr . Fosdick's
"creed" as contrary to the doctrines of the Presbyt rian
Church , a s interpreted by Dr . Machen and the other funda mentalis t s .
In discussing the attack of some left- wing radi cal s, Dr. Fosdick has said that he believed that type of
person l ost his perspective in exaggeratin the importance
of the fundamentalist controversy. The picture was not
nearly so clear- cut . Many Unitarian leaders backed Dr.
Fosdick , however, and among them were Professor Peabody
of Harvard and Dr . Harold E. B. Speight , at that time
t he m i nis t er of King ' s Chapel , Boston. Dr. Speight had
rebuked Dr . Dieffenbach for his abusive remarks about
Dr. Fosdick made at a convention of religious liberals .
Se said, in part:
I thought that at a meeting of the national feder ation of religious liberals we should concern our se l ve s more particularl y ith trying to make bridges
ov er which men can walk to meet one another in this
quest of pure religion. The fact that Dr . Fosdick
has determined that he does not wish to become a
Unitarian is not rrry concern. He knows best where h
can put in his licks moat effectively. 7
He observed further that Dr. Fosdick had influenced
hundreds of thousands of young men and women and he could
not see anything in the Unitarian Church which could have
given him the grand opportunity he had already.
7nrsniping' Dr . Fosdick Condenm.ed,' The Christian
C ntury, XLI ( ovember 13, 1924), P• 1478.
(
76
Harry Emerson Fosdick says he can recall these
attacks of Dr . Dieffenbach with a "genial goo will." He
was still rateful for the warm support he received from
others in Dr . Dieffenbach
1
s denominat ion.
8
Besid s the attacks of some religious radicals,
tr~re was criticism from the humanists who could not agree
with Dr . Fosdick' s theology. Harry Elmer Barnes devoted a
great deal of sp ce in his Twilight of Christianitl to the
problem of religion and Dr. Fosdick's contribution to it .
Whilo admiring Dr . Fosdick's keen mind, he called for him
to abandon what he alleged to be a "Jesus stereotype."
Barnos could not understand how Dr . Fosdick could
find such a champion of "personality" in Jesus. He said
that one would have to select certain favorable passages
in Scripture to make a good case for Jesus as an exponent
of human personal i t y. He even went so far as to say that
Dr. Fosdicl-c "has enjoyed infinitely greater opportunities
than Jesus in the way of the study and analysis of human
personality. " In fact, he went on, "Dr. Fosdick was better
equip d to defend and elucidate the principle of person
ality than Christ and all His Apostles combined.
0
9
{New
Bi.,osdick, The Living of These pays, loc. cit.
9Harry Elmer Barnes, The Twili@t of Christianity
York : The Vanguard Press, 1929), pp.409-10.
0
()
77
Dr. Fosdiclc replied witl good humor to Barnes,
granting him one point:
11
He wants the conscience of today
free to operate without that ancient stencil through which
so often Christians merely paint over a present moral issue
with the name of Christ." However, he disagreed with
Barnes that the solution of the problem was to withdraw
devotion from Jesus Chr· st.
The underlying difficulty with Barnes and his like
is simply that they are scientifically minded, and
that no science ever treats its creative personalities
as religion treats Jesus, Buddha, and other founders
of religions. Science abstracts from Copernicus,
keeps such as remains valid, throws the residue away,
and leaves the matter there. Copernicus, the individ
ual, science does not adore. Barnes is really telling
us to treat Christ like that, to take the few per
manently valid and basic ideas of his thinking, forget
the rest, let his personality sink into ancient
history, and move. All of which shows that, while
men like Barnes may understand science, they do not
understand art or religion.10
It would be entirely possible, Dr. Fosdick thought,
to abstract Copernicus' scientific ideas from Copernicus,
but in the case of a great man such as Toscanini, his
art was Toscanini.
A man of lesser stature might not have survived the
innumerable assaults and jibes of critics. Dr. Fosdick
never ran from the field, but fought it out, answering
arguments with cogent, well-reasoned rebuttals and, most
of all, with grac1ousness and good humor. He was not
10Harry Emerson Fosdick, As I See Religion (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1932)-;-pp.--ilj:5-46.
- 'i
0
78
primarily interested in arg ing bout religion but in
making it so pr ctical and vital that his bearers were
convinced of the necessity of the practice of it.
One of the problems his critics from the humanist
side presented was a curious predilection on the part of
some to assume that the modernist view of religion was
not really the religion of Christian tradition. This was
so, the argument went, because it did not have the author
ity of God in back of it. This interesting argument was
presented by Walter Lippmann who complained that something
quite fundament 1 had been left out of modernist creeds,
namely "the conviction that the religion comes from God."
He went on to s y, in part:
The Bible, as men formerly accepted it, contained
wisdom certified Citalics in the originalJ by the
powers tnat govern the universe. It did not merely
contain many well-tested truths, similar in kind to
those which are to be found in Plato, Aristotle,
Montaigne, and Bernard Shaw. It contsined truths
which could not be doubted because they had been
spoken by God throug~ his prophets and his Son. They
could not be wrong.Ii
Once it is allowed that each man may select from
the Bible as he sees fit, Lippmann said, judging each
passage by his own notion of what is abiding, the Scrip
tures have been stripped of their authority to command
llwalter Lippmann, A Preface to Morals (New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1929), pp. 47-48.-
,..
men's confidence and to compel their obedience. He as
afraid that the Scriptures might still inspir respect,
but the vrork of modernists had disarmed them
79
One is forced to the conclu ion that Mr . Lippmann,
like the fundamentalists in some respects, thought it
necessary to either take the Bible literally, or not at
all. At least the argument would appear to lead thia way .
It was just this type of "either-or" thinking that Dr .
Fosdick had battled throughout his life . He answered
Mr. Lippmann by saying that he was dumbfounded to hear
that God interpreted in spiritual terms, or values , was
puzzling to Mr . Lippmann. When Mr . Lippmann exclai d :
"But certainly this is not the God of the ancient faith.
'!his is not God the Father, the Law- giver, the Judge This
is a highly sophisticated idead of God, " Dr. Fosdick was
surprised. He went on to say that of course the approach
to God in this new universe does not give the picture of
God which belonged to 1000 B . c. , or even 1000 A. ~ . The
hard outlines of old definitions have given ay to ideas
much more comprehensive, and much less dogmatic .
12
This, said Dr. Fosdick, does not mean intellectual
vacuity nor spiritual loss . ie have in this new approach
to God a conviction which is sustaining and enriching to
12Fosdick, As 1 See Religion, o . cit., PP • 153-54•
80
life. This cosmos, which created personal spiritual
values and sustains them, cannot be adequately interpreted
w thout reference to them. e could not remain in the
shell of the past, was his argument . We must take our
present lmowledge and move forward, even if it meant
g ving up cherished ideaa no longer meaningful or true.
Dr. Fosdick has said that people have found it
hard to define just what his theolo ical pos ticn is. He
believes it is because he has never been either a theo
logical reactionary or a theological radical. When men
care so little for their Christian experiences or insights
in o truth that t ey feel no need to think them through
again , then he believes Christianity will be finished .
Speaking of his formative years in college under
Dr . William ~ewton Clarke, when his own theological ideas
were in ferment, Dr. Fosdick said that he became a liberal
but has never liked party labels . Believing that liberal ism has its characteristic faults, he still thinks that
the curr nt literal interpretation and acceptance of the
Bible uncr tically is a major problem to healthy religion.
Ee believes that theologies are always psychologically
and sociologically conditioned. Many of the great doc
trines of the Church, set forth with such scholarly study
and elaborate argument, were not such everlasting truth
but war temporary formulations of a great idea made by
m cond tioned at the outset by their social culture.
u Ll
0
81
They ere reacting psychologically to this culture so that
the current world pictur beeame their frame of ref rence
for all or their thinking on religious matters.
Vital Christian experience has been a key to his
attitude toward religion. He believee tha liie offers
too many things that materialism alone cannot explain.
This has made his ministry useful to some and not to
others. For the most part he has a.ppealed to people left
stranded by religious obscurantism of either the funda
~ontalist or neo- orthodox variety. The gospel that Dr.
Fosdick has preached has been decried first by the funda
centalists because it was not orthodox enough, and then by
the nee- orthodox because it was not stern enough to deal
ith man•s evil, or so they thought.
As the first orld war led to Karl Barth's despair
and hia turning to a transcendent God, so the depression
of the 1930
1
s turned men•s thoughts to a feeling that
liberalism in religion had played them false. Turning
from faith that man could make a better world , they came
to a belief that man waa too evil to accomplish this--at
1 ast many did. The teachings of Jeaua about the Kingdom
were translated by many into a perfection not to be seen
on this earth. Even Union Theological Seminary reflected
this change . In reply to this writer's question regarding
the emergence or neo-orthodoxy at Union Seminary in the
past few years, Dr. Fosdick wrote, in a personal letter:
u u
82
When you peak of t he mer ence of neoorthodoxy
in such a liberal center as Union Seminary was you
have to be careful to define your terms. Certainly
nobody at Union Seminary is a follower of Karl Barth.
Paul Tillich has been a powerful theological influence
at the Seminary, but he is not in the least a Barth ian; he is off on another tangent altogether. As
for Reinhold iebuhr, he is one of my warmest personal
friends, and, of course, has been as critical of
I arl Barth as any liberal could be. I think that
your figure of the swingi ng pendulum is as good
picture of the situation as any. Liberalism did go
to extremes that needed to be corrected; soma liberals
even oing way over into nontheistic humanism. Men
like Reinhold iebuhr swung back, and especially this
was caused by the effect of the world war that
smashed up the too sentimental optimism of certain
type s of liberalism, and called for a much more
realistic and stern appraisal of human natu e and of
the Christian gospel. As~ matter of fact, the whole
Union attitude is not neoorthodox at all , but rather
middle-of-the-road. 13
In trying to keep the questioning, explorative
attitude toward reli ion, Dr. Fosdick endeavored to have
his students at Union question liberalism when it was in
the ascendency, as he expected them to criticize nee-or
thodoxy when it came to the predominant position. H e
thinks that one of the faults of neo-orthodoxy is its
complete effect of encouraging the belief that i t is the
everlasting truth. He believes that Barth illustrates
primarily the effect of one's philosophy of life coming
from a psychological response to a powerf ully conditioned
social situation. His analysis of the nee - orthodox
position of Barth , fo r all its true and valuable insights,
1955.
1
3Harry Emer son Fosdick personal letter,
ovember 8,
83
is that it will prove to be as temporary as the situation
which produced it. 14
Dr. Fosdick has been criticized for this liberal
attitude and with the emergence of neo - orthodoxy and a
renewed fundamentalist surge, has been treated by some
conservative writers in a most condescending way. The
liberal approach to religion is discussed by some writers
as though it were obviously dead issue, or at any rate
a dying issue, which it is not . The able Carl F. H. Henry,
an outstanding fundamentalist leader, criticized opinions
of Dr . Fosdick by saying that, although Dr . Fosdick had
expressed his dissatisfaction with liberalism in 1935,
there had been no unifying alternative to classic liberal
ism offered. Instead, he maintained, "there have been
snatches from this and from that alternative position,
coupled with a sense of not having arrived. "15
On the other hand, some neo - orthodox leaders had
complained that Dr . Fosdick was still clinging to an out moded concept of the Bible and sharply criticized him and
other liberals for their use of pre-World War I ideas in
Biblical criticism.
George Ernest Wright discusses his diss tisfaction
14Louis Finkelstein (ed . ), American Spiritu 1
Autobiographies (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946),
pp . 114-15.
15carl F . H. Henry, Fifty Years of Protestant
Theology (Boston: w . A. Wilde , 1950), p-;-79.
with the concept of the developmental view of the Bible,
especially that maintained by Dr . Fosdick. Although he
calls Dr. Fosdick's ~ Guide to Understanding the Bible
84
a beautifully written book "which did much to fix the
older developmental views in the minds of a countless
number of non-specialists, in p rticular those of college
students," he believes that the historical presupposition
behind it is in error.16
Dr. Fosdick would certainly be the last person to
believe that theological and Biblical study should remain
static. He repeatedly made clear his belief that life
does not stand still, that religion is a growing, live
affair between man and God and that new ideas need a
welcome reception. He believed that the battle to save a
vital religious faith was won, and that it was necessary
to win it against the dogmas of an orthodoxy that was no
longer valid . On the other hand, he remir:rled his listen ers that too often modernism had become negative, and
more often than was good, had loudly declaimed its dis
belief in this or that dogma. He called for affirmative
beliefs, open to change when proven wrong, but based on
positive affirmations of faith.
16Arnold Nash (ed . ), Protestant Thought in the
Twentieth Century (New York: The Macmillan Co.,~9'5IT,
p. 35.
85
Harry Emerson Fosdick states that he had a great
deal of respect for men who came to their nee-orthodox
opinions through liberalism, but that those who had never
known anything but the nee-orthodox theolc
0
"Y were often so
dogmatic that he was often amazed and disillusioned.
He believes that there is no single quality in nee-ortho
doxy that characterizes the movement in its opposition to
liberal theology today. He does think that the movement
is discovering that it ca.11 assail a visionary optimism
without going to the other extreme. He is sure that a
balance will come and instead of an "either-or," the
final result will be a "both-and.n Again, Dr. Fosdick
sees theology as an ever-growing, ever-moving, dynamic
part of religion and feels that reason will prevail. He
does not think that faith and reason can be opposed to
each other. He has said: "Faith and reason are not anti
thetical opposites. They need each other. All the tragic
superstitions which have cursed religion throughout ita
history have been due to faith divorced from reason.n
1
7
Believing that the nee-orthodox theologians are so
much better than their theology, Dr. Fosdick sees a syn
thesis of a revitalized liberalism which will differ
1
7Fosdick, The Living of These Daya, p . 258.
86
cons derably from that of a half-century ago, and a neo
orthodox position which has been refined of its extremes.
A short resume of some of Dr. Fosdick's theological
opinions may g ive some clues to the reason for the contro
versies which have accompanied him. He has interpreted
God as being like Christ, and finds that in the New Testa
ment , Christianity is a religion of incarnation, affirm
ing that God has come and can come again into human life.
He recognizes the problems involved in the understanding
of the incarnation, but says that the early Christians
found God in Christ through their experience. He believes:
If we should regain their vital discovery of God in
Christ, should interpret it, as we have a right to do,
in terms of our thought o~ divine immanence--the
modern counterpart of the Logos doctrine without the
antecedent difficulties which the Logos doctrine had
to meet--we could make the divinity of Christ once
more, not a dry formula, but a living and experience
able reality .1~
Recognizing the argument of some that the divinity
of Jesus makes it impossible for human beings to imitate
him, Dr . Fosdick believes that if Jesus had God within
him, creating that kind of quality of person, then there
is hope f or mankind. If Jesus was only a good man, he
says , then it is asking the impossible to be like him.
It is as though a sick man in a hospital, surrounded by
18Harry Emerson Fosdick, The ?-iodern Use of the
Bible (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1924); p. 2o8'.
0
()
c- •
87
othe sick men, should hear an athlete in perfect health
call to others to follow him. Far from being encouraged ,
he would be discoura ed . 19
Then Dr. Fosdick goes on to say that the inca -
nation in Christ "is the prophecy and hope o:f God's
nd·welling in every one of us . " Rather than finding the
divinity of Christ difficult to believe, he finds it
actually more believable spiritually if one sees it as
evidence of God attempting to break into man
1
s life . 20
God, for Dr . Fosdick, is personal . He th nks that
we believe in God because we are hungry for a world that
is not chance and chaos, but is headed somewhere, for
s ome purpose . This need is answered only by something
a1 in to personality . "If God is not personal," he says,
"he can feel no concern for human life and a God of no
concern is of no consequence."
2
1
God is also in earnest about creation, Dr . Fosdick
be l ieves . He finds in all of life that purpose is neces
sary to explain anything, from a chair to a chameleon.
He warns, however, of a danger in a pantheistic God . He
thinks it is possible for so1ne to make God so diffused
19Ioid. , p . 270 .
20Ibid . , p . 271 .
21Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Meanir. of Faith
(New York: Association Press, 19m, p . 6 . -
u
88
by seeing him everywhere that he s deprived of any real
meaning or purpose . Believi ng that God is inv sibly
everywhere, he warns , strips God of the last shred of
perEonaJ.ity , and thus ends the possibility of his being
earnest about anything . Dr . Fosdick then says :
He has become refined Vapor thinly diffused through
space . Folk s ay they love to m editate on him, and
well they mayl For such a god asks nothing of anybody
except meditation; he has no purposes that call for
earnestness in them. When little children are ruined
in a city
1
s tenements , when the liquor t r affic brutal izes men, v1l1en economic inequity makes many poor that
a few may be made rich, when war clothes the world
with unutterable sorrow, such a god does not care .
He is not in earnest about anything . 22
Dr . Fosdick also believes that God ia a God of
love . He a ain warns about tne t ./ denc·y o ma]ce his a
sentimental feeling about God and to jgnore the God of
reality. He terms t l ·s a God of "coddling love." H e
hinks that t hi s may be one of the most pernicious influ ences of human life . This trust becomes a cushion on
which to lie, and a sedat~ve by which to sleep.
Basically, Dr. Fosdick stakes his belief in God and
a purposeful univerqe on the persistence of personality ,
both no ; and after death. While this earth may disappear
in time, it may serve its purpose if p~rsonality is , as
h believes, the supreme reality in God'~ world.
22
Ibid., Pe 226 .
Dr. Fosdicl{ has written hundred of thousands of
words about God and Christ . Primarily he believes that
Jesus Christ incarnates the truth of God, the moral law
o. f God. "Beyond all that," he said, "he reveals what only
personality can reveal--the imperishable grace and love of
u-od . "23 Dr. Fosdick has never stopped with the negative
attitude of declaiming wbat God is not, nor what Christ
is not, nor with tearing down historic beliefs of the
Christian faith. He has gone about a job of rebuilding
and rejuvenating the Christian faith . He has attempted
to translate the great traditions of the past for our
times .
One of the great traditions of the Church has been
the belief in the virgin birth of Christ . Dr . Fosdick
1
s
d sagreement with the funda mentalist position on this
matter was one of the prime reasons !'or tl1e "war" against
him.
When Dr . Fosdick said that the virgin birth was one
of the familiar ways the ancients used to explain a person
of unusual superiority, that stories of supernatural birth
were common in antiquity, especially in regard to founders
of great religions, some Christians thought the world was
23Harry Emerson Fosdick, A Faith for Tough Times
(New York: Harper and Brothers, I952 ), p~O.
t bling down and that Dr. Fosdick was a heretic . Ha
reminded his hearers of these problems in the contro
versial sermon, "shall the Fundamentalists Win?" by
pointing out that Paul an John never even distantly
alluded to the virgin birth.
Again, in his Lyman Beecher lectures of 1924, he
discussed the virgin birth in his comments on miracle
and law, noting the differences between Mark, Matthew an
Luke . 24
However, it is only in The Man From Nazareth that
we get a more detailed discussion of the virgin birth.
Dr . Fosdick states that the brealr between Jesus and his
family was one of the crucial tests of his ministry-- he
calls it a "tragedy in the personal relationships of the
home in Nazareth.
1
25
From a discussion of these relationships, Dr .
90
Fosdick takes p the credibility of the virgin birth. He
believes that there 1s no evidence in the Gospels, apart
from the birth stories themselves, that any member of
Jesus' family or any of his first disciples thought him
to be born of a virgin. He reminds us that Mark does
not mention it. Dr . Fosdick says, in part:
24Fosd1ck, The Modern Use of the Bible, pp . 146-47.
-- ---- -- - -- ---
25Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Man From Nazareth
(New York: Harper and Brothers, ~91,p. 158.
In Matthew am Luke, where the birth stories
appear, are two gene logies, so inconsistent that
they cannot possibly be reconciled, both of which
in tracing Jesus' lineage come down to Joseph, not
91
t o Mary. These genealogies are inconceivable except
on the supposition that when they were prepared Joseph
was thought to be Jesus' father.26
Dr. Fosdiclr goes on to say that the category of
v lrgin birth was alien to Jewish thinking . The passage in
Isaiah 7:14, he says, in which the Church found prophecy
of Mary's virginity ( t the time :Matthew and Luke were
written) was taken, not from the original Hebrew, but
from them staken rendering in the Septuagint, the Greek
translation of the Old Testament. The original Hebrew
says not "virgin, t1 but "young woman." Dr. Fosdick inter
prets t his as a way the Greek world had of explaining
unusual personalities, as we have pointed out. Our new
revised standard version of the Old Testament has trans
lated Isaiah 7 :14 as "youne woman," thus bringing al rm
t o the fundamentalist groups.27
Dr. Fosdick believes that if it was in the later
Hellenistic period of the Church that the story of the
v·rgin birth arose, this would explain why early records
of Jesus' first followers do not reveal a sign that they
26Ibid.
2
7The Holl Bible, Revised Standard Version {New
York: Thomas elson and Sons, 195~), p. 716.
u
92
ever considered him to be born by any special act of God.
His family and friends would never have thought that he
was "beside himself," as Mark 3:21 ha s it, in undertaking
his ministry. Dr . Fosdick oes on to say that he believes
that whatever happened during the earthly ministry of
Jesus, his mother and at least one of his brothers were
at the heart of the first church.
Obviously Jesus felt that family and friends were
mportant, but that service to God might mean that loved
ones took second place . Mark 3:21 throws light on this
when it speaks of Jesus' friends who, on hearing of his
casting out "demons" and commissioning his disciples to
do likewise, "went out to seize him for they said,
1
He
is beside himself . '" Dr . Fosdick considers this an impor
tant clue to an understanding of Jesus' position with his
contemporaries .
2
8
James Moffatt, in his translation of the Bible,
renders Mark 3:21 as: "And when his family heard this,
they set out to get hold of him, for men were saying,
1
He is out of his mind .
1
"
2
9 Dr . Fosdick considers this
renderin as probably correct inasmuch as Mark 3:21-35
2
~osdick, The M an From Nazareth, pp. 159- 60.
2
9Ja s Moffat, The Bi le: A New Translation
( ~w York: Harper and Brothers,
93
tells of Jesus' mother and brothers trying to call to him
despite the large cro d hi ch prevented their reaching
him. The fact that Jesus refused to go out to meet his
family is regarded by Dr . Fosdick as evidence that this
was a crucial test for him. Certainly, coming hard on
the heels of the attempt by "friends" to seize him, this
conclueion sounds logical . 30
Turning from the problem of the virgin birth to the
matter of the use of the Bible, another storm of trouble
between Dr . Fosdick and the fundamentalists, we find
again the desire on his part to make the Scriptures live
and to understand them as they spoke to men of the past .
Harry Emerson Fosdick, in the opening remarks of
the Lyman Beecher Lecture series at Yale University, said
that he was amazed and delighted to discover that only one
of his forty-odd predecessors of this lecture foundation
had dealt with the topic he proposed to discuss - -the
critical use of the Bible. He referred to George Adam
Smith's lectures on "Modern Criticism and the Preaching
of the Old Testament . " He admitted that more ministers
than one could imagine found the Bible a difficult enigma .
Some preachers avoided using parts of the i ble, while
others used texts as pegs upon which to hang a collection
30posdick, The an From azareth, p. 157.
1
94
of their o
opinions. He believes that the modern us of
the Bibl demands straigh thinking, and in the last
analysis he sees some of the major probl ms troubling the
churches coming from the central problem--how the Bible
is used. He warned that one would be ise to kno the
Bible thoroughly if one was to minister to people, and
especially when one was preaching to those who were
drilled in the older method of Scripture usage. His use
of the Bible must display long reflection, sound reason
and also conscientious decision. The minister must have
gone through long study of the criticism to which the
Bible has been put and then he can come forth adequately
prepared to deal ith the problems presented.3
1
Harry :Emerson Fosdick has al ays maintained that
one must adopt humility, recognizing that our new way of
thinking are transient, just as many passages in the Bible
are. The riches of the world's thought are stored up for
us in other ways of speaking and in other forms ot thought
than ours. Seeing this clearly 111 make one realize ho
narrow a lif ill be for one who appreciates only truth
expressed in modern terms. A man could be a prisoner of
the thought-forms of his on age, Dr. Fosdick saia.3
2
31Fosdick, The Mo rn Use of the Bible, PP• 1-6.
--- ------
32Ibid., p 95.
---
95
I f there i s one phrase that could be said to sum
up Dr . Fosdi ck's the ological ideas, it might be this:
"Abidi ng experiences and changing categories." He has
us d this phrase frequently to describe his understanding
of the gro th of the Christian faith. He believes that
this is the key to spiritual growth. I t is a dynamic,
youthful, creative rephrasing of each generation's
experienc e s i n terms meaningful to it.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The impact of Harry Emerson Fosdick on religion in
the Uni tad States has been tremendous. He made t l1e term
"liberal' mean just what it implies. He did not use
liberalism as license to undermine the Christian faith,
rather he freed religion from the narrow confines of the
ancient ways which were often unintelligible to men of the
twentieth century. His ability as a preacher gave this
ift of mind greater opportunity to persuade his hearers
of the importance of Christianity. His ability as a
writer allowed him to reach countless tl1ousands of people
through every medium, from popular magazines to serious
journals. Dr. Fosdick is not easily categorized. He does
not fit into a pattern, but he also does not flit from one
tl1eory to another. He is remarkably consistent. This
writer asked Dr. Fosdick if he thought he was becoming
more conservative in theology in recent years , as some
people had believed. He replied:
I am not quite sure what those people mean to whom
you refer, who say that I have become more conserva
tive in recent years concerning theology. If they
mean that I have given up any of my basic liberal
convictions and outlooks , that is not true. In some
ways I think I am more radical than I was a generation
ago. But if they mean that I have gotten deeper
insi, ts into the central truths of the gospel, and
u
u
0
97
have more poise and balance and proportion in my out
look on Christian convictions, I certainly hope that
that is true. I should think of that, however, in
terms of deepening vitality, rather than in terms of
increased conaervatism.l
Some persons thought they saw in Dr. Foadick
1
s 1935
statement that the churches must go beyond modernism a
tendency to return to a more orthodox position. However,
as was pointed out earlier, this was not surrender to
conservatism at all. Dr. Fosdick has said that modernism
needed to be held in balance and that it was part of a
method of ascertaining religious truth. He never assumed
that modernism in religion would always be inviolate. He
is, it seems, always one step ahead of his admirers and
critics. He has never rested on the assumption that the
last word has been spoken on any matter. No doubt this
might frustrate the type of mind which finds security only
in dogmas handed down from the past unchanged.
Dr. Fosdick fought for a spirit of ecumenicity
within the Christian community. He continues to fight for
it, even in retirement. He believes in unity in diversity.
While holding certain beliefs tentatively, his faith is
not deprived of vitality or health. Dr. Fosdick believes
that no church or organization has the right to lay down
for man what he should or should not believe. The words
of Gerald Birney Smith put it well:
1955.
lHarry Emerson Fosdick personal latter, November 8,
98
The primary quest·on for the fundamentalist, as for
the Roman Catholic, 1s th questicn of aut ority. The
foremost article in the fundamentalist's creed is the
infallibility of Ser pture. The modern st, on the
other hand, is not interested in this problem. He
wants to discover what interpretation of religion is
inherently convincing. He is consequ ntly regarded
by the fundamentalist as an irresponsible fr e lance.2
Harry Emerson Fosdick made his impact on liberal
thought in reli ion from inside tle theistic, evang lical
Prote tent ranks. He believes that new truth is to be
expected, and that if it is the truth, the Chr .stian
Church does not need to be afraid of it. He gave heart
to those want·ng a religion which incorporated odern
scholarship and piety. Because he was kind, considerate
and ful of Christian grace, he could deal kindly with his
ecclesiastical foes, or with his supporters.
Dr. Fosdick spole to the man in the street, as well
as to the man in the Church. Working his way up from the
Bowery, where the worst sins of mankind could be found, he
saw that men of all strata of society needed the message
of Christ·an love and that no dogmatic proclamations of
the Church could take the place of understanding tl1e needs
of men. Studying sociology and econo ics, he was able to
d al with tha material forces of our civilization. He
r elated religion and daily life.
Because of' his knowledge that persons with neurotic
2
Gerald Birn y Smith, Current Christian Thi king
(Ch ca o: University of Ch cago Press, 1928), p. 43.
(
99
SYJripto ,js were oft en too distI essed to r spond to the call
of the Christian message, Dr . Fosdick wanted t o help . He
made preparations to enlist the aid of psychiatrists in
the gr at work at the Riverside Church. He and his staff
worked with the professional men to bring about a mental
hy iene pro gra in the church. It was no longer necessary
to leave healing of the mind to the sects. With proper,
professional help , he saw that the Christian Church could
give relief to the suf'fering minds of millions . No doubt
his book, .QE. Bei:9e ! Real Person, gave even greater stimu
lus to ministers and laymen to seek the salvation of men
and women through the modern methods of psychoanalysis and
its related fields .3
This book was immensely popu ar, and was especially
needed during the t ense years of the second world war when
it was published . Dr. Fosdick warned the personal coun
selor against ill-advised or hasty preparations to help
those in distress. Never posing as an expert in a field
in which he had not had professional preparation, he
nevertheless was able to present to millions of average
persons the ways t o deal with f ears, anxieties, mental
depression and guilt feelings.
3Harry Emerson Fosdic k , On~ A Real Person
(New York : Harper and Brothers,1943). -
0
0
100
In the field of war and peace, Dr . Fosdick had the
courage to stand by his conviction that any war was mad ness and would only lead to more and more costly havoc .
While taking this stand, he did not refrain from serving
his. country and the world. He held up the beacon light
of Christian conscience for all to see , without holding
the prim and proper attitude of one who is unconcerned
with the strug le. He warned of Germany
1
s blood-bath,
and he warned of Russia ' s encroaching domination long
before it was generally underst ood. He had stood like a
sentinel between the two world wars . During the struggle
he gave hope and ~omfort to many . He had such faith in
God and Christ that he was able to impart it to other s .
When the history of the first half of the twentieth
century is written, the name of Harry EmerQon Fosdick will
stand out in the field of religion as one of the greatest
churchmen ever produced in the United States , and in the
line of great Christians of all time .
The free , open and seeking mind of the modern
religious liberal will not be regimented by legions of
Chtu,ch Fathers who made their plea for their day and their
era . There is more light to be shed, as Dr . FoEdick would
say . The extreme nee- orthodox person will find that man
is not nearly as bad as some of them think he is , and the
extreme religious liberal will find that man is going to
0
101
need the God of power and judgment to give meaning to
life. Probably a synthesis of the two extremes will
result. There have been suggestions that even the funda
mentalist position will be changed somewhat so that there
may be more communication among the religious forces or
this world who believe that man is more than an animal
and less than God. Dr. Fosdick has aided in this connnuni
cation more than most Christians i n his generation.
V v
..J
U V V
u
0
0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 .... __,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Atkins, Gaius G. Religion!!! Our Times. Hew York:
Round Table Press, Inc., l~.
Barnes, Harry Elmer. The Twilight or Christianitz.
Bew York: The Vanguard Press, 19'29.
Brauer, Jerald c.
Philadelphia:
Protestantism in America.
The Westmlnster""Press, 1953.
Cole, Stewart G. The Hist°;i of Fundamentalism.
New York: Richard R. S tli; 1931. ·
... . - Cotfin, Henry Sloane. A Halt Centurz of Union Seminary.
New York: Charles !crlbnerfs Sons-;-1954.
Clarke, William Newton. An outline of Christian Theology.
New York: Charles Scrfbnerls Soiis, 1899~
Dieftenbach, Albert c. Reli~ious Libertz.
William Morrow and Co., ~27.
New York:
Fosdick, Harry Emerson. The Manhood of the Master.
New York: Association Press, 191:r;
• The Mean1p.g of Prayer. Philadelphia:
-~Ba-ptist PublicatloilSoclety, 1915 •
• Christiani~ and Pr.2,gress.
-~,----1-em1ng R. Reve1rco., 1922 •
New York:
American
• The Modem Use of the Bible. New York: The
--•---a-cmillan 'co., I9~ -
• Adventurous Religion. Bew York: Harper and
--~B-r-others, 1926 •
• Twelve Testa of Character. New York:
----R .. l~chard R. Smith, Inc., 1931 •
• Aa I See Religion. New York: Harper and
----1&..--otheri,-1m •
• The f~J or the World.
--~B-r-othera, .-
New York: Harper anti
• A Pilgrimage to Palestine.
---m-a-cmillan Co., 1933:-
I'lew York: The
• The Secret of Victorious Living. New York:
---ff-ar-per and Brothers", 1934 •
• The Power to See it Through. New York:
---g~a-rper and Brol;hers, 19~.
104
__ .,..._. A Guide to Understanding tl1e Bible. New York:
Harper-and BroTiiers, 1938. ·
• Living Under Tension.
__ ,_B_r-others, 1941 •
• On Bifzl~ A Real Person.
----Br-other5, • -
New York: Harper and
New York: Harper and
• A Great Time to be Alive. New York: Harper
---a-na- Brothers, 1944.- -
• The MeaniI!,g of Faith. New York: Association
----Pr--ess, !945. (Reprinted from original 1917 edition.)
• On Being Fit to Live With. New York: Harper
___ a_n_d Brothers, l~.-
• The Man From Nazareth. New York: Harper and
--B-r-others, ~9 •
• A Faith for Tough Times. New York: Harper and
--~B-r-others, 1952 •
• What is Vital_!!! Religion. New York: Harper
___ a_n_d Brothers, 1955 •
• The Living of These Days~ New York: Harper
---an_d_ Brothers, l~Sb.
Gordon, Ernest B. The Leaven or the Sadducees. Chicago:
The Bible Institute Colpor~ge Associati.on, 1926.
Henry, Carl F. H. ~if¼y Years of Protestant Theology.
Boston: w. A. 1 e Co., l~O.
Hordern, William. A Layman's Guide to Protestant
Theologz. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1955.
Jones, Edgar DeWitt. The Royalty of the ~lpit. New York :
Harper and Brothers, 1951.
Lippmann, \¥alter. A reface ~o
Macmillan Co., !9~9. --·-
orals. New York:
105
The
Page, Kirby. War--Its Caus , Consequences and Cure.
New York: George H : Dor ;n an d Co. , 1924.
Pickett, Clarence E. For Mo~a Than Bread. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co., ~ 953.
Smith, Gerald Birney. Curr -nt Christian Thinki~.
Chicago: University o{ -cliicago Presa, !g28.
Smith, Wilbur M . Therefor ~, Stand. Boston: W. A. Wilde
Co., 1945•
B. B OOK :~ P ARTS OF SERIES
Latourette, Kenneth Seott. The Grea~ Century in Europe
and the United States of Ameri ca. Vol. IV of
A History of t he EiEansTon of Cliriatianitz. 7 vola.
New York: Harper and Brother's , 11337-45.
Minutes of the General Assembly of t he Presbzterian Church
in the U.S.A. Third Series, Vo!. II •. Pniladelphia:
Offlce of-the General Assembly, 1923.
Minutes or the General Assembly of the Presbyteria...~ Church
in the u.s.A. Third·saries,Vol. III. pfi!fadelpliia: ·
ol'fice of-tne General As s embly, 1924.
Minutes of the General Assemblz of the Presbnerian Church
in the u.s.A. Thlra seriea,Vo1. IV. P Iadelph!a: .
o'tfice of-tne General Aaa emb y , 1925.
Stokes, Anson Phelps .
States. Vol. III .
Brothers , 1950 .
Church and St ate in the United
3 vols. New York: Harper and
The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Vol. XII.
12 vo!s. Chlcago: Testimoriy Pu'61Isliing Co., t n.d.J.
Thompson, Robert Ellis . A History of the Presbtterian
Churches in the Unitea States. V o!. VI of he
American miuroh Rls~or, series . 12 vols. e York:
The Chrfatfan Literature Co., 1895.
C. ESSAYS AND ARTICLES I COLLECTIONS
Erdman, Charles R. "The Church and Socialism," The
Fundamentals, Vol. XII. Chicago: Testimony
Publishing Co., [ n.d. J •
106
Finkelstein, Louis (ed.). American Spiritual Auto
biographie~. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.
Nash, Arnold. Protestant Thought in the Twentieth
Century. New York: Tlie Macmillan Co., 1951.
William Ne ton Clarke: A Biography. New York: Charles
Scribner's ~ons, 19~6.
D. BI BLES
Moffatt , J ames. The Bible, A New Translation. New York:
Harper and Brotliers, l9)~.
The tlI Bible. Revised Standard Version.
omas Nefaon and Sons, 1953.
E. PERIODICALS
New York:
Bosley, Harold A. "Inside Story: Preacher and Church,"
The Christian C~ntury, LXXIII lNovember 1, 1956),
PP• !~94-95.
Buerger, Otto M. Time, XXX {September 27, 1937), p. 2.
"Church Leaders rotest Olympic Participation," The
Christian Centurzt LII (December 4, 1935), p. 1566.
"Convention Comments," Missions, X (July, 1919), p. 522.
"Dr. Foadick
1
s Resignation," The outlook Magazine.,
CXXXVIII (October 15, 192IiJ; P• 235.
Dr. Fosdick•s Punishment," The Christian CentUIT, XLI
(October 16, 1924) , PP• 1326-27.
"Dr. Foadick'a Refusal to be a Presbyterian," The
Literr-3 Digest, LlOCXIII (October 25, 1924),
PP• 3 - 3.
0
(
107
"Dr. Fosdick•s H ail and Farewell," The Literary Digest,
LXXXIV (March 21, 1925), PP• 31~.
"Dr. Fosdick at Geneva," American Review of Reviews,
LXXII (November, 1925) , P• 538. -
"Dr. Fosdick Accepts the Challenge," The Christian
Century, XLVII (October 15, 1930) PP• 1239-4!.
"Dr. Fosdick Shifts the Emphasis," The Christian Centurz,
LII (November 20, 1935), PP• 1480-8~.
"Dr. Machen Says the Modernists are not Honest," The
Christian Century, XLI (January 31, 1924), p.l50.
Fosdick, Harry Emerson. "Heckling the Church," The
Atlantic Monthly, CVIII lDecember, 1911), pp:-735-42•
• "The Trane hes and the Church at Home , " The
-~A~t.-lantic Monthly, CXIII {January, 1919) , PP• 22;33 •
• "Ara Christian Missions in the Far East Worth
---Whi-le?" Missions, XIII (January, 1922), PP• 19-20 •
• "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" The Christian
--C-e-ntury, XX.XIX ( June 8, 1922), PP• 713-Tr.
• "Beyond Modernism," The Christian Century, LII
--(-D-eoember 4, 1935), PP• 1549-5~.
"Fundamentalism in Militant Mood," Th! Chris tian Century,
XLI lFebruary 14, 1Y24), P• 217 .
"Fundamentalism and Modernism: Two Religions," The
Christian Century, XLI l January 3, 1<-J24), PP• 5-b.
"Fosdick Declines to Sign Creed," The Christian Cent1:U7,
XLI lOctober 16, 1924), PP • 1340. 47 .
"Fosdick May Remain Until April," The Christian Centu!"l,
XLI (November 6, 1924), PP• 1448, 1454-55.
Gordon, James C. '' One Heaven of a Fellow," Coronet,
XXIII (December, 1947) , PP • 35-41.
McAfee, Joseph Ernest. "Who Wins--Fundamentaliats r
Fosdick?" The Christian Centun, XLI (October 2 , 1924),
PP• 1266-69.
"Meet to Protest Naval Maneuvers," The Christian Centucy,
LII (May 1, 1935), P• 584•
I..,
0
0
108
Mingos, Howard. "Fosdick, Liberal reacher," The World's
Work, L (October, 1925), PP• 645-53.
"Nazis Resent Fosdick' Refugee Appeal," T"ne Christian
Century:. LIV (April 28, 1937), P• 558.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. "Fosdick: Theologian and Preacher,"
The Christian Century, LXX (June 3, 1953),
PP• 657-$8.
"Presbytery Declares Bible Not Inerrant," The Christian
gentury. XLI (January 31, 1924), P• 151.
"Presbyterianism Goes Fundamentalist," The Christian
Century, XLI lJune 5, 1924), PP• 732-j3.
Preston, John H. "Dr. Fosdick' s New Church~
11
rhe World
I
s
Work, LVIII (July, 1929), PP• 56-580
"Riverside Church," Time, XVI lOctober 6, 1930),
PP• 69-72.
Samuels, Gertrude. "Fosdick at 75--Still a Rebel.,"
The New York Times Ma.gaz~ne, ( May 24, 19.53,) , PP• 14,
~67-
"•Sniping' Dr. Fosdick Condemned," The Cb.ristian Century,
XLI (November 13, 1924), P• 1478.
"sustain Planned Parenthood Case," The Christian Century,
LDC {May 27, 1953), PP• 635-36.
"The Church and •social Revolution•," The Literary Digest,
LXIX (June 18, 1921)
1
PP• 30-31.
"The Fosdick Case," The Homiletic Review, LXXXVIII
(November, 1924), PP• 370-71.
"The Liberal," Time, LXI (May 25, 1953), PP• 62-64•
"The Olive Branch for Fosdick, The Literary Digest,
LXXXI (June 21, ), • •
"The Presbyterian Attack on Dr. Fosdick," The Literarz
Digest, r.;J;Xv (November 18, 1922), PP• Jb-31.
Vaughan, Richard M. "The Crestline or the Denver Con
vention," Missions, X (July, 1919), PP• 500-14.
"What Price the Baptist Cathedral?" The Literary Digest,
CVII November 1, 1930), PP• 20-21.
<.)
L.
0
0
F. NEWSPAPERS
The New York Times, October 7, 1924.
The New York Times, March 2, 1925.
G. O'l'HER SOU RCES
l09
Personal Correspondence between Harry Emerson Fosdick and
the writer, November 8• 1955.
Television interview with Harry Emerson Fosdick by
Alistair Cooke, October 25, 1955, on "Omnibus"
presented by the Columbia Broadcasting System
Television Network.
0 (.,
V
L- V
....I

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Roles student nurses desire or expect to perform and roles achieved by graduate nurses from the same selected school of nursing

PDF

A comparative study of the experiential approach to religious education and some aspects of existentialism

PDF

The role of the teacher in dealing with behavior problems in the classroom

PDF

Sources and developments of the implied powers of the constitution of the United States

PDF

Peoples and movements in the Near East

PDF

The human rights program of the United Nations 1945-1955

PDF

The administration of the social welfare program in several typical foreign schools in Los Angeles city

PDF

The influence of Pietro Aretino on English literature of the Renaissance

PDF

Financing medical care; a critical analysis of the insurance and prepayment methods of financing medical care, with particular reference to California

PDF

A history of the national banking system of the United States

PDF

Significance of the recent acquisition of insular posessions by the United States

PDF

The Ku Klux movement in the Southern states

PDF

The development and expansion of the Spanish kingdom into a united nation

PDF

The role of the third party in American politics

PDF

A history of the political development of the Latin-American republics, showing the influence of the constitutional system of the United States

PDF

Administrative techniques for increasing academic achievement of gifted children within the elementary classroom

PDF

Social functions of the churches in a changing community with special reference to social processes

PDF

Privileges and immunities of international organizations and their personnel

PDF

The attitude of Methodism toward slavery

PDF

The Filipino community in Los Angeles

Asset Metadata

Creator Firth, Robert Hardwick (author)

Core Title Harry Emerson Fosdick and his impact on liberalism in religion in the United States

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Religion

Degree Conferral Date 1957-06

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized from microfilm by the USC Digital Library in 2023 (provenance)

Advisor Ross, Floyd H. (committee chair), Cranston, Earl (committee member), Neumayer, Martin H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113174172

Unique identifier UC113174172

Identifier etd-FirthRobert-1957.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FirthRobert-1957

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Firth, Robert Hardwick

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230616-usctheses-microfilm-box8 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu