Broadcasting the faith: Protestant religious radio and theology in America, 1920--1950

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Secularization Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Religious Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. “MODERNISM’S MOSES”: HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK AND RADIO’S NATIONAL VESPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Making of a Modernist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

National Vespers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3. AIMEE SEMPLE MCPHERSON: RADIO SUPERSTAR OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

The Making of a Christian Superstar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

The Call to Full-time Itinerant Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

The Foundation for a Religious Empire: Angelus Temple . . . . . . . . . 70

The Foursquare Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Chapter Page

Radio Station KFSG (Kall Four Square Gospel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4. BROADCASTING ORTHODOXY: WALTER MAIER AND THE LUTHERAN HOUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

The Missouri Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

The Lutheran Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Transcending Lutheranism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5. “ALL WE DO IS TOWARD EVANGELISM”: CHARLES E. FU LLER AND THE OLD FASHIONED REVIVAL HOUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

The Making of an Evangelist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Fuller’s Conversion to Fundamentalist Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

The Bible Institute of Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

The Old Fashioned Revival Hour and Theology in America . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Singing the Old-Time Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Preaching the Old-Time Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Responding to the Old-Time Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

6. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Growth of the Lutheran Hour, 1930–1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

vii

PREFACE This work could not have been completed without the generous support of many people. Gregory Wills, my supervising professor, champio ned the idea from the beginning and helped me refine the thesis by challenging me t o read widely and think critically. He pushed me to write tightly and labor to e nsure that every sentence serves the purpose of advancing my argument. Where this does not happen, t he fault lies only with me. Several other faculty members of The Southern Bapt ist Theological Seminary gave me invaluable academic training. These include David Puckett, Thom as Nettles, Gregg Allison, Shawn Wright, and Russell Moore. I owe a spec ial debt of gratitude to R. Albert Mohler, Jr., for the “seminars” he led me through over t hree years of serving as his executive producer. His unwavering standard of excellence has indelibly marked me. My research was made more profitable than it otherwise would have been because of the expert help and patience of several archiv ists around the country. These include Ruth Tonkiss Cameron at Columbia University and Uni on Theological Seminary, Jackie Miller of the International Church of the Four square Gospel, Marvin Huggins at the Concordia Historical Institute, Nancy Gower at Ful ler Seminary, and Steve Wejroch of the Archdiocese of Detroit. No words of thanksgiving could adequately express my gratitude to my mother-in-law, Darlene, for her constant support. The s ame can be said of Cary and Barbara Young, for whom “friends” is far too weak a word . To my deep regret, my dad, Jerry, passed away before this project was complete. I owe him more than I could ever

viii say. He loved me unconditionally, challenged me intelle ctually, and was always there for me when I needed him. His memory continues to inspire me. Finally, I thank my wife and children. When I see them, I see the love and grace of God. On earth I have no greater treasure. Michael Edgar Pohlman

Bellingham, Washington

September 2011

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION This chapter demonstrates that, from the earliest days of radio broadcasting, the zeal of religious Americans to use this medium of communication to propagate their faith also altered their faith. Historians have sometim es overlooked religion’s presence in radio’s infancy. However, the interrelationship between religion and radio was profoundly significant for both. In the beginning of radio there was religion. Five year s after 1901, when the Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi successfully sent a r adio signal across the Atlantic Ocean, the Canadian-born Reginald A. Fessenden conducte d the first voice broadcast from Brant Rock, Massachusetts. The Christmas Eve br oadcast, December 24, 1906, included “O Holy Night” on the violin and a reading from Luke 2. Church leaders recognized that radio presented an extraordinary opportunity to reach new audiences with the message of the gospel. By the early 1920s churches thr oughout America were broadcasting their message by radio. Although such importan t figures in the history of radio as Samuel Morse, Alexander Graham Bell, Heinric h Hertz, Guglielmo Marconi, Reginald Fessenden, and Lee DeForest are remembered, rel igion’s role in the history of radio is neglected. Thesis This dissertation argues that religious radio in Ameri ca sought to counter the

2 secularization of American culture, but did so in a way that contributed to secularization by accelerating changes already evident in American reli gion, both conservative and liberal. Religious leaders sought to use radio to extend rel igious faith among the American people and to extend religious influence in Ameri can society. By some measures it succeeded admirably. The success, however, ca me at a cost. To reach the vast American audience, radio preachers transformed their s ectarian messages into a religion more suitable to the masses. This was one of the uninte nded consequences of American religious radio. In seeking to preserve the influence of religion in American culture, religious broadcasters altered the religion they aimed to preserve. “Modern broadcasting,” observes Dennis Voskuil, “can be t raced to 1912 when the United States Congress passed and President Taft signed the initial radio licensing law.” 1 Eight years later, on November 1, 1920, Westinghouse Ele ctric and Manufacturing Company established radio station KDKA in Pi ttsburgh, Pennsylvania. KDKA was the first station to feature nonexperimenta l broadcasts. It was also the first station to carry a regular radio broadcast of a church service: By January 2, 1921, KDKA was attempting a remote broadcast f rom the Pittsburgh Calvary Episcopal Church. Two Westinghouse engineers, on e Jewish and one Catholic, were dressed in choir robes to handle the te chnical aspects of production, which involved three microphones. The Reverend Jan Van Et ten felt all this symbolized the “universality of radio religion.” 2

From these humble beginnings the radio industry grew rapi dly. By 1927 there were over

1 Dennis Voskuil, “Reaching Out: Protestantism and the Media ,” in Between the Times: The Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America, 1900–1960 , ed. William R. Hutchison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 81. 2 Erik Barnouw, A Tower of Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States to 1933

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 1: 71.

3 seven hundred stations and over six million receiving s ets. Erik Barnouw rightly compares the frenzy to embrace radio broadcasting to t he Oklahoma land rush or the California gold rush. 3 Church leaders joined the radio rush. They embraced radi o widely during the 1920s, though few church-owned stations survived the Gr eat Depression. The Radio Act of 1927, an attempt by the federal government to b ring order to the burgeoning radio industry, “led to the adoption of new technical sta ndards (assigned frequencies, regular schedules, better equipment) for operating stations . Unable to afford the required equipment or personnel, religious stations sold off thei r licenses to private owners.” 4

This did not stop religion from making its way to the ai rwaves. Mainline Protestants were able to secure free time, also known a s sustaining time, through cooperation with the Federal Council of Churches of Chr ist. Radio networks such as the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and the Columbia Bro adcasting Company (CBS) were formed in the 1920s. These networks worked closely wit h the Federal Council (and local councils of churches such as the Greater New York Federation of Churches) to secure religious programming for their audiences. Mainline Protestants dominated the most valuable airtime a vailable to religious broadcasting, but they could not prevent other groups from cro wding in. Fundamentalist Protestants produced programs that attracted significant ra dio audiences. In the 1920s fundamentalist radio preachers included Paul Radar in Chica go, John Roach Straton at Calvary Baptist Church in New York, Walter Maier and sta tion KFUO in St. Louis, and

3 Ibid., 4. 4 Voskuil, “Reaching Out,” 82.

4 Aimee Semple McPherson and station KFSG in Los Angele s. In 1928 Donald Grey Barnhouse became the first fundamentalist to have a regul ar program on a national network when CBS began broadcasting the Bible Study Hour weekly. The Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola) and Moody Bible Institute were fu ndamentalist schools that established their own radio stations. Biola began broadca sting from station KJS in 1922, and Moody opened WMBI in 1925. Mainline Protestant radio broadca sting declined in popularity in the 1930s and 1940s, but fundamentalist radio flouris hed, due in part to its remarkable ability to adapt programming to the marketplace. Fundamentalists in the 1930s and evangelicals in the 1940s accused the Federal Council of working with the networks to limit airtime to “nonestablishment” religi ous groups. To meet this threat, the National Association of Evangelicals was formed in 1942. In 1944 evangelical broadcasters established the National Religious Broadca sters to work in concert with the National Association of Evangelicals to further their radio interests. The prominent radio preachers, both liberal and conservati ve, proclaimed rather diverse interpretations of the Christian message , and yet together they found millions of people receptive to their message. Radio reli gion may have accelerated the privatization of religion, but radio helped ensure that t he voice of religion continued to shape the culture during some of the most tumultuous decades i n our nation’s history. This dissertation will show that radio acted as what Peter Berger calls a “resistance movement”—a movement that sought to counter secularizati on in American culture. 5

5 Peter Berger, “From the Crisis of Religion to the Cris is of Secularity,” in Religion and America: Spirituality in a Secular Age, ed. Mary Douglas and Steven Tipton (Boston: Beacon Pre ss, 1982), 16.

5 Broadcasting the faith, however, changed it. To make reli gion accessible to the masses, radio preachers accommodated their messages in w ays suited to the medium of radio. Sectarianism and controversial polemics seemed i ll suited to building audiences of sufficient size to answer radio’s potential. All the prominent radio preachers made their peace with the constraints of broadcast media and embr aced a nonsectarian approach. The radio preachers who did not comply had to settle for reaching small audiences. However, the medium itself seemed ill spent on the fe w. It was a tool suited to reaching the many, a purpose inconsistent with sectarian preaching. C harles Fuller distanced himself from militant fundamentalism and achieved an eno rmous audience. Walter Maier forsook Lutheran particulars to bring “Christ to the nat ions” and gained a remarkable number of listeners throughout the nation and across deno minational boundaries. Harry Emerson Fosdick preached simple virtues to a large, gener al Christian audience. Aimee Semple McPherson promoted a charismatic ecumenism and be came one of the most recognized entertainers in the nation. The most influenti al voices of religious radio in the period from 1920 to 1950 eschewed substantive theological disco urse. Although religious radio was intended to advance the influence of religion in American society, its lack of theological substance ironically promoted the seculariza tion of the American church. Background Radio studies have attracted some attention in academic circles. 6 Religious radio, however, has received scant attention. This ne glect began with Erik Barnouw’s

6 Thomas Doherty, “Return with Us Now to Those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear: Radio Studies Rise Again,” Chronicle of Higher Education , May 21, 2004.

6 three-volume History of Broadcasting in the United States , which was published between 1966 and 1970. Aside from a relatively brief section discussing F ather Charles Coughlin’s political sermons in volume 2, Barnouw neglects the role of religious radio in America. In Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination , Susan Douglas attempts to pick up the history where Barnouw left off, but she likewis e gives little attention to the subject. 7 Nevertheless, some notable, broad overviews of religi ous broadcasting have been written. 8 Additionally, shorter studies by Tona Hangen, Quentin Sc hultze, Dennis Voskuil, and Joel Carpenter have provided helpful scholarshi p on the issue. 9 Several critical biographies of prominent radio preachers have been written, 10 but much of the

7 Susan Douglas, Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination from Amos ‘n’ Andy to Edward R. Murrow and Wolfman Jack to Howard Stern (New York: Times Books, 1999), 52–54. In fact, the closest that Douglas comes to discussing religious radi o is a section on “spiritualism” and radio in the early 1920s. Alfred Balk’s otherwise helpful The Rise of Radio: From Marconi through the Golden Age

(Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006) glosses over religious ra dio except for the expected reference to Father Charles Coughlin and his “anti-Semitic barbs” (224). 8 Tona Hangen, Redeeming the Dial: Radio, Religion and Popular Culture in Amer ica (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002); Ben Armstr ong, The Electric Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979); Mark Ward, Air of Salvation: The Story of Christian Broadcasting (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994); George Hill, Airwaves to the Soul: The Influence and Growth of Religious Broad casting

(Saratoga, CA: R&E Publishers, 1983). 9 Tona Hangen, “Man of the Hour: Walter Maier and the Luther an Hour,” in Radio Reader: Essay in the Cultural History of Radio , ed. Michelle Hilmes and Jason Loviglio (New York: Rout ledge, 2002), 113–34; Quentin Schultze, “Evangelical Radio and the Rise of the Electronic Church, 1921–1948,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 32 (Summer 1988): 289–306; Dennis Voskuil, “The Power of the Air: Evangelicals and the Rise of Religious Broadcas ting,” in American Evangelicals and the Mass Media , ed. Quentin Schultze (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990), 69–95; Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism , (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 124– 40. 10 Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin and the Great Depres sion

(New York: Vintage Books, 1983); Charles Tull, Father Coughlin and the New Deal (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1965); Sheldon Marcus, Father Coughlin: The Tumultuous Life of the Priest of the Litt le Flower (New York: Little, Brown, 1973); Donald Warren, Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio (New York: Free Press, 1996); Robert Moats Miller, Harry Emerson Fosdick: Preacher, Pastor, Prophet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985); Daniel Mark Epste in, Sister McPherson: The Life of McPherson Semple McPherson (New York: Harvest, 1993); Edith L. Blumhofer, Aimee Semple McPherson: Everybody’s Sister (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Matthew A. Sutton, McPherson Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).

7 historiography is uncritical. 11

Secularization Theory Secularization theory “contends that modernity is int rinsically and irreversibly antagonistic to religion. As a society becomes increas ingly modernized, it inevitably becomes less religious.” 12 As Steve Bruce argues, “modernization creates problems fo r religion.” 13 Secularization theory does not merely posit a declining i mportance of religion at the “institutional” level, but also at the level of individual consciousness: Although the term “secularization theory” refers to wor ks from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. The idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decl ine of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. 14

Likewise, Bruce defines secularization as the erosion of religion's significance at both levels: In brief, I see secularization as a social conditio n manifest in (a) the declining importance of religion for the operation of non-relig ious roles and institutions such as those of the state and the economy; (b) a decline i n the social standing of religious roles and institutions; and (c) a decline in the extent to which people engage in religious practices, display beliefs of a reli gious kind, and conduct other aspects of their lives in a manner informed by such beliefs . 15

11 Paul Maier, A Man Spoke, a World Listened: The Story of Walter A. Maier (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963); Ruth Mugglebee, Father Coughlin of the Shrine of the Little Flower (Boston: L.C. Page, 1933); Wilbur Smith, A Voice for God: The Life of Charles E. Fuller (Boston: W.A. Wilde, 1949); Daniel Fuller, Give the Winds a Mighty Voice: The Story of Charles E. Fulle r (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972). 12 Berger, “From the Crisis,” 14. 13 Steve Bruce, God is Dead: Secularization in the West (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 2. 14 Peter Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A Glo bal Overview,” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Polit ics , ed. Peter Berger (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 2. 15 Bruce, God is Dead , 3.

8 With its roots in Enlightenment philosophy and seminal work by nineteenth century social scientists such as Augustus Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Niet zsche, the secularization thesis assumes that with modernization comes the death of God—or at least the utter insignificance of religion: In different ways, elements of that package [of moderniz ation] cause religion to mutate so that it loses social significance . . . The bottom line is this: individualism, diversity, and egalitarianism in the context of liberal democracy undermine the authority of religious beliefs. 16

Furthermore, the theory of religion's irreversible decl ine has become “practically axiomatic among modern, sophisticated Westerners . . . it is an idea that many urbane men and women no longer even think to question, so self-evi dent does it appear.” 17

Evidence suggests, however, that the “axiomatic” status o f the secularization thesis warrants review. For example, even as they prop ose their own revision of the secularization thesis, Pipa Norris and Ronald Englehar t observe that “during the last decade . . . this thesis of the slow and steady death of religion has come under growing criticism; indeed, secularization theory is currently ex periencing the most sustained challenge in its long history.” 18

16 Ibid., 30. 17 Mary Eberstadt, “How the West Really Lost God: A New Loo k at Secularization,” Policy Review June/July (2007) [on-line]: accessed 15 June 2008; available fr om [http://www.hoover.org /publications/policyreview/7827212.html]; Internet. 18 Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Norris and Inglehart contend that “talk of burying the secularization theory is premature,” but also that “th ere is no question that the traditional secularization thesis needs updating. It is obvious that religion has not d isappeared from the world, nor does it seem likely to do so. Nevertheless, the concept of secularization c aptures an important part of what is going on” (4). The authors argue that where modernization has brought hig h levels of “existential security,” secularization will be most measurable. In other words, religious deman d is shaped by perceived security: “We predict

9 The challenges have come from a host of scholars, not l east of whom is Peter Berger, a former champion of the secularization thesis : “In recent decades historians, social scientists, and others have debated the validity of secularization theory . . . the import of this debate is clear: Modernity may not be as antagonistic to religion as had previously been asserted.” 19 Berger explains, “Precisely to the extent that secula rity and pluralism are phenomena of modernity, they are also the targets of miscellaneous countersecular and counterpluralistic ‘resistance movemen ts.’” 20 These resistance movements are evident, according to Berger, in “the upsurge o f religious movements in the Third World.” Such movements are particularly common in Iran. The revival of religion in the former Soviet Union and in the resurgen ce of Evangelical Protestantism in the United States have also contributed to resistance mo vements. 21 Furthermore, Berger said, This interplay of secularizing and counter-secularizing forces is, I would contend, one of the most important topics for a sociol ogy of contemporary religion. . . . Modernity, for fully understandable reasons, undermine s all the old certainties; uncertainty is a condition that many people find very ha rd to bear; therefore, any movement (not only a religious one) that promises to provide or to renew certainty

that the strongest decline in religious participation wi ll occur in affluent and secure nations, where the importance of religion has faded most. By contrast, where religious values remain a vital part of people's everyday lives, in poor agrarian societies, we also expect that people will be most active in worship and prayer” (21). Another modification of the secularization theory comes from Charles Taylor, A Secular Age