a" v\~ .'.l I “I :On.‘ The pr'I evaluate Bishop .. :‘iscussion Ec‘arator of :h His study atte i? Examining a 2.503211 factor 51m of the A 4. discussiomi 5% ' . 5510!}, 1*) gTC "1 lJim'iew vi 4‘. «la; ussion phi] Bishop ““55"": “Ante, d6 ABSTRACT BISHOP A. A. LEISKE AND THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED: A CASE STUDY IN DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP by Otto J. Ritz Body of Abstract The primary purpose of this study is to describe, analyze, and evaluate Bishop A. A. Leiske's philosophy and practice of discussion and discussion leadership as it is reflected in his functions as 'Moderator of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. This study attempts to conceptualize a Leiske discussion-philosophy by examining a series of phenomena related to, 1) biographical and personal factors inherent in his life; 2) organization, purpose, and format of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated; 3) discussion-in-progress of the American Religious Town Hall panel in session; 4) group interaction; and S) a set of criteria developed in an interview with Bishop Leiske as a systematic expression of his discussion philosophy and his discussion-leadership philosophy. Bishop Leiske was found to be distinctly a product of his time-- an era of religious controversies and severe social problems--and, in consequence, demonstrated an inclination to public discussion by calling for free speech and freedom of discussion. The American Religious Town Hall Mbeting was found to be an institution unique in being the first 2:59:11 the only mica; in additi attalegal oblii Tnis inves :leear and Spec} :iscussion in ten =42: "acid test" :L'Iiers, vitaliz lil‘elment, an zisz'ssicn method if toderatar -pane 1: :he participar ifiiscussion in 3 Siding the d; . '2‘“, ”w, 16 viewer 1 Otto J. Ritz and still the only television panel discussion group of its kind in America; in addition, it was found to be unique as an interfaith panel with a legal obligation to "public discussion and free speech." This investigation disclosed that Bishop Leiske holds a number of clear and specific conceptions concerning discussion in general and discussion in terms of methodology. He not only considers discussion as an "acid test" of democracy but believes it to be a major method of "ventilating" human problems, thus helping to break down hostile social barriers, vitalize public Opinion, expose truth, strengthen intellectual development, and generate and germinate new concepts. With respect to discussion methodology, he believes that there should be a high level of moderator-panel cohesiveness, that the leader has responsibilities to the participants in relieving pre-program psychological tensions, that the leader has equally important responsibilities in the management of discussion in terms of introducing the participants and the subject, of guiding the discussion in terms of time, panelists‘ desires, and probable viewer responses. As enunciated in some two hundred pages of interview material, Bishop Leiske's views concerning preparation, participation, and leader- ship may be summarized as follows: 1) both the participants and the leader have extensive preparation responsibilities, and the leader should encourage and provide for means of preparation; 2) the leader has explicit responsibilities in introducing the discussion to both the listening audience and the panelists; 3) the leader has important re— sponsibilities in attempting to achieve clear, frank, and relevant con- tributions from all members of the panel; 4) he has equally important sensibilities strasitions a: kissing the dis: 2:5 of Specifi rat-all, these regarded as 6588 as izs aedium. It appea shim Religic isiay"--is fu‘. '35 this aethod 1: the betteme: ’13:? passions, V " I . g '0- 1 Otto J. Ritz responsibilities in providing clarification of contributions, as well as transitions and summaries; and 5) he must be aware of the need of bringing the discussion to a conclusion in a clear and orderly form. An analysis of six programs, together with an evaluation in terms of specific criteria enunciated by Bishop Leiske, disclosed that, over-all, these programs meet the general and the Specific requirements regarded as essential for a panel discussion which employs television as its medium. It appears from this investigation that the purpose of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting--"to discuss freely the issues of the day"--is fulfilled in its present programming; and that in continu- ing this method of communication, this panel contributes essentially to the betterment of the American people. While ignorance, prejudice, ugly passions, and vested interests tend to obstruct the stream of public discussion, the American Religious Town Hall program, on an interfaith level, asserts a high degree of freedom in America‘s ideal, "freedom for all, regardless of race, creed, or political affiliations." BISHOP A. A. LEISKE AND THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED: A CASE STUDY IN DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP by l i ‘.'\4' Otto Jf'Ritz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan S tate University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1967 Copyright by OTTO J. RITZ 1967 I His? the, aid :‘rzei . , . "4"" 1‘.- ~.:0 u: suL. . up .he rs ":3: :as: “.EI s :R;:F 11“” «- 5hU. . u ‘. 0.- Ra . " 55.: “I 5‘" ~, . . 5A. ac l u...‘ I. -. :I..Oe‘..“ "- fi 0» [HE A ., . , ‘ “8" V1! I'm“- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank those who have given of themselves, their time, and their talents in assisting me in this highly specialized undertaking: The members of Michigan State University faculty, who, through these past years have been an inspiration to my life, whose scholarship I deeply honor, whose directives and guidance have been, in the words of the poet, "a thing of beauty;" my advisor, Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, a profound scholar, a gentleman who at all times radiates an influence of Christian dignity, and a teacher extraordinary, the epitome of Aristotle’s "just man." my Committee: Dr. Francis M; Donahue, a distinguished scholar and friend, whose insights into religious philosophies have been an inspiration; Dr. David C. Ralph, under whose tutorship I had my first experience in teaching, whose class in Rhetorical Criticism has opened whole new vistas of interests; Dr. Gordon L. Thomas, whose classes in the historicity of the development of free speech through the centuries have been a hallmark experience of me, unparalleled; Bishop and Mrs. Albert A“ Leiske, for their many, many hours of dedication and devotion to this project, and for their generous and unstinting financial support to make this dissertation possible in printed form; Russ and Dorothy Miller, Minneapolis industrialists and philan- thropists, whose personal encouragements and concerns have been as answered prayers; Dorothy Jeanette Elkins-Ritz, my wife, who has spent many a lonely hour in the seclusion of our Spartan Village apartment, reading and typing manuscript, whose words of encouragement and assurances of confidence have been a great source of inspiration to me; Shirley Jean and Dennis Gordon, my two sweet children who have gone without many letters from Dad while this thesis has been in process; A heartfelt thanks and gratitude to one and all. iii t'm the Sac Cor. TO MOTHER AND DAD TO ‘MY DEAR WIFE, DOROTHY JEANETTE AND iMY TWO CHILDREN, SHIRLEY JEAN AND DENNIS GORDON this work is gratefully dedicated in the knowledge that without their faith, their help, and their sacrifice it would never have materialized in this completed form. iv p- y . “ls Rel Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Letters and Testimonials Board of Directors and Executive Board Miscellaneous Materials Pertaining to Discussion Preparations . List of Discussions Broadcast by The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated . Page 362 370 373 379 "_ flxm. u. H~U.~‘\‘ £-_' ‘21 (-4 . "C? 0‘: ‘jtn ‘ ‘ A Me‘s Ste at h. V 4... [14‘35 'Y" yq. i m. :1. T: TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . LIST OF APPENDICES. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose . . . Limitations Imposed on the Study . Intrinsic Merit of the Study . Distinctiveness of the Study . iMaterials and Sources3 . Organization of the Study. II. ALBERT A. LEISKE: 'MODERATOR, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED A Close-up of Bishop Albert A. Leiske. Vincit Qui Se Vincit . . . . A Man of Prayer. Calm in Distress . . . Two Letters to His Son . Bishop Leiske’s Office . . The Several "Images" of the Bishop . Leiske’s Love for a Good Story . Family Background and Early Years. Paternal Background. . . . Maternal Background. SodéHouse and Poverty Years. Heme, An Atmosphere of Deep Religious Piety. Elementary School Years. . . . . . . Leiske, a Walking EncyclOpedia . Rheumatic Fever. . . Discipline at Home . Death of a Brother . A.Patriotic Speech . . Entrance into Sheyenne River Academy . The America of Leiske’ 8 Early Years. . Exceptional Circumstances and Exceptional Inner Power. . . . . . . Fundamentalism versus Modernism. Leiske’s Early College Training. Marriage to Mae R. Sneesby . . Leiske’s Later College Training. vi Page iii HNO‘NHr—I l4 14 15 16 16 18 20 22 24 24 24 25 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 36 36 39 4O 41 Leiske an Evangelist, 1926-1943. . . . . . . . . . 42 Move to Missouri . . . . . . . . . . 46 1943- 1952, Leiske a Parish Pastor. . . . . . . . . 49 III. THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED Background and Early Developmental Struggles . . . . 51 Leiske Has a Fantastic Dream . . . . 51 Religious and Civic Leaders Sign Two Historic Agreements . . . . . . . . . 55 Adventists Endorse Interfaith Program. . . . . . . 66 The Making of a "Bishop" . . . . . 69 Leiske’s Life Devoted to Discussion and Free Speech . . . . . 74 The Historic Development of Discussion Through Town.Hall Meetings . . . . . . . . . . 78 Deep Roots in an American Tradition. . . . . 78 The Twenties, A.New Era in Town Hall Meetings . . 82 Distinctive Features of the American Religious Town Hall. . . . . . . . 87 The Financial Structure and Growth Pattern of the Town Hall. . . . . . . . . 90 Starting on Faith and a Shoe- -String Budget . . . . 90 Financial Help From a Graveyard. . . . . . . 92 The Bishop Planning to Paint the Town Red. . . . . 94 From‘WCCO- TV', Minneapolis, To ABC- TV, America. . . 95 The American Religious Town Hall Becomes a Corporation. . . . . . . . . . 97 A Chain of Senior Citizens Rest Homes. . . . . . . 108 The American Religious Town Hall Management. . . . 114 The Founding of the ARTHgflagazine. . . . 115 Bishop Leiske and the Governor' 8 Prayer Breakfast. 117 The American Town Hall School of Religion. . . . . 120 IV. BISHOP LEISKE’S GENERAL CONCEPTIONS REGARDING DISCUSSION Discussion as an Institution and Activity. . . . . . 123 Discussion as an Institution . . . . . 123 Discussion as Represented by a Televised Panel- Discussion Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Moderator-Panel Cohesiveness . . . 128 Preparation of the Panel in Terms of Psychological Factors. . . . . . . . . . 136 Leadership and Leadership Qualities. . . . . . . . 138 Leadership Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 vii I'n'O PRC COKE? PRCBLF‘. H TWO PROBLEMS CENTERED IN POLITICAL-CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS PROBLEM ONE! AN AMBASSADOR TO THE VATICAN, A CHURCH AND STATE ISSUE A.Historical Question Concerning Church and and State Relations. The Know-Nothing Party Versus Catholicism. American- vatican Relations Since Reconstruction. The Roosevelt-Truman-Vatican Friendship. . . The Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Cardinal Spellman Confrontation . . . Full Text, "An Ambassador to the Vatican, " Transcribed from Film Number 75. . Description and Analysis of the Program. Overall Description and Analysis . . Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator. . . . . Five-Second Interval Time- -Sequence Flow Chart. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROBLEM.TWOI SHOULD SUNDAY BLUE LAWS BE REPEALED? A CHURCH AND STATE ISSUE A.Brief Historical Background Concerning Sunday Laws. . . . . . . . Sunday as a Day of Worship . . . . Sunday Blue Laws in Colonial America . Post World War II Era and Sunday Laws. . Full Text, "Should Sunday Blue Laws Be Repealed?" Transcribed from Film Number 101 . . . . Description and Analysis of the Program. Overall Description and Analysis . Description and Analysis of the Work of the Mbderator. Five-Second Interval Time Sequence Flow Chart. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWO PROBLEMS CENTERED IN ESCATOLOGICAL AND DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY PROBLEM ONE! THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, AN ESCATOLOGICAL QUESTION A Brief Historical Background on Escatology. The Creeds and Escatology. . . . . . Reformation Teaching and Escatological Doctrine. viii 153 154 155 156 157 160 171 171 172 177 178 180 180 183 184 187 197 197 200 204 205 208 208 209 I: I...J I VII. Full Text, "The Second Coming of Christ," Transcribed from Film Number 53. . . . Description and Analysis of the Program. Overall Description and Analysis . Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator. . . Five-Second Interval Time- -Sequence Flow Chart. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROBLEM TWO! THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, 'AN ISSUE IN DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY A.Definition of Terms and a Brief Historical Background . . Scripture and Tradition as Bases for Authority . Church Authority versus Salvation. . . . . Full Text, "The Authority of the Church, " Transcribed from Film Number 4.. Description and Analysis of the Program. Overall Description and Analysis . . . . Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator. . . . . . Five-Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWO PROBLEMS CENTERED IN SOCIAL AND MORAL CONCEPTS PROBLEM ONE: THE CONTROL OF THE POPULATION, A.RELIGIO-SOCIAL ISSUE A Brief Historical Background of the Issue . Thomas RObert‘Malthus‘ Theories. . . Full Text, "The Control of the Population," Transcribed from Film Number 33. . . . . Description and Analysis of the Program. Overall Description and Analysis . Description and Analysis of the Work of the 'Mederator. . . . Five-Second Intervai Time-Sequence Flow Chart. Description and Analysis of the WOrk of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROBLEM TWO: IS AJMAN AHMURDERER IN TIME OF WAR? A.QUESTION IN MORAL THEOLOGY A Definition of Terms and a Brief Historical Background . . . . The Enigma of God's Participation in War . . The Christian Church Faces the Moral Issue of ‘War. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 214 224 224 226 230 231 233 233 235 238 248 248 250 254 255 257 258 260 269 269 271 276 277 280 280 282 "" '~-~ BIS PRC ’4 am The Church Fathers on war and Conscience . . . . . 283 Full Text, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" Transcribed from Film Number 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Description and Analysis of the Program. . . . . . . 295 Overall Description and Analysis . . . . . . . 295 Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator. . . . . . . . 297 Five—Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart . . 301 Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 VIII. BISHOP LEISKE’S SPECIFIC CONCEPTIONS REGARDING THE PROCEDURES AND METHODS OF A DISCUSSION PROGRAM The Purpose of the Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . 304 What is the Purpose of the Discussion? . . . . . . 304 The Format for Discussion. . . . . 306 What Judgments Do You Have Concerning the Format of the Discussion. . . . . 306 The Moderat‘or s Relationship to the Content of the Discussion . . . . . . 308 What in Your Judgment Should be the Moderator's Relationship to the Content of the Discussion? . . 308 The Moderator’s Role as a Promoter of the Program. . 310 What Responsibilities Do You Believe That You Have Regarding "Comments; About" the Program to the Audience?. . . . . . 310 The Moderator's Role in Discussion Preparation . . . 310 What Advance Preparation Do You as a Moderator Make?. . . . . 310 What Advance Preparation Do You Suggest, Encourage, or Direct on the Part of the Panelists?. . . . . . 312 The Moderator‘s Role in Discussion Management. . . . 313 What Responsibilities Do You Believe That You Have at the Beginning of the Discussion? . . . . . 313 What Functions Do You Believe That You Have Regarding the Management of the Discussion as it Progresses? . . . . . . . 315 What Functions Do You Believe That You Have Regarding the Development of the Subject as the Discussion Progresses. . . . . 316 What Responsibilities Do You Have at the End of the Discussion?. . . . . . . 318 Do You Believe That a Degree of Showmanship is Necessary in a Discussion Program? . . . . . . . . 319 IX. EVALUATIONS BASED UPON BISHOP LEISKE‘S CONCEPTIONS OF DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP An Evaluation in Depth of Leiske’s Practice. . . . . 321 Leiske’s Discussion-Purpose Evaluated. . . . . . . 321 x An Evaluation of the Symposium Format. An Evaluation of the Moderator‘s Program Participation. . . . . . . TheiModerator‘ s‘ProgramrPromoting Evaluated. An Evaluation of Leiske’s PrograméManagement Practice . . . . . Q ‘ An Evaluation of Leiske’s Discussion Preparation Practice . . . . . X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. APPENDICES. BIBLIOGRAPHY. xi 328 332 342 344 348 353 361 400 Uith Alfre ta tee: assigned, t-d evaluate Bishc :1: leadership as am Religious .. ZSECEDE ualize a :: net-menu re lat 2&1: life; 2) 01 Wis; whens Tom Hal 1 when Re lig A." ‘1 ‘5) a set of C) h ‘ ~ ' .s-Mtlc express éiiersL ' JP Philosc N0 attempt fia'h “"9 the 52: s, “F attempt ' n ‘Je V‘s ' Hie of the Pa mini: H '1. ”381 “ETD CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose With Alfred Lord Tennyson, "I embrace the purpose of God, and the doom.assigned," this researcher has set out to describe, analyze, and evaluate Bishop A. A. Leiske's philosophy of discussion and discus- sion leadership as it is reflected in his functions as Moderator of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. This study attempts to conceptualize a Leiske discussion philosophy by examining a series of phenomena related to: 1) biographical and personal factors inherent in his life; 2) organization, purpose, and format of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated; 3) discussion-in-progress of The American Religious Town Hall panel in session; 4) group interaction; and 5) a set of criteria developed in an interview with Leiske as a systematic expression of his discussion philosophy and his discussion- 1eadership philosophy. Limitations Imposed on the Study No attempt is made in this study to describe, analyze, or evaluate the ministry of Bishop Leiske aside from his role as Moderator. Nor is any attempt made in this study to describe, analyze, or evaluate the role of the panel members as clergymen, aside from their participa- tion as panel members. Rather, {I :3: 3f The Ameri‘ zufegnding in 1 Erna film libra religirp-elitical 5331111 proble: The C3118: ‘5 3.395 0f n ’ singularlv brndcasti; 37?! is intended 1 I123 nMerthe less x affine, 0nd by SE me Kieth w, 1‘ GI m ’ unigde 1y "emf med to M‘ I V “.‘5{ A 5““ toDice V s:::‘ s 9°”th 338k: .::‘ Rather, this study will emphasize: l) the historical develop- Inent of The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, from its founding in 1952 to its current year, 1967; 2) six programs selected from a film library of some 151 video tapes, dealing respectively with religio-political issues, socio-religious issues, and theological- doctrinal problems. Intrinsic Merit of the Study The United States is peculiarly enriched by its numerous and varied types of religious broadcasting. The United States stands almost singularly apart in denominational separatism, and in denomina- tional broadcasting. While most of the broadcasting of a religious type is intended for inter-denominational viewing and listening, it stems nevertheless basically from sectarian interests, for sectarian purpose, and by sectarian speakers. The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated is, however, uniquely and distinctively different. It is an ecumenical endeavor aimed to a large degree to activate interfaith discussions on religious topics. In fact, The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated seeks through free, frank discussion to establish new frontiers of freedom and equality. The Henorable Hubert H. Humphrey, former United States Senator from Minnesota, recognized the distinctive facets of The American Religious Town Hall and its purpose, and incor- porated in a speech, and into the Congressional Record a resume of the Town Hall's unique interfaith venture. Mr. 1 I deflate calling < nation 1 AFPvEndix New Frontier of Freedom and Equality EXTENSION OF REMARKS of HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY of Minnesota IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 18, 1961 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a declaration by the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., calling on the President of the United States to proclaim a "new national frontier of freedom and equality," be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the declaration was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: A Declaration by the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., Calling on the President of the United States to Proclaim a "New Frontier of Freedom," a National Jubilee Commemorating the Inalienable Rights of All Men During the 100th Anniversary of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. At this time when our liberal-democratic society is con- fronted by dangerous enemies abroad whose intention is to des- troy our way of life and to dominate the course of human history, it well behooves America to look closely to the springs of her culture, to the sources of her liberty. Every society expresses its highest aspirations, its conception of civilized man and his destiny, and its hopes for the future, in the idealism of its founders. These goals, aspirations, hopes and ideals can be called the mystique of the society; ours has been boldly expressed in great documents, stirring orations and beautiful poetry that has warmed the hearts of millions. We all know only too well that it is difficult to realize all these social goals in actual practice; nonetheless, a society is judged by the gap that exists between the ideals of constitutional government it proclaims, and the political reality of everyday life. It is on this level that our enemies attack us in the forum of the world; they compare our lofty idealism with some of the sordid problems that mar our every- day 1ife. It is to be noted also that they compare our problems, particularly the questions of civil equality and economic opportunity, with the idealism, that is, the mystiques of communism: They carefully avoid comparing the realities of social life in the United States of America with that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Our liberal-democratic political idealism has been pro- claimed for the world to hear by Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Jackson, and a host of other statesmen and philosophers who assisted in the founding of the Republic. That mystique was reaffirmed 100 years ago during the great crisis that threatened to destroy the Nation. On September 22, 1562, Presiden freeing the 51 glaring gap be of the free Ir young Report: 1 it beyond our sh; of the 19th Ce interim belie right to freec In our our larazion, the: CI". idealism '. I: defiance 01' i: the land, 4 basic civil 11 in the world 1 35‘ Anyone 3'? :hat the first States of Are: M We do not fie5.3‘érate neec self-reopen 4 “Pirazioos a: 4’ national 11 Hired by at}? V6 are to be' I The Amerit mgr“ 0f AC! 4‘ be ec We? can have $53“ b€f0re lnC'H'd’ “1‘ best 4 1862, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves from the bondage that had long been a glaring gap between the lofty idealism of America as the land of the free and the actual reality of everyday life in the young Republic. It is small wonder that in the great world beyond our shores Abraham Lincoln is the best known President of the 19th Century; he was the man who reaffirmed our basic American belief in the equality of mankind and man's natural right to freedom. In our own days, 100 years after Lincoln‘s stirring proc- lamation, there still exists a glaring gap between the politi- cal idealism we profess and the reality of American society. In defiance of clear and precise orders from the highest court in the land, a large segment of our population is still denied basic civil liberties and rights, thereby creating a scandal in the world and giving our enemies ammunition to use against us. Anyone who has traveled beyond our frontiers, well knows that the first question a foreigner asks about the United States of America deals with the problem of discrimination. And we do not need to travel abroad to know that we have a desperate need to strengthen our heritage and to bolster our self-respect as a nation by closing the gap between our lofty aspirations and the political reality that so humiliates us. Our national mystique is as lofty and noble as any ever con- ceived by any people, but we must live up to these ideals if we are to be true to our destiny. The American Religious Town Hall of the Air represents a program of action committed to the proposition that Americans can best be educated to fulfill their responsibilities if they can have and hear free and frank discussions of the issues before the Nation. As an interreligious institution, including within its scope all facets of religious life in our land, the Religious Town Hall of the Air has brought to the radio and television audiences discussions of all sorts of religious, political, social, and economic issues, with emphasis upon the moral problems that are involved, and with ample opportunity for all points of view to ventilate opin- ions. We believe that in this program we are helping to strengthen the determination of our fellow citizens to defend and protect the ideals of civil and religious freedoms of our Nation. With this in mind we would like to suggest that it would be fitting for the Nation to pause for a review of the problems of equal rights for all citizens during the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore, we of the Religious Town Hall of the Air urge other Americans interested in maintaining the moral tone of our Nation to join us in an appeal to the President of the United States for the proclamation of a new national frontier of freedom and equality during the centenary of the Emanci- pation Proclamation. Let us join together to expel the rem- nants of intolerance, tyranny and oppression, and let us renew our faith in our national mystique that honors liberty, acidity: m 1st 4 to 58 log the lib Bishop A and P Meetl dist Relig Secre V1015 The Amer '.:‘:o".':ihg Prote! exorat regal. Iitrrica's 304 Second, V. . x I18: it avei I3:3,but stre sileczed upon : “imitating r .5! s: “Jews and d Third, 'E‘msion bros Site on the A5 a $13 di5cuse P ourthI 12‘: - Ehty tho 1f? h 1:1" t0 the 1 User equality, and opportunity for all by declaring the period from July 4 to September 22, 1962 as a national jubilee commemora- ting the liberation of the inalienable rights of all men. BishOp A. A. Leiske of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and President of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc.; Bishop T. Otto Nall,‘Minnesota Metho- dist Conference and Vice President of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc.; Donald G. Paterson, Secretary; Martin E. Kriesel, Treasurer; Jane P. Power; Violet G. Culbertson; James J. Dalglish; Doreen Wendland.1 The American Religious Town Hall is an ecumenical interaction, involving Protestant, Jewish, and Roman Catholic religionists who appear at regular intervals on the panel to discuss issues pertinent to America‘s social, political, and religious thought. Second, the Town Hall television panel program is distinctive in that it avoids the dissemination of religious truths through preach- ments, but stresses, rather, discussion. Each panel member has been selected upon the premise that discussion is an effective method of communicating religious truth and is an effective methodology in airing religious and denominational differences. Third, the remarkable growth of the Town Hall from.a one station television broadcast in 1952 to some 100 stations at its peak perfor- mance on the ABC Network is indicative of the wide appeal and acceptance of this discussion-panel approach. Fourth, contributions have ranged from ten cents to a gift of seventy thousand dollars, with a one million dollar gift in the form of a fully equipped private hospital in present negotiations. The flow of monies to the Town Hall has, to a degree, shown the national interest and concern for the project. L 1U.S., Congressional Record, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961, CVII, Part 19, A2571. Fifth, t :gttttiam only Liszt its assets 5:! senior citiz tstabilizing t In addit settlat grfiué‘s- its the ccnfide: In view teritaz: Religi: Ill: viewing 8U Eiske‘s work a: 71151 discussim 3213”. sec-1t Of disC‘ Fifth, the American Religious Town Hell, which began televising operations only fourteen years ago on a "shoe string" budget, today lists its assets at some $5,000,000.00. Three first class nursing homes for senior citizens, each showing a substantial margin of profit, aid in stabilizing the Town Hall budget. In addition to his work as a Moderator, Bishop Leiske is a ‘much sought after speaker both in denominational circles as well as in secular groups. He is held in high esteem in religious circles, and has the confidence of many national leaders throughout the United States. In view of the foregoing report of Bishop A. A. Leiske, and the American Religious Town Hall panel discussion program, with a signifi- cant viewing audience in the United States, it is believed that Bishop Leiske‘s work as a Moderator, and the American Religious Town Hall panel discussion groups, provide a valid field of investigation for the student of discussion and discussion leadership. Distinctiveness of the Study So far as can be determined, no previous study of any kind has been made of BishOp A. A. Leiske’s role as Moderator of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. Furthermore, as far as can be determined, no previous study of any kind has been made of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, as an interfaith discussion panel program. The American Religious Town Hall panel discussion program is distinctive in that it, Represents a program of action committed to the proposi- tion that Americans can best be educated to fulfill their responsib‘ discussio: religious of religi Air has b cussions economic are invo] Vlé'u‘ to \ We are he citizens ligioua Radars responsibilities if they can have and hear free and frank discussions of the issues before the Nation. As an inter- religious institution, including within its scope all facets of religious life in our land, the Religious Town Hall of the Air has brought to the radio and television audiences dis- cussions of all sorts of religious, political, social, and economic issues, with emphasis upon the moral problems that are involved, and with ample Opportunity for all points of view to ventilate opinions. We believe that in this program we are helping to strengthen the determination of our fellow citizens to defend and protect the ideals of civil and re- ligious freedoms of our Nation. This study, because of these distinctive factors, seems justi- fied on the above grounds. Material and Sources The biographical materials to describe the life and career of Bishop A. A. Leiske were extracted from the following sources: Per- sonal interviews with BishOp Leiske over a period of two years which amounted to approximately 200 pages of materials, in thirteen separate interviews; Bishop Leiske’s personal Diary kept daily for forty years, commencing with the year 1926; Interviews with members of his family, his wife Mae, and son Robert; Correspondence with officials from community, state, and national levels, including former Governor Elmer L. Anderson of Minnesota, former Governor Karl A. Rolvaag of Minnesota, former Governor Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado, religious and civic leaders of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul,‘Minnesota; and Interviews and correspondence with members of the American Relig- ious Town Hall staff and panel. Some of the materials which proved valuable as a backdrop to lIbid. the tines : .- .£"er‘v{ ‘ ‘ VAL}. .0: the times of Leiske’s early childhood were: Donald Day, Will Rogers; Isabel Leighton, The Aspipin Age; Thomas Huston Macbride, ,Irn Cabins and Sod—Houses; John Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism; Pie- Raymond Regamey, Poverty, An Essential Element in the Christian Life; Arthur E. Towne, Old Prairie Days; and Ernest J. Wrage and Barnett Baskerville, "American Speeches on Twentieth Century Issues," Contem- poragy Forum. Interesting accounts of Bishop Leiske’s early years of free- lance evangelism.as an itinerant evangelist appear in such records as: The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Washington, D. C.; Bible Temple Special, Boulder, Colorado; _The Denver Post, Denver, Colorado; The Detroit News, Detroit, Michigan; Good Will Messegggr, Valley City, North Dakota; Greeley Tribune, Greeley, Colorado; The Monitor News, Denver, Colorado; The Palisade Tribune, Palisade, Colorado; and gh_e_ Rocky Mountain; News, Rocky Mountain, Colorado. The history of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting was investigated through such sources as: Files, records, correspondence, comittee meeting minutes, constituency meeting records, and legal documents. Extensive accounts of the Town Hall's growth and development appear in such sources as: The Anoka Herald, Anoka, Minnesota; _T_1_x_e_ Arth Magazine, St. Paul, Minnesota; Christian Advocate, Nashville, Tennessee; The Herald Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Liberty Mags: zine, Washington, D. C.; The Ministry Magazine, Washington, D. C.; The Minneapolis Daily Star, Minneapolis, Minnesota; The Northeg; Union Outlook, Nevada, Iowa; Post-Bulletin, Rochester, Minnesota; St. Paul Dispatch, St. Paul, Minnesota; St. Paul Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Pimesota; 3 For .' gazeral plCU izgs, the fo 3.3338: Hart: 1.1::aro 0"Ve r so Minnesota; _T_h_ese Times Magazine, Nashville, Tennessee; and TV Guide. For a review of the literature on the development of the general picture of the American idea of free speech in town hall meet- ings, the following sources provided a wealth of data: James Truslow Adams, Dictignary of American History; Glenn A. Bishop, Chicago's Accomplishments and Leaders; Thomas Cochran, Concise Dictionary of American_§ipppry; Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America; G. IMontagu Harris, Comparative Local Government; Bruno Lasker, Democracy Through Discussion; Roger Marvell, On the Air; Harry Overstreet and Bonaro Overstreet, Town.MbetipgfiComes to Town; Lorenza Sears, ng_ flgptory of Oratory; TheyCenturpragggine; The Christian Science Monitor; The New York Times; and Speech Mopgggpphs. Materials relating to leadership and discussion leadership used in this study were: A. Craig Baird, Aggpmentatipn, Discussion, and Eggppg; A. Craig Baird and Franklin H. Knower, General Speech; Robert F. Bales, Ipteraction'Process Analysip; Waldo W. Braden and Mary Louise Gehring, Speegh Pracgices; Brembeck and McLaughlin, A Classified Bibliograppy_of Group Discussion; William Norwood Brigance, Spggph Communicatipp;.J. F. Brow, Psychology and Social Order: An Introduc- tion to the Dynamics of Studypof Social Fields; C. G. Browne and Thomas S. Cohn, The Study of_Leadership; John Burton, Group Discussion; Nathaniel Cantor, Learning Through Discussion; Dorvin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Groupryngpipp; Jon Eisenson, J. Jeffery Auer, and John V. Irwin, The Psychology of Commppigatipp; Wilbur E. Gilman, Bower Aly, and Loren D. Reid, The Fundamentals of Spgaking; Thomas Gordon, §£222f Centered Leadership; Halbert E. Gulley, Discussion, Conference, and "m praces in - Ur 515:2; £1111; felzer, 33:1 ‘2; g" n . 5421162 and ] itterback, 3, s. v“: . ....is:ers‘ \ 22% SOUTCES P Esme... . ' w) Jon: 10 Group Process; Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, and Milton J. Wiksell, Principles pf Speakipg; Paul A. Hare, Edgar F. Borgatta, and Robert G. Bales, Small Groups; John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leader- ship; William S. Howell and Donald K. Smith, Discussion; Journal of Psychology; Jehn W. Keltner, Group Discussion Process; C. F. Kline- felter, Social'Leadership; James H. McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance, Discussion in Human Affairs; Quarterly Journal of Speech; William M. Sattler and N. Edd Miller, Discussion and Conference; William E. Utterback, Decision Thropgh Discussion; and E. G. White, Testimonies to Ministers. For a discussion of the content material of Chapter V, two programs regarding political and constitutional problems, the follow- ing sources proved very helpful: Henry Charles Lea, The_Review of Reviews; Jehn P.‘McKnight, The Papacy; Robert H; Murry, Erasmus and ,Lpphpyj Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman nggnism; Charles Pichon, The Vetican and Its Rule in World Affairs; Philip Schaff, History of the Christiap Church; Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian, Apologetical E25535 J. Hammon Trumbull, IggyTrue Blue Laws of Connecticut and New Haven, and the False Blue Laws Forggdpby Peters; The Catholic Encyclo- 232352; Encyclopaedia Britannica; Holy Bible; Christianity Todpy; Harmr' s Magazine; Putnam‘s Monthly; Time Magazine; and The New York yea;- For a discussion of the content material of Chapter VI, two programs regarding escatological and doctrinal problems, the following sources have been especially valuable: A. A. Benton, "Tradition," Church Cyclopedia of the ngtestant Episcopal Church; John Calvin, Izstitutes of 33th of Hill General Confe 55:: Lazx, Lt Pixie. Luther ”I xsen'atisns ' N am; Schaff ‘ AFC?“- ' names, an‘ ll Institgtes of the Christian Religion; William Cowper, The Poetical Works of William Copper; Annie Fremantle, The Papal Incyclicals; General Conference Committee of Seventh-day Adventists, Source Book; John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies; ZMartin Luther, Tischredep_von Sammtliche Schriften; Sir Isaac Newton, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John; James R. Page, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and An Appendix Coptainipgpthe Augsburg Confession; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom; Reinhold Seeborg, History of Doctrines; and Nicolas Zernov, Eastern Christendom. Chapter VII is an analysis of two programs centered in social and moral concepts. The following sources were especially helpful: Colliefe Encyclppedip_and Thomas Robert Malthaus, An Essayppn the Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Sociepy. Organization of the Study Chapter I is a composite chapter setting forth the 1) Statement of purpose, 2) Limitations imposed on the study, 3) Significance of the study, 4) Materials or sources used, and 5) Organization of the study. Chapter II is biographical in nature. This chapter reveals something of Bishop Leiske’s childhood background, educational training, experiences, beliefs and connections, knowledge, philosophical concepts, and such personality factors or principal events which have shaped his life and his views. Chapter III is an examination of the growth and development of the American Religious Town Hall Mbeting, Incorporated, from its funding in I :Ltapter conce P122333, Inc: though the n 1133 of the Izzggles of if its grout} Chapt 7515 of BiShc '5“... "1:3! is be ‘3titut10n, P‘I ..:CLLSSion PI “:"°§ical Fa Chap: 12 founding in 1952 to its current operations and functions in 1967. This chapter concerns itself primarily with the American Religious Town Hall ‘Meeting, Incorporated, as an institution dedicated to free expression through the medium of panel discussions. The chapter reflects some- thing of the panel group's interaction adjustments, the financial struggles of the Town Hall during its infancy, and the general picture of its growth structure. Chapter IV concerns itself with a close description and anal- ysis of Bishop Leiske’s general conceptions regarding discussion. This chapter is basically concerned with two matters: 1) Discussion as an Institution, and 2) Discussion as Represented by a Television Panel Discussion Program. The latter deals with the question of: l) Modera- tor-Panel Cohesiveness, 2) Moderator-Panel Preparation Regarding Psy- chological Factors, 3) Leadership Qualities, and 4) Leadership Methods. Chapter V is an analysis of two programs televised by the American Religious Town Hall regarding political and constitutional problems. The two problems selected were, "An Ambassador to the Vatican," and "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" These two pro- grams were selected to give study to the group‘s handling of political- religious issues. Chapter V1 is an analysis of two programs regarding escatologi— cal and doctrinal problems. The two problems selected were, "The Second Coming of Christ," and "The Authority of the Church." Chapter VII is an analysis of two programs regarding social and moral problems as televised by the American Religious Town Hall. The two programs selected were, "The Control of the Population," and "I! 3 Han :mern‘. , ' a :za: :5, 1 diseuss 131 ”3'- 3 1c! 13 "Is a.Mbn.a Murderer in Time of War?" The purpose of Chapter VIII is to present Bishop Leiske's ideas concerning a number of specific matters of procedure and technique-- that is, his principles and methods related to the management of a discussion program as related to the American Religious Town Hall panel discussion program. The materials for this chapter have been derived from a lengthy interview with the Bishop, an interview structured in terms of exact questions. This precise questions-and-answers interview formed the basis of this chapter. Chapter IX is the evaluation chapter. The principles and meth- ods of discussion management reported in Chapter VIII provide the criteria for the evaluation of the case studies illustrating the work of Bishop Leiske and his panel in this chapter. We seek here to find an answer to the general question, "Does the Bishop as anoderator and discussion group leader practice what he preaches concerning discussion conceptions and procedures?" Chapter X is the summation and conclusion chapter, in which deductions will be made regarding the Bishop's general and specific discussion philosOphies and his discussion-leadership practices. £353! A. Lil Vine: it I lounge ( i=5E-Paul, CHAPTER II ALBERT A. LEISKE! MMDERAIOR, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWNiflALL MEETING, INC. A Close-up of Bishop Albert A. Leiske ,Zincit Qui Se Vincit.--The rotund, slightly roly-poly man seated in a lounge chair atop the red tiled roof sundeck at 2389 Edgecumbe Road in St. Paul, Minnesota, is Bishop A. A. Leiske. He is gazing reflec- tively into the valley below--a picturesque valley bordering the Mississippi River. The rooftops in the valley deflect the late afternoon August sun, sending waves of heat, like billows of transparent fog, curling lazily among chimneys and spires. Little beads of perspiration shimmer on the Bishop's forehead. His neck is red with heat. ‘His head is bald. He sits relaxed. This scene gives Leiske the appearance of a possessive medieval bishop overseeing his spiritual serfdom! Lacking only are the cassock and the heavy gilded crucifix across his vestment to complete the image. Seated and momentarily at rest, Leiske reflects the grand eloquence embodied in the Latin slogan, "Vincit Qui Se Vincit,"--"He conquers who conquers himself." The Bishop is both master and slave to his life. The Bishop is cracking sunflower seeds. This tasty pastime he has brought with him.from his boyhood days on the North Dakota prairies. A chipmunk nearby seeks his confidence and is rewarded with a few kernels. A sparrow on the corner rooftop, with cocked head, eyes jeal- ously the Bishop's dole. The leaves of a nearby poplar twitch nervously l4 in the evening ca the tity'l vests: iisiop‘l 'iniiienr mi: dree moi leisure at 'eiske is a mm c liftious, and m r31.71501): frame 9 Fe: hmn beings 2am in is Bis. B“ Mile 3" 1' infection. 131g my,“ now ‘4. i“ :7: E a :r c: H o '1‘ _ 15 in the evening calm. Except for a threatening thunderhead forming over the city's western skyline, the evening prognosticates a prelude to the Bishop‘s "millennium of peace and calm." This dreamy setting, giving the impression that the Bishop is a man of leisure and is a man of relaxed nature, is deceptive. Actually, Leiske is a man of enormous energy, impetuous, impulsive, extremely ambitious, and multi-directioned in interests. 'His 5'6" height and his roly-poly frame epitomize the soda-pop slogan, "more bounce per ounce." Few human beings are possessed with such a restless, ambitious, lively nature as is Bishop Leiske. ‘His smile is not only perpetual, but is contagious. Has laugh- ter is infectious. His wit at times is devastating. "I no longer pray long prayers now that I have stopped arguing with the Lord. I can finish my prayers in a few short thoughts."1 A Men of Prayer.--The Bishop‘s personality challenges descrip- tion. There appear as many facets to his life as sparkling points to a diamond. He is a man of deep godly convictions. "Lord, guide Thy servant in the study of Thy Word. iMake me a blessing to mankind."2 "Use me as Thou seest fit, Lord."3 On January 1, 1953, Leiske‘s New‘Year‘s resolution prayer for *mankind was a plea for a powerful Christian witness in the church. "Give the church a real Pentecost in 1953, Deer Master, is my prayer."4 v—v Vfi‘ fif v v v fir V w v lLeiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 2A. A. Leiske, Personal Disgy, Saturday, June 7, 1952. 3Ibid., Saturday, April 18, 1953. 4Ibid., Thursday, January 1, 1953. rem: Airl 5:312:11: of 5 after circling greed back t :5 some of the ELz'eukee prov :ver that city 1: Chicago was :ra'ered to f 1:: PM pravai lo 133? 'vlouid t :9 P'SSengers ‘alf ' are a coolh 5°C. Hay I a “:el)‘ in 33!; 7t. % i: ; "MP and Mrs Mg Robert r My Dee T011131“- "e; b 16 Ca1m.in.Distreps.--On March 29, 1954, Bishop Leiske took a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. When the craft arrived, a blinding snowstorm of such magnitude was in progress that landing was impossible. After circling the field for a time, the captain received orders to proceed back to Milwaukee. Uneasiness and fear gripped the imagination of some of the passengers. However, the BishOp was calm. Arriving in IMilwaukee proved near disastrous, for a sudden snowstorm had broken over that city, so intense that landing was ruled out. O'Hara Field in Chicago was ruled out; a fierce storm raged there. The captain was ordered to fly direct to New York City. By now open uneasiness and near panic prevailed aboard the craft. Would there be a snowstorm in New York? 'Would the fuel last? "Crash-landing conversation" spread through the passengers. Leiske remained calm. An alarmed business man, noting Leiske's coolheadedness, asked, "Sir, I am alarmed. Things don't look good. IMay I sit beside you? 'You seem so calm."1 The craft landed safely in New'York. TypfiLetters to HisfiSon.--On July 9, 1931, Robert was born to Bishop and'Mrs. Leiske in Fargo, North Dakota.. The following day, young Robert received his first piece of mail: July 10, 1931 My Dear Son Robert, Tonight you don't know who I am, and I don't know who you are; but I know that you are the son of Mrs. Leiske, therefore you must be a darling. . . . born for a sacrifice unto the Lord for the finishing of His work. This little note I am mailing in care of your mother at Fargo that she may in years to come read and interpret to I‘Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. vou IC your 1 Bisho; lord, and had 3,2but sew t trl subsequent :ereeonies, in Lie father, an ac letter to 11 My dea You be an stub Hansen and de truth 0f Jes Too me. the 0p e)tperi. Son, y. aibiii 17 you according to her understanding and understanding of your father. 2 Timothy 3:14-15. 'Your father, A. A. Leiskel Bishop and'Mrs. Leiske not only dedicated their child to the Lord, and had given him spiritual guidance according to 2 Timothy 3:14- 15,2 but saw their boy graduate from Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska, and subsequently ordained to the ministry. On the day of the solemn ceremonies, in which Robert was ordained to the ministry, August 3, 1957, the father, an official in the ordination ceremonies, read a most spirit- ed letter to his son. Excerpts reflect Bishop Leiske‘s driving concerns: My dear Son, You have been ordained to preach the Gospel. . . . You are an ambassador, not one who is infallible, nor in a sense a messenger in an open market governed by the law of supply and demand, but one who is to speak for God regarding the truth as found in the Holy Scriptures. . . . Of Jesus it is said, "He opened His mouth and taught." Too many messengers . . . in the pulpit never get beyond the open mouth. 'My Son, let both of us move beyond that experience. Son, you have the stuff in you, but organize your respon- sibilities to first, second, and third positions. Your Dad3 +7 w iv iv fivfi—v fifi i—v 1Fromthe personal files of A. A. Leiske. 22 Timothy 3.1445. "But continue in the things that you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and knowing also that from a child you have known the Hbly Scrip- tures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ." 3R. A. Anderson, "A Father on the Ordination of His Son," The Ministg (February, 1962), p. 31. Young R mentilt denom speckle covers seated in an up 132321] of one 3 interests. A b Pith mail from C'CV‘ETImr of Him: with my and und: O‘Nahe f“ the 3131101,) t: 18 'Young Robert is a successful minister today in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. 3;“092_PEE£§§}9-05E$¢¢¢"D93P red carpeting with a black speckle covers the Bishop's office. He works from a walnut desk, seated in an upholstered leather chair. A bank of books runs the length of one side of his office.- Some 1000 volumes form his reading interests. A bust of Lincoln rests on the mantel. The desk is cluttered ‘with.meil from many parts of the country. A photo of Karl Rolvaag, Governor of Minnesota, lies amidst the clutter, autographed: With my warmest regards and best wishes to a great and understanding leader. Sincerely, KARL ROLVAAG Governor On a shelf stands a framed citation, an honorable recognition for the Bishop‘s services to the St. Paul community: l9 CERTIFICATE OF MERIT x x x In Recognition of Services Rendered to the Community and to This Organization, the ST. PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Presents This Certificate to BISHOP A. A. LEISKE For Speaking at PROJECT ACTION Which Was Honored by the FREEDOM FOUNDATION St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Signed Corporate Seal J. A. MAUN President Vice President Q5; my people. affections I‘ fife is stil hh "LEI: tan in t'zmcterist “38:: fish, fallow; . mh t°find the 1 :3- Where 1 To. L"den: Lail Mme Wm. WM by th ‘ ' s 20 The Several "Images" of the Bishops-Leiske is many things to many people. He is a generous man. His compliments, his money, his affections are generously distributed. After 42 years of marriage, his wife is still "darling"--her photo stands prominently on his office desk. To his American Religious Town Hall TV audience, Leiske is "that man in the center of the panel."1 The position on the panel is characteristic of the Bishop. He is neither an extreme leftist nor an extreme rightist in theological, religious, or political matters. Be follows a middle path. Even socially speaking, it would be inconceivable to find the Bishop in any place but the center of attraction and activ- ity. Where he is, his presence dominates the setting. To a segment of the Minnesota political, business, and labor leaders, Leiske is a sort of "Father Confessor." Not a few of these leaders, proverbially caricatured as bowing the knee to Baal, have been invited by the Bishop to kneel in prayer in the Bishop's office, facing heaven! To an evangelistic audience, Leiske is a preacher possessing almost super-human powers of persuasion. Few people are psychologically fortified to resist his powerful, almost hypnotic, impact and appeal. In Detroit, Michigan, October 29, 1950, a woman fell 25 feet from a balcony to the main floor in the Masonic Auditorium, moments after the BishOp made a dynamic prayer-altar call. Penitents moved forward in response to the appeal. Hours later, Mrs. Shirley Bush, aged 23, of Pontiac, Michigan, hospitalized with serious injuries, explained her response to the appeal and her fall as: "I was dazed. I stood up for fi w~v—v—wv fl fifififi fifiv—f 1A letter from a viewer identifies him in this manner. grryer and t? A 141 A la. that the: balcony a limb.2 Cshe: fact that sh. In G: rating and : W F03 kno: lute leEd ‘56 needs to m? lime”. S0 1: 31213103 that, :ll‘ler Golds: Exile "5y, LEisk ll! e'tlng he the to 30p a 21 prayer and that is all I remember."1 A witness recalls, A lady in the balcony was so carried away with his preaching that when he made an altar call, she walked right out of the balcony into mid-air, falling several feet below and breaking a limb.2 Ushers saw her walk straight for the altar, oblivious of the fact that she was on a balcony, guarded by a railing. In Grand Junction, Colorado, a man rushed into an evangelistic meeting and in the presence of a large gathering challenged the Bishop, “Did you know that you baptized a woman with two husbands?"--whereupon ‘Leiske fixed his gaze upon him and replied, "If she has two husbands, she needs to be baptized. I'm not here to save saints. I'm here to save sinners."3 So impressed was this man, so overtaken by the Bishop's per- suasion that, coming to scoff, he remained to pray. One is reminded of Oliver Goldamith's famous lines, "Truth from his lips prevailed with double sway, And fools who came to scoff, remained to pray."4 'Leiske neither smokes nor drinks. He loves to eat. Frequently his eating habits set him apart. ‘He eats with gusto and does not hesi- tate to sop a delicious gravy with bread or bun. In this respect, the Bishop conforms to the homey-folksy gravy-eating philosophy of the 1The Detroit News,‘Monday, October 30, 1950. 2G. E. Hutches, Secretary of Education, Lake Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Letter to 0. J. Ritz, December 23, 1966. 3Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 4Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Villggg_(Boston: J. E. Tilton and Company, 1866), p. 25. netec‘ Acetic In laful lot be raised on Leis} lag cor-:flak. Even t3 action qu :bigiahed g In 1 “them Co: hlegation t4 Tm Rally 1 the Presidem 1: Woman), The ] its $468: 5:“ (cit; h Effluent” I 3%le the as of {€111 1D ‘62‘ one 3 J, p. 11. 211. fit 22 noted American humorist, Will Rogers, who once said, "You know, there is an awful lot of folks don‘t know much about eating gravy. Why, not to be raised on gravy would be like never going swimming in the creek."1 Leiske frequently startles a waitress in a restaurant by order- ing cornflakes and cream for a ten o'clock snack in the evening. Even very prominent people are often psychologically mobilized to action quickly by the Bishop's persuasive manner. Among such dis- tinguished people is none other than Berry S. Truman. In 1947, Bishop Leiske, then living in Missouri, was asked by a General Conference Committee of Seventh-day Adventists to head a delegation to the White House to invite the President to address a ‘Youth Rally in San Francisco. Bishop Leiske "invited M. V. Campbell, the President of the Central Union, and me from the Missouri Conference, to accompany him, along with Senator Briggs."2 The President received the delegation and agreed to appear as the guest speaker. As the delegation was about to leave, Leiske reached into his billfold, pulled out a crisp one dollar bill, and invited the 'President‘s signature. The President, muttering something about the legality of defacing currency, cheerfully autographed the b11133 Un- sdoubtedly the bill instantly became more valuable than its face value. Leiske‘s Love for a Good Story.--The Bishop never tires of hear- ing or telling a good story. When he hears a good one, he tosses his head hDonsld Day, Will Rogers (New‘York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1962), p. 11. ZHutches, 10c. cit. 3The bill is in Leiske's possession. Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. but in I Frankli regards the pmi :32“ interest mater. hhenl etcreesee fom get-titted, ant heextracts from étleits these it at Odetted by wt rtetarlcal clichE ht: hi: nearly g '4 liseeming 1y c Edwin C. t‘ Personal frie ‘| ‘I V a‘s.’\_l Rhea our 'COlorado c :19. him. 1 ‘ m “mince While} \ 3., lsheyenne , Hey, North Da 2Edwin C. 23 ‘back in a Franklin D. Roosevelt fashion and roars with laughter. Leiske regards the passing scene, the human race, the foibles of man with intense interest and keen humor. He finds a tension catharsis in laughter. When he stops laughing, a deep smile takes over; crevices and creases form around his mouth like huge parentheses. Leiske is quick-witted, and extremely personable. He holds no grudges,--in fact, he extracts from.his disappointments in life human interest angles, and exploits these in merriment. The Bishop is a popular man among men, and admired by women. He punctuatea much of his speech with a simple rhetorical cliche, "Oh my!"--an expression that has been prominently *with him nearly a half century. Leiske's high school picture, in 1922, is discerningly captioned, "Oh my!"1 Edwin C. Johnson, former Governor of Colorado, a very close and personal friend of the Bishop, still speaks endearingly of the Bishop through many decades of time. When our beloved BishOp was serving his Lord and Master in Colorado communities, I enjoyed many personal contacts with him. I liked him and shared him with my friends. . . . I am convinced that the good BishOp is one of God’s favorite people.2 1Sheyenne River Academy Yearbook, Cynosure, Class of '22 Cflarvey, North Dakota: Sheyenne River Academy Press, 1922), p. 6. 2Edwin C. Johnson, Letter to O. J. Ritz, December 2, 1966. q:- sCs an r "t the 3~ I!- :he 58:0” 2:15 line :olethele Lester. c exile, 3'0 G skirts of term 1 24 Family Background and Early Years Paternal Background.--Odessa is a major city in South Russia, boasting a huge harbor, an industrial complex, and a state university. In ancient times, Odessa was the Greek Odessos, also spelled Odessus, a Greek colony that largely disappeared by the 4th Century, A.D. Odessa lies on the southwestern coast of the Ukraine, near the Romanian border on the Black Sea. The Russian novelist and poet, Pushkin, while in Odessa, wrote the famous poem, "Towards the Shores of Your Far Homeland." This fa- mous line, though addressed to a single "exile," Pushkin's sweetheart, nonetheless is also descriptive of thousands of Russians who left the Russian cities and steppes to start a new life abroad: "From my sombre exile, you called me to another shore."1 Gottlieb Leiske, the father of Albert, was born near the out- skirts of Odessa in 1861, of peasant stock. Before emigrating to America in 1885, to Alexander, South Dakota, Gottlieb Leiske came under the influence of Russian Baptist mysticism and was "subsequently con- verted to the Baptist faith."2 Young Albert appears to have been reared in this environment of awe for divine things. IMaternal Background.--On the maternal side of Albert's ancestry is a heritage also distinctly South Russian. His mother, the former Elizabeth Hirsch, was born in Diseronlian, Russia, in 1865. "She took w fw IWalterIMorison, Pgshkin‘s Poemg'CLondonI Unwin Brothers Limited, 1945), p. 35. 2Leiske Interview, June 9, 1965. Heading part 1 in: adherent, ‘ :12 Victorian Ag Grandfat leiske family, c Etrallhayo, fa :he mous Mayo Tm Hall, under glazed a one and L345 within Wing an elab 351th service c Sod HOUSé Eighth child), w :fEe‘tOD, North “tiers of the is“ unirlhabitec m . 1'“ Such raw mat EreCted. The Proce 1 mm, fifteen £11859 bOtha’ 1n 1 MI y in and arm: [SN [5'3 25 a leading part in planning the family education, was a devoutly relig- ious adherent, as well as being a firm disciplinarian in the spirit of the Victorian Age."1 Grandfather Hirsch, who emigrated to America in 1886 with the Leiske family, died in Rochester, Minnesota, a patient of William WorrallIMayo, father of William James, and Charles Horace, founders of the famousIMayo Clinic.2 It is interesting that the American Religious Town Hall, under the direction of Bishop A. A, Leiske, has just com- pleted a one and a half million dollar senior citizens' home, Town Hall Estates, within two blocks of the famous Mayo Clinic, and is currently planning an elaborate nursing home on the same site, the combined health service complex to "cost several million dollars." Sod House and Poverty¥¥ears.--Albert, one of nine children (the eighth child), was born March 27, 1901, in a sod house six miles south of Heston, North Dakota. Sod houses were then relatively common on the frontiers of the American west. Immigrant families who settled in these uninhabited prairie wildernesses were forced to build shelters with such raw materials as were readily available. In the timber areas, log houses sprang up, whereas in the prairie areas, sod houses were erected. The process of building was basically simple. Green pliable willows, fifteen to twenty feet in length, were cut from nearby creeks. These boughs, in the manner of basket-weaving, were then woven skill- fully in and around a crudely sketched house-frame of poplar posts. lIbid. 21bid. Falls, roof, ml layers 0 xmionally amide walls ished wall :11 3? 3111:3991” 5!: :ail ord =5 name .c 1 “my weat Then slab of Sod u 73:2: ' “11 n the 1m” ty The a 3‘“, of Cour, Stafinch. Of 26 Walls, roof, and wall partitions were thus formed. Then followed sev- eral layers of "prairie plaster," a mixture of mud and straw, or even occasionally a mixture of mud, straw, and cow dung. The inside and outside walls were troweled smoothly, forming a hard finish. The fin- ished wall might be left in its natural, or covered with calcimine or wallpaper, or might even be wallpapered with old newspapers or pages from mail order catalogs. The roof was often nothing more than squares of prairie sod, several layers deep, to form a run-off for water. Weeks of rainy weather would often produce leaks, sometimes destroying a roof. Then again, a sod house might be constructed by simply laying slab of sod upon slab of sod, much as a bricklayer would lay brick. Thus a wall might be a foot or more thick. It was in a sod house of the latter type that Leiske was born. The struggle for human survival in such primitive conditions was, of course, intense; and character building was often blunt and staunch. Of Leiske's childhood it could be said, They were in peril from hunger, from winter's frost and summer's heat, from the wildness of the prairie storm; they suffered from malaise, illness, and fevers of every sort, far from help; but that they transcended their difficulties, greatly triumphed, established the institu- tions that they prized, and left them a priceless legacy to their children is fact apparent.1 The weather gods must have taken special cognizance of the BishOp's coming. The month of his birth is marked in North Dakota's climatology records as having been a "mild month," but raw. “March 27, 1901, was a blustery day, with a 39 m.p.h. wind blowing from the .fi—v __v a 1Thomas HustonIMacbride, In Cabins and Sod-Houses (Iowa City, Iowa: State Historical Society, 1929), p. 11. 1 earth-est . " 01d their pionee :Eildren, a‘. referred to unverlatiop irea‘eed have E3318 Leiske 13?:‘953ion C 27 northwest."1 Old timers in the days of Leiske's childhood recalled not only their pioneering hardships, but told and retold in the presence of children, almost endless stories of the great blizzard. This storm, referred to in the Dakotas as The Storm of January 12, 1888, became the conversation piece of the "old folks." This storm in a few hours wreaked havoc upon man and beast. Death and destruction followed. Young'Leiske heard varied accounts of this disaster, leaving "a fearful impression on my mind of God’s wrath."2 Heston, North Dakota, is a typical midwestern farming community, having a population of about 100 people. It is described by Leiske as having "a main street, wooden sidewalks, a few places of business such as a general store, a hardward store, bank, lumber yard, pool hall, and four grain elevators that carve out the skyline."3 Poverty marked the family’s early years. There being no welfare system or state financial aid in those days, the family eked out a bare existence on the land. Commenting on the poverty, Mrs. Mae Leiske, wife of Albert A. Leiske, adds a delightful touch to the'Leiske poverty lore. Clothes were in those days passed from the eldest child to the youngest child. It so happened that the child just older than Albert was a girl. Thus the principle of succession, and the circumstances of poverty decreed that 1James Berry, "Climate and Crop Service," Monthly Weather Review, XXIX (March, 1901), p. 103. 2Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. {Ime- Albert 51 was six ; Conn hlpgy day it are."2 Addi themes, "t; 33¢ It us in nothing One ‘35 lost for the to 3UP? 5313 Berth? for 3 :3 attend [:10 Blah the We“). : 4,. Jun, trust 28 Albert wear his sister‘s dresses. This he did until he was six year old. Commenting on the situation, A. At Leiske reminisces, "What a happy day it was for me when I became a boy, and wore my first pair of pants."2 Adding to Mes. Leiske's comment on poverty, A. A. Leiske observes, "We looked upon our poverty-stricken days as a lesson from .God. It cast our confidence upon the Lord, and," he continued, "we had nothing much earthly to lose, but much spiritual to gain."3 One is reminded of Luther‘s comment on poverty. "Those people are most fortunate who do not possess many treasures, for they do not have to support many rats and need not fear thieves."4 Saint Thomas Aquinas once commented, "Poverty is most praise- worthy for setting man free from earthly solicitude; it enables him to attend more freely to divine things."5 Bishop Leiske firmly asserts that the family’s economic straits, the poverty years had a "significant bearing in the development of my faith, trust, and confidence in God. Unencumbered by earthly means, my assets became spiritual."6 IMrs. Mae Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 2Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 3Ibid. “Martin Luther, What Luther Says (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), V61. III, p. 4137. 5Pie-Raymond Regamey, Poverty, an Essential Element in the Christian Life (New'York: Sheed Alin Ward,19SO), p. 62. 6Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. Zeis'ie‘s elements Leiske lc The 52:21 3:9 133' c ‘19 recon :HH 3‘3», 3;» V. 4 {KH>H3>3>O’ _Q_'—1PHr—JH ":91 n i re! 29 If poverty and hardship played a role in the development of Leiske‘s concepts and philosophies of God, so did the more gentle elements of the prairies forge an indelible impression upon him. Leiske loves to reminisce upon his youthful days on the prairies. "The smell of spring rains, the sight of vast fields of waving grain, the low of cattle, the pungent fragrance of a newly plowed furrow," are recounted by him as having "character-building values for me. Especially the prairie sunsets . . ." and Leiske is quick to extract the "esthetic beauties" of a prairie sunset. "And the meadow lsrk is the only bird I understand."1 The break of a dawn on the prairie Is a glorious sight to behold, When the clouds on the distant horizon Are wondrously tinted with gold. IMore beautiful still is the evening As the sun at the close of the day, wafts a kiss to the plains of Dakota On the wings of a silvery ray. All gorgeous the heavens at sunset Are clothed with an infinite light, That scintillates over the prairie And fades away into the night. The last reddened glow of the twilight IMarks the course of a race that is run, Tells in accents superbly exquisite That another day's journey is done. Though the morning of life is entrancing And the labors of noonday more bright, The reward of a life worth the living Only comes with the shadows of night. So the glow of a wonderful sunset, As it lingers a while in the sky, Tells a story of souls that have labored, And are living in mansions on high."2 11b id. 2Arthur E. Towne, Old Prairie Dgys (Otsego,'Michigan: Otsego Union Press, 1941), p. 1. g as one Uh istic pier; Ind :ystic So :fiilie fa: Afiends: A 3O Homex An Atmosphere of Deep Religigug_Piety,--The Leiske home was one where young Albert was subjected to the severity of "Calvin- istic piety." As with many people of Russian-German extraction, "deep and mystical religiosity played a leading part in my daily'life."1 Soon after the family migrated from Odessa to the Dakotas, the Leiske family came under the influential preaching of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. "There was in those days of my childhood, a great and intensified belief that the second coming of Christ would take place in our generation."2 With the acceptance of this new belief, the second coming, the family moved daily in a consciousness of divine imminence. The Leiske family centered its new religious beliefs in the old family Bible. "we had regular worship every morning for about 10-15 minutes. Father read the Scriptures and we prayed the Lord's Prayer. On Friday nights we would sing our favorite hymns and spend one hour in the evening in Sabbath devotion. These worship periods greatly inspired me to become a minister."3 It was at this time that Leiske remembers hearing his name in his mother’s prayers which left a deep impression upon his mind. "Pass- ing by her window one evening, I heard her praying especially for me."4 Elementary School Years.--Leiske attended an elementary school in wells County, six miles south of Heston, North Dakota. This was a v Vt v—v— lLeiske Interview, June 10, 1965. typical count l;;roximate1y FitneApolis, Isnapshot of His 5 Sistine, with izrk accentin "use etude Kaldset hi: Howev it: ware PO 3' Leiske 'w'as ‘L‘! tic fev Y , 1 been hither 6801-: 53218 ty HEEti 31 typical country one-room school, with one teacher teaching eight grades. Approximately twenty pupils attended the school. Clara Albern, from Minneapolis,‘Minnesota, was his first grade teacher. Leiske still has a snapshot of this teacher. His school years on the elementary level appear to have been routine, with the commonplace assignments, reading, writing, and home- work accenting the daily schedule. Leiske appears to have been an average student. He recalls no outstanding grades or citations that would set him apart scholastically from the others. However, several events happened in his elementary school years which were possibly indicative of and directive to his future: 1) Leiske was called a walking encyclopedia, and 2) he contracted rheumatic fever. Leiske, a Walking Encyclopedia.--When only eight years of age, Leiske showed promise of a remarkable mind. His seventeen year old brother George was preparing a religious talk for a Young People’s Society Meeting, and was having difficulty in finding and relating texts of the Bible. Albert came to his brother’s assistance, called off from memory the entire sixty—six books of the Old and New Testaments and showed his brother the basic use of marginal references. IMany years later, when Leiske was in the hey-day of his public evangelism, he amazed audience after audience by his vast knowledge of the Bible. During a question-and-answer period, often preceeding Leiske's evening lecture, members of the audience would rise to their feet and fire questions at the Bishop. In instant and rapid-fire succession, the BishOp responded with a Biblical text from memory. The d from Colorado question-and- :ltlt later in ttdience, he 31.318.“ “it rhEuzatj :‘tree years. :lghts Vhén j :13 anther, 1 Jew“- If h if he “lied AbOu vollid de I defini 32 The distinguished United States Senator, Edwin C. Johnson, from Colorado, on September 13, 1937, was in the audience when a question-and-answer exchange took place. So impressed was the Senator that later in the program when he was called upon to address the mass audience, he referred to Leiske as "a walking encyclopedia of the Bible."1 Rheumatic Feve;.--At the age of ten years, Leiske was stricken with rheumatic fever and was confined to a rocking chair for nearly three years. During this entire time he seldom slept in a bed, choosing rather to remain in the chair to ease the constant pain. One winter night, when rheumatic conditions had reached a peak, a critical state, his mother, near midnight,tip-toed into the living room where his chair stood, and in sobbing desperation, invited him to be dedicated to Jesus. If he died during the night he would be fully dedicated, and if he lived he would agree to become a special testimony to God's presence. About midnight she leaned over me and asked me if I would dedicate my life to Christ--and to His work, if I lived. She offered a special prayer dedicating me. From that day on I definitely felt the call of God.2 Leiske marks his conversion to God from the wheel chair experi- ence. It was during this period of confinement that Leiske read any- thing he could get his hands on. He appears to have been especially 1R. E. Finney, Jr., President of the Wisconsin Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Madison, Wisconsin, in a letter to O. J. Ritz, September 7, 1966. 2Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 5:25! of hi: were favor: :ffice desi (J i Leiske ham,— élbert was halter, ti "2:: ltra; Lhe Child: The :3 year 01d IISigted o 53: the :11 ME cal’ecl .. , .oli it‘d as . 33 fond of history and biography. "Abraham.Lincoln and George Weshington were favorites of mine."1 A marble Lincoln bust stands near the Bishop's office desk today. Discipline atfiHpme.--There was no talking back to father in the Leiske home, though presumably because of his lengthy illness, young Albert was allowed some latitude in this relationship with his father. However, this was at his own risk, for his father always carried a razor strap in his back pocket to assist him in properly aligning his nine children. The working day began at four o‘clock in the morning for the 13 year old, and ended at night when the chores were finished. Chores consisted of milking the cows, feeding them, cleaning the barns, caring for the milk so that it got to market, and seeing that the chickens were cared for, the horses groomed, the dogs fed, wood cut, and the coal and ashes cared for in the furnace. Punctuality to meals and to work was supervised with a sense of religious intensity. For attending a ball game one Saturday after- noon (the Leiske‘sSabbath day), Albert, aged 14, was severely strapped."2 On the matter of severity in punishment one is quickly reminded of Martin Luther's experience when, as he says, "My father once flogged me so severely that I fled from him and was bitterly estranged."3 Though young Leiske never carried a grudge against his father, a —v fi_ __.__v v 1Ibid. 2Ibid. 3James1MacKinnon, Luther and the Reformation (New‘York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1962), p. 3. he does rec tie a healt tone and at m scant f "Decoae Sam the horizon The iiScipline. :IiCago’ A; ‘hfi dOCtrin. 3& the life of JEAeL we: in 1 ”End Cones :issicn, Le: 1?. seaTCh O: at "tar bul 5‘1 BuOOIhcuse 34 he does recount the stern disciplinarian measures as establishing in him a healthy fear and respect for authority and adulthood. Both at home and at school discipline bordered on the harsh, and sympathy was scant for the childish fun and frolic. To learn to "work," and to "become someone in life"1 appears to have been a philosophy that tinted the horizons of Leiske's childhood. The spirit of the age was one of pioneering and strenuous discipline. Theodore Roosevelt, speaking before the Hamilton Club of Chicago, April 10, 1899, summarized the times, "I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life."2 Death of a Brother.--Certainly one of the significant events in the life of young Leiske was the tragic death of his third eldest brother in the year 1918. Leo, a young farmer, newly married, attended a band concert one evening at the local schoolhouse. During the inter- mission, Leo, with another friend, stepped into a darkened cloakroom in search of a drink of water. In those days, before water fountains or water bubblers, it was common to have drinking water brought to the schoolhouse in ceramic jugs. It was also common to store kerosene and gasoline in regular unmarked jugs. The friend lit a match in an attempt to determine the contents of the jugs. A violent explosion ripped the little schoolhouse cloakroom. Leo suffered deep burns and died three days later. "I was terribly shaken by the experience and renewed my vow to serve God. I learned to pray."3 lLeiske Interview, June 12, 1965. 2John Bartlett, Familiargguotations (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1955), p. 778. 3Leiske Interview, September 28, 1965. fl; innit speak ire fall of l :he village 0 l;ltriotic s The United 5: Eirral was i 3c::ber 10, an About turn to 8‘ “ll sun. ”Please l Entra~ ~—___; 1:213 1113631 mum )‘e a: Shelfinne Rue} Rita :e 8“100 Iieisk, 2E; egullr c: 'Cd dirthinE In the J anions at I 35 A Patriotic Speech.--Something of Leiske's abilities as a dynamic speaker show through clearly in his pre-high school days. In the fall of 1917, in the month of October, young Leiske was invited by the village officials of Heston, North Dakota, to prepare and deliver a patriotic speech for a town function. The war was in weary progress. The United States needed money to finance the war, and the country in general was in need of money from bond drives. On the evening of October 10, at 8 o‘clock, Leiske recalls, About 250 people sat in the auditorium. It was my turn to speak. I gave a fifteen minute talk on "America Will Survive Through Sacrifice." I received a thunderous applause when I finished speaking.1 Entrance Into Sheyenne RiverfiAcademy.--Because of the severity of his illness,‘Leiske did not enter his high school years until he was seventeen years of age. In 1918, he was admitted as a freshman to Sheyenne River Academy at Harvey, North Dakota, a Seventh-day Adventist private school. Leiske's years at the academy appear routine. In addition to the regular classwork, he "took piano lessons, took some lessons in band directing, and learned something about choral work."2 In the spring of 1922, Leiske sat through a "week of Prayer" devotions at the academy, responded to an altar call, and was shortly thereafter baptized by immersion. IHis Bible teacher, John H. Roth, administered the sacred rite off the shores of the Sheyenne River. Leiske was graduated in June of 1922. 1Leisure Interview, June 10, 1965. 2Leiske Interview, October 20, 1966. g Barton Pe: Fliilflophj plxer’" 01 liner pOVE atist: 1! :ed resoux A “39mm, 36 The America of Leiske's Early Years Exceptional Circumstances and Exceptional Inner Power.--Ralph Barton Perry, writing on the thought and character of William James’s philosophy and psychology as related to "circumstances" versus "inner power," once commented, "Exceptional circumstances generate exceptional inner power, . . . which gives to life the color and radiance of value."1 William James (1842-1910), noted American philosopher and prag- matist, is accorded the belief‘that "men find within themselves unexpec- ted resources upon which to draw in times of danger and privation."2 A summation of these two quotations suggests that: 1) men have exceptional inner power, 2) circumstances give to life color and radiance of value, and 3) men find within themselves unexpected resources upon which to draw in times of danger or privation. That the Roaring Twenties provided the peculiar backdrop for the manifestation of these three expressions in Bishop Leiske's life is factual. Fundamentalism.vs.iModernismi-éYoung Leiske, a budding theo- logical student facing the Roaring Twenties, could hardly have escaped the massive influence of the religious controversy unfolding across the nation. Laymen and clergy alike pounded the nation’s pulpits and speak- ers‘ stands in defense of fundamentalism or modernism. Just prior to the twenties, an organized movement swept over the horizon of American 1Ralph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1935), Vol. II, p. 273. flue- mac a: talim it its wanil twelve p. the relig 1511C ph; Ti'r . . Earn with Oper 37 public address, a movement that attempted not only to define fundamen- talism within the historic-traditional norms, but thereby to reactivate its waning power. The appearance of The Fundamentals, a series of twelve pamphlets published in defense of Bible religion, charged that the religious atmosphere of America was being contaminated by modern- istic philosophies hostile to fundamentalism. Liberal religionists, Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878- ) among them, received these tracts with open dislike, and charged the fundamentalist brethren with intoler- ance of alternative views. When it was learned that The Fundamentals had been circulated, "three million copies,"1 to clergymen, Y.M.C.A. and Y;W}C.A. groups all over the English speaking world, Fosdick could stand it no longer. He took direct action in the form of a public address. He went to the people. On May 21, 1922, Dr. Fosdick preached his famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?", a sermon so charged with reaction to fundamen- talism that it marks the dividing line between American Protestant fundamentalist thinking and American Protestant liberal thinking. Little village churches from New Yerk State to California, from the Southern Bible Belt to the prairies of North Dakota, sensed the impact. Stalwart opposition to Dr. Fosdick's views included such scholars as Dr. GreshamfiMachen (1881-1937), whose scholarly book, Christianity and Liberalism,2 added furor to furor. v_v__ 1Ernest J. wrage and Barnett Baskerville, "American Speeches on Twentieth Century Issues," Contemporary Forum (New York: Harper Bros. Publishers, 1962), p. 88. 2John Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: Macmillan Company, 1923), So ities of th in Tennesse aver Fundam Darrow dra: :erom , 38 So charged did the religious atmosphere become with the hostil- ities of the question that when the John Scopes'WMonkey Trial" Opened in Tennessee, the nation was already in a high fevered religious frenzy over Fundamentalism.vs.‘Modernismi William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow dramatized the fundamentalist-modernist concepts to immortal renown. Nor could young Leiske have failed to notice the presence of America‘s woman evangelist, Aimee Semple'McPherson, whose unorthodox preaching methodologies stirred the nation's curiosity and interests. Her almost total disregard for conventional preaching methods and for methods of attracting an audience marked her as bizarre. Sensing the necessity of using novel tactics to attract crowds, she "stood on a chair on a street corner, motionless, silent, rigidly erect, with eyes closed and lifted arms-~praying."1 When an audience quickly gathered about her, gazing upon her sphinx-like posture, she broke the spell by shouting, "Quick! Follow me!" As though under some hypnotic spell, the masses followed her into the auditorium or tent, where the doors were shut to keep them from "2 she shouted. leaving. "Don‘t let anyone out! Nor could the young Leiske have failed to notice and possibly be influenced by America‘s social-fascist demogogue, Father Coughlin. The stock market crash in 1929 sent hundreds of thousands of Americans into relief lines. Hunger and strikes, gloom and despair swept the 1Isabel Leighton, The Aspirin Age CNew'York: Simon and Schuster, 1949), p. 55. 2Ibid. 39 nation. Preachers with fervent prayers and ardent convictions peti- tioned the Almighty while denouncing the poverty. Not so Father Coughlin. He denounced the bankers. IHis rapacious attack upon the American economic scene was far reaching. Hillbillies from Kentucky, farmers from Iowa and Illinois and Minnesota and the Dakotas, . . . Gentile and Jew and Methodist and hard-shell Baptist listened to the mellow brogue and were swept away. An estimated 30,000,000 to 45,000,000 persons heard Father Coughlin‘s weekly radio broadcasts. At the height of his career some 50,000 letters a week poured into his mail bags. Nor could young Leiske have failed to be influenced by the massive depression and the droughts that affected the people of the late twenties and early thirties. While thousands of people formed bread lines, and tens of thousands would gladly have purchased a job, cattle died of starvation or were shot to death to end their wretched suffering. Banks were closed. Homes and farms, by the thousands, heavily mortgaged, were finally lost. The depression of 1929 was one of the saddest periods in American history. We had a beautiful farm all paid for, but the desire for expansion and new developments for better farming caused my father to mortgage the 520 acres, which was never paid out. Father lost the entire investment. . . This experience caused a greater dedication of the family to God‘s service and to the eternal values of life.2 Leiske's Early College Training.--Following his graduation from Sheyenne River Academy in the spring of 1922, Leiske entered the 1Ibid., p. 236 2Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. Ectchinion The fie amt at reschiHS-Hl Frog1 t in practical 1112131"t 8r“ children, and ‘ were 103’: Leia] In the Talley City Tet iron the fall C fie Clinton The “Satan Seventh: recalls his <10u Exegeais, 2) 09-1 English, and 5) hiake t its expected to in the editorial like was a men the Clinton Firs ‘ Marriage .924, Leiske was ILeiske I 2 @e 40 Hutchinson Theological Seminary, at Hutchinson, Minnesota. He spent the summer at this school taking two courses, "Education, and Practice Teaching."1 From the fall of 1922 to the spring of 1923, Leiske received some practical teaching experience in a little one-room parochial school, all eight grades, at Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. He had eighteen children, and still has a snapshot of this school group. Since wages were low, Leiske asserts humorously, "I lived on sunflower seeds." In the summer of 1923, Leiske took summer school work at the Valley City Teacher’s Training College, at Valley City, North Dakota. From the fall of 1923 to the spring of 1924, Leiske was enrolled at the Clinton Theological Seminary at Clinton, Missouri, an English- German Seventh-day Adventist School, which no longer exists. Leiske recalls his course work that year as consisting of: l) Biblical Exegesis, 2) General Psychology, 3) General World History, 4) College English, and 5) MMsical Harmony. Leiske was here a member of the Seminary Preaching Seminar. He was expected to fill a pulpit frequently as guest speaker. He was also on the editorial staff of the school paper, The Echo. While at Clinton, Leiske was a member of the Seminary Male Chorus; and he also "directed the Clinton First Presbyterian Church Choir every Sunday morning."2 Marriage to Mae R. Sneesby.--During the sumer and fall of 1924, Leiske was engaged in evangelistic work at Devil's Lake, North 1Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 2Ibid. Dakota. H1 headed by I lagers of l s;irits, s 13 and inf Le 56 desired FT4’18 womal Efficiu, ‘ Wading rm that the 1] Is Icicle C: a 110‘ ll liege, L: I: ’V '5. he!" i'. r J‘ Pres: hwledge a 41 Dakota. He was invited to conduct the music for this religious campaign, headed by Pastor Raymond Bresee. Leiske is quick to add that the vil- lagers of Devil‘s Lake lived under a continuous apprehension of evil spirits, since the Indian folklore persisted that "Evil spirits lived in and influenced the nearby lake, after which the village was named."1 Leiske admits that the attendance at the meetings left much to be desired. However, one penitent came nightly. She was a charming young woman, first seeking God, then Leiske, and ending with both. The officials of the evangelistic campaign admitted that young Leiske was spending much time with Mae in "prayer and Bible study"--and concluded that the inevitable was about to take place. It did. The'Leiskes were married that fall, November 27, 1924. Lgigke‘s Later College Training,--The fall of 1925 again found Leiske, now with a wife, back in school. The Leiskes entered Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska, a Seventh-day Adventist Liberal Arts College. It was here at Union College that Leiske came under the influence of W. W;‘Prescott, head of the Bible Department. It was his Biblical knowledge and deep religiosity that "greatly influenced my life, my preaching, and my future."2 In addition to such courses as Napoleonic History, Astronomy, and New Testament History, Leiske took his first major course in English Speech. "I learned something of the value and power in a properly turned phrase, and I learned something of the great potentials of perm Leiske Havel: worker :reac'r marl i‘ith h '5 and 42 persuasion."1 To fortify his theoretical training in speech and preaching, ‘Leiske now began a weekly preaching service at the Railroad Yards in fHavelock, a suburb of Lincoln. "Once a week while several hundred workers ate their lunch, I stood in the open rail yards, on a box, and preached."2 Leiske's associate draws reference to this preaching experience in these words, "The workers in the shOp were fascinated with his discussion and appeals, and we found him spoken of many times as another ‘Billy Sunday.‘"3 Leiske an Evangelist, l926-l943.--Leiske's public ministry may be divided into three periods, each period marking a distinctly separate phase of ministerial responsibility. 1. 1926-1943 ‘Leiske, an Evangelist. 2. 1943-1952 'Leiske, a Parish Pastor. 3. 1952- 'Leiske, Moderator of the American Religious Town Hall. This third topic will be researched as a separate chapter. The Bible makes a distinction between evangelistic and pastoral responsibilities, a distinction recorded in the New Testament. The word, Evangelist, occurs three times in the New Testament: Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; and II Timothy 4:5. The word, however, is not found in the Septuagint and other Greek versions, in the Apostolic Fathers, or in the Didache, nor does the word appear in Classical Greek use. It is 3Hutches, loc. cit. ’1'... . .‘-‘ 61 let» a._~, ll .3! (A I . ("ll ' I M ' N c ) :th I'J 43 from the same root as the words translated "Gospel" from the Greek CEvangelion) and "to preach" (Evangelizomai). Within the concept of the Christian tradition, more primarily the Protestant, evangelists are regarded as "itinerants, travelling from place to place,"1 preaching the Gospel to entire communities irrespective of communal religious affiliations. In the fall of 1926, Leiske accepted an invitation to the North Dakota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, where he served eight years as an itinerant evangelist. In the tradition of the times, in the age of circus and chautauqua tents, Leiske secured a tent with a seating capacity "upwards of 1000."2 With portable pulpit equipment, choir staging, and scenic back- drop, Leiske began his circuit through the state. His preaching, largely prophetic and doctrinal, drew relatively large crowds. Two events distinguish this eight-year period in North Dakota in Leiske's ministry. First, Leiske was ordained to the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist faith, the ceremonies taking place June 26, 1929, at Jamestown, North Dakota. Pastors W. W. Eastman and Charles Thompson were among the officiating clergy. The second event in this period reflects something extraordinary in Bishop Leiske's abilities, as well as his outspoken determination to represent social justice among Americans. Few men without specific fi—w—v wv—v— 'vfi 1SamuelIMacsuley Jackson, "Evangelist," The New Schaff- Herzog Encyclgpedia of Religious Knowledge, IV GGrand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 225. 2Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 44 legal training have ever defended another in an American court. Even fewer have been successful. Leiske undertook to defend a man who had been arrested for violating a Sunday Closing Ordinance in Valley City, North Dakota. T. P. Neuens, a recent convert to the Seventh-day Adventist faith, had lost his employment because he refused to work on Saturday, the man’s Sabbath day. Neuens, undaunted by the experience, with a backlog of many years of merchandising know-how, opened a local corner grocery store on East Main Street, in Valley City. His neighborhood store was open on Sunday, but closed on Saturday. Local merchants, angered by the fear of Sunday business competition, laid a plan to halt Neuens' Sunday sales. They peered into the ordinances on the town books, and found a Sunday Closing Law custom-tailored to their designs. The President of the Valley City Retailers Association made his way to the Neuens‘ store one Sunday morning and made an insignificant purchase, 10c worth of bologna. As soon as he had received his merchan- dise, he hastened to the nearest telephone, called the Police Department, and had an arrest warrant made out for Mr. Neuens. Neuens was arrested, tried before Police Magistrate R. J. McDonald, found guilty, and fined $10.00 and costs fOr a first offense. Neuens appealed his case and sought out Bishop A. A. Leiske to act as his counsel. Leiske, who had just recently successfully defended a Seventh-day Adventist for a similar charge in Missouri, accepted the invitation and settled down to prepare for the case. Finally, oanay 25, 1932, Neuens appeared before Judge I. J.IMoe. The interest in the case attracted county-wide interest; and the courtroom was packed, many :abl "3’ t: 45 unable to get in. Prosecution and defense presented their cases. IMuch law was quoted and cited on both sides during the argument. . . . The Judge instructed the Jury according to their duties in the case. The Jury retired about 4 o'clock and deliberated until midnight, when it returned with a verdict of not guilty.1 While upon the surface the casual reader may deduce that return- ing a successful "not guilty" verdict was a relatively simple matter, upon closer examination one finds that Leiske had to have an extensive knowledge of legal procedures, an extensive knowledge of Sunday Closing Law ordinances, and reasoning ability as well as persuasive faculty to defend the case successfully as a non-lawyer. The newspaper reporter for the Good Will Messenger is quoted in the same issue as saying, Rev. Leiske and Mr. Neuens intend to continue the case all through the courts in the state and clear through to the United States Supreme Court if necessary to establish the right of the Neuens family to worship and labor on days in accord with the dictates of their conscience. To know Bishop Leiske is to know that this threat to go all the way to the Supreme Court was no idle one. He is a man of action, and a man deeply dedicated to the rights and freedoms of Americans. The case attracted wide attention in North Dakota, making Bishop Leiske a very popular man. Leiske's picture as the defense counsel appeared in a twenty-three column-inch story on the front page of the above cited paper. Some thirty-four years later, a distinguished Fargo, North Dakota, business man, a former member of the jury, made this interesting LGood Will Messepger (Valley City, North Dakota), June 7, 1932, 2Ibid. ODSE q n ‘1‘ 46 observation of the Bishop: By his moving, sincere, and forceful presentation, Rev. Leiske was able to convince the jury that his client was abiding by his own religious convictions when he observed the Sabbath on Saturday.1 Move to Missouri.--In 1934, Bishop Leiske moved to Livonia, Missouri, at the invitation of the Missouri Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Livonia, in 1930, had a population of 237, and was located in Putnam County, with a 1930 population of 11,503.2 In this rural community, Leiske pioneered a form of outdoor advertising for his meetings that was unique. Leiske not only set up a tent, which of itself was a curiosity to the community, but he hooked up a public address system to outdoor loudspeakers. During the day Leiske broadcast news bulletins, advertising for his meetings, and music and choral numbers. The uniqueness of this communications medium brought him evening attendances that far outnumbered the papulation of Livonia. "It was not unusual to have a thousand people for an evening meeting."3 In fact, this advertising attraction appears to have been so successful that Leiske began day meetings to accommodate the growing interest. Many farming peOple from miles around flocked to Livonia during the day to shop and to attend the Leiske meetings. LHerman Stern, Letter to O. J. Ritz, December 5, 1966. See the whole of this letter in Appendix A.. 2R. P. Lamont, Fifteenth Census of the United States, Vol. I (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 622. 3Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. The mere Business such as with gre Leis This ‘PUP‘Jlation Our miles fr L'EEtiRgs City nee. ‘Qulre f Leis? 4.. “his reteive‘ 1e> 47 The merchants looked upon this drawing power with enthusiasm. Business was bad during the depression days, and a program such as ours which drew people into Livonia was received with great enthusiasm. Leiske capitalized on the situation. This drawing power had repercussions in a neighboring town, Queen City, Missouri. Queen City, like many prairie towns during the depression, was struggling for an existence. Queen City, in 1930, had a population of 619, a sharp decline from its 1920 population of 697.2 Our tent meetings drew such crowds, day and night, that the business people of Queen City, only about six to eight miles from Livonia, sent us a delegation to hold special meetings in their town. Because of the depression, Queen City needed the business. The city set aside the town square for our tent meetings.3 Leiske, an Opportunist, seized many such opportunities, and thus received the full backing of the businessmen, often to the dismay of the clergy of other faiths, who feared Leiske’s mass programming lest communicants desert their parishes and unite with'Leiske's faith. Leiske’s public evangelism followed a similar pattern for the next ten years-~tent meetings, skilled and high—powered religious adver- tising on radio and in newspapers, guest speakers, such as the governors and senators of various states, choir singing, confessional and testi- monial meetings, altar calls, and baptisms. His itinerary took him through such states as Missouri, Colorado, Texas, and Kansas, and to such towns and cities as Livonia, Queen City, 11b id . 2Lamont, op. cit., p. 621. 3Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. Greeley Hercede cannuni closed 0f Leis Problee ranging Y I “elegy fOur CC 533388: d°°r 1e '1 1200 I tabeI 1937 48 Greeley, Longmont, Boulder, Loveland, Rockford, Grand Junction, ‘Mercedes, HOuston, Denver, and others. Occasionally religious prejudice would assert itself in a community so that the normal channels of advertising in newspapers were closed to'Leiske. One such occasion reflects something of the tenacity of Leiske‘s personality. In Boulder, Colorado, Leiske met such a problem in a forthright head-on manner. He published his own newspaper! The Bible Temple Special, of Boulder, Colorado, Friday, November 26, 1937, is a Leiske classic. This eight page special boasted a circulation of "5,600 copies printed and distributed for this issue."1 The headline splashed across the paper in fifty-six point boldness read, "Boulder to Hear Governor Ammons and Leiske."2 The newspaper was filled with current news items; advertising ranging from supermarkets to eating places was generously laced with Leiske‘s advertising for his meetings. The front page carried a twenty- four column-inch picture of Governor Ammon. The front page also suggested something of the massive attendance at his meetings. Adver- tising the Sunday evening sermon, "The Mark of the Beast,"--"a closed door lecture"--the paper noted that by Friday, November 26, press time, "1200 people have stopped at the office for admittance and there seems to be a rush for tickets."3 Leiske’s methods for collecting an audience were much advanced 1The Bible Temple Special (Boulder, Colorado), November 26, 1937, p. l. ZIbid. 3n: id . r "I f.) 9" r1 publi mm geni: :ati: for 1 the 1 Salem: C .fm J 49 for his times, and included newspaper advertising, radio advertising, public address and loudspeaker systems, doorbell ringing, telephone announcements, and person—to-person contacts on the street. ‘Leiske‘s genius appears to have left few stones unturned in the use of communi- cation. In 1937, he was appointed Press or Public Relations Secretary for the Northern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, taking in the states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 1943-1952, Leiske, a Parish Pastor.--Except for one year, 1948- 1949, when Leiske acted as the Administrator for the Porter Hospital and Sanitarium in Denver, Colorado, Leiske served as a parish pastor until his founding of the American Religious Town Hall in 1952. Leiske, during this decade, served in a number of cities. From 1943-1946, he served as pastor of the Memorial Seventh-day Adventist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska. It was here that one of his close friends, Pastor Walter Reward, President of the Nebraska Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, "died in my arms, May 9, 1944. ‘He collapsed while sitting next to me in a board meeting of the church."1 Leiske confesses that this experience, "While it unnerved me for many days, gave me a deeper conviction of the need of living close to the‘I-ord."2 For a very brief period, 1946-1948, Leiske pastored the First Seventh-day Adventist Church in Kansas City, Kansas, and then served from 1949-1952 as pastor of the Grand River Seventh-day Adventist Church in Detroit, Michigan. In 1952, for a brief period, Leiske LA. A. Leiske, Personal DiaEX,ZMay 9, 1944. zLeiske Interview, October 20, 1966. pastored Pinnesots his pas tc PTOgram a dreds of \ l 50 pastored the First English Seventh-day Adventist Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he became active in the Town Hall, finally resigning his pastoral responsibilities to put full time into the Town Hall panel program as Moderator. "During all these years I was chairman of hun- dreds of comittees. I guess I learned some things about chairmanship."1 IIbid. Leisk kinks 13 0ft his soul. If of "mhwhile- faShion it, t] 331'! the unsu; Leiskg an of “tum often b‘llncea locking "”18 ties to be 1| and re°°n8truc frm him in an Internal deep CHAPTER III THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED Background and Early Developmental Struggles Leiske Has_a Fantastic Dream.--Like many a man of genius, A. A. Leiske is often moved profoundly by an idea germinated deeply within his soul. If an idea has in it the seed of possibility, the portent of worthwhileness, he is impatiently quick to seize it, brainstorm it, fashion it, then expell it in a burst of enthusiasm that all but stag- gers the unsuspecting bystander! Leiske is a man of tremendous physical and mental energy, a man of extraordinary infectious curiosity. Like a circus juggler, he often balances two or three ideas in his mind simultaneously, while looking straight at you and conversing. iHis mind appears at all times to be intensively active, in kaleidoscopic fashion constructing and reconstructing ideas. Ideas, varied, colorful, and dynamic, flow from him in an almost endless manner. Like the artesian well, the internal deep is at work bubbling. United States Congressman Karth of Minnesota once described Bishop Leiske in these dynamic words, He is one of the most aggressive and volatile persons I have ever been privileged to meet. In fact, BishOp Leiske reminds me of the nuclear fission process, if that in any way can be applied to a human being. However, while being explosive, he is also one filled with sincerity and vision, 51 which ; the eff Eve in 3 pets is :hree-dinen from the de The :0 be the e Nov inspire or that the Rel 011 52 which perhaps in the final analysis is the cause rather than the effect of his volatility. Even in his hours of sleep, Leiske’s unconscious mind continues in a persistent configuration of ideas that frequently burst into three-dimensional dreams so startlingly real that he is apt to awaken from the deepness of the night in a state of near exhaustion. The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, appears to be the end-product of a dazzling prophetic dream. Leiske states, November 31, 1952, at 2 o’clock in the morning I awoke, inspired by a dream, and wrote out the memorandum agreement or charter, . . . and in the morning started to organize the Religious Town Hall.2 Oliver Towne, who writes a syndicated column, The Oliver Towne Column, for the St. Paul Dispatch, interviewed Bishop Leiske, in 1960, eight years after this dream. This interview captures the sparkle and wit of Leiske as he described the dream: "I had a dream one night eight years ago," he said. If you feel a smile coming on, it is stiffled by the intent, almost blazing look of enthusiasm behind his glasses. "In this dream," he said, talking fast--he always talks fast--"I was sitting at a table with pastors of other Protes- tant faiths, a Jewish rabbi, and a Catholic priest, . . . and we were discussing the need for mutual tolerance among all of us. . . . Here's the fantastic part: I—-a Seventh-day Adventist Bishop-~was moderator. Me, rgpresenting the smallest denom- ination at that whole table!" Bishop Leiske didn't forget that dream. It troubled him, and finally he decided it had been a providential sign. Leiske is in- 1Joseph E. Karth, United States Congressman from'Minnesota, in a latter to 0. J. Ritz, December 2, 1966. 2Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 3Oliver Towne, "The Oliver Towne Column," The St. Paul Dispatch, Saturday, April 16, 1960. 12:6 fror 53 intensively conscious of divine intervention in human affairs and in an almost childlike faith attributes this dream to God's direct con- frontation with him. God works in this world through men, and, as I look back to the beginning of this great interfaith movement for the truth of God, and for the freedom of man, I believe that the Lord put His hand on me during the night of November 30, 1952.1 Leiske added further to this dream by saying, I awoke at two o'clock in the morning . . . with the sobering consciousness of the whole idea of the American Religious Town Hall telecast clearly in my mind. I saw the studio, the panelists, representing many denominations.2 He then addaia comment of extreme self-abnegation. The possibility of all this was so unbelievable, and so contrary to my narrow religious convictions, believing all my brethren of other faiths . . . as unclean and ' steeped in spiritual error and Babylon.3 Leiske then added a positivism that is so characteris- tically basic in his personality make-up, I knew we could do it--sit down together, all faiths-- and calmly discuss our problems, . . . and put these discussions on TV as an example for all the world to follow.4 The next morning following this fantastic dream appears to have been one of the most challenging days of Leiske’s life. Tossed by a conviction, fortified by a vivid dream, and confronted by the realism of a world splintered by denominationalism, he had much deep lLeiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 21bid. 3Ibid. 4Towne, loc. cit. COUCEIU be 1 the: sco; IE‘JC hit: and int: 31:} 54 concern and anxiety. It wasn't without feeling a touch of anxiety, you may be sure! What would other clergymen think of it? Would they support it? Would they realize how great was its scope? Leiske appears to have been willing to submit fully to the revolutionary concept of interfaith togetherness. After much prayer and introspection he finally concluded, We can sit down together before the cameras of television with all denominations and talk over touchy religious differ- ences and problems without rancor or bickering, but with tolerance and search for understanding. The BishOp added a studied afterthought, "If we can't find ourselves, how can we find God?"3 Unlike the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, who had difficulty recalling his dream,4 Leiske awoke in the morning fully visualizing the rise and establishment of an interfaith television broadcasting program. Being a man of action, he began that very morning a chain of telephone calls in an exploratory sequence seeking support for his vision. Leiske, a man of much persuasiveness, in a few days time created a widespread interest in the interfaith venture. In order to determine possible support for his exploding dream, Leiske almost impetuously snatched the telephone, dialed one of Minn- 1Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 21bid. 31b1d. “Daniel 2:5. esp: he (I! .? no '1 C811: 3 ‘e~!o Ve‘ I b fiph l 55 eapolis’ most powerful radio-TV stations, WCCO Radio, and WCCO-TV, and in equally characteristic fashion, plunged fully into his topic. If Mr. R. N. Ekstrum, station sales manager, was taken off guard, he appeared not to have shown it. He did give the BishOp a cautious go-ahead signal. "Fine idea. Go ahead and see what you can do with it."1 To Leiske this was truly a green light, a providential omen. Religious and Civic Leaders Sigg Two Historic Ag;eements.-- The first signing referred to by Bishop Leiske as "an exploratory agreement"2 took place December 5, 1952, in the Leiske home at 1615 Scheffer Avenue in St. Paul. This was an attempt by the panel- ists to draw up a working charter. The following five churchmen signed this agreement: “Reverend Ira B. Allen, Central Methodist Church of St. Paul; Reverend Lloyd R. Gillmett, Episcopal Church of St. John the Evangelist, of St. Paul; Bishop A. A. Leiske, Seventh-day Adventist Church, St. Paul; Dr. Clifford A. Nelson, Gloria Dei Luther- an Church, St. Paul; and Reverend Mahlon W. Pomeroy, Park Baptist Church, St. Paul. The December fifth draft was witnessed by Lorna‘McConchie, office secretary, and E. R. Osmunson, President of the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. John R. Person, senior partner in the law firm of Smith, Person, and Doherty, 490 Snelling Avenue, North, in St. Paul, also with offices in the Northwestern Bank Building, in Minneapolis, served lLeiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 21bid. as legal ad first form: 5th day Of Cent GILL‘IE'I BISHOP CLIFPOR REVEREN after I 56 as legal advisor and directed the drawing up of the agreement. This first formal document reads as follows: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Agreement made and entered into this 5th day of December, 1952, by and between REVEREND IRA B. ALLEN of Central Park Methodist Church of St. Paul; REVEREND LLOYD R. GILLMETT of the Episcopal Church of St. John the Evangelist; BISHOP A. A. LEISKE of the Seventh-day Adventist Church; DR. CLIFFORD A. NELSON of the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church; and REVEREND MAHLON W. POMEROY of the Park Baptist Church, herein- after referred to as the parties hereto. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties hereto have originated the panel discussion program known as the "American Religious Town Hall Meeting," and WHEREAS, said program shall be broadcast over Television Station, WCCO, and possibly in the future through other stations, and a network, and WHEREAS, said program shall be for the purpose of bring- ing to the people of this nation and the whole world a living American Democracy in Action, and WHEREAS, said program shall allow the churches of America to speak their individual dogma and beliefs, without hesitancy, from the same panel and yet regard with great jealousy and respect the other churches' civil and spiritual rights under the American Code of Freedom: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties hereto, hereinafter set out, It is mutually agreed as follows: I. That the parties hereto shall be permanent members of the panel. II. That the present members, by rotation, may select one or two guests in the field of religion to sit as members of the panel for a particular Telecast. of the addres Th shall one re 581d p to Spe the be direct. PUblic thIOUg: he she Status mEZbEr WCCO a: °f dea temPOr. PlaCe | IN their 1 In Pre / LCRRA a / /f / / 57 III. That a placard shall be placed in front of each member of the panel, stating his or her name, denomination, mailing address, and office telephone number. IV. That the permanent members of the panel, by rotation, shall select for each Telecast, a sufficient time in advance, one religious topic or subject, to be discussed each week by said panel. Each panel member shall be allowed one minute to speak on said topic, giving his individual opinion. Then the balance of the time shall be used to answer questions directed to the panel through the mail or from the general public in attendance. V. In the event any of the permanent members of the panel, through various circumstances, cannot continue on the panel, he shall select his successor, who shall then acquire the status of a permanent member of the panel. Each permanent member of the panel shall also promptly file with Station WCCO and with his Church Clerk, in a sealed envelope, the name of the party he selects to succeed him in the event of death. In event a permanent member of the panel be away temporarily, he shall appoint someone else to serve in his place on the panel until said person returns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. In Presence of: IRA B. ALLEN Central Park Methodist Church of St. Paul LORNA McCONCHIE LLOYD R. GILIME'I'I‘ Episcopal Church of St. John The Evangelist E. R. OSMUNSON A. A. LEISKE Seventh-day Adventist Church CLIFFORD ANSGAR NELSON Gloria Dei Lutheran Church MAHLON W. POMEROY Park Baptist Church ’1 came "of 1' agreement appended 0f five r. afternoor 111 St. PE 58 The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, came "officially" into being with the signing ceremonies of the second agreement, dated Tuesday, December 30, 1952. To this document are appended the names of the five panelists, as well as the signatures of five witnesses, civic and religious leaders, as follows: John E. Daubney, Mayor of the City of St. Paul; Eric G. Hoyer, Mayor of the City of Minneapolis; va1 Bjornsen, Treasurer of the State of Minnesota; Jere D. Smith, President of the Northern Union Conference of Seventh- day Adventists; and E. R. Osmunsen, President of the Minnesota Confer- ence of Seventh-day Adventists. Prominent Twin Cities guests began to arrive early in the afternoon at the home of Bishop A. A. Leiske, at 1615 Scheffer Avenue in St. Paul. At the close of this historic day, Leiske offered a simple prayer recorded in his personal diary. "Dear Lord, this year is finishing with the greatest vision you have ever given me. I desire to remain pure and disciplined in harmony with Thy will."1 By one o'clock the signing ceremonies commenced. WCCO-TV News Department filmed the event. A. A. Leiske was the first to address the assembled guests. His speech was brief and pointed. The churchmen who are united and dedicating their lives anew to their God and country will render greater service than they can dream of. Men who have such a broad conception of American freedom, democracy, and human rights do not receive such a conception overnight. These men have been at the Fountain and it is a part of their lives. In this agreement that we are signing, we are promising and agreeing to sacredly guard the rights and convictions of each other. We dedicate our lives 1Leiske Personal Diary, December 30, 1952. 5( OQ\ A 59 anew and pray God to keep us true to one another.1 The next to sign was the Honorable Val Bjornsen, Treasurer of the State of Minnesota, acting on behalf of Elmer Anderson, the Cover-- nor, who was a good friend of the Bishop but unable to be present at this occasion. Bjornsen's brief comments follow: The launching . . . of the American Religious Town Hall by five Protestant denominations in Minnesota is a signifi- cant and commendable step. It should create tolerance and should be a means of raising TV to a loftier use at the same time.2 Eric G. Hoyer, Mayor of the City of Minneapolis, was the next to affix his signature to the document. Projecting his views to the date of the first interfaith telecast, he said, I commend Twin City and State representatives of five Protestant denominations--Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Baptist, and Seventh-day Adventist--upon the signing of an agreement for a closer union in these troubled days, and setting up a television panel known as the American Religious Town Hall Meeting. This agreement is a fine forward step toward better unity and understanding between these church organizations. The television program will bring to the citizens of the Twin Cities a real story of c00peration and a new example of a living democracy in action. The Honorable Jehn W. Daubney, Mayor of St. Paul, also a per- sonal friend of Leiske, affixed his signature to the agreement, and added his comments. This occasion may well prove to be of great historical significance. 'You gentlemen are setting the pattern for public discussions that will be a positive source of enlight- enment, encouragement, and spiritual comfort in the storm- tossed perplexities of present-day doubts and fears. Your 1Minutes of the Signing of the American Religious Town Hall Agreement, December 30, 1952, St. Paul, Minnesota CLeiske’s Scrap Book). 21b1d. 31bid. CI) Pa St. St. 60 discussions will not only point up the American concept of the freedom of religious beliefs, but will do much to allay the fears of those who may doubt the sincerity of America's desire for peace throughout the world. You men of deep re- ligious convictions must continue to guide our people along the paths that lead to the only true peace--the peace of mind and soul. 'May you enlist men of good will everywhere.1 The Rev. Ira B. Allen of Central Park Methodist Church of Paul, signed the agreement, and added these thoughts, I am convinced that the American Religious Town Hall Meeting to be telecast over WCCO-TV presents an opportunity for the Church of this area to present and discuss with the people the moral and religious problems facing the average American family.2 The Rev. Lloyd R. Gillmett, Rector of the Episcopal Church of John the Evangelist, at St. Paul, placed his signature to the charter. We feel that this panel discussion in which we will frankly differ in our expression on religious subjects, is democracy in action. We will disagree in many ways, but we will not become disagreeable. We trust that this undertaking of ours will help to make the world a little more safe for differences. The Rev. Mahlon W. Pomeroy of the Park Baptist Church of St. Paul, affixing his signature, commented, Religion is always a personal and private matter, yet there is need for a strong religious brotherhood as a defense against those who would violate or attempt to destroy completely our sacred principles of freedom of religion. In this prOposed program it is planned to demonstrate a common brotherhood without compromise of individual beliefs.4 11b1d. 21bid. 31bid. 41b1d. I added his 1 this kind leade 0f Ar: in Co We as T fatally ' FEE to be I} was an EX; ingot the d°cument i GDJJE: BISHOP 61 Dr. Clifford A. Nelson, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of St. Paul, added his signature, and commented, I am glad to be associated with other churchmen in this religious enterprise. In America, we need exactly this kind of expression of frankness and sharing among church leaders. Freedom of religion is a cornerstone and pillar of American democracy, and in our day all of us who believe in God must do something to preserve this priceless value. We ask your prayers and interest. Thus the sounding board for an interfaith discussion group was formally established. Its purpose and effectiveness were, however, yet to be established through trial and error. The second document, in contrast to the first agreement which was an exploratory memorandum, reflects the formal and official launch- ing of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. The document is as follows: 'MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This memorandum of agreement made and entered into this 30th day of December, 1952, by and between REVEREND IRA B. ALLEN of Central Park Methodist Church of St. Paul; REVEREND LLOYD R. GILLMETT of the Episcopal Church of St. John The Evangelist; BISHOP A. A. LEISKE of the Seventh-day Adventist Church; DR. CLIFFORD A. NELSON of the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church; and REVEREND MAHLON W. POMEROY of the Park Baptist Church, herein- after referred to as the parties hereto, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, BishOp A. A. Leiske of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has originated the panel discussion program known as the "American Religious Town Hall Meeting," and WHEREAS, said program will be broadcast over Television Station, WCCO, and possibly in the future through other stations, and 11bid. the c belie 8m and 8 of th agree the p of tw the p 62 WHEREAS, the purpose of said program shall be to allow the churches of America to speak their individual dogma and beliefs, without hesitancy, from the same panel and at the same time regard with great respect and tolerance the civil and spiritual rights of other churches; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties hereto, hereinafter set out, It is mutually agreed as follows: I. That the parties hereto shall be permanent members of the panel. II. That the permanent members, by rotation, may select one or two guests in the field of religion to sit as members of the panel for a particular Telecast. III. That a placard shall be placed in front of each member of the panel, stating his or her name, denomination, mail- ing address, and office telephone number. . IV. That the permanent members of the panel by rotation shall select for each Telecast a sufficient time in advance, one religious topic or subject, to be discussed each week by said panel. Each panel member shall be allowed three minutes to speak on said topic, giving his individual opinion. Then the balance of the time shall be used to answer questions directed to the panel through the mail or from the general public in attendance. V. In the event any of the permanent members of the panel, through various circumstances, cannot continue on the panel, he shall select his successor, who shall then acquire the status of a permanent member of the panel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. In presence of: JOHN E. DAUBNEY Mayor of the City of St. Paul ERIC G. HOYER Mayor of the City of Minneapolis VAL BJORNSEN Treasurer of the State of‘MUnnesota JERETD. SMITH President, Northern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists E. R. OSMUNSON President,‘Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 63 IRA.B. ALLEN Central Park Methodist Church LLOYD R. GILLMETT Episcopal Church of St. John The Evangelist A. A. LEISKE Seventh-day Adventist Church CLIFFORD ANSGAR NELSON Gloria Dei Lutheran Church ‘MAHLON W. POMEROY Park Baptist Church It was perhaps the first time in our nation that such a covenant among five differing clergymen has been drawn up. Its principles are as American as apple pie and ice cream. . . . This is the story in the life of a man who walks with God, full time. It's the story behind the success of the American Religious Town Hall, a local weekly telecast which is reaping national acclaim as one of the most uniquely challenging ideas now before the American public. The powerful St. Paul Pioneer Press carried an editorial, "TV Panel to Discuss Religion in Democracy." The movement started by five St. Paul churches for a weekly television program dealing with religion as a force in a democracy may have far-reaching consequences. . It could admirably supplement the VOice of America and Radio Free Europe in carrying a spiritual message from America to peoples behind the Iron Curtain.2 1The Anoka Herald (Anoka,‘Minnesota), July 2, 1953, p. 1 2St. Paul Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minnesota), January 3, 1953, 64 The American monthly journal These Times, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, featured a lengthy picture-story article in its August, 1953 issue, entitled, "Religion--American Plan." Quot- ing BishOp Leiske, the article says, "Let’s talk to one another instead of about one another-~peop1e can have religious differences and discuss them*without rancor."1 TV Guide, one year after the initial inauguration of the pro- gram, ran a lengthy article in its publication. It noted that eighty religious and civic leaders sat down in St. Paul to eulogize the first year‘s happenings in Town Hall telecasting. Commenting on the Town Hall, TV Guide observed, The discussions with their flashes of humor, moments of deep searching humility, times when inescapable truths strike hard-cores of thought and explode words away, leaving a sud- denly silent panel more eloquent than ever--this is democracy in action.2 Commenting on the caliber and level of the discussion, TV Guide continued, TV-ites who tune in Religious Town Hell Meeting will be surprised by the intelligence of the panel, the fact that the rules of argument and persuasion are effectively applied (These are no Bible-quoting babblers), and that all petty squabbles that mar discussion programs from network to network are pleasantly absent.3 In May of 1955, the very religiously influential Christian Advocate, a Methodist journal, carried an impressive picture-story spread of the Town Hall, written by the distinguished American Meth- 1"Religion--American Plan," These Times, August, 1953, p. 8. 2"Accent on America," TV Guide, January 22-28, 1953, p. A-l7. 31bid. N1 7‘. H. .,v '1 65 odist, Bishop T. Otto Nall. In an article entitled, "Television's Free-for-all on Religion," Nell commented, "It is a unique venture, this sharing of faith by men of differing creeds! But they undertook it that men might learn, by their example, of tolerance."1 On September 17, 1958, United States Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, now Vice-President of the United States, sent a congratulatory telegram to Bishop Leiske, commending the American Religious Town Hall for the excellent interfaith television program. Congratulations on your constructive effort to stimulate public regard for preservation of civil and religious rights guaranteed American people under our Constitution, during this 171st Anniversary of signing of Constitution. Pleased that I couldcxrsponsor Senate resolution calling upon President to designate September 14 to 21 as Constitution and Bill of Rights Week. Now more than ever we need national interfaith efforts such as yours to make known to the world our dedication to human rights of all people, regardless of race, color, or creed. Much of my public life has been dedicated to similar effort because of my conviction. It involves heart and core of true Americanism.2 This telegram was sent to BishOp A. A. Leiske in connection with United States Senate Resolution Number 383 of the Second Session of the 85th Congress, when Mr. Langer submitted the following Resolu- tion for himself, Mr. Humphrey, and M&.'Morse, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. fiv—V ‘7 fl 1T. Otto Nell, "Television's Free-for—all on Religion," Christian Advocate,IMay 19, 1955, pp. 10-11. 2Hubert H; Humphrey, Telegram to A. A. Leiske, Moderator of The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, September 17, 1958. 66 RESOLUTION WHEREAS constitutional government that regards the inalienable rights of man superior to the powers of the state is being challenged in a larger part of the world today;‘and WHEREAS the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, a national interreligious educational nonprofit corporation, with the national headquarters in Saint Paul and Minneap- olis, Minnesota, an organization for the preservation for constitutional government that guarantees the civil and religious rights to all its people regardless of race or creed, will have a national constitutional convention over television in the old Congressional Chamber of Independence Hall in Philadelphia during the week of the one hundred and seventy-first anniversary of the signing of the Constitution from September 14 to 18, 1958, with representation of forty-eight States and possibly forty- ,nine: Now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That we as a Senate now in session request by voice vote that the President of the United States proclaim in connection with this national interfaith convention at Independence Hall during the one hundred and seventy-first anniversary of the Constitution, a Constitution and Bill of Rights week from September 14 to 21.1 Adventists Endorse the Interfaith Program.--Though A. A. Leiske is a Seventh-day Adventist clergyman, carrying fully authorized minis- terial credentials, his leadership presence in 1952 in the organiza- tion-in-process stage awaited denominational support and endorsement from his denomination in the interfaith venture. Two distinguished Seventh-day Adventist leaders, clergymen and administrators, fully credentialed and authorized to act for the denomination in giving denominational endorsement appeared with the other distinguished guests 10.3., Congress, Senate, Resolution Number 383I Requesting the President topproclaim the Constitutional Bill of Rights week, 85th Cong., 2d Sessiijugust 19: 1958, pp. l-ZIV C! to. 67 of the day. Jere D. Smith, President of the Northern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, an ecclesiastical authority encompassing the states of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota, affixed his signature to the interfaith agreement. His comments are signifi- cant: As I see this group, I am impressed that great good will come of this panel. All of you men are of one accord. It shows bigness. The 265 churches that I represent are all with you, and praying for you in this venture that you are about to launch on television. E. R. Osmunson, President of the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, was present at this special signing ceremony, and affixed his signature to the agreement, thus bringing the full endorsement of the denominational support to bear upon the validity of the signature. Barely two years after the launching of this interfaith program, Leiske received an impressive number of letters from Seventh-day Advent- ist leaders, expressing both an interest in, and a deep concern for the continuous success of the program. W. A. Nelson, President of the Canadian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, an ecclesiastical jurisdiction encompassing the entire Dominion of Canada, addressed a letter to Bishop Leiske, commenting, "I know that the Lord will continue to bless you in the important work that you are d01n8.n2 fifi V W vv—V LMinutes of the Signing of the American Religious Town Hall Agreement, December 30, 1952, St. Paul, Minnesota (Leiske's Scrap Book). 2Letter from.W. A.'Ne1son, Oshawa, Ontario, June 23, 1955. 'U L11 if 68 From H. M. S. Richards, founder and "Voice" of the Voice of Prophecy, addressed to Leiske, a letter reads in part, “May God give us much faith, much wisdom, much guidance that we may walk step by step as 'He leads. I am sure that God led you in organizing the Religious Town Hall."1 From R. R. Figuhr, President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, world leader of the denomination, Bishop Leiske received words of deep encouragement. I believe, as I have always felt, that there is a place for such an activity as you are carrying on under the Ameri— can Religious Town Hall Meeting . . . to bring the name of Seventh-day Adventists in a cooperative spirit and way before the public.2 Another letter from an entirely different section of the country, arrived to express to Leiske and his panel good wishes. L. E. Lenheim, then President of the Atlantic Union Conference of Seventh- day Adventists (New'York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine,New Hampshire, Vermont, and Bermuda), wrote, ‘You are doing a fine work, and I wish you abundant success. YOur television approach is altogether from a different angle than the regular stereotyped methods, and I believe you are bound to succeed.3 From the Pacific Northwest, C. A. Scriven wrote words commend- ing the interfaith character of the program. Scriven, President of the North Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska), wrote, "I hope that nothing is fifiwv VV' fifiv fl fifi 1Letter from.H. M. S. Richards, Los Angeles, California, August 10, 1955. 2Letter from.R. R. Figuhr, washington, D. C., March 7, 1955. 3Letter from L. E. Lenheim, South Lancaster, Massachusetts, June 20, 1955. done the of Seven Louisian that y0u public r tion, wi met in 1 Endorsed the Cane Adventia Offj AME} w81c R811 N0r1 madE 69 done that would hinder the wider influence of this program."1 L. G. Evans, President of the Southwestern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, an area covering the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico, wrote, "The type of program that you are putting on is worth a lot to this denomination as far as public relations is concerned. I think it is a very fine program."2 The Annual Fall Council of the Seventh-day Adventist denomina- tion, with representatives from many countries of the world present, met in 1954 in Washington, D. C. On Sunday, October 17, the Council endorsed the work of the American Religious Town Hall. Officers of the General Conference, and the Union Presidents authorized the follow- ing communication to the North American constituency of Seventh-day Adventists, as follows: washington, D. C. October 17, 1954 Officers of the General Conference and Union Presidents AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL We were joined by E. R. Osmunson, A. A. Leiske, and E. R. Walde. It was Aggggg, To-express our approval of the program "American Religious Town Hall Meeting" and its presentation throughout North America, realizing the definite contribution it has ‘made to the cause of democracy and religious liberty.3 The Makipg of a HBishgp,fl--The ink to the newly created con- cordat had hardly dried when the organization ran into its first of fi—r—v fifi V fi fi— fi fi 'fi fiv—v fi a 1Letter from C. A. Scriven, Portland, Oregon, March 8, 1955. 2Letter from.L. G. Evans, Richardson, Texas,.June 28, 1955. 3Action taken by the Fall Council of Seventh-day Adventists, Washington, D. C. , Sunday, October 17, 1954. two major having 1c question chairman fashion c: bmthIEn kindly 3f farting o 'I ”the: th rounds of Isisko, b and bacau shwld se Town Hall 1' before de iWOIVed Part1,“la denmnat‘ tine for T1 to the Us, ”Elation \ 1R 70 two major tests in interfaith cohesiveness and purpose. All members having loudly and freely expressed a desire at interfaith dialogue, the question now became one of who should become the first moderator or chairman of the panel. Considerable discussion followed. In the fashion of the New Testament, and in the spirit of ecumenicity, the brethren took to heart the Pauline admonition to the Romans, "Be kindly affectioned one to another, with brotherLy love; in honour pre- ferring one another."1 This was not a question of who would be the greatest, but rather the question of who should serve as moderator. After several rounds of "in honour preferring one another," it was agreed that A. A. Leiske, because of his initial interest in the Town Hall as its founder, and because of his enormous enthusiasm.for the interfaith venture, should serve as the moderator. Leiske accepted this distinction. The Town Hall is now in its fifteenth year-éLeiske is still the moderator. The second issue confronted by the committee that afternoon before departing from their historic conclave of interfaith action involved a very touchy matter, a touchy matter for A. A. Leiske in particular, and for the Seventh-day Adventist representatives and the denomination in general. The issue involved the adoption and use of a title for'Leiske as a television personality. The Seventh—day Adventist denomination is theologically opposed to the use of the title "Reverend." The opposition stems from an inter- pretation of the text of Scripture feund in the Old Testament, Psalms w —' V V V V Vfi V V VV v—v V—r—VV v —v vw—v—v 1Romans 12: 10 . 71 111:9, "holy and reverend is His name."1 The general acceptance among Adventists is that this descrip- tive text is applicable only to God, who is both "holy" and "reverend" and that no mortal should presume the title as an appellation of his own person. According to the teaching of the Scriptures, it dishonors God to address ministers as "Reverend." No mortal has any right to attach this to his own name or to the name of any other human being. It belongs only to God, to distinguish Him from.every other being. Those who lay claim to this title take to themselves God’s holy honor.2 Because the denomination has through the years of its one- hundred-year history placed very great emphasis upon this teaching, the title is officially not used. Another reference frequently drawn to discourage the use of the title "Reverend" stems from a further comment by Ellen G. White, The Scripture declares of God, "Holy and Reverend is His name." Psalms 111:9. To what human being is such a title befitting? 'How little does man reveal of the wisdom and righteousness it indicates. fHow many of those who assume this title are representing the name and character of God! Alas, how often have worldly ambition, despotism, and the basest sins been hidden under the brocaded garments of a high and holy office.3 The assembled Seventhmday Adventist delegation, with A. A. Leiske, were to a man fully acquainted with this denominational teach- ing. iHence, the newly created interfaith conclave had to look else- where for an acceptable title for the one Adventist on the panel. 1Psalms 111:9. fifi i fl v—v fi—v fl 2Ellen G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1946), p. 133. 3Ellen G. White, The Desire of Age; (Washington, D. C.: Rev:~e and Herald Publishing Association, 1940), p. 613. ‘V 72 The term "Elder" was rejected. "Elder" is the official title conferred upon a Seventh-day Adventist minister on the day of his ordination to the ministry. vested with this title, in a generally impressive ceremony, the young ministerial novice is promoted to the rank of a full-fledged credentialed minister, with the full privileges and responsibilities of this office at his command. Your ordination is a public recognition of your divine appointment, and you are now invested with full ecclesiastical authority.1 The ministers of the other denominations seated around the table in discussion expressed concern for the use of the title "Elder," maintaining that "in most churches an elder was a layman rather than an ordained c1ergyman."2 With the panel members rejecting the term."E1der," and the Adventist moderator not permitted to use the title "Reverend," the first breakthrough in interfaith compromise took place that afternoon. Jere D. Smith, President of the Northern Union Conference of Seventh- day Adventists, proposed a solution. According to the Scriptures and the position of our Church Manual, the term "Elder" may also be interpreted and used to designate a "Bishop." The Northern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, I am sure, have no objections to the term "Bishop" being used in referring to your moderator, rather than "Elder."3 By this act of ecclesiastical authority, Jere D. Smith 1The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Manual for Ministers (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 19535, p. 28. 2Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 3Ibid . 73 conferred upon A. A. Leiske, a parish pastor without administrative judisdiction, the use of the title "Bishop." Leiske, by this act, became the first Seventh-day Adventist cleric so designated and set apart. Presidents Smith and Osmunsen, together with their respective Conference Committees, were acting in full accord with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. Just one year before the historic title desig- nation conferred upon Leiske, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in its official manual to the church of 1951, gave an official definitive interpretation of the term "Bishop," by suggesting itsyusage as an alternative to the term "Elder." This is a true saying. If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop (elder), then, must be blameless. . . ." Here, then, the interchangeability, "bishop (elder)," suggested officially in the manual, provided authorization for the title use to A. A. Leiske. The conferring of the title "Bishop" upon A. A. Leiske sent a ripple of excitement through the ranks of the Seventh-day Adventist ministry. Some favored the use of the title and defended its usage on the grounds of New Testament use and on the strength of the General Conference definition of the term bishop. Others hesitated to acknow- ledge the use of the title fOr a Seventh-day Adventist because of ecclesiastical connotations associated with the office of a bishop in its historical setting in the Roman Catholic Church. 1The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Church Manual (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1951), p. 70. 74 Leiske, a strong individualist, unmoved by ministerial "question" on the matter, goes about his busy daily schedules wearing the title with humility and dignity, deeply entrenched as the "first" Seventh-day Adventist BishOp. To millions of TV viewers, he is known through the nation as not only the Moderator of the Town Hall, but affectionately as Bishop Leiske. Egiske's Life Devoted to Discussion and Free Speech.--Bishop Leiske appears to have cherished a deep concern for American freedoms and democracy from his earliest boyhood days. The Leiske family picture album shows a picture of a hayloft in a country barn, temporar- ily converted into a "meeting place," the platform and speaker's stand surrounded by an array of American flags. The slogan, "For Freedom and Democracy," is fashioned in bold foot-high letters over the speak- er's stand. Leiske, aged sixteen, was the active planner behind this program and the ornamentation of the hayloft. In 1922, when Leiske was graduated from Sheyenne River Academy, the "FreedomsJDemocracy" motif appears again, this time in a speech that he delivered to his graduating class. Leiske commented, Teachers, fellow students, and friends, . . . We the class of '22 have departed a little from this custom [giving a gift to the school] and as you notice, we have had a service flag prepared. This flag has twelve stars, each star representing a student who has gone from.this place and responded to the call for service. They have been willing to give their lives.1 Leiske’s preaching ministry shows consistent concern for American freedoms, the dignity of human rights, and for social and fl 1A. A. Leiske, "Memoirs," Qynosure, Sheyenne River Academy YeaEZook (Harvey, North Dakota: Sheyenne River Academy Press, 1922), p. O and rel or re 11: the new; "Freedo: Wide re ber 26, Leiske ,' thi: man Chis ade Er of t} VOrds: this tha: 75 and religious justice for all Americans, irrespective of their race or religion. A random sampling of Leiske's preaching, as reported by the newspapers published by his evangelistic association, shows this "Freedoms4Democracy" motif very conspicuously present. In 1937, while he was in Boulder, Colorado conducting a city- wide religious rally, his newspaper, the Bible Temp1e_§pecig;, Novem- ber 26, ran a bold headline, "Boulder to Hear Governor Ammons and Leiske," followed by a strong Leiske appeal on the front page. There is great danger for this nation to sell out fOr thirty pieces of silver, the very inalienable rights of man, free speech, free press, and free worship.1 In the summer of 1937, Leiske conducted a city-wide Bible Crusade in Macon, Missouri. Senator F. P. Briggs of Missouri, publish- er of the Chronicle-Herald Publishing Company, and editor of the 1113993 ChroniclesHerald, welcomed the Leiske evangelistic company in these words: I've in Macon feel that any city is highly honored in having this outstanding evangelistic party stop in their city, and I am sure, after becoming acquainted with the Leiske group, that you will agree with me. Nearly thirty years later, former Senator Briggs cherished the Leiske friendship.3 In 1938, Leiskeis evangelistic team appeared in Longmont, Colo- rado, for revival and religious meetings. To this meeting, Bishop a vfi v—v v—v 1Bible‘T'emple Special (Boulder, Colorado), November 26, 1937, p. 1. 2Macon Chronicle-Herald (Macon, Missouri), July 9, 1937, p. 3. 3F. P. Briggs, in a letter to O. J. Ritz, December 5, 1966. See the fun text of the letter in Appendix A, Leiske Color: ialize pictur his de: refleet Telske from I 5111c!) I COIOI'ad 76 Leiske invited Justice Benjamin C. Hilliard of the Supreme Court of Colorado. In announcing the appearance of the Justice, Leiske editor- ialized on the front page, adjacent to a twenty-eight column-inch picture of Hilliard, Never in the history of the nation has a meeting been more important than right now. . . . More than a score of bills and resolutions are pending now in Congress which aim to alter the COnstitution fundamentally, and which are designed for the intent to cause racial or religious hatred, bigotry, or intolerance. . . . Shall we scrap the inalienable rights of man as guaranteed to the American peOple under the Federal Constitution and turn the nation over to a dictator?1 In 1939, Leiske appeared in Grand Junction, Colorado. Again his deep concern for free speech, discussion, and human justice is reflected in the Biple_Temple Special. An inch-high headline screams, "Leiske Cracks Down on Intolerance," followed by an editorial on the front page entitled, "True American Liberties Are in Danger!"2 in which Leiske is shown appealing to the citizens of Grand Junction and Colorado to uphold constitutionality. In 1940, Leiske appeared in Mercedes, Texas. Again there appears his staunch drive for American freedoms and rights for all citizens. Using the Myron C. Taylor-Vatican issue as a fulcrum.from which to spearhead his freedoms drive, Leiske is quoted in the Biplg. Temple Edition as saying, The appointment of Myron C. Taylor as President Roosevelt‘s personal representative to the Vitican . . . is a departure from the American spirit and tradition against the mixing of religion with politics or the union of church and state under the American flag. . . . There is a great desire on the part of some to bring both civil, religious, and private life of 1Biple Temple Spggial (Longmont, Colorado), April 29, 1938. 2Bible Temple Spggial GGrand Junction, Colorado), April 21, 1939. the An ment.1 Ir A€811: the ializing, A5 way; 0 stands of 11f W1 philosophi‘ Hall reads Pr: Civil 4 cOlor c telecas democra tangy 0 fields Our dem To hiske fOUm Jews: Ed on this arid the 0f frEQ people 0‘ not only \ 1 ea 2 P. L Th\e 3., Hill Stating: 4 “a. 77 the American peOple under direct supervision of the Federal Govern- ment . In 1942, Leiske appeared in the town of Coffeyville, Kansas. Again the motif of FreedomrDemocracy appears in bold front page editor- ializing. As an American-born citizen, I have learned to love the ways of democracy. I love the American flag and fer all it stands. I am sufficiently interested in the democratic form of life and in the inalienable rights of the American people.2 With this background, heavily accented in FreedomrDemocracy philosophies, it is not surprising that Leiske’s format for the Town Hall reads , to Preserve our republic, to abolish intolerance, to preserve civil and religious freedom for all peoples regardless of color or creed, and to demonstrate on a national educational telecast or radio broadcast the principles of our American democracy of free speech and free discussions without hesi- tancy of all subjects and phases of American life in the fields of religion, education, government, or philosOphy so our democracy and republic may be strong in this critical hour of the world’s history.3 To implement this sweeping drive to preserve American freedoms, Leiske founded the American Religious Town Hall to help keep alive American democracy by way of the panel discussion process. The By-Laws make provision that Protestants, Catholics, Jews, educators, editors, and others have the right to come on this panel to declare their beliefs without hesitancy, and the other members of the panel will uphold their right of free speech so the rest of the world can see that the people of America stand for civil and religious freedom, not only in theory, but in practice.4 f fi fi v—‘ H v—vq 1Bible Temple Edition (Mercedes, Texas), March 28, 1940. 2The Auditorium Star,,Extra GCoffeyville, Kansas), May 15, 1942, p. l. 3Brochure, "The Basic Purpose of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. 41bid. 78 The Historic Development of Discussion Through Town Hall Meetings DeepfiRoots in an American Tradition.--The idea of a Town Hall Meeting is, of course, not new or original with Bishop A. A. Leiske. Not only does the Town Hall tradition reach back into the times of Colonial America, but the idea of freedom of speech and the right to free speech is basic to American democracy. From the days of the first settlement along the Eastern coast, in particular the New England coast, the basic institution for the verbal exchange of ideas was the town hall meeting. Faintly fore— shadowed by the church vestry meetings in Old England, the town hall meetings were basically a product of conditions of settlement of the New England Colonies. In the Colonies, the Congregational Church polity regarding democratic processes in doing church business, and in election of church officers, appears to have greatly influenced the format of the Colonial town hall meeting. Nor did the concept of a free exchange of?speech before an assembly of community residents have its source in English governmen- tal or social cultures. It appears that as early as 500 B.C. the peOple of Sicily, in order to regain their lost possessions captured under Thrasybulus, developed the art of appearing personally before deputies to reclaim their means. Frequently two, three, even five judges would hear the plea, and base a judgment accordingly. The original holders and owners of landed property came forward with their claims to estates which had been alienated, and the law courts were full of citizens demanding their right- ful possessions. . . . Each citizen, therefore, according to the Greek notion of citizenship, would have to conduct his 79 own affairs in court, stating his claim and arguing his case.1 Only in free states, and under popular governments can a free exchange of expression by citizenry and officials meet on grounds ad- vantageous to both, to challenge one another's concepts and philoso- phies. The art of persuasion is valuable only as the people can be appealed to on the subject of public affairs, and where their judgments can be enlightened for the enforcement of political measures, and their feelings aroused sufficiently to lead them into personal activity. Thus not only in ancient Syracuse, but in a thousand different cities through the ages, where freedom and popular governments have existed, are there the remains, the evidences, of men gathering together to exchange their mutual wants and desires. The American town hall of Colonial days may thus be rightly understood as being both an inheritor and a progenitor of an ancient tradition--the exchange of free speech. New England men assembled in annual town meetings for the election of selectmen, constables, and other officers, and upon due call, attended special town meetings. By a majority vote at these assemblies, town lands were distributed, local taxes levied, and action taken on a host of matters relevant to community living, such as schools, roads, bridges, even the affairs of local church and parish house. Town meetings furnished hundreds of Colonial towns and villages with open forums on local issues and affairs. Even if there were re- strictions on this method of free speech, in that in time only qualified fi w v— -fififivfi fi fi fi— ILorenzo Sears, The‘Histopy of Oratopy (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1903), p. 35. voters the Ne p0pul£ ences facult Spoke: Veraus The P5 decree nor‘g 185use as We] 310a. muniti in 3t gOVErn Char IE: 80 voters were permitted free expression, nevertheless, prior to 1760, the New England town hall meeting was the established institution of popular speaking in the Colonies. Town hall meetings frequently waxed hot and bitter as differ‘ ences of opinion failed to be resolved. The controversial and critical faculties were exercised also against matters of the Crown. So out- spoken did some of these matters become on issues involving the Crown versus Colonies that certain safeguards were imposed on the Colonies. The Parliamentary Act of 1774, revising the government of Massachusetts, decreed that no town meeting should be held without the royal gover- nor‘s written permit except for the election of town officers or local issues of community affairs. 'However, in spite of such restrictions, as well as restrictions applied on voter lists, town meetings continued to grow and formed a formidable institution for free American expres- sion. Despite restrictions, town hall meetings rapidly grew. "Town meetings have continued to furnish to hundreds of com- munities open forums on local affairs."1 Neither is the idea of a moderatorship new. Colonial America‘s town hall meetings gave rise to this peculiar type of chairmanship. Called to order by the town clerk, the typical town meet- ing proceeds to the election of a moderator (often honored by a long series of re-elections), then proceeds to the business stated in the . . . call for the meetings.2 G. Montagu Harris, reviewing the peculiar aspects of world governments, in a comparative survey, takes note of the American a fi v—‘fi v—Vfi w—v LJames Truslow Adams, Dictionary of American'Histo;y_(New‘York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940), vcl. V, p. 288. .2Thomas Cochran, Concise Diction of American Histo 0mm: Ybrk: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1962 , p. 952. 81 moderatorship in Colonial town hall meetings in these words, "There is a town meeting which all qualified electors are entitled to attend. This meeting elects annually the moderator, or presiding officer."1 This presiding officer or moderatorz then assumed his respons- ibilities which included the issuing of a "warrant" or call to town hall sessions, prepared the agenda for discussions, directed that qual- ified voters be notified of the meetings, and finally moderated the meeting itself.3 The term moderator appears already to have been in wide usage in medieval England, referring to a ruler, governor, or director. The great pillars of American history appear to have been forged in the setting of town meetings. From the Salem Witchcraft Trials in 1692, to the hammering out of American freedoms in Indepen- dence Hall, to the settlement of slavery issues, issues major and minor have been forged in open debates in the American town hall forum. S. And ought not these witches to be punished? B. Without question; the precept of God’s Word is for it; only they must first be proved. S. Ought not the civil magistrate to use utmost diligence in the searching out of witchcraft, when he is directed by God’s providence to grounds of a just suspicion of it? fifi ‘ f- five—Via- fi WW fifw a fi -vv—v—w 1G.'MontaguIHarris, Comparative Local Government (London: Hutchinson’s University Press, 1948), p. 47. 2Moderator. "Not to be confused with such who opposed the South Carolina Regulators, an illegal and often criminal group organ- ized to oppose a band of Regulators." Mitford M. Mathews, A Dictionary of Americanisms (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 1069. 3While the moderator in this setting is essentially the pre- sliding officer of a parliamentary session--and thus performs functions clifferent from those of a "discussion moderator"--the relationships sire similar in other respects. 82 B. Doubtless . . . ye ought to attend to right rules on the search.1 Issues of great impact to America's destiny were hammered out in Independence Hall, or the Old State Hbuse in Philadelphia. Here in a glorified town hall setting, the Second Continental Congress met in 1775. Here amidst free discussion and debate, George Washington emerged as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. Here amidst the stormy sessions of free men, John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Indeed, America’s roots are deeply embedded in the traditions of the public forum. Discussions in town meetings, in various aspects, are central to an understanding of the rise and development of American democracy, and the American freedom of free speech. The_Twentieslfia New Era in Town Hall‘Meetingp.--In his 1912 campaigning, WOodrow Wilson running for the office of the President of the United States, made an attempt to awaken the American conscience to the needs of revitalizing American free speech. Wilson sought to excite a political regeneration in discussing the nation’s political, industrial, and educational values. It is interesting to note that he did not predicate this political regeneration upon the performance of a few conspicuous leaders, or look for its causative source in cabinets or in the Congress. Rather, Wilson made a plea for the restoration of one of the lost instruments in American national life, namely, a par- liament of the people, a meeting ground and method for popular debate I'Willard Samuel, Some Miscellaneous Observations in Our Present Debates Res ctin ‘Witchcraft, ig_a Dialogue Between 8. ande. (Philadelphia: William Bradford Printers, 1692), Charles Evans Microcard 631. 83 and discussion. For a long time this country of ours has lacked one of the instruments which free men have always and everywhere held fundamental. For a long time there has been no suffi- cient Opportunity for counsel among the peOple; no place and method of talk, of exchange of opinion, of parley. . . Congress has become an institution which does its work in the privacy of committee rooms and not on the floor of the Chamber. . . . I conceive it to be one of the needs of the hour to restore the processes of Common Counsel. . . . We must learn, we freemen, to meet as our fathers did somehow, somewhere, for consultation. There must be discussion and debate, in which all freely participate. The whole purpose of democracy is that we may hold counsel with one another, so as not to depend upon the under- standing of one man, but to depend upon the counsel of all. At this opening of a new age in this its day of unrest and discontent, it is our part to clear the air, to bring about common counsel, to set up the parliament of the people.1 On January 24, 1920, a crowd of people assembled in the heart of Manhattan to witness the cornerstone ceremonies for the New York City Town Hall Company. This institution had its inception as the League of Political Education. The Town Hall, its dream centered in the aspirations of President Wilson's concept of free speech, now to be housed in an altra-modern building, was designed to give to America once again a taste of open forum discussion and debate. The new build- ing was dedicated on January 12, 1921, about one year following the cornerstone laying. An entire week of dedication celebration functions was scheduled. Distinguished speakers paid tribute to the renewed accent upon free speech. Among the dignitaries present were General thn J. Pershing, Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Robert Erskine Ely, p—r Vfi—f v—f “fifi v fl W a 1Glenn Frank, "The Parliament of the People," The Centugy Magazine, XCVUI (July, 1919), p. 403. 84 former founder of the League of Political Education and a leading advocate of the Town Hall. Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York State, following a condemnation of the forces of reaction hard at work to keep the masses ignorant of political and social issues, eulogized, ‘You cannot get the whole city in here, but if you can get publicity and the right men to come and talk about these things, somebody will know and want to know.1 The New;Xork Times noted the opening ceremonies, with 1600 invited guests present, and quoted the guest speaker, Henry W. Taft, to support the Town Hall: What is needed in this age is some reliable basis for forming Opinions upon subjects which more or less directly affect our-wellrbeing in the community.2 The Town Hall appears to have been a major American success. The Christian SciepceéMonitor, surveying the impact of this revived discussion approach in America, commented a year later, 'More than 200,000 peOple have used the Town Hall in the first year of its existence as an open forum.in the heart of New'York. . . . Representatives of every political faith, all kinds of religious organizations, speakers, concerts and benefits have been given an opportunity to use the hall.5 With the expansion of America's network of radio came also a recognition of the portent of the massive possibilities of radio as a medium for Town Hall. George Denny, an associate director of the Town Hall in New fl v -—v v —v~v fi fiV vv—V fi a f 1" ——f v—v fi j ' fiifi—vfifi—v hHarry Overstreet and Bonaro Overstreet, TOwn'Meetipg Comes to Tom (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1938), pp. 78-79. 2New York Timep, January 13, 1921, p. 13. 3§p£is§ian Science Monitor, February 17, 1922. 85 'York, sought in the early thirties ways and means to expand the func- tion of the Town Hall. He envisioned millions of people tuning in their radios and crystal sets to catch the Town Hall discussion. Denny visualized hundreds of thousands of Americans seated around home firesides in clusters of families, relatives, neighbors, continuing the topic of discussion aparked and fanned by the radio panel. Denny became so engrossed with this vision that he hastened to the New York offices of the National Broadcasting Company, and cornering Richard C. Patterson, Jr., executive vice-president of N.B.C., laid before him the plan. The result of the visit was that N.B.C. authorized a series of six programs as a trial run. Beginning May 30, 1935, "America’s Town Meeting was on the air!"1 The success of the Town'Meeting on this national hook-up was instant and enormous. Thousands of people wrote in and phoned, asking questions, making comments, and commending the organization for its forthright willingness to deal in issues alive, current, and inter- esting. "It was dramatic to have not two speakers, but four."2 In record time, America was revolutionized in a dramatic dis- cussion forum. "America contracted to the size of a town meeting.3 Damocracy's oldest and most noble tool, discussion, was re- stored to America for her use to grow or destroy. The town hall meeting concept and program format were, however, not limited to the New York Town Hall. Through the early decades of 1Overstreet, op. cit. p. 7. 2Ibid., p. 15. 31bid. 86 this century other organizations were being formed along similar lines, each designed to implement and to advance some phase and facet of American life through the medium of free discussion. The Sunday Evening Club of Chicago is a notable example of such an organization. Organized in 1907 by a group of influential business men, primarily spearheaded by Clifford W. Barnes, the Club came into existence. The Chicago Sunday EVening Club was, . . . intended as a stranger’s church. . . . The traveling man marooned over Sunday in Chicago, the newcomer, the art student, the young man or woman just entering business, would be sure to find a welcome, . . . a place of common worship for people of all denominations.1 The success of the rise and growth of the Club is one of the success stories of American democracy. The Club, housed in Orchestra Hall, seating some 3000 people, is often filled to capacity. In 1922 with the development of radio broadcasting, the Sunday Evening Club2 went on the air. While a distinguished roster of men and women have addressed the Club and the nation, among them the President of the United States, William.Howard Taft, the Club has sought to maintain an interdenominational perspective. The Club is liberal, and has introduced from its platform leaders of every faith and creed--Roman Catholics and Jews, as well as Protestants, leaders in many professions, and re- nowned statesmen of other lands.3 Its distinguishing feature is its design to give adequate 1Glen A. Bishop, Chicago's Accomplishments and Leaders (Chicago: Bishop Publishing Company, 1932), p. 40. 2Steven P. Vitrano, "The Chicago Sunday Evening Club: A Study in Contemporary Preaching" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State University, 1966). 3BishOp, op. cit., p. 42. discus While with a certai Americ alone 1 r8dio c Vision hearing human 3 human 1 ”ight a: sion ha‘ televisi and cont. American GPPIOQCh , 87 discussion to many topics. Distinctive gestures of the American Religious Town Hall.-- While certain similarities identify the American Religious Town Hall with a long and distinctive American history of town meetings, yet certain features mark it as a Twentieth Century adventure in discussion. Foremost and conspicuously obvious is the fact that Leiske’s American Religious Town Hall Meeting is a television program. This alone has added a new depth and dimension to the program. Just as radio communication dealt in the sense-area of hearing, just so tele- vision has added a second sense factor, sight. This new combination of hearing and sight, while still a long way from capturing the full five human senses, is nevertheless a vast stride forward in psychological human interaction. And since basically, humans generally value the sight and hearing senses most highly, these new dimensions in televi- sion have thus successfully captivated listener-viewing response. In 1953, the year that Bishop Leiske’s program went on the television screen, a British writer, analyzing the effect of television upon British audiences, commented, The majority of us value most dearly our senses of sight and hearing, for through these we achieve our widest forms of contact with each other and share our major forms of exper- ience. Unlike any previous town hall meeting of early America, Leiske's American Religious Town Hall was able to add the sight sense to its approach and thus greatly enhanced its listener-hearing-seeing audience. Second, the American Religious Town Hall differs from its 1RogeriManvell, 0n the Air (London: Andre Deutsch Limited, 1953), p. 137. illusti human 1 the re as a b. Ethica‘ t0 obSe Town H; throug} Town Ha mmhers 18m and Religio Ereate ECCIESL 88 illustrious town meeting ancestry, which dealt with a wide range of human social problems. The Leiske program is concerned basically with the religious. That is, the Leiske program seeks the religious values as a basis for diagnostic discussion while dealing with political, ethical, moral, or even social and economic issues. It is interesting to observe that of 151 films produced to date by the American Religious Town Hall, thirty-nine of these deal with political issues interpreted through religious prisms. This, of course, is understandable for two reasons: 1) the Town Hall is a "religious" Town Hall telecast, and 2) the basic panel members are clergymen. Strong tones and overtones of denominational- ism and of interdenominationalism permeate the panel discussions. Religious symbolisms, Bibles, religious artifacts, vestments, et cetera, create this heavy religious accent as the viewer first dials in. Ecclesiastical terminologies add to the religiosity image. Third, a further distinctive feature identifies the American Religious Town Hall with the ancestral town hall meetings of Colonial and early America. While the "actors and the issues" varied with every town hall meeting, depending upon the issues at hand, the American Religious Town Hall panel members remain basically the same, and their discussions are always circumscribed, as already noted, within relig- ious confines. This original basic panel of five clergymen, Ira B. Allen, Lloyd R. Gillmett, A. A. Leiske, Clifford A. Nelson, and Mahlon W. Pomeroy, is still the basic panel today, some fourteen years later! While by constitutional right, each panel member may bring a guest on the "show"--this imbalance in no wise alters the basic panel pattern. Viewer: hell de 0f sele Religic controv 3 major Drawn f Point: highlight town we“ the PUrpo cramc 80‘ A . this obser 1 A11yu Pu A1, 89 Viewers become accustomed to this basic pattern. Fourth, while the traditional Colonial and early American town hall dealt in mundane matters, such as the repair of bridges, election of selectmen, adjustment of property taxations, et cetera, the American Religious Town Hall deals more directly with issues that tend to be controversial, that is, issues that tend to affect the status quo of a major segment of society. An example of such programs is here cited. Drawn from the Town Hall film library, the following exemplify this point: The Church’s Attitude Towards Communism- Will a World Calendar Revision Safeguard Rights of Religion? Democracy . An Ambassador to the Vatican. Union of Church and State, Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed? Right to Work in the United States. Should the PeOple of America Endorse an Undeclared War in Vietnam? These factors appear to be some of the distinctive factors that highlight the American Religious Town Hall, in contradistinction to the town meeting. Yet a common thread of purpose runs through both, namely, the purpose to create discussion and thus further the ideals of a demo- cratic society. The noted French statesman and political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his classic work, Democracygin America, made this observation regarding the town hall as an American institution. "Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science. They bring it within the people's reach; they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it."1 iMaybe this is what Woodrow Wilson meant when he called for a 1Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in Amerigg_(Boston: John Allyn Publishers, 1876), p. 76. 90 renewal of a "Parliament of the people."1 Certainly Bishop Leiske’s purpose in establishing the American Religious Town Hall Meeting was to uphold democratic ideals and institutions, this very concept being incorporated in Article II of the Articles of Incorporation of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. To carry on through the media of radio, television, films, public appearances, and printed material an educational program throughout the nation for the preservation of our democracy and spiritual values for the better understanding of all peeple, regardless of color or creed.2 The Financial Structure and Growth Pattern of the Town Hall Starting on nggh and a Shoe-StringTBudggg.--If the financing of the Town Hall, either as a local or as a national television pro- duction, ever worried Leiske, he showed no outward manifestation of it up to this point. His faith in miracles is so great, his confidence so God-miracle-centered, that no one appears to have seriously ques- tioned the newly formed organization where the money was coming from. In fact, a few minutes in Leiske’s presence is generally enough to make one conscious of the seeming unimportance of such mundane matters as money. With Leiske‘s philosophy, "All things are possible with God,"3 one senses in his presence the "possible" while facing the "impossible." In fact, one newspaper columnist described Leiske as 1Frank, loc. cit. 2American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., Articles of Incorporation (St. Paul,‘Minnesota: Office of Register of Deeds, 1955), Article II. 3Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 91 "a man who could sell ice to Eskimos."1 Such funds as were required were solicited from viewers and from members of the respective congregations to which the five panel- ists belonged. The Seventh-day Adventists were appealed to on a four- state level, through a written appeal in the Northern Union Outlook, the official paper of the church, covering Mannesota, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. E. R. Osmunson, President of the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, made a written appeal: Ordinarily a thirty-minute telecast costs $530.00. The faithfulness of our people in giving of their means will be greatly appreciated as God opens new avenues for present- ing the Gospel message in these tremendous times. Please remember this television program in your prayers. Shortly after the interfaith telecast was established as a public service feature on'Minneapolis-St. Paul, WCCO-TV, Leiske had visions of making the Town Hall a national program. On August 15, 1954, he took a train to Chicago and in typical Leiske fashion, driven from within by a relentless motivation, he walked unannounced into the Chicago offices of the American Broadcasting Company and requested an interview with the sales program director and manager of the company. Leiske had no capital to invest in a national venture. The Town Hall had no money--that is, the entire capital of the American Religious Town Hall at this moment amounted to "a $32.00 bank account."3 (The Bishop has never revealed how the $32.00 had accrued.) 1Towne, loc. cit. 2E. R. Osmunson, "New TV Program," Northern Union Outlook, XVI (January 13, 1953), p. 4. 3Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 92 Any lack of capital assets that morning was more than balanced by the power of charm, conviction, and persuasion. He calmly outlined the purpose and aims of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting and convinced the sales manager to "take a chance on being paid later for the first series of filmed telecasts."1 It is hard to imagine a hard-shelled business concern's accept- ing such terms! But to know Bishop Leiske is to expect the "possible" from the "impossible." One week later the entire panel of five were in Chicago, and the first series of five telecasts was filmed in Chicago’s studios of the American Broadcasting Company. "The Town Hall is now $3500.00 in the red,"2 commented Leiske. Financial Help From a Graveyard.--In April of 1955, the Town Hall had accrued an $8,000.00 indebtedness, with no real view in sight as to how the deficit could be covered. Even the thought of operating on faith seemed by now threadbare. Leiske confessed that in finances the wolf was always at the door. We (there‘s a board of directors) always operate one jump ahead of the wolf at the door. . . . We make a series, . then go out and raise more money to finance another series. Of course we get no fee from stations or schools that use the films.3 However, early in 1955, a critical stage in financing had arrived. "The public contributions stopped coming in to support this national telecast."4 To add to the difficulties of the newly created lIbid. 21bid. 3Towne, loc. cit. 4Leiske Interview, June 10, 1965. 93 interfaith organization, BishOp Leiske was advised to withdraw from the organization because of the heavy indebtedness. The executive commit- tees of the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and the Northern Union Conference, both administrative groups, feared this heavy indebtedness involving A. A. Leiske, their salaried minister. Both groups feared that the increasing indebtedness would eventually fall upon A. A. Leiske, the Town Hall founder, and ultimately upon the denomination under whose employ Leiske was paid. In'May of 1955, a denominational delegation of Seventh-day Adventists, headed by Reuben Nightingale, accompanied by E. R. Osmun- son, called upon Leiske. The American Religious Town Hall is pretty heavily in- debted, and the brethren on the executive committees are deeply concerned that you might bring considerable financial embarrassment to the denomination. . . . Brother Leiske, don‘t you think that we have given this interreligious experi- ment of yours sufficient time, and don’t you think that it mdght be best to close the entire program down before we become too heavily involved financially and embarrassed? Bishop'Leiske conceded the risk involved, but assured the delegation that God would somehow help out in the matter. The delega- tion gave Leiske an ultimatum, "become solvent by July 31, or close up the whole thing."2 Characteristic of Leiske's humility, and his faith in the super- human, he accepted the rebuke and the challenge. You‘re right. . . . If I can’t get the money to continue, we ought to close up and forget the whole idea. But I think something will happen.3 1From the files of A. A. Leiske. 2St. Paul Dispatch, loc. cit. 3Ibid. 94 BishOp Leiske almost didn’t recognize "something" when it came. One day, three days before the deadline, Leiske was notified that a Roman Catholic priest in Oregon, who had seen one of the programs, inherited forty-three plots in Sunset Memorial Park Cemetery in Minne— apolis. This Oregon priest was so impressed with the interfaith toler- ance of this telecast that he made the Town Hell a gift of the plots. Suddenly, I thought, why not find out how much these plots are worth? I called and got an estimate of $10,500.00, . and I needed about $7,500.00 to put us back in a state of solvency.1 ' This unexpected miracle pulled the Town Hall out of its first major financial crisis. Miracles seem to have sustained the telecast these past fourteen years of operation. Contributions large and small from public solicitation have sustained the program. In the high jubilation that followed this donation, Bishop Leiske humorously chided the two Adventist leaders, Now if you will let us go on, I will see that you will have a grave, . . . nothing like sharing one‘s blessings with his friends.2 "The Bishop Planning to Paint the Town Red."--Since Bishop Leiske‘s methods are not always conventional, just so the contributors to the Town Hall do not always respond in conventional manner. Follow- ing the widely publicized graveyard story, Bishop Leiske received a letter from an Iowa merchant. The humorous letter and his contribution are here recorded in an excerpt from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, an article entitled, “Gee, Thanks," written by Paul Light in his column IIbid. 2From the files of A. A. Leiske. "Once Over Li This A. Leiske red this The 0 Iowa man , discussio "I ha ization a ''I de. yard. It but I'm 0 even more 95 "Once Over Lightly." This might come as a shock to those who know Bishop A. A. Leiske. . . . The Bishop is planning to paint the town red this week. Or, shocking pink if you prefer. The other day Bishop Leiske received a letter from an Iowa man, a steady viewer of the Bishop‘s interfaith religious discussions on some 100 TV stations in the United States. "I have known the history and basic purpose of your organ- ization since its very beginning," he wrote. "I decided to add a little color and life to your grave— yard. It is true that your discussions have been colorful but I'm confident that this carload of paint will make it even more colorful. . . "Sincerely, "RALPH SHEPHERD "Mason City, Iowa"1 The truckload of paint was delivered to Bishop Leiske‘s home, 1890 Hillcrest Avenue, in St. Paul, and dumped into his garage. Rumor had it that the BishOp was ready to start a club of "do-it-yourself home painters."2 From‘WCCO-TV,iMinneapolingto ABC-TV,,America.--The keen inter- est in this type of panel program, a discussion forum among leaders representing five differing religious bodies, brought Minneapolis WCCO-TV sales manager, R. N. Ekstrum, into the picture. WCCO-TV was, in 1952, just a young station in search of any production that might attract viewers. The American Religious Town Hall Meeting appeared to Ekstrum to possess ingredients favorable to audience listening. Further, this k 1Paul Light, "Gee, Thanks," Once Over Lightly Column, St. Paul Pioneer Press (November 2, 1960), p. 15. 21bid. 96 station was not only seeking new viewers, but endeavoring to hold viewers under its former licensee. WCCO-TV actually began television operations "July 1, 1949, as WTCN-TV, and in August of 1952 became WCCO-TV'under the new licensee."1 Bishop Leiske and Mr. Ekstrum set about to work out the film- ing of the program, and to locate a channel mutually acceptable to all concerned. With five denominations involved, and a viewing potential of many thousands, each denominational representative was expected by mutual agreement to notify his denominational affiliations throughout the viewing range of WCCO-TV, thus assuring an immediate and wide re- sponse. WCCO-TV was making time available to the American Religious Town Hall Meeting on a public service basis. The first interfaith telecast appeared on "January 10, Saturday, at 1:00 P.‘M."2 Later that same day, as Leiske was reviewing the providential events of the day, he was able to record in his diary these salient thoughts: "Had a wonderful victory to the glory of God. Everybody was impressed with the telecast."3 From this beginning there developed the larger national tele- vision program. As previously noted, in 1954, Bishop Leiske traveled to Chicago, made contact with the American Broadcasting Company‘s offices, and shortly thereafter had a national outlet of some seventy major stations for his program. These network stations, plus a number IWCCO-TV, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Television Fact Book (Washing- ton, D. C.: Television Digest Publishers, 1953), January 15, No. 16, p. 51. 2Osmunson, op. cit., p. 1. 3Leiske Personal Diary, January 10, 1953. 97 of independent stations, brought the peak to "100 stations in the next ten years."1 In the middle fifties, the American Religious Town Hall Meeting noted a decline in regular free-will contributions, necessitating a slowing down of film productions and general operating budgets. This decline reduced the number of participating stations from its peak of one hundred to twenty-five in 1965. Leiske expresses this decline as follows: We failed to stabilize our television budget, and to scrutinize our economy. We Operated on a very risky financial system, free-will offerings and donations. We counted heavily on public service time. As television time became more costly, and more lucrative to the industry, we lost more stations. Consequently, we were forced to structure some sort of a financial basis for our work.2 The Amegggan Religious Town Hall Becomes a Cg:poration.--To stabilize the financial structure of the Town Hell, and to expand its capital structure, Bishop Leiske turned to the State of Minnesota to form a corporation. Accordingly, under the 1951 Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation Act, the American Religious Town Hall Meeting took on corporation status, August 8, 1955. John R. Person, acting attorney;, Harold Maddox, treasurer of the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; BishOp A. A. Leiske, Moderator; Ira B. Allen, Methodist clergyman; and Clifford Ansgar Nelson, Lutheran clergyman, affixed their signatures to the document. Ten articles formed the Corpor E“21cm By-Laws. The incorporation procedure was significant to the futrlI~§ lLeiske Interview, October 27, 1966. v—“““-‘~..___.— ZIbid. 98 the Town Hall. Article II and Article X made special financial provi- sions. Article II made full legal provisions for the corporation to solicit funds, to own property, and to conduct such matters of business as essential to its operations. . . . to solicit and receive contributions of money and property for the purpose of carrying out said program; to own, lease, mortgage, pledge, encumber, purchase, sell, and otherwise convey real and personal prOperty; and to engage in whatever other lawful activity which shall at any time appearl conducive to the carrying out of the aforementioned purposes. Article X of the corporation by-laws gave legal permission to sell capital stock not to exceed 100 shares. This corporation shall have capital stock and shall be authorized to issue 100 shares of capital stock, each share having a par value of $250.00. Each share shall carry with it the right to one vote in all matters to be voted on by the members. These two provisions, Article II, and Article X, made possible a more steady flow of finances, by making contributions to the American Religious Town Hall Meeting eligible for Income Tax considerations. Second, the selling of 100 shares of capital stock established a $25,000.00 stabilization budget. As A. A. Leiske holds the majority of the shares, fifty-one percent, he has the deciding vote among shareholders; also he is the permanent president. v 1American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., Artigles of Incorporatigp, p. 1. 21bid., p. 2. 3Letter from Ellis R. Colson, Treasurer, American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., to O. J. Ritz, October 29, 1966. 99 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL ‘MEETING, INCORPORATED We, the undersigned, of full age, fOr the purpose of form- ing a corporation under and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 550 of the‘Laws of Minnesota, 1951, known as the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, and laws amendatory there- of and supplementary thereto, do hereby associate ourselves as a body corporate and adOpt the following Articles of Incor- poration: ARTICLE I. The name of this corporation is American Religious Town Hall Meeting , Incorporated. ARTICLE II. Its purposes are to carry on through the media of radio, television, films, public appearances and printed material, an educational program throughout the nation for the preser- vation of our democracy and spiritual values and for the better understanding of all peoples, regardless of color or creed; to solicit and receive contributions of money and property for the purpose of carrying out said program; to own, lease, mortgage, pledge, encumber, purchase, sell, and otherwise convey real and personal property, and to engage in whatever other lawful activity which shall at any time appear conducive to the carrying out of the aforementioned purposes. ARTICLE III. This corporation shall not afford pecuniary gain, inci- dentally or otherwise, to its members. ARTICLE IV. Its duration shall be perpetual. ARTICLE V. The location of its registered office in this State is Saint Paul , Minnesota. ARTICLE VI. The name and post office address of each of the incor- porators is: 100 A. A. Leiske, 1615 Scheffer Avenue, Saint Paul 5, Minnesota Ira B. Allen, 20 North Saint Albans, Saint Paul 4, Minnesota Clifford Ansgar Nelson, 1928 Goodrich Avenue, Saint Paul 5, Minnesota ARTICLE VII. The first Board of Directors shall consist of three direc- tors with the privilege to enlarge it to nine directors. The names, addresses, and the tenure in office of the first direc- tors are: A. A. Leiske, 1615 Scheffer Avenue, Saint Paul 5, Minnesota, one year. Ira B. Allen, 20 North Saint Albans, Saint Paul 4, Minnesota, one year. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, 1928 Goodrich Avenue, Saint Paul 5, Munnesota, one year. ARTICLE VIII. The members of this corporation shall have no personal liability for the obligations of this corporation. ARTICLE IX. All members of this corporation shall be shareholders of this corporation. ARTICLE X. This corporation shall have capital stock, and shall be authorized to issue 100 shares of capital stock, each share having a par value of $250.00. Each share shall carry with it the right to one vote in all matters to be voted on by the members. , IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 8th day of August, 1955. IN PRESENCE OF: A, A. LEISKE _ JOHN R, PERSON m f IRA B. ALLEN HAROLD S. MADDOX CLIFFORD ANSGAR NELSON 101 STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this eighth day of August, 1955, personally appeared before me, a Notary Public, within and for said County, A. A. Leiske, Ira B. Allen, and Clifford Ansgar Nelson to be known to be the persons named in and who executed the foregoing Articles of Incorporation, and each acknowledged that he executed the same as his own free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein expressed. JOHN R. PERSON (John R. Person) Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota My commission expires November 6, 1961. 102 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED We, the undersigned, A. A. Leiske and Donald G. Paterson, respectively the president and secretary of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, a corporation, subject to the provisions of Chapter 317, Minnesota Statutes, known as the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, do hereby certify that at a special meeting of the members and directors of said corpor- ation, notice of such meeting, proposal to amend, and nature of such proposal having been mailed to each director and mem- ber entitled to vote thereon, at least seven days prior to such meeting, held at its registered office, 1890 Hillcrest Avenue, in the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, as designated in such notice, on the 29th day of September, 1959, resolutions as hereinafter set forth were adapted by a unanimous vote of said directors and members: RESOLVED that Article Two of the Articles of Incorporation of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE II. Its purposes are to unite all religious groups of all faiths for the purpose of giving a new interpretation to the civil and religious freedoms of man regardless of race or creed, and to preach, teach, and publish tolerance as founded in the two great commandments, namely: "To love God supremely and our neighbors as ourselves," and to carry on this program through the media of the press, radio, television, in its churches, missions, schools, hospitals, and other public places. To maintain offices, parsonages, churches, missions, hospitals, and to solicit and receive contributions of money and property for the purpose of carrying out said program; to own, lease, mortgage, pledge, encumber, purchase, sell, and otherwise convey real and personal property, and to engage in whatever other lawful activity which shall at any time appear conducive to the carrying out of the aforementioned purposes. RESOLVED, that Article Eleven of the Articles of Incorpora- tion of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: ' ARTICLE XI. Section 1. This corporation may be wound up and dissolved either voluntarily or involuntarily. If the proceedings are voluntary, they may be conducted either out of the court or subject to the supervision of the court, as is permitted by 103 statute. Vbluntary proceedings for dissolution may be insti- tuted whenever a resolution therefor is adopted by the three- fourths of the voting members at a members‘ meeting duly called for that purpose. Section 2. It is understood that in the event of the dis- solution and liquidation of this corporation, it shall be accomplished by distributing the assets remaining after paying all liabilities of the corporation among the various religious organizations represented by the members to be used by each such organization for similar purposes as are carried on by this corporation. RESOLVED further that the president and secretary of this corporation be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to make, execute, and acknowledge a certificate under the corporate seal of this corporation, embracing the foregoing resolutions, and to cause such certificate to be filed for record in the manner required by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have subscribed our names and caused the corporate seal of said corporation to be hereto affixed this 31 at day of December, 1959. A. A. LEISKE - i In the Presence of: Its President J OHN 13:35:35.0}! - - h DONALD G . PATERSON Its Secretary gyungruuynuuunnn: STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN A. A. Leiske and Donald G. Paterson, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say that they are respectively the president and secretary of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incor- porated, the corporation named in the foregoing certificate; that said certificate contains a true statement of the action of the Board of Directors of said corporation duly held as aforesaid; that the seal attached is the corporate seal of said corporation; that said certificate is executed on behalf of said corporation, by its express authority; that they further acknowl- edge the same to be their free act and deed and the free act and deed of said corporation. A. A. LEISKE ponm: G. PATERSON 104 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of December, 1959. ‘JOHN R.fiPERSON {John R? Person) Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota. My commission expires November 6th, 1961. STATE OF MINNESOTA Department of State I hereby certify that the within instrument was filed for record in this office on the 8 day of January A.D. 1962, at 12:15 o'clock P.M., and was duly recorded in Book A-l9 of Incorporations, on page 26 JOSEPH L . DONOVAN Secretary of State resp Town PIOV Minn at a corp natu and: Prio Hill Stan 13th were of A the g 105 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED We, the undersigned, A. A. Leiske and John McKellip, respectively the president and secretary of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, a corporation, subject to the provisions of Chapter 317, Minnesota Statutes, known as the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, do hereby certify that at a special meeting of the members and directors of said corporation, notice of such meeting, proposal to amend, and nature of such prOposal having been mailed to each director and member entitled to vote thereon, at least seven days prior to such meeting, held at its registered office, 1890 HUllcrest Avenue, in the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, as designated in such notice, on the 13th day of August, 1962, resolutions as hereinafter set forth were adopted by a unanimous vote of said directors and members: RESOLVED that Article Two of the Articles of Incorporation of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE II Its purposes are to unite all religious groups of all faiths in a spiritual organization known as the American Religious Interfaith Conference for the purpose of giving a new interpretation to the religious life in America and to strengthen the churches in preserving civil and religious freedoms of all men regardless of race or creed, and to pro- mote tolerance and to preach, teach, and publish the Truth of God as founded in the two great commandments, namely: "To love God supremely and our neighbors as ourselves," and to carry on this religious work through the media of the press, radio, television, its churches, missions, schools, hospitals, retirement homes for senior citizens and other public places. To maintain offices, parsonages, churches, missions, hospitals, nursing and retirement homes for senior citizens as any other religious body in America, and to solicit and receive contri- butions of money and prOperty for the purpose of carrying out the spiritual work of this Interfaith Conference and to own, lease, mortgage, pledge, encumber, purchase, sell and otherwise convey real and personal prOperty, and to engage in whatever other lawful activity which shall at any time appear conducive to its membership in carrying out of the aforementioned purposes. RESOLVED that Article Eleven of the Articles of Incorpora- tion of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: 106 ARTICLE XI Section 1. This corporation may be wound up and dissolved involuntarily, subject to the supervision of the court, as is permitted by statute. Section 2. It is understood that in the event of the disso1ution and liquidation of this corporation, it shall be accomplished by distributing the assets remaining after paying all liabilities of the corporation among the various religious organizations represented by the members to be used by each such organization for similar purposes as are carried on by this corporation. RESOLVED further that the president and secretary of this corporation be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to make, execute, and acknowledge a certificate under the corporate seal of this corporation, embracing the foregoing resolutions, and to cause such certificate to be filed for record in the manner required by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have subscribed our names and caused the corporate seal of said corporation to be hereto affixed this 22nd day of October, 1962. ‘A. A.'LEISREV¥V - In the Presence of: A. A. Leiske, President ROSANN S. BILL p. JOHN‘McKELLIP John McKellip, Secretary LAURETTA S. SITZMANN STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN A. A. Leiske and JOhn'McKellip, being first duly sworn, an oath depose and say that they are respectively the president and secretary of American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incor- porated, the corporation named in the foregoing certificate; that said certificate contains a true statement of the action of the Board of Directors of said corporation duly held as aforesaid; that the seal attached is the corporate seal of said corporation; that said certificate is executed on behalf of said corporation, by its express authority; that they further acknowledge the same to be their free act and deed and the free act and deed of said corporation. 107 A. A. LEISKE fi_ w~fi_ A. A. Leiske, President JOHNchKELLIP .John‘McKellip, Secretary Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of October , 1962. .JOHN R. PERSON fi'onhn R. Personlr Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota. My commission expires November 51 1968. STATE OF MINNESOTA Department of State I hereby certify that the within instrument was filed for record in this office on the 30 day of January A.D. l9_§_2_, at 2:00 o‘clock A.M. I and was duly recorded in Book N-22 of Incorporations, on page 457 . JOSEPH L. DONOVAN Secretary of State 108 A Chain of Senior Cgrizens Rest Homes.--Numerous ways and means for stabilizing the Town Hall financial structure were examined. Stockholders looked for sponsors, steady contributors, and investment projects. The idea of senior citizens homes appealed to them as an investment idea to add steadying income for the Town.Ha11’s operations.1 The members of the corporation began a search for rest homes that could be purchased and turned into profit-making for the Town iHall. In 1963 the C. J; Woofter rest home in Windsor, Ohio, came up for sale. This home was purchased by the Town Hall, and immediately increased from a fifty-two bed project to a ninety-two bed project. The home is currently operating in excellent financial balance under the administrative leadership of Mr. and Mrs. Harold Wesley Welch, and is providing an income to the Town Hall. The WOofter Home is currently appraised as "a $525,000.00 rest home complex, with full nursing care."2 The second rest home complex in the Town Hall expansion program came about as "a miracle of God. How poorly we understand God’s lead- ing and guidance. This miracle assured me that God was leading us into this line of investments."3 The story of the second rest home, built in Twin Valley, Minnesota, is indeed a remarkable one. Early in the sixties, the City of Fargo, North Dakota became the scene of extensive urban renewal. Slum areas had become a midtown problem. The mayor of the city, the Honorable Herschel Lashkowitz, * 1Leiske Interview, October 27, 1966. 21bid. 31bid. 109 set up an Urban Renewal Committee to give thorough study to the complex- ities. BishOp A. A. Leiske, a close friend of the mayor, was invited to come from Minneapolis-Saint Paul to meet with the committee. One suggestion that the Bishop made to the committee took fire and became a reality. The question arose about what to do with the senior citizens living in undesirable areas in Fargo, areas which were soon to be demolished. The Bishop recommended the building of a senior citizens home in some rural area outside of Fargo. From this meeting of April 5, 1963 came a miracle story to rival any Biblical miracle. The Bishop returned to his home, fully inspired that a senior citizens home would soon be in the making. But where would the money come from? To hear the Bishop's confidence on this point is to understand in part his tremendous success in life. Characteristically, he believed that the Lord would provide the means. And He did! The Lord called upon a Roman Catholic layman to lead the way. John Wimmer, a Roman Catholic layman, is a retired farmer who has lived most of his ninety years in Ada, Minnesota, a quiet farming community on the northwestern side of the state, in the Red River Velley, not too far from Fargo. Here‘Mr. Wimmer accumulated consider- able wealth through the years. . . . eleven farms, a number of homes, as well as other collateral that has accumulated through the years. I am not a wealthy man, but I have had more than enough for a comfort- able life.1 Wimmer, with his parish priest, the Right Reverend Mbnsignor v v H fi r— 1John Wimmer Interview, Twin Vllley,IMinnesota, October 28, 1966. 110 Arthur J. Lemire of St. Joseph's Church, were dialing the TV set back in the year 1962 and chanced to tune in on the American Religious TOwn Hall Meeting telecast. The program aired over Station WDAY-TV of Fargo, North.Dakota so impressed Wimmer that he felt compelled to make a contribution. ‘He spoke to his parish priest and discussed the inter- faith claim made on the telecast. Father Lemire contacted Bishop Leiske by long distance telephone to ascertain the policies of interfaith on his program. 'Leiske assured him that the Town Hall not only had an interfaith program, but operated an interfaith rest home also. Father Lemire told Bishop Leiske that he knew a parish layman who wanted to make a financial contribution. Father Lemire assured Mr. Wimmer that the American Religious Town Hall did indeed program an interfaith discussion forum, and that Roman Catholic prelates and prominent laymen had appeared on the pro- gram. This satisfied Mr.‘Wimmer’s curiosity and forthwith he mailed a check to the American Religious Town Hell in the amount of $70,000.00. To the gift was attached the hope that "a senior citizens home might be established in the vicinity of Twin Valley,‘MLinnesota.1 That a gift of such size should come to Bishop Leiske, indirect- ly suggesting the hope of a senior citizens home, was to Leiske fully providential. The hand of God was opened to us. The Lord was speaking to us. .He was showing us the way, and with such a directive we had no choice but to follow through.2 Today, a sixty-eight bed senior citizens home is in full opera- 1Leiske Interview, Octdber 27, 1966. 211: id . 111 tion in Twin Valley, appropriately named Town Hall Estates, in honor of John Wimmer. The completed complex is "a $535,000.00 establish- ment,"1 under the executive administrative leadership of Mr. and Mrs. Delano Forsberg. The City of Fargo paid Bishop Leiske honor for his civic interest in their city. The following Resolution is their attesta- tion: CITY OF FARGO North‘Dakota RESOLUTION RESOLUTION adopted expressing appreciation to BishOp A. A. Leiske: Commissioner Hagen offered the following Resolution and moved its adoption: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY or FARGO, WHEREAS, Bishop A. A. Leiske, Founder and Moderator of the American Interdenominational Religious Forum, accepted an invi- tation and came to the City of Fargo on Friday, April 5, 1963, and met with Mayor Herschel'Lashkowitz, Urban Renewal Executive Director Earl E. Stewart, and the Council of Social Agencies at which time Bishop Leiske submitted a proposed Senior Citizens‘ Center to help in the relocation of some of the displaced persons who will be involved in the Main Avenue Urban Renewal Project; and WHEREAS, Bishop A. A. Leiske has shown a genuine humanitarian attitude by his warm and generous offer which is deeply appreciated and warmly received; and WHEREAS, Bishop Leiske has made a significant contribution toward community thinking and has helped the City of Fargo in a very substantial manner by this very generous offer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of City Commissioners, on behalf of the citizens of the City of Fargo, does hereby express deep appreciation and gratitude to Bishop libid. 112 A. A. Leiske for his generous offer made to the City of Fargo in the proposed Senior Citizens’ Center to assist in the re- location of some of the displaced persons who will be involved in the'Main Avenue Urban Renewal Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Resolution be inscribed upon the permanent records of the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo and that a certified copy of the herein Resolution be forwarded to Bishop A. A. Leiske, Chairman of the American Religious Town Hall Mbeting, Incorporated, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Second by Oakey. 0n the vote being taken on the question of the adoption of the Resolution, Commissioners Hagen, Markey, ‘McCannel, Oakey, and Lashkowitz all voted aye. No Commissioner being absent and none voting nay, the President declared the Resolution to have been duly passed and adopted. CERTIFICATE OF 913T AWOB STATE OF NORTHTDAKOTA SS COUNTY OF CASS I, Wm. G. Johnson, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, qualified, and acting City Auditor of the City of Fargo, North.Dakota; and That the above is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo at the Regular Meeting of the Board held on Tuesday, April 9, 1963; and That such Resolution is now part of the permanent records of the City of Fargo, North Dakota, as such records are filed in the Office of the City Auditor. WMZLGL JOHNSON, pa City Auditor of the City of Fargo, North Dakota (SEAL) 113 Some indication of the high esteem that the mayor of Fargo personally has for the Bishop may be seen from a letter from Mayor Lashkowitz to this researcher.1 In 1964, Bishop Leiske conceived the plan of starting another Town Hall senior citizens home, this one to be located in "the medical center of the world."2 Mayo Clinic, dominating the City of Rochester, Minnesota, is, of course, world famous, and commands respect around the world. Bishop Leiske believed that a senior citizens home here would add to the strengthening of the Town Hall’s financial stabilization program. After two years of planning and building, a five-story, 128 bed complex has been completed. It is unquestionably one of the most modern of such buildings in America. "We estimate the present value of this complex at about $1,200,000.00."3 The Rochester Post-Bulletin, in its news coverage of the September 25, 1966 open house ceremonies of this new home, estimated its value as a "1.5 million dollar project,"4 and carried a picture- story of some 3500 to 4000 people who visited the residence on opening day. Robert Leiske, son of Bishop and Mns. Leiske,has been appointed the administrator of this complex. wr—wj ‘ M v lHerschel Lashkowitz, Letter addressed to Reverend O. J. Ritz, December 16, 1966. The full text of the letter appears in the Appendix A . 2Leiske Interview, October 27, 1966. 31b id . l’Post-Bulletip (Rochester, Minnesota), September 26, 1966, p. 14. 114 The Honorable Alex P. Smekta, Mayor of Rochester, Minnesota, expressed a sincere welcome for this complex in Rochester: Democracy is contagious . . . and beautiful. And we see this democratic spirit portrayed both in philosophy and in practice of the American Religious TOwn Hell. . . . I welcome this development to the City of Rochester, and the living spirit that comes with it.1 A. M. Keith, Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota, spoke as follows: We in Minnesota have good reason to be proud of the new senior citizens center being built in Rochester. This inter- faith center, the first of its kind in the world, is a tribute, . . . a real step forward in understanding among all faiths.2 These three senior citizens homes, with a fourth one currently under consideration near Chicago, Illinois, form a nucleus of financial support for the Town Hall. The Aggrican Religious Town Hall‘Menagement.--The growing interests of the American Town Hall are under the management of a tight-knit organization. Bishop A. A. Leiske, besides owning fifty- one percent of the stock in the corporation, is the president of the corporation, and is also "chairman of the twenty-one member Board of Directors."3 Leiske is also chairman of the twelve member Executive Board,4 as well as moderator of the panel. 1Alex P. Smekta, Villa Vista Brochure, September 25, 1966. 2A.IM. Keith, Villa Vista Brochure, September 25, 1966. 3Article VII of the Articles of Incorporation, 1955, stated that three directors with the privilege of increasing their number to nine should constitute the Board. This was revised in the 1960 amend- ment to read twenty-one directors. A list of the twenty-one directors currently functioning is appended in the Appendix B. 4Names of Executive Board appended in Appendix B. 115 According to the by-laws of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, an annual meeting of the stockholders is to be held on the first Mbnday of October each year. A written notice of any Special meeting of the stockholders must be mailed four days before such a meeting. Each director shall be elected to serve for one year or until his successor shall have been elected and qualified. At all meetings of the board, a majority of the directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.1 Even though the Town Hall is under the management of a sub- stantially large Board of Directors and is advised by an Executive Board, Bishop Leiske remains basically its guiding light with control- ling power in block voting. The Foundingrand Publishing_gf the ggmn Magazine.--The American Religious Town Hall has found it necessary to supplement its promotion- al and advertising medium of tracts, brochures, and circulars with a more stabilized form of publication. The ARTH News magazine was its solution. (ARTH is the abbreviation of American Religious Town Hall.) The first issue of this journal, Velume I, Number I, published in Saint Paul, by The Petersen Press, appeared with the October-1 December, 1961 dateline. This first issue cites A. A. Leiske as the editor and George Petersen, who owns a Saint Paul printing establish- ment, The Petersen Press, as associate editor. The contributing editorship reflects the Town Hall interfaith objectives. A quick glance through the pages of the magazine reveals LLetter from Ellis R. Colson, Treasurer, American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., to O. J. Ritz, October 29, 1966, with extracts from the corporation by-laws. 116 an interfaith dimension. Articles are submitted by a wide range of religious and civic leaders. The Right Reverend Thomas O. Henley, S.J., of the History Department of Marquette University, has penned an article entitled, "Great Liberality for Individual Conscience Has Been the Rule in America." Lewis Mg Ginsburg, contributing editor of the American Jew- ish WOrld, contributed an article entitled, "Religious Leaders Shocked at Court‘s Blue Law Ruling." (This article was written in relation to the United States Supreme Court decision sustaining Sunday Blue Laws.) iMarshman S. Wattson, Executive Secretary of the American Civil Liber- ties Union, wrote an article, "Reviewing the Supreme Court Decision on Sunday Blue Laws." Dr. Walter H. Judd, Congressman from Minnesota, continued the theme of the American Religious Town Hall’s American freedoms, and wrote an article for this first issue of Agra, entitled, "We Must Recapture Faith in Our American.Heritage to Survive." What we need in America today is to recapture a faith in our heritage. iMany have forgotten that our heritage in this land is a religious heritage.1 Rabbi Raphael Hi‘Levine, Congregation Temple de Hirsch, of Seattle, Washington, submitted an article entitled, "These Troubled Times the WOrld Needs American Religious Town Hall." Other articles in the first issue were submitted by such dis- tinguished contributors as Elmer L. Anderson, Governor of Minnesota; Arthur Naftalin, Mayor of Minneapolis; George Vavoulis, Mayor of Saint Paul; Joseph E. Karth, member of Congress froijinnesota; Samuel L. fi fi 7% a v fifi 1'Walter H. Judd, "We Must Recapture Faith in Our American Heritage to Survive,"‘§§:fl News, October‘December, 1961, VOl. I, No. 1, p. 5. 117 Scheiner, Executive Secretary of the Minnesota Jewish Council; and others. The purpose of the ARTH News is expressed in the editorial section, An interfaith conference of Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others united for the preservation of civil and religious freedom, and to bring about a better understanding among all peoples regardless of race or creed. The magazine is published quarterly, and has a five dollar a year subscription price attached to it. Biphgp_Leiskefiand_£he Govgrnor's Prayer Bregkfggt.--Inter- personal communication between distinguished persons on a state-wide level reaches its commanding height annually at the Governor’s Prayer Breakfast, an annual event which brings together a roster of prominent Minnesota citizens unequalled in Minnesota’s social functionings. Notable guests, accompanied by their wives, include annually Ens Excellency the Governor, members of the Minnesota Supreme Court, constitutional officers, members of both HOuses of the Legislature, religious, educational, business, and labor leaders. Thistinnesota Governor’s Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the American Religious Town Hall, whose moderator, A. A. Leiske, is state chairman of this yearly gala event. The cost of the Breakfast is underwritten by business and industry. The Governor’s Prayer Breakfast has its counterpart in the IPresident's Prayer Breakfast held annually in washington, D. C. Aletually, the idea of a Prayer Breakfast had its beginnings some K _v_.._v a fi—v fl f V fi fi v—fi vfiv v—vw 1Editorial,.g31fi News, October~December, 1961, V01. 1, No. l, P. 2. 118 thirty years ago when a group of nineteen Seattle businessmen met at the invitation of Dr. Abraham Vereide to hear a report and recommen- dations concerning political corruption throughout their state. These men met to plan, through discussion groups, how this situation might be changed. Through prayer and frank dialogue, these men discovered a new strength in their personal lives. One member of this first Breakfast group, and an ardent expo- nent of this social-religious event, Arthur B. Langlie,1 became Mayor of Seattle,2 and later Governor of Washington.3 From this beginning, the Breakfast group idea spread to other cities of the state and ulti- mately to Washington, D. C. In 1942 at the invitation of Dr. Vereide, eighty-seven members of Congress met at the Willard Hotel for breakfast, and from this meezing originated the annual President‘s Prayer Breakfast. In 1961, Frank Carlson, Republican Senator from Kansas, con- tacted Bishop Leiske and suggested that a Governor’s Prayer Breakfast be instituted in Minnesota. The First Governor‘s Prayer Breakfast in Minnesota‘s history was heldIMarch 9, 1961 at the Continental Room of the Hotel Saint Paul. —v a w w fi—Vfi—w ' V a— a w— v fl 1Arthur B. Langlie was Mayer of Seattle in 1938, 1939, 1940, and 1941, and Governor of'Weshington State for three four-year terms: 1941-1945, 1949-1953, 1953-1957. 2Clarence E. Ridley and Orin F. Nolting, The Municipal Year- book (Chicago: International City'Menagers Association, 1940), p. 581. 3Harry Hansen, The World Almanac (New York: New York Sun- Telegram Publishers, 1954), p. 65. 4A. A. Leiske, "History of United Action Under God for Religious Leadership in Minnesota," The Governor’s Prayer Breakfast Brochure, 1961, p. 2. best a on his Minna 3 table. have b. ConSECI Years. 1mPress Attorne Minne a o Represe, Robert ( H°rlce S Lieutena folmr G A) Religious Brochure, R31 member 1 Of the lat 119 It is interesting to note that at our first Breakfast in 1961, we had some 500 guests present, and this year our 1966 Breakfast was enjoyed by more than 1000 guests. A basic purpose for this massive interfaith event is possibly best summed up in a hand-written scrawl by the Bishop, as chairman, on his brochure-agenda for the First Governor’s Prayer Breakfast in ZMinnesota in 1961, "Be sure to get acquainted with everybody at your table."2 iHonored guests since the beginning of the Prayer Breakfasts have been the governors of the state, Elmer L. Andersen3 for three consecutive years, and Karl F. Rolvaag also for three consecutive years. The roster of guest speakers appearing on the program is impressive. It includes such men as The HOnorable Walter F. Mendale, Attorney General of Minnesota; The Honorable Leslie E. Westin, Minnesota Senator; The Honorable Clifton Parks, Minnesota House of Representatives; Ray Ewald, prominent Minnesota business executive; Robert Gomsrud, President of Central Labor Union Council AFL-CIO; Dr. iHorace Shaw, American Religious Town Hell Consultant; A. M. Keith, Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota; The Henorable Luther Youngdahl, former Governor of Minnesota; The'HOnorable Eugene'McCarthy, United ALeiske Interview, Octdber 27, 1966. 2A. A. Leiske, "History of United Action Under God for Religious Leadership in Minnesota," The Governor’s Prayer Breakfast Brochure, 1961, p. 2. 3FormerGovernor Elmer L. Andersen, in a letter to O. J. Ritz, 'December 12, 1966, expresses some sentiments and views regarding Bishop A. A. Leiske and the Governor’s Prayer Breakfast. A full copy of the letter appears in Appendix A. States Town I at eac prints Ring 1 is the 18 to Prese: Minna relig move,1 denom tion lieve human 1" :lmm A R8118 120 States Senator from Minnesota; and Dr. Billy Graham, Evangelist.1 Again, it is interesting to note that the American Religious Town Hall motif of freedom and constitutional rights is ever present at each Governor‘s Prayer Breakfast--in the decorations and in the printed programs as well as in the prayers and messages. The American Town Hall S°h29119f Religgpp.--In the early plan- ning stages of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, is the establishment of a Town Hall School of Religion. This school is to function as a correspondence school, with headquarters in the present offices of the American Religious Town‘Hall in Saint Paul, iMinnesota. Bishop Leiske shows a two-fold concern over contemporary religious trends. First, he is concerned with the current ecumenical movement which he believes tends to "weaken and nulify" historic denominational doctrines. Second, the Bishop believes that the reac- tion to ecumenicity is the resurgence of sectarianism, which he be- lieves tends to accent "beliefs" but remains to a degree oblivious to human, social, and civil rights. It is our hope to bridge these two positions in the religious world today. we believe that it is entirely possible to accent strong denominational creeds and convictions within the spirit of ecumenical brotherhood. But I feel we must not forget today's masses who demand social and civil rights as a part and way of Christianity. Good human relations are also divine relations. To implement this human-divine interaction, the American Religious Town Hall School of Religion is preparing a twenty-lesson 1Brochures of Governor’s Prayer Breakfasts, 1961-1965. 2Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. correS] Fur the? a mode: Religi Paul M ha' 121 correspondence course entitled, "Human Relations Bible Course."1 Further, it seeks to set up "discussion groups"2 in a community, with a moderator to assist in the lesson discussions. The American Religious Town Hall Executive Board has employed the services of T. Paul Misenko to be the administrative head of the School of Religion. Perhaps at no time in the history of the Christian church have the functions of the church been so scrutinized as today. Much of the enervation and apathy must be placed upon our sterile concepts of Christianity. It is our purpose here at the Town Hall to create a School of Religion that will help us to reactivate religious thinking in terms of our human, social, and civil responsibilities.3 1T.Paul‘Misenko Interview, October 27, 1966. 2T. Paul Misenko, in a letter to O. J. Ritz, December 23, 1966. 3Misenko Interview, February 10, 1967. cover B Cover h Town Ha EStabli reprESQ prOgran Institt This c} tetante will Cc cohesh factor! Drc CHAPTER IV BISHOP LEISKE‘S GENERAL CONCEPTIONS REGARDING DISCUSSION The basic purposes of this chapter are twofold: l) to dis- cover Bishop Leiske's general concepts of discussion, and 2) to dis- cover his general conceptions concerning discussion practices in a televised program of the type represented by The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. Within the confines of this two-fold schema it is hoped to establish a general picture and perspective of Leiske as he views discussion and discussion practice, especially as related to, and represented by, his American Religious Town.Hell panel discussion program. This chapter will include a study entitled, "Discussion as an Institution," in which the Bishop‘s general views will be expressed. This chapter will also include a section entitled, "Discussion as Rep- resented by a Television Panel Discussion Program" under which heading will come a general investigation into the topics of l) Mbderator-panel cohesiveness, 2) Moderator-panel preparation regarding psychological factors, 3) Leadership qualities, and 4) Leadership methods. In a later chapter a specific set of criteria for appraising the programs of the American Religious Town Hall'Meeting will be set forth. 122 Leiske as not aggres free a card in Speech Person crumbl teat i 123 Discussion as an Institution and Activity Discussion as an Institution.--It is not surprising that Bishop Leiske's outlook is strongly discussion oriented. His life‘s philosophy, as noted elsehwere in this research, indicates a man strongly and aggressively oriented in the traditions of democracy--rights, freedom, free speech, dialogue, and discussion. In his judgment, one of the cardinal tools for the strengthening of democracy is that of free speech and discussion; without these tools of discussion and inter- personal communication, freedom could not exist, and democracy would crumble. Bishop Leiske‘s philosophy of discussion as it relates to democracy may be summed up in an almost simple statement, "to acquaint the people with the issues," and further, "Discussion is an actual acid test in the principles of democracy."1 Speaking about repeated attempts to curb the general discussion of controversial issues on the campuses of American colleges and univer- sities, Bishop‘Leiske becomes visibly agitated. His office annually distributes hundreds of copies of a little booklet entitle Socigi Science and Freedom. His personal desk copy is lined and underscored, a favor- ite underscoring reading: Our continuing fight for freedom of discussion . . . must provide an atmosphere of freedom for thinking that will distress and upset those who can‘t bear having their ideas criticized.2 1Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 2Dale Yoder, "Pressures on Universities," Social Science and Eieedom, Social Science Research Center of the Graduate School, Univer- lity of Minnesota (New York: Printed by the Fund for the Republic, Inc. , 1955), p. 37. tion ideal some This Panel that] cussi that . izatiq itica Conni‘ preSse the T, has be 124 Bishop Leiske believes that the discussion method of communica- tion has in it a number of values for the preservation of democratic ideals. In his speaking and writing, or in his preaching, he enunciates some of these values. First, discussion helps to "break down hostile social barriers." This value is clearly spelled out in the objectives of his Town Hall panel program, "to abolish intolerance."1 The Bishop firmly believes that men and women of opposing views can sit down together in a dis- cussion program, discuss freely and frankly their differences, and come away mutually benefited. Second, discussion "vitalizesrpublic opinion." The Bishop feels that a great force of public opinion lies dormant and awaits revital- ization. He believes that many scores of religious, social, and pol— itical problems need airing, saying that, "Millions of Americans have convictions, ideas, and observations worthy to be discussed and ex- pressed,--ideas that can be discussed--that can revitalize democracy."2 He believes that this great force of ideas can be reached by the Town Hall panel. "It is to mobilize this force that this telecast has been created."3 Third, discussion is an aid in "exposipgrrrnrh." On this point the Bishop believes not only that discussion is a democratic tool, but that it is a communication method which has a divine source. Leiske 1A. A. Leiske, "The Basic Purpose of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated," an unpublished tract. 2Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 3Leiske, 1ot. cit. heavi‘ shall and d: by d1. "I ma; the DI metho: Amati: Vital; Bishol exDre: aPEfik: ceive expre, that I to the View a A 125 heavily underscored the following statement: "God means that truth shall be brought to the front, and become the subject of examination and discussion."1 The Bishop believes that the discussion method is thus ordained by divine agencies for the examination of truth. He further adds, "I maintain that the discussion method is the long way around to get to the heart of the issue-~but it is the much more profitable and safe method for arriving at truth."2 In this respect, the Bishop shares the views of a distinguished American who contends that with every generation there must be a re- vitalization of truth through discussion, research, and examination. Mbn's knowledge of things is not inherited, and must be acquired anew by every generation . . . to guard agd to preserve, to refine and to enrich the tradition of civility. Fourth, gircussion "strengrhens intellectual develgpment." Bishop'Leiske shows a degree of irritation when he is called up to express an opinion regarding today‘s mass-produced educated youth. He speaks of the "educated weakling"4 who is trained to absorb and to re- ceive massive doses of learning, but who fails for lack of training to express or discuss his convictions. ‘Leiske's deep concern over the fact that much expression of convictions, much discussion of vital interest to the masses, is done by the few. Thus he believes that a few clergy- 1Ellen G. White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing (Mountain View, CalifOrnia: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1943), p. 55. 2Leiske Interview, January 20, 1967. 3Walter'Lippmann, "The University and the Human Condition," The Chicago Jewish Forum, XXV, No. 1 (Fall, 1966), p. 27. 4Leiske Interview, January 20, 1967. men speak discuss be financial for the pe accluiescir 0f the hun thmugh f: "Every hum Creator,“ B: sincerity Hall disc. Panel them] hesitancy F Bishop be the Poten 18 that 1 ideas» In \ 126 men speak for the masses on religious items, a few political leaders discuss behind closed doors the political life of the nation, and the financial giants meet in closed session to discuss the economic verities for the people--while the masses follow as a nation of sheep, silently acquiescing. The Bishop believes that the strengthening of democracy, of the human intellect, of individuality is to a great degree possible through free and vigorous exchange of ideas in discussion groups. "Every human being . . . is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator,--individuality, power to think and to do."1 Bishop Leiske holds this viewpoint with a deep religious sincerity and is quick to point out that the American Religious frown Hall discussion panel is dedicated to encourage free discussion. "The panel members have agreed to voice their beliefs and convictions without hesitancy."2 Fifth, discussionfigggnerates andgggrminates new concepts." The Bishop believes that discussion, free and uninhibited, carries with it the potential of germinating new conceptualizations. His point of view is that in the arranging, rearranging, expressing, and restructuring of ideas, a complex of new images emerges for the television viewer and fOr the discussion listeners. These insights, he maintains, deepen and create new enthusiasm for human interaction. "Discussion generates new ideas, new enthusaism, germinates new visions and concepts."3 1Ellen G. White, Education CMountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1942), p. 17. 2Leis'ke, loc. cit. 3Leiske Interview,.January 20, 1967. Leiske in pro He cit as an the ea ly and "diSpu been m ab 1e u regard sion a PUblic The Bi by a h ical L the 8a: C OMOn 1118 "D1 127 Sixth, discussion has a deep religious-oriented source. Bishop Leiske is quick to point out that the discussion method of communication in promoting the G08pel has its source in the 01d and New Testaments. He cites the call of God to Isaiah, "Come now, let us reason together,"1 as an invitation to discussion. He is quick to refer the listener to the early council in Jerusalem2 as a meeting of minds to discuss frank- ly and with candor the question of circumcision. He equates the word "disputing," (there had been much disputing, verse 7) to mean there had been much discussion. (In this he is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary, which uses the word dispute and discuss in an interchange- able usage.) In this six-fold review, Bishop Leiske has set forth his beliefs regarding discussion as an institution and activity. He sees discus- sion as a tool for breaking down intolerance levels and for molding public opinion, as well as for uniting and mobilizing public interests. The Bishop fully believes that discussion is of divine origin, designed by a higher power to encourage intellectual, emotional, and psycholog- ical interaction. Briefly, the Bishop views group discussion in much the same light as did Woodrow Wilson, who labeled it, "the process of common counsel." Discussion As Represented by a Televised Panel-Discussion Program In addition to holding clearly articulated convictions concern- ing "Discussion as an Institution," BishOp Leiske has strong attitudes 1Isaiah 1:18. 2Acts 15th chapter. with r as the clude of the Ship Qt his Sta Ministr 128 with respect to a number of practices associated with such a program as the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. These in- clude such topics as: l) Mbderator-Panel Cohesiveness, 2) Preparation of the Panel in Terms of Psychological Factors, 3) Leadership and Leader- ship Qualities, and 4) General Methods of Leadership. Evidence disclosing the Bishop's attitudes can be derived from his statements and, also, from an examination of his practices as ad- ministrator of a televised discussion program. M9derator4Panel Cohesiveness.--Bish0p Leiske is a firm believer in the need for a high level of group cohesiveness--"the overall attrac- tion of a group for each of its members . . . the feeling of belong— inaness . . . the total field of forces, inside and outside the group which tend to keep it intact."1 Both through his statements to this effect and his consistent efforts to effect cohesiveness in the Ameri- can Religious Towanall, it becomes clear that this ingredient is re- garded as essential. Undoubtedly, one of the basic ingredients in the cohesiveness of the American Religious Town Hall panel is the fact that originally Bishop Leiske found four men who possessed two fundamental qualities essential to the future of the Town Hall program, 1) "articulate pastors," "2 and 2) "willingness to go along with the idea. Both qualities-vertic- ulateness, and the vision of a discussion panel programr-were deemed LHorace B. English and Ava Champney English, A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1959), p. 94. 2Howard B. weeks, "Television’s Experiment in Freedom," Libert ‘Me azine, LII (First Quarter, 1957), p. 17. wholly Spiritu Sponsib members thoroug COhesiv tural r« ness to Church , in Commu able to in the 1 that ha} lated to Signs he 129 wholly essential by Bishop Leiske as minimum basics to the plan. The fact that these men were clergymen, successful community spiritual leaders, well educated, and occupants of positions of re- sponsible leadership in their community, added to their value as panel members. In other words, these men, by virtue of their calling, were thoroughly acquainted with the intricate balances of team work, of cohesiveness, of viscidity. These men were acquainted with the struc- tural relationships of leader to group activity, and of group cohesive- ness to leadership adequacy in their own religious-administrative church circles. The panel and the Moderator, all clergymen, had thus in common a knowledge of group interaction and leadership, and were able to draw on their resources successfully to establish team unity in the Town Hall panel programs. Experimental studies would indicate that "almost without exception, the items of behavior which were re- lated to leadership adequacy were also related to the group's dimen- sions hedonic tone and viscidity."1 The findings of Hemphill's studies would indicate that a leader's Inost important function in the dynamics of group behavior may well be that of maintaining group membership as a satisfying experience for the members of the group and of facilitating their acting together as a unit rather than as separate individuals. With leadership adequacy and viscidity showing a high correlation in Hemphill's studies, it would follow that since all are leaders in group interaction, the panel's chances of a degree of cohesiveness would be high. A brief examination 1 .John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1949), p. 100. of the four personality to group cc LE through chi University, election to he entered and after t] 1956, Gillm seabuTY‘West Dr, World War H m“ capacit he Was ac Qua cohesivene88 ne Wag COnVe; Dr. ( friendly and 11935. His W 0f national n a degree of n.- Ie na Submit 3e 130 of the four original panel members, their educational status, and their personality characteristics will present a glimpse of their potential to group cohesiveness adequacy. Lloyd R. Gillmett: Gillmett was born in Minnesota and reared through childhood in Cleveland, Ohio. He attended Western Reserve University, from which he was graduated with a B.A. Degree, and with election to the Phi Beta Kappa Fraternity. Following this graduation, he entered the Episcopal Theological Seminary at Cambridge, Massachusetts, and after three years of graduate work, received his B.D. Degree. In 1956, Gillmett received an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois. Dr. Gillmett served in the United States armed forces during WOrld war II as chaplain with the rank of Lieutenant Commander. In this capacity, as a spiritual advisor, clergyman, and ranking officer, he was acquainted with a leadership adequacy and the meaning of group cohesiveness. Having served on many committees, and with many groups, he was conversant with the basics of leadership-group interaction. Dr. Gillmett, while a man of strong religious convictions, is friendly and approachable. A football player in his undergraduate years, he is thus acquainted with teamwork and leadership-group cohesive- ness. His writing ability and preaching ability have reached a degree of national note. His sermon, "The Birthday of Our Eternity," won him a degree of national fame. This sermon was selected from some 9000 sermons submitted by American clergymen, and was published in Begg. Sermons, edited by Dr. C. Paul Butler. Cathedra who has Psychoh the din frfin the at C0186 Rev. Mr and at 1 Syracuse syraCUSE pTOgram’ he found in which of marl-1 1°gica1 the fact teams an. leader? 131 Dr. Gillmett is currently serving as the Dean of Saint Paul’s Cathedral in Los Angeles. iMahlon W. Pomeroy; Leiske’s selection to the panel of this man, who has a training and background in psychological communication and in psychological interaction in group activity, was a desirable step in the direction of group cohesiveness. Pomeroy was born in New York State, and received his B.A. Degree from the University of Rochester. Following this, he spent three years at Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, where he received his B.D. Degree. Rev. Mr. Pomeroy continued his graduate studies at Columbia University and at New Yerk University. He holds an M.A.'Degree in Psychology from Syracuse University, and a Ph.D. Degree in the field of Psychology from Syracuse. Dr. Pomeroy at one time conducted a Twin Cities’ television program, "It's a Family Affair." In addition to this responsibility, he founded the Park Counseling Service, in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in which he served with other professional colleagues. In the capacity of marriage counseling, Pomeroy is knowledgable in interpersonal psycho- logical interaction and group structure. Dr. Pomeroy's further value to the Town Hall panel stems from the fact that as an undergraduate, he belonged to several debating teams and discussion groups, again making him aware of teamwork and of leader-group adequacy and cohesiveness. Dr. Pomeroy is a scholarly man, slightly reserved, with a very friendly smile. He is mentally alert, quick to make an evaluation, and is able to enter easily into the discussion pattern. Pomeroy is a clergyman in a free constitut T and t stand lines D as Russia I’l'esident ISrael, D: Minister , g BOta, the MinnesotaI YEars of 8 TheologiCa of Leimg In 1937’ R from Angus Chant. Af Theology D BratiSIaVa Dr is he the 1 P3111, Glor: in letter add! 132 clergyman strongly oriented towards problem solving. He believes that in a free exchange of ideas the free discussion of human differences constitutes the hallmark of democratic idealism. To understand a person's point of view is to respect him, and to admire him for his sincerity. . . . The more we under- stand each other both within Protestantism and acriss interfaith lines, the less we face each other with suspicion. Dr. Pomeroy is a widely traveled man, including such countries as Russia; Central America; the Near East, where he was a guest of President Micarius of Cyrpess; and the Holy Land. While visiting Israel, Dr. Pomeroy was a guest in the home of David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel. Clifford Ansgar Nelsons Nelson was born in Minneapolis, Minne- sota, the son of a Lutheran minister. He attended the University of ‘Minnesota, receiving the B.A. degree in 1926. In 1929, after three years of graduate study, Nelson received his B.D. Degree from Augustana Theological Seminary. The following year was spent at the University of Leipzig, doing graduate work in Systematic Theology and Church.Mnsic. In 1937, Rev. Mr. Nelson received his Master of Sacred Theology Degree from Augustana Seminary, with a thesis on church music, the Gregorian Chant. After further graduate work, he received his Doctor of Sacred Theology Degree, Honoris Causa, from the Bratislava Theological Faculty, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, in 1946. Dr. Nelson’s ministry has been a distinguished one. Not only is he the pastor of one of the largest Lutheran congregations in Saint Paul, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church (membership 3,300), but he has served l'Mahlon W. Pomeroy, "Biography of Mahlon W. Pomeroy," in a letter addressed to 0. J. Ritz, October 28, 1966. his d he se as Pr of th he tr tion . specie 133 his denomination and his country in many capacities. From 1953-1959, he served as chaplain to the Minnesota State Senate. He further served as President of the Minnesota Council of Churches, as well as President of the Saint Paul Council of Churches. Dr. Nelson has had extensive world travel. During World War II, he traveled in many war-torn European countries, aiding in reconstruc- tion and rehabilitation. Nelson also served a full year's term as a special missionary to Singapore in 1960-1961. Clifford Ansgar Nelson was invited to become a charter member of the American Religious Town Hall'Meeting discussion panel in 1952. He accepted this appointment, and is still an active member with the Town Hall panel. Dr. Nelson is one of the ablest members on the panel. He is especially qualified as an authority on matters of Town Hall discussion, for he is the author of several books, has made numerous contributions to such journals of national repute as Christianity Today and Religion in Life, and for six years wrote a weekly column, a full page of sermon essays for the journal, The Lutheran Companion. Dr. Nelson, in both executive and pastoral responsibilities, is intimately conversant with small group discussion interaction and has been a competent discussant on the Town Hall. Ira B. Allen! Allen was born in Emmetsburg, Iowa, in 1908. He attended Ohio State University and Simpson College, where he received the B.An Degree in 1937. Allen then turned his scholastic interests towards the ministry. He was graduated from Garrett Theological Sem- inary, Evanston Illinois, in 1940, with a B.D. Degree. With this theological preparation, Allen served pastorates in Iowa as a then serve more than Italy. RE with the 1 Ir PaStor of while he , Laiske and Meeting, 1 Du Elspeth,” the Method Ir. 0f Divinit Dr mhbr ing prePar He colleen0r tural ’ 80c is w°rld Md‘m‘mth] % A than E 134 Iowa as a ministerial beginner, assisting in religious services. He then served four years as a chaplain in the United States armed forces; more than two years of this time was spent in service in Africa and Italy. Rev. Mr. Allen was discharged from the United States services with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In 1947 he moved to Saint Paul, Minnesota, where he served as pastor of the Central Park Methodist Church for ten years. It was while he was serving this large congregation that he met Bishop A. A. Leiske and became a charter member of the American Religious Town.Hall Meeting, Incorporated. During the past six years, Rev.‘Mr. Allen has served as District Superintendent of the Northwest District of the'Minnesota Conference of the Methodist Church. He has a group of fifty churches under his care. In 1960, Simpson College conferred upon him an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree. Dr. Allen is a widely traveled man, having made six trips to the Hbly Land and two journeys around the world. He is currently mak- ing preparations for a third world tour. He is much sought after as a speaker, and has an excellent collection of pictures taken inside of Russia, depicting Russia‘s cul- tural, social, and religious life. iMany of Dr. Allen‘s pictures of his world travels have appeared in Together, the official Methodist mid-monthly magazine. Speaking of the Town Hall, Dr. Allen observes, A program such as the Town Hall promotes has to be more than a debate. . . . religion must be wrapped up in pink 135 ribbons if you expect to keep your TV audience.1 Dr. Allen, a regular panel member, understands the aims and aspirations of the Town Hall. "People of all denominations, both saint and sinner, must be allowed to take part."2 These four original panel members, while of divergent religious affiliations, nevertheless possess a degree of interfaith brotherhood conducive to good panel cohesiveness. The high degree of religious training of each panel member, the consecration of each to mutual commitments in the signed charter agreement, and the deep feeling of religiosity interacting within the panel, make for "groupness" and for group unity. The panel is so well psychologically attuned that when a visi- tor on the panel tends to become antagonistic or unruly, the panel tends to react to forestall any problem. "The regular panel is deeply con- scious of good interaction and comes into the discussion to break what might turn into an unpleasant situation."3 To achieve a high degree of cohesiveness, the Moderator is constantly on the alert to see that each panel member is given an equitable amount of time to be heard. This he does by giving each panel member a "first" speech as a symposium at the beginning of each program, while during the discussion program, the Moderator will fre- quently speak to a panel member inviting his participation. "Doctor, we haven‘t heard from.you on this point. Would you care to come in 1Ira B. Allen, in a letter to O. J. Ritz, February 20, 1967. 21bid. 3Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 136 here?" At the close of each discussion period, each panel member and each guest is invited to make a summation comment. The Moderator is especially solicitous of his panel guests, doing everything possible to integrate each into the discussion pattern. In answer to the question put to the Moderator by this research- er, "On what basis do you select guests to be on your panel?" he commented, Before we select a guest to appear with us, we receive a recommendation from local management organizations, labor organizations, or in the case of a visiting clergyman, we receive a recommendation from the local ministerial associa- tion. . . . We screen for reasons of competence, influence, prominence, and scholarship.1 Preparagign of the Panel in Tgrms of Ppycholpgigal Factors,-- Bishop Leiske is very much aware that discussants about to participate in an important public panel will feel a nervous strain and tensions imposed upon them by the approaching event. .He realizes, too, that the tendency to fear-reaction before television cameras is heightened over that of normal appearances before an audience. The heightened tension appears to stem from the psychological effects of being under brilliant kleig lights, an extreme time consciousness dealing in seconds, and a recognition of being "on the air." His attempt to reduce tension and to create a pre-panel informality and ease is recognizable in a several-pointed methodological approach to the problem. First, the panel meets an hour, sometimes several hours, before the program in an informal get-together. The meeting of panel and guests may be at the television studios or at a nearby hotel lounge, or _.¥ 11b id . 137 even in a restaurant where the panel enters into "an easing into the program."1 This pre-discussion setting is highlighted by spontaneous informal chit-chat. Laughter, stories, and a general spirit of camara- derie are encouraged. Occasionally the Bishop informally weaves into this session a few announcements and comments towards last-minute readi— ness. Then too, he encourages conversation just before camera time. "Just before camera time, I often permit a free discussion so that when the camera and lights go on, they are already in discussion mood."2 When in Chicago, the committee frequently stays in the LaSalle Hbtel and conducts some of its pre-sessions in the lounge. Occasionally the Bishop or some other member of the panel leads out in some quiet talks to aid the atmosphere of relaxation. "The world is looking in. Let us calmly, though spiritedly, discuss our problems."3 Being composed of clergymen, the panel is a deeply religious group. The panel has a devotional period somewhere before the program. A.member of the panel may read a portion of Scripture, or read and discuss a meditational thought as a reassuring and calming influence. This, then, is followed by prayer by one of the panel members; or on occasion, there may be several prayers. This Scripture-meditation- prayer atmosphere is a deepening influence of confidence and creats "an atmosphere of unity of spirit and togetherness towards our common goals."4 11bid. 2Leiske Interview, January 20, 1967. 3Ib1d. 41mm; Interview, October 26, 1966. 138 The Moderator's own emotional stability and attitudinal rela- tionship to the panel have a bearing on reducing pre-program tensions. The Bishop is a man who exudes confidence, ease, and informality. His total trust in God's providence and God's guidance in the affairs of the Town.Hall gives him a deep degree of calm confidence which in turn permeates throughout the panel. "Had dinner with the panel members. The'Lord is with us."1 A further degree of informality and relaxed atmosphere is en- couraged in the use of first names. Both on the panel and off, the iModerator tends toward this informal familiarity. However, while into- ducing his panel guests, the Bishop remains relatively formal, properly identifying his guests by title or rank, after which a panel member frequently addresses another panel member by first name. Or again, the Moderator himself may call a panel member by first name; "it creates familiarity, creates a level of common interests and common spirit and empathic understanding."2 Leadership and Leadership Qualities.--The problem of leadership as a psychological phenomenon appears to be closely related with aspects of the nature of personality. Personality may be defined as, The effect the individual has on other people, . . . the total patgern of habits of cognition, affection, and conation. Leadership will be defined in terms of the leader who has 1A. A. Leiske's Personal Diary, April 19, 1953. 2Leiske Interview, January 20, 1967. 3C. G. Browne and Thomas S. Cohn, The Study of Leadership (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958), p. 67. 139 Specific personal abilities, knowledge of a problem, and other qualifications interacting fortuitously with a particular situation, and with other persons who are predisposed to accept his influence on this problem in this situation, at this moment. While leadership has usually been thought of as a specific attribute of personality, a personality trait, or even a series of traits inherent in some and not in others, behavioral science has con- cluded that no such singular trait exists, but rather that leadership is a composite of a number of qualities of personality brought to bear in a given role and in a specific situation. Leadership is psychologi- cally interrelated to personality, to situations, thus affecting group goals and group productivity. Group interaction and cohesiveness are to a degree predictable by the impact of leadership. This investigation into the leadership personality of Bishop Leiske will, because of brevity, not do full justice to the richness of the personality being studied. A construction of a "leadership image" has been extracted from three basic sources, 1) a depth study of Bishop Leiske’s life, 2) direct observation of the Bishop's actions and inter- actions in the group dynamics of the American Religious Town Hall panel discussion programs, and 3) the researcher‘s several years of personal acquaintance with the Bishop. A degree of subjective evaluation has influenced the construction of this image. Leiske’s leadership qualities have been examined under general classifications, such as capacity, achievement, responsibility, partic- 1Halbert E. Gulley, Discussion,_Conference, and Group Process (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1960), p. 237. 140 ipation, status, and situation. Bishop Leiske shows a creative imagination, believing that freshness and creativity are essential to group leadership. His per- sonal diary is evidence of his restless, searching mind. "We need some new ideas," or "This is a great new plan," or "What a vision!" His creativity is reflected in the leadership of the American Religious Town Hall panel program. While broadcasting the discussion, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" the Bishop asked that a huge painting of the First Continental Congress serve as a backdrop to the panel. His bringing together of four panel members joining in a weekly telecast, is in itself a creative imaginative venture that evoked praise and interest in the television industry, as well as in religious circles. Leiske shows a creative imagination which he freely applies to practical matters of everyday living. He appears seldom to be caught short of a way out in the cross-currents of life's confrontations. His creativity finds a way. He is, however, primarily, a practical thinker, a realist rather than a theoretician. In the process of concept formation, he is a generalizer. Leiske is quick to conceptualize an overall view, frequently omitting interrelated relevancies or detail. —_¥ V—fi ‘— 1A. A. Leiske‘s Personal Diary. Extractions lifted from his 1952 Diary. Similar expressions appear throughout his many years of 'Diary records. 2An example of this tendency may be gathered from his television discussion programs. In each there is a conspicuous absence of such tnatters as detail and definition of terms. There is present in every Program his impact idea of putting across "a general picture" of the Problem under discussion. Conclusions are largely non-existent in the Programs studied. 141 Both in private life and in group discussion interaction, Leiske is friendly and good natured. He has a ready wit and a sense 1 Now and then of humor that are distinctive hallmarks of his life. his panel, in discussion session, will come to an impasse. Leiske is quick to seize the implications of the setting and with a humorous comment, break the tension barrier,2 thus averting serious group dis- sonnance. Leiske appears to be always socially at ease, frank, unasser- tive, and skillful in verbal expression. When he speaks during a discussion program, he does so with clarity, a directness that at times tends to be disconcerting. Never- theless, his leadership quality of social adaptation enables him to absorb dissonance without such dissonance reflecting adversely upon himr 'His fearlessness has enabled him to mingle with all classes of social stratification with remarkable success. The Bishop is socially a leader, as much at ease with a struggling family in a cold-water flat as he is socially a leader, at ease at a governor's banquet. Surrounded by his distinguished panel, representing diverse and strong sectarian views, Leiske‘s social adaptability enables him to be an effective leader. The Bishop is socially as much at ease in the presence of a 1His recitation of childhood misdemeanors, or of human foibles, would rival a Will Rogers. 2"Rabbi, which church will you join?" The situation was earnest and tense. The Christian clergymen on the panel had overlooked their Jewish colleague in their sectarian demands that salvation could be obtained only by "belonging" to a Christian congregation. The Mbdera- tor's question to the Rabbi was instantly effective. The panel ex- ploded in laughter. 142 Jewish Rabbi as he is in the presence of a Jesuit priest. This trait is a distinctive factor in the Bishop's leadership manner. His clergy- man son describes his father on this point in a succinct thought: "His amazing fearlessness became his trademark everywhere."1 Leiske tends to be introvertive. However, the causual observer is likely to get an opposite impression because of Leiske’s social adaptability. Closer examination and observation reveal a "lonely man," forever creating and building an empire of dreams and visions. "Few people understand the dreams and drives with which I live."2 Sensitive and responsive to the variables around him in panel discussion work, he is not known to "let himself go"--but maintains a leadership balance. Because of his intimate upbringing amidst the surroundings of poverty and social inequalities in society, Leiske re- flects a strong identification with the social underdog. This intense identification has led him and motivated him through more than four decades of public work to direct his efforts toward social betterment. An examination of Leiske's writings, sermons, brochures, and broadsides reveals his strong belief in social betterment.3 Social betterment is a distinctive idea that he holds as a leader before his panel. He desires his panel to be aware of their responsibility in creating 1Robert W. Leiske, in a private letter entitled, "Some Rhetori- cal Theories of My Father," September 28, 1966. 2Leiske Interview, September 28, 1966. 3Such expressions as "Democracy," "unity," "the American,Way of Life," "regardless of race, creed, or color," et cetera, saturate his writings and sermons, and reflect a strong aspect of this philosophy of life. 143 thought processes in behalf of social betterment for mankind. He closes every television program, reminding not only the viewers but his panel that the Charter of the American Religious Town Hall is an institution established for social and spiritual betterment. While Leiske is sensitive to criticism, he is not known to retaliate, and will, in fact, subject himself to a degree of intro- spection to determine his part, if any, in receiving the criticism. As a leader, he is constantly under pressure. Leiske is not known to succumb to the temptation to escape responsibilities. His handshake is as good as his bond. In communication skills, Bishop Leiske is tactful, though direct. ‘He affiliates readily with a degree of aggressiveness. At no time does he appear to be subordinate to the panel, nor the panel to him, but a delicate balance of psychological leadership interaction exists between him and his group. He has a definite "we" rapport with his colleagues. In not a single case studied did this researcher find evidence of the Bishop having anything but a "we" relationship to his panel. Because of his position of prestige as group Moderator, and as such, vulnerable to the temptations of self-esteem, ego-conceit, or status dominance affectation, Bishop Leiske appears completely unaf- fected by this group position. He is a humble man, with no discernable tendencies to "pull rank" or demand obeisance. There is nothing pompous about his behavior in group interaction or in his private life. There is no apparent display of emotion in this leader. While he maintains a friendly manner and often laughs at the foibles of human 144 errants, one gets the impression of a general emotional blandness. Leiske swings to no moroseness or pits of depression. He seems rather to remain on a fairly even keel of emotional output. He does not get visibly disturbed or upset, though he does at times become positive. Leiske is approachable and gets his ideas across to a group without much difficulty. Generally he uses non-technical words and a simple sentence structure. Because of his affable nature, he is frequently sought out by people who seek a confident for their problems. Then, too, he is often surrounded by a small group of men and women, though he has a closer affinity with men, who engage him in friendly conversation. His actions are quick, his pace rapid, and his decisions, though flexible, are often made "on the spot." His leadership position on the panel appears never to be questioned. Leiske’s leadership appears not to be a combination of possessive "traits"--rather it is his ability to co-act and interact with his panel members whose characteristics he understands and whose interests he is able to direct in a degree toward stated goals. In terms of Brown‘s first law of leadership, Bishop Leiske would appear to qualify adequately. "The successful leader must have membership-character in the group he is attempting to lead."1 This law appears to be consistent with Stogdill’s conclusion that leaders have common characteristics of participation, sociability, adaptability, cooperativeness, and activity. —v 1J. F. Brown, Psychology and Social Order: An Introduction to the mica of Study of Social Fields (New York: McCray-Hill Book Compaay, 1936), p. 342. 145 It is primarily by virtue of participating in group activities and demonstrating his capacity for expediting the work of the group that a person becomes endowed with leader- ship status. Bishop Leiske believes that a leader to be effective must be sociable, cooperative, and adaptable. Leadership Methods.--Leiske believes it to be his responsibility to plan the course of the discussion, but not in any great detail. In general, he provides the group with some direction, both in the pre- discussion period and during the discussion period when needed; but more often he allows the group complete discussion autonomy in opera- ting on its own. For example, his directiveness is asserted in asking that each panel member comes "prepared" to enter intelligently and with a degree of adequacy into the topic. "Each panel member receives the topic to be discussed at least two weeks before appearing on the program, and is expected to do extensive research on the question."2 Second, the Moderator encourages a wide range of discussion topics. As the group leader he invites his panel to submit topics for discussion. From time to time, panel members mail in, phone in, or come in person to discuss the possibility of a certain topic. From time to time, the Moderator, acting as the group discussion leader, calls together his panel for the purpose of reviewing the accumulation of topics. By a favorable vote of three of five members, the committee selects the topic or prepares a series of topics. 1R.1M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology, XXV (January, 1948), p. 64. 2Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 146 Third, the group discussion leader then has the topics arranged in a meaningful sequence and mimeographed for distribution among the panel members, who then in turn commence a study of each topic in preparation for television airing. Not only does the panel submit topics for discussion, but television viewers are encouraged to "write in" to their viewing station, and are encouraged to submit ideas for discussion. These, too, are processed by the committee for their usefulness. In each of the cases studied in this research, an appeal was made by the group leader, Bishop Leiske, and by Dr. Horace Shaw, the American Religious Town Hall consultant and program announcer, for the viewers to "write in" to suggest topics for discussion. A random sampling of thirty letters1 shows three correspondents suggesting topics for discussion or for further discussion. The three suggested topics were: 1) "The Separation of Church and State," 2) "Issues in Parochial Schools and Tax Support," and 3) "Is Immersion- Baptism Necessary to Eternal Life?" Fourth, the Moderator, as group leader, has a weekly seating planz typed out and handed to each panel and guest member as preparation is made for the television appearance. This concept of adequate preparation to give flavor and meaning to the discussion pattern ranks in the highest order of values in hLetters and Testimonies of correspondents to the American Religious Town Hall are on file at the offices of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, St. Paul, Minnesota. 2A copy of the seating plan for the program, "An Ambassador to the vatican," appears in Appendix C. 147 discussion meaningfulness. There is no such thing as too much preparation for discussion. The more that is known about the problem by the members of the group, other things being equal, the better and more profitable will be the discussion from every point of view.1 The Bishop clarifies his belief for the need of preparation: For example, when we deal with religious legislation, each panel member is expected to bring to the program actual cases, court decisions, legal enactments, and laws rather than to present a general philosophizing position.2 To encourage discussion participation, the Bishop frequently breaks down a question into several questions to ventilate the issue, though he seldom undertakes a critical analysis, which analysis he turns over to the panel. He will frequently refer a point under discussion to a member of the panel who has the professional skills to provide an answer, from a particular professional viewpoint. If, for example, a member on the panel is particularly skilled in, say, constitutional law, and the point in case bears on this, the Moderator is quick to recog- nize the presence of professional skills and to take advantage of such skills. For example, in the case study, "An Ambassador to the vatican," the Moderator turned to Dr. Wolf of the History Department of the University of Minnesota, and invited Dr. Wolf’s comments on the histor- ical aspects of this American-Vatican relationship. In the case study entitled, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" the Moderator not only asiModerator but as group leader invited Dr. Frank Yost to appear on 1James H.'McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance, Discussion in Human Affairs (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 161. 2Leiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 148 the panel, for Bishop Leiske was well aware that Dr. Yost, Editor of Liberty Magazine, author of two books, The Separation of Church and Stage, and Is Sunday the Sabbath? is an authority in the field of church and state relations. In this respect Leiske displayed excellent group leadership qualities by inviting on the panel knowledgable men, commensurate to the topic under discussion. Leiske believes that a discussion should be kept under some leadership control when it appears that an undesirable clash is in the making. His method of control is spelled out in the following obser- vation: I allow much disagreement to run its course. However, I sometimes acknowledge another member of the panel to halt that which might turn into an unpleasant relation, and thus restore the discussion to its course and purpose. Leiske appears spontaneous in conducting the group discussion in the sense that his contributions are made according to the particu- lar needs of the group at the moment. He now and then plays the role of resource person, in which he supplies relevant research information to the group. Being an acknowledged scholar in Bible, he tends occa- sionally to come up with "a text" to aid a panel member, For example, in the discussion program entitled, "The Control of the Population," the Moderator was quick to supply a Biblical refer- ence to ease an interaction between Rev. Mr. Kempe and Rabbi Raskas. Rabbi Raskas insisted that it was both Biblical and humane to provide for children, by family spacing and planning. To this comment Rev. Mr. Kempe shot back at the Rabbi, "Will you give me a quotation from the 1Leiske Interview, October 28, 1966. 149 Bible?" The Rabbi was momentarily silenced by this sudden challenge. The Mbderator noted the implication, and quickly volunteered a text. The Bishop paraphrased I Timothy 5:8, "he that does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel."1 This function is not performed with an air of pedagogical ego, but rather in the manner of an "in-service" to group functioning. Another general pattern observed in this Moderator is his willingness at times to sit silently as an observer, engrossed in the rise and fall of the discussion tide, "riding out" what he calls democracy in action. He shows at times such an intense interest in the point under fire that he seems to forget momentarily his role as iModerator. With an apparent satisfaction which shows up in an infec- tious grin, he observes the "rhetorical gladiators" in full action. One gets the impression that he is testing this interfaith panel for "democracy in action." "An issue loses its discussion value if there are not distinctly opposing views."2 Leiske is fully aware that a public panel discussion must stimulate and excite the interest of his TV viewers in order to gain and hold a rating. His approach to the problem of public-awareness is a sort of check-and-balance method. First, this group discussion leader sees that the program under discussion is of such caliber as to arouse public interest, and also of such scope as to captivate public interest already aroused, to provoke deeper and wider thinking 1I Timothy 5:8. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." zLeiske Interview, October 26, 1966. 150 upon the problem. To accomplish the former, he encourages only such topics as will carry public interest and enthusiasm. "we prefer to discuss only those topics which are strongly controversial, which studying them implies a strong democracy."1 And he is quick to qualify that which he would consider non-controversial.2 "I would reject for discussion any topic that had no immediate or contemporary involvement or issue in our society. For example, I would not discuss Predestina- tion-~it is a dead issue."3 Two or three times throughout each program, Bishop Leiske breaks into the discussion to remind his panel and his television viewers, "This is democracy in action." This interruption tends to stimulate the panel into a renewed effort to be democratic. It is also a psychological directive used freely by the Bishop to keep the panel mindful of its pledge to demonstrate "democracy in action," by encour- aging a free exchange of ideas, and by exercising his rightful pre- rogative to break into a discussion as Moderator. The Moderator sets the pace of the discussion mood while intro- ducing the topic. He also concludes the discussion period by a brief statement. For example, in the discussion program, "An Ambassador to the vatican," there is no resume given at the summation period by the Moderator. He simply refers to the discussion as having been a "vital 1Leiske Interview, October 28, 1966. 2A quick reference to the Appendix D, Discussions Broadcast by The American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, will suggest the type of controversial topics with which the panel deals. 3Leiske Interview, October 28, 1966. 151 question that confronts us,"--and invites the audience to "examine the facts." He does not summate the views. Neither does he summarize the views in his summation period of the discussion on "The Authority of the Church." In none of the six cases under examination does the Mbderator attempt a summation of views expressed by his panel or his guests. The Moderator's closing comments, during the summation period, range from a ten-word comment, "Thank you, members of the panel, for your free discussion," to a lengthy closing comment in "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" The Bishop‘s comment, in answer to this researcher’s question on "impartiality," expresses his forthrightness, his frankness. "I have to confess, being human, that I sometimes tend to influence a panel discussion in the direction of some pre-conceived view that I hold."1 This modest admission indicates at once a leader who reflects a measure of greatness in the admission of weaknesses. It is this element of modesty and rapport that has to a degree aided Bishop Leiske in his many years of moderatorship of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting. This chapter has attempted to explore Bishop Leiske's general conceptions regarding discussion, and discussion practices on a tele- vision program such as the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incor- porated. The Bishop is an ardent and firm believer in discussion as a communication methodology for ventilating and airing human issues. He is firmly convinced that discussion serves a special function in the 11b1d. 152 bulwarks of democratic processes. This research shows him to be deeply discussion-oriented as a life’s philosophy, and that his American Relig- ious Town Hall discussion program is the outgrowth of these convictions. In a later chapter an attempt will be made to explore his discussion practices in light of his conceptions. CHAPTER V TWO PROBLEMS CENTERED IN POLITICAL- CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS Problem One: "An Ambassador to the Vatican" A Church and State Issue A.Historical Question Concerning_Church and State Relations.-- Few questions in the American political-religious life have drawn such fire and concerns as has the question of establishing a diplomatic alliance between this country and the vatican. The basic question rotates about the traditional concepts of the American separation of church and state. The two opposing proponents are the Roman Catholic Church, strongly entrenched in America, and the Protestant Church, historic in America. The American Constitution discourages the union of church and state.1 The growing strength of the Roman Catholic Church in America tends to inspire uneasiness and fear in a wide segment of Protestantism. In 1949, the President of Hunter College, George Nauman Shuster, charged that in the United States a gradual confrontation between Roman Catholics and Protestants was emerging, a confrontation possibly damaging to American democracy, "a Catholic-Protestant controversy which may, if it develops, scorch the roots of American 1The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." 153 154 democracy."1 The article contended that a trip up the historic Hudson River shows rows and rows of wealthy estates, formerly Protestant, now occupied by priests, nuns, and brothers, all of them diligently at work to make America Catholic.2 The American Religious Town Hall, under the moderatorship of Bishop Leiske, was, of course, not the first American institution interested in the deepening influences of Papal political-social- religious mores upon America. The Know-Nothing Party versus Catholicism.--In the early 1850's, a minor but powerful American political party, the Know- Nothing Party, formed itself into a militant movement to "resist the insidious wiles of foreign influence."3 The party concerned itself largely with the rapid spread of Catholicism in America. Riots broke out in many cities of New England. Roman Catholic properties were destroyed and often burned to the ground.4 The power and widespread influence of the Know- Nothing Party to keep America free from foreign religious domination was significant in this pre-Civil War period. Putnamis Mbnthly speaks of this party's brotherhoods. "No phenomena in history have been more constant, more powerful in their effects . . . than the Operation of 1George Nauman Shuster, "The Catholic Controversy," Harper’s Magazine, CXCIX (November, 1949). p. 25. _ 21bid. 3Claude M. Fuess, "Know-Nothing Party," Engzc102aedia Britannica, 1964 ed., Vbl. XVI. 4331a. 155 secret brotherhoods."1 American-Vatican Relationsfginge'Reconstructigg.--American- Vhtican relations during the middle to the last half of the Nineteenth century remained in a state of stress and strain. In 1848, the United States sent Jacob L. Martin to Rome as the charge d’affaires. In 1854, Lewis Cass, Jr., of Michigan, served as the minister to the Vetican. Abraham Lincoln, though no great churchmen, urged Pope Pius IX to create an American cardinal.2 However, in 1867, the United States Congress, under the administration of Andrew.Johnson, refused further funds for American- Vatican relationships. This cessation remained virtually in effect and uninterrupted until World War II, when a de facto relationship was established. Henry Charles Lea, the noted American-born ecclesiastical historian, noted in 1891 that the American-vatican issue, while dormant, was by no means dead. Lea charged the vatican with "making persistent efforts at Washington to induce the government to accredit a minister at the vatican . . . which is contrary to the American theory of the Constitution."3 IMr.'Lea considered the conflicting claims of Roman authority and American idealism so serious that he saw its resolve only in "a new declaration of independence, and a fresh revolt of the New World 1"Secret Societies--The Know-Nothings," PutnamlsiMonthly, V GJanuary, 1855), p. 88. 2John P. McKnight, The Papacy (Toronto: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1952), p. 334. 3Henry Charles Lea, "Will Rome Lose America?" The Review of Re iews, ed. W. T. Stead, I CLondon: IMowbray House, 1890), p. 202. 156 against the Old."1 The Roosevelt-Truman-Vatican Friendship.--The coronation of Cardinal Pacelli, in 1939, to the pontifical chair started a renewed flow of American-vatican interests. Cardinal Pacelli was a close friend of the United States, having toured it in 1936. With the common pressures of the BerliniMmmrTokyo Axis confronting the free world, a warm friendship between President Roosevelt and the Papacy followed, "personal and technical relations establish between the American government and the pontifical government."2 The Roosevelt-Pacelli friendship blossomed into a significant stride. On March 12, 1939, the American President sent.Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of.John F. Kennedy, to represent the United States at the coronation of Cardinal Pacelli in Rome. Roosevelt, in 1940, to side-step the church-state difficulties, appointed Myron C. Taylor, an American of Episcopalian faith, as his personal envoy. The many wartime correspondences between President Roosevelt and Pacelli are significant, and are recorded in Taylor’s notes, Wartime Correspondence Betweeg President Roosevelt and Pope Pius XII, These notes indicate a close bond between the United States Government and vatican State. It remained for Baptist Harry S. Truman, as President of the United States, in 1947, to recommend formal diplomatic relations with the vatican. The overwhelming antagonisms from Protestant leaders in America caused a breakdown in the plans. President Truman settled by 11bid. 2Charles‘Pichon, The Vetican and Its Role in World Affairs (New'York: E. P. Button & Company, 1950), p. 313. 157 sending his personal envoy, General Mbrk Clark, to Rome in 1951. The questions of church and state loomed in the American newspapers. American church and state issues center in a number of pecu- liarly American concerns: Federal Aid to Parochial Schools, Sunday Blue Laws, Population Control through Birth (Zontrol Education, An Ambassador to the Vetican, and others. Top level American political and religious leaders have been involved in the intricate machinations inherent in these issues. The inherence may be said to revolve about Protestant-Roman Catholic views on church and state authority. While conflict is inherent in human eXperience, and ranges "from matters of slight import in our everyday experiences and relations with others, to deep seated frictions among races, creeds, and nations,"1 yet, in the matter of the separation of church and state, millions of lives are affected. The American Constitution appears to be challenged with the potential of disrupting an American tradition. The Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Cardinal Spellman Confron- £35igg,--In 1949, Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Cardinal Francis Spellman became deeply involved in a personal confrontation over church and state issues. On May 11, 1949, Representative Graham A. Barden introduced a bill into the Hbuse of Representatives, Bill H.R.4643, designed to provide $300,000,000 Federal Aid to the states for educa- tional purposes. The Barden Bill was to limit the use of Federal tax money to public schools. The bill created an immediate American "church and state" uproar. The Roman Catholic bishops of America were opposed 1McBurney and Hance, op. cit. p. 16. 158 to the bill. Mas. Roosevelt's Americanism was challenged by Spellman. In an unusually severe criticism, he charged Mrs. Roosevelt with anti- Catholicism and branded her publicly as an unworthy American mother. ‘Your record of anti-Catholicism stands for all to see-- a record which you yourself wrote on the pages of history which cannot be recalled-~documents of discrimination unworthy of an American mother. The Cardinal added further, "You could have acted only from misinformation, ignorance, or prejudice, not from knowledge and under- standing."2 IMrs. Roosevelt's reply to Cardinal Spellman reflected the traditional Protestant-American view: Many years ago it was decided that the Public Schools of our country should be entirely separated from any kind of denominational control, and these are the only schools that are free, tax-supported schools. Clarifying her position on church and state, she added, The separation of church and state is extremely important to any of us who hold to the original traditions of our nation. To change these traditions by changing our traditional atti- tude toward public education would be harmful. Christianity Today, a leading Protestant theological journal, levelled a blunt editorial at Cardinal Spellman’s charges against the nation's First Lady. By this time, even so arrogant an ecclesiast as the Cardinal Archbishop of New Ybrk must be aware of the dis- 1Cardinal Spellman, "Text of Cardinal‘s'Letter to Mrs. Roosevelt,".New”York Times, XCVIII (July 23, 19499, p. 26. 21bid. 3Mrs.IFranklin D. Roosevelt, WMrs.‘Rooseve1t’s Reply to Cardinal Spellman," New YOrk Times, XCVIII (July 23, 1949), p. 26. 41bid. 159 service he has done his church, as well as his own reputation by his intemperate attack on the widow of the late President.I Through the years since this confrontation, American church- state issues have remained tense. In Bishop Leiske’s efforts to deal with "topics which are strongly controversial,"2 he has been success- ful in selecting this one for his panel. The issue of an Ambassador to the vatican epitomizes the core controversy in American church- state relations. vv T 1"An Editorial," Christianity TOdaYs Aug-mt 10’ 1949) V01. LXVI, p. 931. 2Leiske Interview, September 13, 1966. 160 Full Text, "An Ambassador to the vatican," Transcribed from Film No. 75 MODERATOR: At this time we are discussing a representative to the Vatican. Should the Vatican be recognized only as a church, or also as a state? That's a very important question for the American people, and I shall recognize Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson. DR. NELSON: Well, this is an old question in American history, and yet it‘s a constantly new question. It arose particularly with special meaning a few years ago, back in 1951, when the President of the United States appointed a diplomatic representative to the Vatican. There was a very, very great deal of opposition to that. And, it came from many, many sources, and it was felt by many people that this was in opposition to our great American stand on religious freedom and the recognition of a church. And if you ask my frank opinion of it, my church, the church that I represent, the Lutheran Church, has stated very unequiv- ocally that it is opposed very much to a representative at the Vatican. REV; MR. GILLMETT: Friends, we‘re talking on the question about whether we should consider the Vatican as a state or as a church. I think it ought not to be considered as a state as well as a church, because, if it becomes a state also, then it has complete control not only of the physical being and property of an individual, but also complete control over the spiritual being, and it gets too much power over any one individual. And power, in the case of a church, or as in an individual, can corrupt. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. REV.‘MR. POMEROY: I would have the feeling that when we consider the size of the vatican grounds, which are just a little over 108 acres, that you cannot look upon it as a political power in the sense of numbers of people involved or area of ground involved. My father was a farmer and had three times that much ground. They didn't send a representative to him, and I don't think they should. But the question is, it seems to me, that here is a great spiritual power, and to me it becomes a real question whether that should be involved with the other political aspects. Frankly, I think it should not. DR. WOLF: I think we ought to tackle this question with two other questions. In the first place, what would be involved if we recognized the vaticsn? What is an embassy? What would we be doing, sending an ambassador? What would be its function? The function would be to discuss politics, gain information, and a third question we have to ask, What do you mean by recognition? 161 This is the point where Americans are most confused. We’ve been confused about this question for twenty-five years, for fifty years, I guess. Recognition politically does not mean approval. Recognition merely means a recognition of the existing facts. Now, I personally feel, and I just quote Stalin on this point-- Stalin asked how many Vaticans, how many battalions the Pope had. I personally feel that the Vatican is a power in the world, is a state that we make a mistake not to be represented by. MODERATOR: Thank you for your frankness, Doctor. DR. NELSON: Well, there is no question but that it's a great power; it‘s a spiritual power. It represents religion in many, many, many aspects all over the world. But, is there anything at the Vatican diplomatically that cannot be taken care of by our ambassador to Italy? That‘s the contention of those who have Opposed the representation at the Vatican, that we have an ambassador to Italy. There‘s no reason why our embassy there cannot make all the representations that are necessary to this very, very small temporal seat of government. REP. SHEEHAN: Rev. Mr. Nelson, and gentlemen of the panel, my inter- pretation and my attempt to answer here is going to be strictly what I'm going to do from the political angle so as to get this on the basis of what is best for the general welfare of the country. In an answer to the Rev. Mr. Nelson, I would like to merely state this, that every major country in the world except Communist Russia, Communist China, and the United States has a representation at the Vatican. So, therefore, if those other nations were to take Dr. Nelson's--Rev. Nelson's argument, they'd use their ambassador to Italy, which they don't do. They all have separate men. DR. YOST: I would like to point out, Mr. Moderator, that the United States rules that church and state shall be separate. That is not the case in most of the states that have representatives at Vatican City. I stress that point because Vatican City is a name which has arisen since 1929 when Mussolini signed the Concordat with the Pope of that time, and set up what was a legal political entity, but in reality really lacks the function of a political state. It is undoubtedly the seat of the church. It is the Holy See. And that is the terminology used by the church in discussing the question, distinguishing it as a religious situation. Therefore, with a country which believes in separation of church and state, it would be contrary to our constitutional principles 162 to have a representative at a religious headquarters of a great church, the Roman Catholic Church. ‘MODERATOR: Now, the Honorable Timothy Sheehan, and then I’ll recognize you, Dr. Wolf, but we don‘t want you to capitulate. REP. SHEEHAN: Rev. Dr. Yost said that it is the law of the land. I assume you-~you assume that it's in the Constitution that we should not recognize it. Is that right? DR. YOST: The point I made was that the (Jonstitution provides for the separation of church and state. REP. SHEEHAN: However, in l9--18--in 1797, just a few years after our country was founded, the United States first set up diplomatic relations with the Vatican, the Holy See. It would seem to me logical that if men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson--all who were living at that time, who wrote and founded our Constitu- tion, if those men saw fit to set up diplomatic relations in 1797, certainly it wouldn’t be contrary to our relationship. DR. YOST: . . . not an ambassador--an embassy. (A flurry of voices here drowned out Dr. Yost‘s introductory comment.) DR. WOLF: I think there’s been confusion here. We're not asking for an expeditor. We don‘t want to annex--we're not going to make this the forty-ninth state of the Union. What we want is to have representation there. And if it‘s politically useful to have representation at the Vatican, I think we make a mistake to deprive ourselves of that. (A number of unidentifiable voices--"I would like to answer that.") REV. MR. GILLMETT: How do you know it’s politically useful? In what way? - REP. SHEEHAN: I’d like to answer that. It would seem to me that, just as a preface in our efforts of the United States for world peace, and for the betterment of mankind, we should be conscious-- conscious of the fundamental strength of moral and spiritual forces in human affairs. We're all in agreement with that, I think. (More unidentified voices clamoring for recognition, including the Moderator appealing for order.) If I might just finish what I was saying. With this thought in mind, that who should decide whether or not we should have representation with the Vatican, it seemm to me it would be in our State Department, and our Department of Defense. If those gentlemen thought, in their good minds, that it would be 163 beneficial to the general welfare and to the protection of our country, then I think they've got the answer. MODERATOR: iMahlon Pomeroy has the floor. Then Dr. Nelson. REP. SHEEHAN: And-~and I don't know how they're going to answer, Bishop. REV. MR. POMEROY: I have the feeling that if you're going to have representation at the Vatican on the basis that has just been mentioned, that of wanting the tie-in with the spiritual forces in the world, and in the nation, then you'd better tie in with Mohammedanism, you'd better tie in with some of the great religions of the world, as well as with the Catholic faith, because certainly one is as important as the other in the total world picture. YOu--you can say in America we have more Catholics than we have Buddhists, for example, or Mohammedans, but that is not true in the total world picture. We're a part of the world in this day. (A flurry of voices here is clamoring for the floor. Dr. Nelson wishes to speak. He is crowded out. The Moderator asks if Dr. Nelson will yield to Dr. Wolf momentarily.) MODERATOR: Dr. Nelson, will you yield? DR. NELSON: All right. DR. WOLF: This must be said. We did recognize the head of the Mohammedan religion as long as he was the head of the state also. The Socialist Turkey, up till 1900, when we came to war in 1917, was the Caliph of Islam. REV. MR. GILLMETT: You're saying then, that the Pope is head of the state. DR. WOLF: I'm saying he's the head of a state--exactly! REV.‘MR. GILLMETT: The head of a state! DR. WOLF: That's exactly right! (Here follows another clamor of voices. Recognizable are the voices of the Moderator, Dr. Wolf, Rev. Mr. Gillmett, and Dr. Nelson, a moment of confusion.) MODERATOR: Dr. Nelson has the floor. DR. NELSON: By the same logic, I would say, Dr. Wolf, that if we should send a representative to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, we ought to send a representative to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the head of the Anglican Church, or the 164 Archbishop of Upsala, who is the head of the Swedish Lutheran Church. It would mean exactly the same thing. MODERATOR: Dr. Yost, will you come in? Do you want the floor? DR. YOST: I would like to suggest this, Mr. Moderator, that if we recognize Vatican City as a state, pure and simple, then we must call into question the allegiance which the cardinals-- and that means the hinge of the Papacy, that's what the word means--the oath that the cardinals, the archbishops, and the bishops take to the Pope, because then they are giving a political allegiance, if Vatican City is a state par excellence. Then they are giving political allegiance to a foreign power and therefore their allegiance to the United States should be challenged, and I'm sure that no Roman Catholic would want that situation to arise. . SHEEHAN: It seems to me that--that we're off the track. The question of whether we represent the Vatican is not a question whether or not it is a state or a religious body. The question that we have to resolve from the standpoint of the American people is, will it be beneficial to our country in some shape or manner? MR. GILLMETT: All right, in what way will it be? SHEEHAN: If, for instance, as I said before, if the Department of Defense, or the C.I.A.--the counter intelligence--, or the State Department determines in their minds that it may be beneficial to us to have a listening post at the Vatican, then they have to decide. MR. GILLMETT: You are not answering the question. In what way would--you're arguing for it, but you're not saying in what way it will benefit us. SHEEHAN: I cannot put myself into the Department of State and the Defense. They've got to decide that question, not me. MR. GILLMETT: It was said that we would get information which we don't get otherwise. 'How do you know that the information you'd receive would be straight? Would not be biased or slanted? SHEEHAN: That would be up to the Department of Defense, which is a Department of State, I mean. I talk of them interchangeably. That's why I say we ourselves on the panel cannot decide that. It's the men in the government in Washington that must make that decision. (A further clamor of voices unidentifiable.) 165 MODERATOR: (Brings down the gavel twice.) Gentlemen of the panel, I think I need to make just one observation for our general audience throughout the nation. This is democracy in action. This is a free discussion of a vital point that confronts the entire nation. It is not to criticize nor reflect in any way, but we're glad to announce that we have Protestants and Catho- lics on one side as well as on the other. So--this is a wonderful discussion, and I appreciate this frankness on Americanism on this vital point that we are discussing. I shall recognize Dr. Yost at this time. DR. YOST: ‘Mr. Moderator, I think that we should not settle this question, I mean in our own minds on a pragmatic basis, which is what is suggested. It is said that if it‘s going to be beneficial, and that is challenged, we should do it. That's a pragmatic point. We must stick to principle; that is, if the Vatican City is a political entity, then we must deal with the question on the matter of constitutional law and the set-up of things in this country. If Vatican City is the Holy See, representing the Roman Catho- lic Church, then we must face the matter on a religious basis, and we must keep those things distinctly separate. REV. MR. POMEROY: I would back Dr. Yost 100% on that, and I--at that point I think I'm speaking as a Baptist, because it's my feeling that, very definitely, if we are going to send a representation to a religious entity, then I still contend you have to take into consideration other great religions of the world. If this is a political entity, then I think it needs to be faced as that, and accept it as a political power in the world and a government as such to which an ambassador or representatives are sent. MODERATOR: Dr. Wolf, you must come in. DR. WOLF: I almost would like to make a speech. But I shouldn't do it. Politics is partly set up on the basis of principle and partly set up on the basis of expediency. Politics has to be set up in no small part on the basis of what has to be done, what can be done in a period of time. The real problem is, you say, is a principle. Whose principle? There is no constitutional ruling on this at all. You're completely wrong on that point, Dr. Yost. You find nothing in the Constitution . (Blurring of vocal exchanges between Yost and Wolf.) DR. YOST: The Supreme Court supports the Constitution and provides for the separation of church and state. 166 DR. WOLF: This is not church and state. DR. YOST: . . . and the recognition of Vatican City by an ambassador- ship from Washington would be distinctly lending preference and support of the government to a particular faith. DR. WOLF: I think you'd have to delegate that . . . (blurred exchange between Yost and Wolf) on that part. Throw that out. They wouldn't do that, I'm sure. REP. SHEEHAN: On that, BishOp, I would say that Dr. Yost is taking a part himself, as I pointed out before, an interpretation not founded by the founding fathers. They set up diplomatic re- lations in 1797. Now is he going to tell the people who wrote the Constitution they didn't know what they were doing? DR. NELSON: I think that we ought to recognize that that relationship with the vatican in 1797 was a consulate. And now when Ma. Truman, in 1951, set up an ambassadorship and a minister pleni- potentiary to the vatican See, it was at that point that the people of this country rose up and it had to be, and this appointment had to be withdrawn. And I think that the people were right at that particular point. That there should be some--some relationship--some cordial relationship, no one is arguing against that. But my point is that there isn't a single thing that can be done at the vatican that can't be done through our regular diplomatic channel in Italy. Dr. Wolf: I think this is a very interesting discussion from this one point of view. You'll notice that the congressman and I are both secular individuals. He's a congressman, and I'm a college professor. I'm a historian. I'm interested in politics and he's interested in politics. We have political minds. We're thinking in terms of politics. You gentlemen are more thinking in terms of religious concep- tions, which have nothing to do with an embassy, as far as I'm concerned. I'm an anti-clerical just as much as you are. I wouldn't want the Pope to run the United States, nor do I want to see cleri- calism established here in the United States, neither from Catholic nor Protestant ministers. Clericalism is a dangerous thing. We feel greatly against that--our very Constitution stops it. But this is an entirely different thing. This is not recognizing clericalism in this country. REV. MR. GILLMETT: But you know how things work. This is just the first step. It would not be very long before the Vatican would be recognized as a state, and then instead of--it would 167 be a worldly power instead of being a power not Of this world. (An exchange of blurred voices with Wolf and Gillmett.) REV. MR. POMEROY: The Baptists have, of course, traditionally stood on this separation of church and state, and one of the reasons for that is because they felt that in the old country from which the early people came, the early settlers in this country came, the church had been too much of a power. And they definitely did not want that. So one of the things they stood for, and stood on, and have ever stood for was the fact that the church and the state should be separate. We don't want representation to the Baptist World Alliance. I suppose they could send a representative there, but we don't want it because we stand Opposed to that sort of thing. There- fore, we have to oppose this type of a representation at the Vatican. REP. SHEEHAN: I wonder if I could pose this question with Dr. Wolf, as long as we're the two laymen here. Several times in our discussion with the other members, Doctor, they brought the point that they're objecting to an ambassador. I strictly, from a personal standpoint, I have never--always thought of it strictly as an ambassador. TMaybe it could be a consul or an envoy, or there are many other phases or degrees of recogni- tion without being the tap one. REV. MR. GILLMETT: But you still haven't mentioned one benefit that we get from it. Why? What? DR. WOLF: Well, the political power. Take Mr. Truman and Mr. Roose- velt, both wanted to appoint an ambassador. REV. MR. GILLMETT: Well, the political powers have been wrong, too, in the past. DR. WOLF: Are you right? I mean, don't you see there's the question? Do we know what is the truth? REV. MR. GILLMETT: And you two feel, just because we are clergymen and you are laymen, that we have no understanding of political matters? DR. WOLF: No, I don't. But I don't agree--you are hereby insisting that this is clericalism in this country. DR. YOST: As American citizens, we can charge any official in this country at any time, and that’s the right of free speech. DR. WOLF: Sure, but--that hasn't anything to do with this. We're trying to . . . (blurred exchanges not identifiable.) 168 REP. SHEEHAN: BishOp, if I might say this, just to get the record straight. And I'm speaking for myself, and I think I'm express- ing Dr. Wolf's viewpoint from the historian's viewpoint, that we have not categorically said that we must recognize the Vatican or anything. I--at least I have put it on the basis, that if certain peOple running our government might feel it is best for the general welfare, that's to me my point where the decision should be made. REV. MR. GILLMETT: Who are . . . (blur) REP. SHEEHAN: . . . my decision or your decision. MODERATOR: (Raps gavel. Mahlon Pomeroy has the floor.) DR. NELSON: . . . The American prerogative, of democracy--it's all of our decisions together. And when the President withdrew the ambassador he had appointed, it was because of the protest of the American peOple. That’s democracy in action. REV. MR. POMEROY: It strikes me, they have been suggesting represent- atives of other kinds than ambassador, but just what is the difference? I mean, you come down to the same fact, maybe a different title, but presumably he is representing the American government in that particular post. And even though it might be a different title, I still think that it is a matter of the church and the state getting all tied up together, the thing which I oppose. 'MODERATOR: (Smiling and enthusiastically speaking) Gentlemen, this is democracy in action. I appreciate the frank discussion and the wonderful educational program. And I rather feel, Congress- ‘man Sheehan, and the rest of the members of the panel, that this is the first time that this was ever dared to be discussed openly so frankly. And while you're getting ready for the sumation, we shall hear a very important announcement from Dr. Shaw. (A promotional announcement followed.) And now the summation of all the panel members. First of all, the Honorable Timothy Sheehan. REP. SHEEHAN: Well, Bishop Leiske, as you can well appreciate, it's hard to sum up the program, for apparently we have come to no conclusion. There is a wide divergence of opinion. I think it's up to our TV audience to take a look at the facts as we've presented them and do some of the deciding for themselves. DR. NELSON: I'm rather proud of the fact that the American people have reacted even emotionally on this particular question when it 169 has come up on several occasions in American history, and that diplomatic representation, representation as an ambassador at the vatican was denied because of that protest. I think it reveals something that is part of the fabric of this nation, our belief in religious freedom. REV. MR. POMEROY: As I understand it, the Vatican has a spiritual purpose for its followers, and a spiritual relationship to those who adhere to its approach and its faith. I believe this correct. And I think it should be so. I think it's a wonder- ful thing for those who find their life and their guidance in that. I feel that they should not also be asked, or allowed, or expected to have a political power as well. REV; MR. GILLMETT: I object to the sending of a representative to the Vatican because I am confident that that is the first step in the recognition of the Vatican as a state. And when the state and religion get united in any country, then the minorities are depressed, and the freedoms are curtailed. DR. YOST: I object also to the sending of any kind of representative from the United States government to Vatican City because Vatican City is the seat of the Holy See, the religious head- quarters of a great and powerful religious body, of great influence, spiritual influence, the Roman Catholic Church. To favor this denomination by sending to it an official politi- cal representative is to transgress, I believe, the constitu- tional principle so often supported by the United States Supreme Court, of the separation of the church and state, and therefore I am opposed to sending any sort of envoy or embassy. DR. WOLF: I feel that the question should be left to the political power. The sending of an envoy is a political function. Recog- nition doesn't necessarily mean approval of the state recognized. I think, furthermore, some of the comments that have been made could be made against sending an envoy to Russia! I think actually the question is not a religious question at all. It's a question of the political desires of the state. And if our president feels that it's important to have a repre- sentative there, I believe he should be allowed to. We should be allowed that representation. MODERATOR: Thank you, gentlemen. And members of the panel, first of all, it makes me very happy that you were all so frank and open about this discussion, and I was especially thankful that we had representations on both sides of the faith, and that is wholesome, Honorable Sheehan, isn't that right? REP. SHEEHAN: Right. 170 MODERATOR: And so we are here discussing a vital question that con- fronts us, and I trust that our television audience will examine the facts and make progress in our educational program. 171 Description and Analysis of the Program.--This description and analysis of the program was divided into four sections. Each section dealt with a specific phase of interest. I. Overall;Description and Analysis A. The Problem: The American Religious Town Hall was discussing the question of a representative to the vetican. The panel met in the City of Chicago, October 4, 1956, and conducted its discussion in the American Broadcasting Company Studios. The nature of the problem was such that one would anticipate a balance of Roman Catholic and Protestant participants, since these two religious bodies are the active opposing proponents in the basic areas of church-state relations. Of the seven members of the panel, including the Moderator, five were Protestant and two were Roman Catholic. This ratio tended to create a five to twr>psychological relationship, an imbalance that could well be misconstrued. B. The PanelégpdpGuests: The panel was seated in a V for- mation, with Bishop Leiske at the apex of the V. To the Bishop's right were: 1) United States Congressman Timothy H. Sheehan, from Illinois; 2) Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota; and 3) Rev. Mahlon W. Pomeroy of the Park Baptist Church in Saint Paul. Seated to the left of the Moderator were: 4) Dr. Joseph B. Wolf, Chairman of the History Department of the University of Minnesota; 5) Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett of the Episcopal Church of St. John the Evangelist in Saint Paul; and 6) Dr. Frank Yost of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Editor of the W, published in Washington, D. C. Bishop Leiske is a Seventh-day 172 Adventist. Each panel member and guest was identified by a name card before him. C. The Moderator: The panel was guided and directed by Bishop A. A. Leiske. He brought the program to order by the pounding of the gavel and frequently throughout the program used it to direct the participation in orderly sequence. 'He introduced the guests, and then directed that the panel members introduce one another. All panel members and guests were dressed in business suits, except Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, who was wearing his ecclesiastical garb, as was also Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett, who was wearing an Episco- palian attire. An air of cordiality permeated the introductions-- first names were frequently used. An American flag and the American Religious Town Hall emblem, a globe surrounded by flags, adorned the panel setting. D. Eggmag: The format may be classed as a symposium: panel discussion. At the beginning of the program the Moderator gave each panel member an opportunity to express a view, to make a statement, after which followed a general period of give-and-take-discussion. The close of the program again reverted to a symposium-type of program. Each panel member was given a brief period in which to make a summation of his views. The Moderator thanked each member, expressed apprecia- tion to the television audience, and concluded the program by reading the American Religious Town Hall Charter, which guarantees the right of free speech to all panel members and guests on the programs. . II. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderato; A. Pro-Symposium Comments: The program opened with the p1 hi th th 173 Bishop's comment, "The American Religious Town Hall is now in session." This was followed by the pounding of the gavel. The panel was smiling. Two members of the panel were facing the Moderator as he pounded the gavel. Directly in front of the Moderator was one of five microphones used by the panel. Following the official opening of the program there was an announcement by Dr. Horace Shaw, the program announcer and technical advisor, regarding the values, aims, and purposes of the program. Dr. Shaw then turned the program back to the Moderator. The Moderator now smilingly thanked Mr. Shaw and made a brief welcome speech to the television audience. He extolled the "Great City of Chicago," and referred to his viewers as "friends"--a psycho- logical gesture appropriate to the delicate occasion. The Bishop proceeded with the welcome by reminding his hearers that the American Religious Town Hall has a purpose for its functioning: l) "to create a better understanding among all peoples," and 2) "for the preserva- tion of our civil and religious freedoms." Following this brief declaration, which was an extraction from the American Religious Tb n Hall Charter, the Bishop took a moment more to thank his viewers "from coast to coast" for their help in making possible the Towanall. He expressed sincere appreciation for their response. "We are very happy to receive your letters," and continued his appeal, "May we hear from you again this week?" Then theIModerator turned to his panel and praised them for their dedicatio --"Who have dedicated their lives to the devotion of their God, their church, and our nation." B. During the Symposium: With this, he turned to intro- th. 8p: Nel tic now then had and Shae} 174 duce his special guests. First, to his right, Cbngressman Timothy H. Sheehan, Roman Catholic Congressman from Illinois; then to his left, Dr. Joseph B. Wolf, from the university of Minnesota. The Bishop's introductions:ane smooth, dignified, and in good taste. 'Leiske demonstrated a touch of formality in his introduction, "The Honorable Timothy Sheehan," as well as a touch of informality, “My friend, Dr. Wolf." The Bishop's manner was warm and casual, yet precise. The Moderator appeared thus far to have skillfully and delicately laid the groundwork for the next phase of the program, the symposium. He now introduced the touchy question of a representative to the vatican, and added his appreciation for a country where free speech is possible. He recognized the Lutheran panel member, Dr. .Nelson, who spoke. He next introduced Dr. Gillmett, who made his plea for separa- tion of church and state. The next speaker was simply introduced as Mbhlon Pomeroy, who now spoke. Dr. Wolf was next recognized by the Moderator. The Mbderstor thanked Dr. WOlf for his "frank comments"-- then he failed to recognize the other two members of the panel who had not yet expressed an introductory viewpoint--Congresaman Sheehan and Dr. Ybst--but permitted Dr. Nelson to speak. The Chair, however, here quickly recognized Congressman Sheehan, following the Nelson speech. Sheehan spoke in regard to SI he WT ti C(J Ye] vii or San eXc P8 r1 "Lad View adVe: 8 take catho discu 175 Dr. Nelson's comments. .Next, Dr. Ybst was recognized. He spoke to Congressman Sheehan, regarding Sheehan’s charge that only "Communist Russia and China" and the United States have no representatives at the vatican. C. During the Panel Discussiqp: The Bishop's voice was heard following Dr. Yost's comments, and he assured Dr. Wolf that he would be heard following Congressman Sheehan. At this point, the Moderator sounded the gavel to draw atten- tion to the matter of permissive speaking--his gavel stilled several comments, and order was restored. Several times throughout the discussion, the Moderator smiled, yet firmly demanded an orderly progression of "turns." "Dr. , will you yield the floor to a. ," or, "I will recognize ," or " has asked for the floor." These were frequent comments sandwiched between an enthusiastic panel in the height of discussion excitement. Except for a brief statement midway through the discussion period, addressed to the American people, via his television program, "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is democracy in action," he reminded his viewers that the programeas not intended to "criticize or reflect" adversely, but to express opinions and views concerning the issue at stake. Leiske assured his viewers that "we have Protestants and Catholics" on the panel. He assured the panel, "This is a wonderful discussion, and I appreciate your frankness." Leiske's work was largely program-directive. His moderator- ship was largely based upon 1) time watching, 2) fair recognition of sp: pan dis Whit and make disc Sues 1"8; Perso Which 176 speaking time, and 3) an occasional clarification. D. Duripgpthe Summation: The BishOp introduced the summation by reiterating, "Gentlemen, this is democracy in action," and with a warm outburst of laughter, acknowledged the "good contri- butions" of the panel. He further added a point of highlight, "and I rather feel, Congressman Sheehan, and the rest of the members of the panel, that this is the first time that this was ever dared to be discussed so Openly." The summation was limited to brief recapitulations, none of which exceeded thirty seconds, but Dr. Yost, who spoke forty seconds, and Dr. Wolf, who spoke thirty-five seconds. The Moderator pounded his gavel and thanked his panel. "It makes me very happy that you were all so frank and open about this discussion." He again thanked his panel, expressed appreciation to his two guests, then formally concluded the discussion program. "And now the charter,"--which he read. The BishOp was very calm and collected throughout the televis- ing; he was firm, demanded order, and generally got it. His affable personality and his humor were assets in stilling troubled waters which erupted from time to time. uc rivet—Sonny: mahOumhwhoz Ono OUDHUCH no: Wm NCO—=32. E~Hn~ uhQSU 307% uu:53dfim.:05w.u ~§>h0u=H hflouvmafixwwclm 177 o¢¢~ CNN com nwfi mmN com oma end an OH «H NH Ad .axoem unease Hosea sumo monooom mo Hones: Hmuou on» moumuavsH m .mcoqumaaoauuma Amsoq>uonq mo Hones: gouou can noncoansH m .oosasuom couumeuouuuoe one exams“ \ .nvoauoa neaumaaom one exams” H H .mvouuoa Endaoeahm onu exams“ A v .oaqo maquoam mo uncooom o>um exams” a. .nzmuun Harasstka_\s\ass \aakkaasaxasaaskass\s\s\ Assasasasaaaasv uaow assasa_\ssaas \sa#*¥¥a\stsass\asasssas\ flasks—asses; momma—om H«stag\aa\ss\aa\ss\aa\s\a\s\ Assassaasv 33.3.5 Hakka_\istsa\a\asaaas\aaaa\asa\ss\sss \assts\a\saskkaaks\aas¥s\#sa\Asassatkav 552m Hasssaka_\sxss\aa\k«kaakskaa\as\s \assktsa\ss\asa\skss\nkkaastsassav mac: .asssssaxaaa \«assasss\ats\askakas\taa\ Asaaaaaasv soufioz H#.\¥¥a \#¥\ss\seaa«a\a¥saaa\s\¥kaas\massav 333 .Hoome ecu mo coauunvouunw mauoumuovoz ecu menace“ no: noon mafia coaummauwuumm l , nu Hoe—oi 8.3m sumac 30am mosmnmum-uaua Hm>umunH vsouomuo>wh .HHH 3? ti: par Pet: COmbi ' Rem. 178 IV. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants A. Five-Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart Interpretation: The panel members spoke a total of 1440 seconds, or a period of twenty-four minutes. Their speaking time is as follows: Sheehan 295 seconds Wolf 260 " Yost 220 " Pomeroy 200 " Nelson 190 " ‘Moderator 150 " Gillmett 125 " It is interesting that the two Roman Catholic laymen together spoke a total of 555 seconds, or a total of 38.6% of the total speaking time of the group. B. Participation Schedule: A total of sixty-six participations was noted throughout the twenty-four minute discussion period. The participation sequence is as follows: Sheehan 14 times Wolf 12 " Gillmett 10 " Leiske 9 " Yost 8 " Nelson 7 " Pomeroy 6 " Again, the two Roman Catholic laymen scored the highest. Their combined total number of participations, twenty-six in all, reflects a Roman Catholic voice or expression every 55.3 seconds. C. Panel Members in Interactionapy Exchanges: The entire program was pleasantly spirited. There was no lagging of time, no stalling for something to say. This researcher noted, on two occa- sions, three hands up simultaneously, spiritedly seeking the Moderator's attention. On three occasions, enthusiasm spilled over into a blur of ’7' C: W: Cc Dr to pe: he did the p01: not back are p011 179 voices, "everybody speaking at once," as it were, calling for the ‘Moderator's intervention. On five occasions, a flurry of voices involved Dr. Wolf: first, Dr. Wolf versus Dr. Nelson, Rev. Mr. Gillmett, and the Modera- tor; second, Dr. Wolf and Dr. Ybst; third, again Dr. Wolf and Dr. Yost; fourth, Dr. Wolf and Rev. Mr. Gillmett; and fifth, Dr. Wolf was blurred out in a general exchange. Four mild-to-sharp comments were recorded. The most testy came from Dr. Wolf, addressed to Dr. Yost. Dr. Yost challenged Dr. Wolfe's interpretation of American Church and State versus the American Constitution. Dr. Wolf cut in, "You're completely wrong on that point, Dr. Yost. You find nothing in the Constitution . . ." Congressman Sheehan, equally blunt, asked Dr. Yost (in relation to the writing of the Constitution by the founding fathers, and the permitting of an ambassador to Rome by the early governments), "Now is he [Yost] going to tell the peOple who wrote the Constitution they didn't know what they were doing?" There was a touch of sarcasm in the Congressman’s voice. At one point, Dr. Wolf and Congressman Sheehan attempted to point out that the sending of an ambassador "is a political matter," not really connected with the churches of this country. Dr. Gillmett took this aside as a tint of insult, and shot back to the two Catholic laymen, "And you two feel, just because we are clergymen and you are laymen, that we have no understanding of political matters?" The general atmosphere, however, was pleasantly cordial. or: 81.1 us. the 3X2 and day inc- the from fire the ; let 5 until Ctee k 180 Personality confrontations remained basically at a minimum. A spirit of give-and-take, in the atmosphere of brotherhood, prevailed. All men displayed a high degree of acquaintance with the topic, and each reflected his views freely. Problem Two: "Should Sunday Blue Laws Be Repealed?"--A Church and State Issue A Brief Historical Backgggund Concernipngunday'Laws.--The discussion under investigation deals with constitutional issues of Sunday Closing Laws. The program is entitled, "Should Sunday Blue Laws Be Repealed?" The literature on Sunday Blue Laws indicates a number of descriptive phrases used to designate Sunday law issues, such as Sunday Closing Laws, Sunday Blue Laws, Sunday Closing Ordi- nances, and Sunday Health and welfare Laws. In order to understand the significance of contemporary Sunday law issues, it is necessary to examine briefly three sidestream issues that have through the decades and centuries formed the mainstream of Sunday laws: 1) Sunday as a day of worship; 2) Sunday Blue Laws in Colonial America; and 3) the increased tempo of Sunday merchandising since the close of World War II. Sunday as a Day of Worship.--After the death of the last of the Apostles, many of the Gentile Christians who had been converted from heathenism.began to observe Sunday, which day corresponded to the first day of the Biblical week. By the middle of the second century, the first day of the week was called, "Lord's Day," and the day was set apart for worship in commemoration of the Lord's Resurrection. Not until the latter part of the second century A.D. does one find in either Greek or Latin sources reference to Sunday as the Lord's Day. And not u: so of th. in Cor to . the offj Stat P081 the 4 W: day a restI °f 1e begin sacre. E5555 181 until Eusebius of Caesarea, in the Fourth Century, is there any written source alleging that Christ or the Apostles instituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, as a day of worship. Saturday, the seventh day of the week, appears to have been the day of worship in both Jewish and Gentile congregations until the enactment of the Constantinian Sunday Law. The first public Sunday laws were promulgated by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, whose sovereign reign began in 306 A.D. and ran to 337 A.D. When Constantine I arrived in Rome in 312, flushed with the defeat ofIMaxentius, he then and there assumed the insignia and office of Pontifex Maximus as head of the official religion of the state, which was the cult of the Invincible Sun. 'He retained this position as head of paganism until his death in 337 A.D. To placate the growing unrest in his empire from Christian sects who were celebrat- ing Sunday in honor of the resurrection, and worshiping on the seventh day as the day of rest, Constantine, to consolidate the religious un- rest, inaugurated the first known Sunday legislation. It was a series of legal enactments forming the precedents in civil law which mark the beginning of centuries-long struggles designed to protect Sunday sacredness by civil governments. Constantine's Sunday Law of March 7, 321 A.D., reads as follows: IMPERATOR CONSTANTINUS AUG. HELPIDIO: OMNES JUDICES, URBANAEQUE PLEBES ET CUNCTARUM ARTIUM OFFICIA VENERABILI DIE SOLIS QUIESCENT. RUBI TAMEN POSITI ACRORUM.CULTURAE LIBERE LICENTERQUE INSERVIANT, QUONIAM FREQUENTER EVENIT, UT NON APTIUS ALIO DIE FRUMENTA.SULCIS AUT VINEAE SCROBIBUS MMNDENTUR, NE OCCASIONE MOMENTI PEREAT CGMMODITAS COELESTI law was! Chr: Chri year Vale Anth Sund of t. ater, in t} ism f ing a °utla the y by de 182 PROVISIONE CONCESSA.1 From this first civil-religious enactment followed a rash of laws, each designed to give legal sanction to the first day of the week for the common good of both Constantine's sun worshipers and Christian resurrection believers. Constantine did not profess the Christian faith until the year of his death, in 337 A.D., some sixteen years after his Sunday laws. Under the Emperorships of Valentinian I, valentinian II, Theodosius the Great, Theodosius the YOunger, Leo, and Anthemius, to the Council of Carthage in 401 A.D., a whole series of Sunday prohibitions came into legality. As a consequence, the gathering of taxes was not permitted thereafter on Sunday. Amusements and the- aters were now closed on Sunday. Hunting, marriages, mechanical labor in the shop, et cetera, were thereafter forbidden on Sunday. Absentee- ism from Sunday worship gradually became a criminal offense. The buy- ing and selling of common commodities in the market places was now outlawed. Circumscribed by a maze of legal sanctions, the first day of the week became a day of prohibitions, with every free move scrutinized by deputized observers. Post-Constantinian worshipers devoted them- selves on the Lord’s Day to "nothing but prayer and reading of Scripture."2 1Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910), Vol. III, p. 380. "Constantine, Emperor Augustus, to Helpidius: On the venerable day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons en- gaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain sowing or for vine planting, lest by neglecting the prOper moment for such operations, the bounty of heaven should be lost." 21bid. su; anc ar) an: of gua Thu :10 dit lag.- Ame: 0rdi matt laws 1M1. 183 With varying degrees of intensity, Sunday laws continued to be supported through many centuries by legislative powers,1 with the fagot and flame often lighting the way, and the sword enforcing the conscience. Through the long centuries from Apostolic days, through the revolution- ary days of Constantine, through the Dark Ages, through the intense and world-shaking days of the Reformation, to the present day, a stream of Christian peoples has advocated Sunday laws as a means of safe- guarding the religious philosophy centered in the first day of the week. Thus Sunday, circumscribed by some 1500 years of legislative protec- tions and prohibitions, came to Colonial America, embedded in a tra- dition of religious sanctity and shielded by a plethora of legislative legalisms. Sunday Blue Laws in Colonial America.--Sunday laws in Colonial American developed in time into a maze of regulatory enactments; each ordinance was designed in some manner to regulate human conduct in matters of morals, religion, and recreation. In a general sense, these laws included statutory regulations of private conduct and matters of individual conscience. American Colonial Sunday Blue Laws were to a great degree the continuation of Sunday laws brought over from Europe. The spirit and impetus that the new nation brought with it produced a renewed accent upon Sunday laws. In seeking to streamline and redesign European Sun- day laws, Colonial America wrote into its living pattern a maze of 1Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1944), p. 173. For a full account of this question, the reader is especially referred to Chapter 13, "The First Civil Sunday Laws." Sunde piece buy ] 2) mi milk; Cigar fresh the 1 more four emplo: a tave incong 184 Sunday Blue Law Ordinances. Sunday Blue Laws remain, to this day, a system of vexatious pieces of legislation on many statute books, making it possible to buy 1) beer on Sunday, but a criminal offense to buy a pound of cheese; 2) milk, but a crime to buy a baby bottle or baby nipples to serve the milk; 3) cigarettes and tobacco, but a criminal offense to buy a cigarette lighter; 4) pre-packaged hamburger, but unlawful to buy freshly-ground hamburger; and 5) seedlings for the garden, but against the law to buy a garden rake. Thelufllowness of Sunday laws became even more apparent when the law specified that a corner grocer might employ four persons, and remain open on Sunday, but it became a crime to employ five or more persons. This, in sharp contrast to the fact that a tavern might employ twenty or fifty employees, was evidence of the incongruity of Sunday laws. ihe Post World War II Era and Sunday Laws.--Following World War II, the United States experienced a resurgence of Sunday Blue Laws. The war produced a social and cultural upheaval. The stress and strain of the war produced gigantic needs in materials and supplies. The nation's Blue Law enthusiasts saw widespread Sunday manufacturing, employment, and merchandising of many types to sustain the war. Following the war, urbanization underwent a massive revolution. Shopping centers by the hundreds sprang up all over America. With the cessation of war, commercial merchandising became extremely competitive. The five-day business week moved into a full seven-day buying and 1See "Minneapolis Proposed Sunday Closing Ordinance," introduced by Elsa Johnson of Minneapolis, Ward 8. vetoed February 15, 1962, by Arthur Naftalin, Mayor of Minneapolis. se n: C! th of tr. no: 301 Sun Bel the the to F fray and Sabba It Va Under 1961’ 185 selling spree to meet the competition. Discount houses all over the nation sprang up--"selling for less." Safely entrenched outside of city limits, free from city ordinances prohibiting Sunday selling, these business places began to attract thousands and tens of thousands of shoppers nationally. iimg_Magazine was able to report in 1961, as the discount-house trade boomed across the nation, that hundreds of millions of dollars, normally going to stores neatly sheltered in downtown areas, were now going to merchants in suburban areas, outside of the reach of the Sunday Law Ordinances. Discount income was large. "Avid discount sellers . . . in the past six years have cornered nearly one-third of the nation's $14,000,000,000-a-year department store trade."1 Overnight, as it were, city councils sat in sessions far into the night and morning hours, writing new Sunday Closing Ordinances to protect competitive business. Political elements rushed into the fray for votes. Clergymen, alarmed at "open Sundays," became pensive and formed a battle cry for Sunday sacredness. Under the guise of _many slogans, Sunday was singled out as the "traditional American Sabbath"; and a flood of bills was introduced to protect Sunday sanctity. It was basically a battle-cry of business to curb competition, expressed under the ancient Constantinian Civil Law, "Let all workshops be closed." While the freeman of Massachusetts resolved to model their 1"Retailing: Battle of the Discounters," Time, September 15, 1961, p. 85. Su1 so: the olc' New -.- Ame 186 Sunday laws after the mountain-top "Code onMoses,"1 postwar business sought a resurgence of Sunday Blue Laws, fashioned after the code of the Chambers of Commerce. Bishop Leiske and his panel moved straightway into this age- old problem in their discussion, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" 1J. Hammon Trumbull, The True Blue Laws of Connecticut and New Haven, and the False Blue Laws Forged bpreters (Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1876), p. 9. DR. MODE DR. DR. N DR~ Y0: DR. Yos; 187 Full Text, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" Transcribed from Film No. 101 (The panel was introduced. A significant statement was made by Rev. Ira B. Allen, Methodist District Superintendent, from Minnesota. ‘While introducing Dr. Frank Yost, Editor of Liberty Magazine, he commented: REV. MR. ALLEN: On my right is a man who, I'll tell him right now, I don't agree with him on his point of view on this subject. DR. YOST: (Smiling) YOu don't know my point of view. REV. MR. ALLEN: well, he's my friend anyway, and I'm glad to introduce him. MODERATOR: And now the question that is before the panel today. Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed? I shall recognize my friend, Dr. Frank Yost. DR. YOST: Yes, Bishop Leiske, I believe that the Sunday laws should be repealed, because I believe they are discriminatory and therefore are unfair; because we declare by artificial legal definitions that to be criminal on one day of the week which is not criminal on all the other days of the week; because I believe they are harsh and unenforcible; because I believe that they are essentially religious in nature, therefore not the concern of the state; and I believe that religious practices are the responsibility, not of the state, but of the church. DR. NELSON: Well, I would take just the opposite point of view, Mr. Yost, not exactly the fully opposite point of view, but I believe that there are laws concerning the day of rest, Sunday laws that are very important for the working man of America. I believe that fundamental to human nature, God has made us that way. God has meant that we should all have a day of recreation and a day of rest, whether we put it in religious terms or not, it's a part of the constitution of man. And I think that Sunday laws are important to safeguard the privilege that every individual ought to have in the rhythm of the week, to have a day of rest. DR. YOST: And everybody shouldn't be compelled to rest on the same day. REV. MR. ALLEN: Dr. Frank, no, no nation anywhere in the world has ever prospered where they have trampled the Sabbath as we are trampling it right now. DR. YOST: The Sabbath is not the first day of the week, but according to the Bible, the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. REV. 1 MODER, REV .1 RABBI MODER, DR- h 188 (The audience here burst into an uproar of applause. Rev. Mr. Allen made reply.) REV. MR. ALLEN: Well, Sunday, if you want to make it that way. (Considerable confusion now took over. The Moderator called for order, rapped the gavel nine times.) MODERATOR: Just a minute. Let's not applaud because it takes too much time and the time is so precious right now. REV. MR. FORNEY: I believe in the observance of the Lord's Day or the Sunday laws in this country. We've heard something said tonight about the loss of our religious freedom. I would like to call attention to the fact that when Sunday laws were enforced in this state and in this nation, a great deal more than they are today, men were free, and the very process of our freedom came as a result of this Christian philosophy. RABBI GORDON: It seems to me that when we are talking about a day of rest, as Dr. Nelson did, we perhaps might get onto common ground. I think all of us feel that the Biblical truth is valid, even for us, that no man can work seven days a week around the clock and around the calendar, and still remain a dignified human being. The question before us is not a day of rest, but a particular day of rest. MODERATOR: (Rapped gavel twice for further order.) Members of the panel, I think that we are dealing in platitudes right now. I think we ought to come right to the point. The point is whether one church should have the privilege of legislating its church doctrine in preference to another church. I think that's the question. I think we all agree that the Sabbath is not being observed in America as it ought to be observed. And I think we ought to come right down to the point, whether the church should assume its responsibility, or whether the state should step in and bring spirituality to the nation. And now, I shall recognize Dr. Nelson. Let's stick to the point, whether church doctrine should be legislated. DR. NELSON: I do not believe that you can legislate the church doctrine at all. The religious ideas are unenforcible. They belong to the inner realm of the spirit. But, I do believe that we have to give a safeguard to the working man, that there shall be a day of rest. I think we are confused, and one of the confusing facts is that there are two days of rest to various religions. But, does that mean that we should have no kinds of laws that guarantee a day of rest? I believe that we've got to have the right kind of law in that area. MOD] MODE: DR. Y MODER Rm. 1 189 MODERATOR: I think that Dr. Nelson has brought out a very fine point and I think that we ought to apply ourselves to the point that he has brought up, whether the working man should have a day of rest or not, and whether it's legal to set aside a day for rest for the laboring class. I think that ought to be answered. REV. MR. ALLEN: Bishop, if you will look back into history, you will find that when France disallowed Sunday or the Sabbath, if you want to call it that, that the nation actually decayed right in their eyes. And any country, anywhere in the world, that has allowed the Sabbath to be wasted, has allowed themselves to be taken over by carelessness, and that can happen and will happen in the United States of America, if we continue to do it. MODERATOR: I do think, members of the panel, although these are fine speeches, let's stick to the point, whether we ought to legis- late, and . (Considerable exchange of voices took place here. Rev.‘Mr. Forney appeared to interject a thought, not fully understandable. He exchanged thoughts with Dr. Yost. Dr. Yost was recognized.) DR.'YOST: You do not have to legislate religion. Any working man who is a religious man, who is worth his salt as a religious man, will keep the day of worship in which he believes. He'll lose his job for the sake of doing so, and stand for what is right. If he doesn't do that, no law can help him. (Audience applause) MODERATOR: (Rapped gavel fOr order) Please give the panelists more time. REV. MR. FORNEY: We're not legislating religion. This is a civil law. Sunday laws are civil laws. The majority of people in this country are Christian folk. They express their desire for these laws. And these Sunday laws are civil laws, not religious. DR. YOST: I would like to ask Rev. Forney, then, if Sunday laws are civil laws, why is it, then, that every time a Sunday law is passed, it is pushed by ministers? And--he knows that that is so. . . . (At this point, Forney and Yost exchange words un- intelligible to this researcher.) Therefore they must be re- ligious laws. REV. MR. FORNEY: No, they are not. But I, as a Christian, vote for a lot of civil laws, because I am a Christian. And as a Christian, I want the Lord's Day, and I vote for the civil law because of that fact. MODERATOR: (Rapped the gavel four times as Yost was trying to counter Rev . Mr . Forney .) 190 DR. YOST: I'm not talking about the voting point or advocating . (More confusion followed. The Moderator recognized Rev. Allen.) REV. MR. ALLEN: Well, not only do we have to legislate certain Sunday laws, but the state actually has to legislate on other religious matters pertaining to the church. Not long ago in the City of Minneapolis where I lived for so many years--in St. PauléMinneapolis, they had a little boy in the hospital dying, and some religious group would not give him a transfusion, and the state stepped in and legislated and gave the child a transfusion that would save his life. And I think that's legislation, as much as on Sunday laws. I think it should be allowed in the United States of America, when it comes to children. Now, if adults want to die, . RABBI GORDON: Bishop Leiske, we're talking about Sunday Blue Laws specifically. What do we do, then, in the case of an observing Jew who closes his place of business on the Sabbath? Are we going to bring economic pressure upon him not to observe his own Sabbath because he must keep closed on Sunday, too? REV. MR. FORNEY: I think the answer to that is that, in minority groups, and we were all in minority groups at one time or another, we have to take certain sacrifices and accept certain disciplines. I'm not always in the majority. I'm in the minority lots of times. And I think you still have the right to worship on that day, and that's what the guarantee is, or any group has a right to worship on any day. Sunday laws don't change that at all. JUDGE DALY: I agree with the Rabbi. I think it's not fair to one group to say that he must close his store on a Sunday, when he would prefer to close it on Saturday. Now, I realize that a law can't be enacted, a universal law can't be fair to everyone. But I think there should at least be an exception for the man who chooses to close his store on Saturday. I think he should be allowed to keep it open on Sunday. DR. YOST: iMr. Mbderator, the very fact that Sunday laws, to be fair, must make an exception for the sake of a man's religion, proves that the Sunday laws are religious laws, and therefore should not be. JUDGE'DALY: No, no, I don't say that. What I say is, there should be, I agree with the view that there should be one day's rest in seven. But if we're going to give that day of rest, recreation, religion, and if we're going to pick out Sunday as the day, it's not fair to others. So I say there should be a one day's rest in seven, one day for recreation. But, if some people wanted to work on Sunday, I'd say, let them do it if they wish to have the other day. 191 DR. NELSON: Well, one of the great problems that we have just in that place, Judge Daly, is that you have certain chain groups, certain groups that are wanting to open on Sunday, and pretty soon the economic pressure is on, and you've got people working seven days through the week, and you are barring the working man from his day of rest. And that's the pressure that I'm afraid of. I think that we have to watch that very carefully. I've seen that happening in the last weeks throughout the various parts of the country. And therefore, I think that we have to stand for the Sunday law because it's a part of the pattern we have established. Otherwise, we'll find no day at all. ‘MODERATOR: ‘Members of the panel. I, as long as we are discussing the question for labor, Dr. Nelson, wouldn't it be better, then, as far as the country is concerned, to set aside, that each labor- ing man is to be allowed a day of rest, and let him choose the day he wishes to rest? DR. NELSON: That is already done. That is already done that a man does have an opportunity if he must work on Sunday. There are certain things that must be done in order to keep our lives going on Sunday. A man is given that privilege, isn't he? to have another day? Hasn't he? And I think that in most states it's safeguarded so that if a man comes to his employer and says, "I want to be in church certain hours on that day even though I have to work," that privilege must be extended. DR. YOST: No man has to work on his day of worship. There is no man that ought to be compelled in conscience. If his conscience is worth anything to him, he will lose his job in order to keep his religion. I did that, in the City of Philadelphia. I lost my job in order to keep the seventh day Sabbath. And I challenge any Sunday-keeper to follow my example for the sake of his religion, without law. In the army, I was told to go to church. And I was not a Christian. I had no religious profession. I was told by my colonel I must go to church on Sunday. I had no religious profession whatever. I told the military authorities I could not yield to public authority to go to any worship. And I chopped wood Sunday after Sunday until they changed the order. And stubborn Pennsylvania Dutchman that I am, after that I went to church once in a while, when I was no longer compelled to do so. No man has to go to church or has to stay away be- cause of business or job if he's a Christian. (Tremendous audience applause followed here.) REV. MR. ALLEN: Bishop Leiske, I think our discussion tonight here has to cover more than Sunday Blue Laws. It has to cover legisla- tion by the state that governs the church. If the church hasn't the right to legislate Sunday Blue Laws, then they do not have 192 legislation to allow, to make a pacifist go to war. And I think that the time might come when the state will step in and tell the church that they must allow, even if it's against the church's belief, that they must allow their young men to go to the army, be drafted into the army. That's as much as the Blue Laws. I think the government has the right to do that in the United States of America. ‘MODERATOR: Members of the panel. This is a wonderful discussion. These men are sincere. This is democracy in action. And I appreciate their frank remarks. We need to give equal rights to all. But I think that the point that is before the panel this evening, first, we must decide whether Sunday legislation is religious. And if it is religious, then the question is that the conflict is with the first amendment. Second, if it is not a religious legislation, then we are, of course, in the field of civil legislation. Then the question comes, shall the American people decide which day should be set aside, or shall we leave that to the individual when it comes to matters of conscience? I think that's the point that we need to discuss. REV. MR. FORNEY: When it's the question of one day in seven, you are then putting into the hands of the employer the right to dictate to the employee which day it will be, and I would oppose that. I'd much rather have it in the hands of legis- lation where everybody has a chance to express himself. MODERATOR: But we, you must decide, members of the panel, whether it's religious legislation we're discussing, or civil. DR. YOST: ‘Mr.‘Moderator, the Sunday law deals with a day that is, in its origin and experience through the centuries, and present concern, a religious day. And as a result of Sunday laws, a man in most states is allowed to buy a cigarette on Sunday, but is forbidden to buy a chair. I believe that that is iniquitous, that kind of discrimination, and that is inevitably what the Sunday law does. If a Sunday law were passed that was complete, that would close down everything on Sunday, it would be utterly unenforceable. And the exceptions that are in the Sunday laws prove that they are discriminatory, and also demonstrate the fact that they are actually a religious concern. The working man is the man who wants to do what he pleases on Sunday. That is proved again and again. It isn't atheists going to the stores on Sunday. It is church people. It is Sunday keepers that are doing the buying on Sunday. MODERATOR: Cut your speeches short. DR. NELSON: I wanted to say this, that whether it's legislation or not, I think Christian people ought to do something about 193 enforcing this Sunday-refraining from commercialism. I read the other day that in one particular community they had a popular movement. The churches got together and they went from house to house, and they set up a movement called, Respect Sunday, Incorporated, and asked people, "Won't you stay away from these chains that are coming in?" I think that's a perfectly democratic way to do it. I also think it's a democratic way to vote on this matter, not as a religious law, but as a part of an American right for man to have a day of rest and recreation. That's what religion has contributed to society--this right that we must ask for, for the break in the rhythm of our pattern of labor. MODERATOR: (Rapped the gavel. Yost and Nelson exchanged private words.) DR.‘YOST: Ansgar, you just said that as Christian peOple must go to law, that proves that the Sunday laws are religious. REV.‘MR. ALLEN: Well, I think that we make our Sundays into a holiday instead of a holy day. And here is an example why we should legislate Sunday laws. I'll stick to the point this time, and satisfy you for once. (laughter from the panel) Out in our state a man was caught recently, an insane man, for butcher— ing women in his home. So, on Palm Sunday, the state allowed them to sell that farm and that machinery, and various people bought articles from that farm on Palm Sunday. I think the state has a right to step in. If peOple are going to desecrate the Sunday to that extent, I think the state has a right to step in and do something about it. DR. YOST: ‘Would you want me to step in and ask for that to be for- bidden on Saturday? (Laughter and tremendous audience appluase.) REV. MR. FORNEY: If you had the backing for it, it would be all right. (Considerable confusion here reigns, a number of voices are speaking at once on the panel, making it impossible to distinguish sentences.) REV..MR. ALLEN: Dr.‘Yost, it wouldn't hurt me at all, my conscience at all to worship on Saturday. If I were in the minority, even if I'm in the majority, I could worship, could worship God on Saturday just as regularly as you. But I think we ought to do it for economic reasons all on the same day. The day we worship isn't going to get us into Heaven, or keep us out of‘Heaven. 194 DR. YOST: You're going to allow me to work only five days a week, whereas your people can work six days. REV. MR. ALLEN: It might get us into Hell here on earth, but it won't get us into Heaven there. DR. YOST: I think we'll get there all right. RABBI GORDON: I'd like--I'd like to ask a question for information. When we're talking about these Sunday Blue Laws, are we talking about closing down everything, are we talking about closing down all recreation? Are we talking about closing down drug stores, service stations, this sort of thing? Or are we talk- ing merely about the department stores, the chain stores, that kind of thing? REV.‘MR. FORNEY: I would think in this particular kind of discussion today, we're speaking about the commercialization of the day, the unnecessary business enterprises that are going on. RABBI GORDON: What is unnecessary? I think that's the key word. REV. MR. FORNEY: Well, unnecessary has generally been decided in the courts, and would take more time than thirty seconds for me to go into here. The things such as furniture and hard goods, and that type of thing, automobiles, would be unnecessary. RABBI GORDON: What about baseball and football? REV. MR. FORNEY: That has been ruled as a recreation and they have been passed and adopted in many areas. RABBI GORDON: But suppose I'm a gate-keeper at the stadium. I have to work on Sunday. What are my rights? REV. MR. FORNEY: Your rights would be to express yourself at the polls. These are local options, measures in most areas where the people have a right to vote and express themselves upon it. REV.‘MR. ALLEN: If the Phillies are losing on Sunday, they shouldn't play on Sunday. MODERATOR: Judge Daly, it's time you were coming in. JUDGE DALY: I agree with the Rev. Mr. Nelson, and the court, slightly, even though the origin of these Sunday laws may have been--was religious, I think the courts lately have been upholding them on other grounds, such as recreational needs of the people, health and moral welfare. I think it's good to have recreation on Sunday. I don't think that's making the day unholy. MODERATOR: (gavel was rapped) Thank you, members of the panel. This was a hot discussion. We appreciate this frank discussion. 195 This is democracy in action. And I'm sure that the millions of people throughout America will enjoy this clearing and this hot, forthright discussion on the question, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" (Advertising and promotional items here came on the screen.) MODERATOR: And now, the summation. First of all, my friend, Rev. Mr. Forney. REV. MR. FORNEY: I believe we should maintain our Sunday laws because, first, they are traditionally a part of our American way of life. The first thirteen colonies had Sunday laws, the first thirteen states, and forty-seven of the forty-eight states today have some kind of Sunday laws in the United States. They're constitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States has constantly upheld the constitutionality of our Sunday laws. Last year they upheld them twice. They do not interfere with anyone's personal liberty or freedom because when Sunday laws were enforced in this country stronger than they are today, this was the haven of freedom. And any- where in the country tonight, where men are free, the state recognizes some kind of Sunday laws. (Unidentified voice on panel, "Amen! Amen!" DR. NELSON: I find myself in something of a dilemma. I do not wish to be a legalist. I do not believe that you can legislate righteousness into the life of a people. But, on the other hand, I feel that we have the right to safeguard that right which every man has for a day of rest. Our Sunday laws are a part of the safeguarding of that right. And it's important that we have reverence for a day of recrea- tion and rest for body and soul, because it's a part of what God has made us for in this world. JUDGE DALY: I agree with the statement of Dr. Nelson. And I would add that while they might not, should not all be repealed, these laws, they should be amended, especially where there are large groups of other people in communities who prefer the Sabbath as their day of rest. RABBI GORDON: It is my conviction that legislation can never be de- pended on to send people to church. I believe that a day of rest is indicated for all mankind. If the objective of Sunday Blue Laws is social and economic, then surely it need not be any one day of the week. ‘Moslems might choose Friday, Jews might choose Saturday, Christians may rest on Sunday. 196 REV. MR. ALLEN: I think the American peOple have squandered their rights, and I think they've made a holiday instead of a holy day. I think Sunday is for rest and worship. Therefore, Rabbi, in answer to your question, I think we have commercialized the game of baseball and football. We have our largest commercial interests on those days for a commercial reason. I think it's right to play baseball for exercise, and for healthful reasons, but not for commercial reasons on Sunday. I just asked you a question, instead of what I'm supposed to do. DR. YOST: I think the question is very simple, friends. A man has a right to his religion. He has no right to be interferred with by law, or made religious by law. He has a right to keep any day he wants to, or no day, and no law of the land should direct his religious activities in any way. It cannot be right to make wrong on Sunday what is right on other days of the week. I believe Sunday laws should all be repealed. ‘MODERATOR: Thank you, members of the panel. We appreciate this frank, forthright discussion on the question, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" These men are sincere. I trust that you will examine their remarks. I'm sure that this telecast from coast to coast will be a dynamic force in the life of the American people. We appreciate especially being here in Philadelphia at the shrine of freedom to discuss this question. I realize that these panelists' time was limited. We tried to be just as fair as we could on both sides to get the issue before you. And we trust that you will wish all of these panel members well, and we appreciate your support from coast to coast. 197 Description and Analysis of the P;pg;am.--This description and analysis of the program was divided into four sections. Each section dealt with a specific phase of interest. 1. Overall Description and Analysis A. The Problem: On April 9 and 10, 1958, the American Religious Town Hall, with its guests, met in Philadelphia's Academy of‘Music, to discuss the issues of American Sunday Blue Laws. In many parts of the nation, Sunday laws were being re-examined by legislative bodies, by city ordinance committees, and by religious and civic leaders. With the increased tempo of interest in Sunday laws came also a fringe element of political and religious fanaticism. Arrests were being made in many communities for Sunday purchases that formerly were considered an American right. Even putting up storm windows at a private residence became a criminal offense. A wave of protest against indiscriminate arrests created even deeper concern and interest in Sunday laws. Basically, the nation was split into three levels of reaction--all three groups were represented on the panel. Rev. Mr. Forney, on the panel, expressed the thinking of a segment of Americans demanding tighter Sunday laws. His reasoning was summed up in his statement: I would like to call attention to the fact that when Sunday laws were enforced in this state, and in this nation, a great deal more than they are today, men were free. A second segment of American thinking on the issue was presented by Judge Daly, Rev.‘Mr. Nelson, and Rev. Mr. Allen, whose views on 198 moderation and modification of Sunday laws may be summed as follows: Judge Daly said, "I would add that while they should not all be repealed, these laws should be amended." Dr. Frank Yost and Rabbi Gordon would be typical in their think- ing and speaking, representing a third segment of American people who desire a complete abolition of all Sunday Blue Laws. Dr. Yost's comment in his summation reflected this vieWpoint: "I believe Sunday laws should all be repealed." This interfaith program was represented by five Protestants, a Jew, and a Roman Catholic. All but the Roman Catholic were clergy- men. No Roman Catholic cleric appeared on this program. B. The Pppel and Guests: The panel was seated in a V shaped formation, with the Moderator at the apex of the V. To the ‘Moderator's right was Rev. Melvin‘M. Forney, a special guest, the Executive Secretary of the Lord's Day Alliance of Pennsylvania. To his right was Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, Pastor of the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Saint Paul. To his right sat special guest Judge Anthony W. Daly, a Roman Catholic layman from Alton, Illinois. To the Mbderator's immediate left sat Dr. Frank H.‘Yost, a frequent visitor on the panel, a Seventh-day Adventist clergyman from‘Washington, D. C., and editor of the national journal, Liberty, a journal dealing basically with religious freedom. To his left sat the Rev. Ira B. Allen, Methodist clergyman and regular member of the panel, pastor of the Central Park.Mbthodist Church in Saint Paul. And to Rev.‘Mr. Allen's left sat Rabbi Theodore H. Gordon, Rabbi of the‘Main Line Reform Temple Beth Elohim, Wynnwood, Pennsylvania. 199 Present also for the two-day discussion of Sunday Blue Laws were other distinguished guests, recognized, but not seated on the panel. Rev. James H. Brasher, a.Methodist clergyman in Philadelphia; Rabbi Harold B. Waintrup, Rabbi of the Old York Road Temple at Abington, Pennsylvania; Dr. Ellsworth Jackson, President of the Lord's Day Alliance of Pennsylvania; Rabbi Arthur J. S. Rosenbaum, Rabbi of the Overbrook Park Congregation of Philadelphia; and Dr. J. Ernest Sommer- ville, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia.1 The panel was discussing the question, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" before a live audience of some 2000 peOple, who three times burst into thunderous applause, much to the concern of the ‘Moderator, who pleaded, "Just a minute. Let's not applaud." It was interesting to note that each of these three outbursts followed a statement made by Dr. Frank Yost, which strongly suggested a very heavy concentration of Seventh-day Adventists in the audience. The panel was split four to three on Sunday-Sabbath worship. Four members observe Sunday, and three observe Saturday as their day of rest. No Roman Catholic clergyman appeared on the panel, and no layman representing directly either business or labor appeared on this program. C. EthModerator: The nature of this program was highly controversial, and the presence of an audience added to the Moderator's greater involvement in this program as against some others that have been examined. 1From the files and records of the American Religious TOwn Hall Meeting, Incorporated, April, 1958. 200 Three times the Moderator was called upon to deal with applause, which was discouraged by the Moderator near the beginning of the program. Several "private" exchanges between panel members brought down the gavel for order. On one occasion, Rev. Mb. Forney challenged the‘Moderator's comments to the panel in a somewhat heated confronta- tion. The‘Moderator, throughout, appeared to have firm control and the support of his panel whenever he called for order or special recog- nition. D. Format: The format appeared to differ from some programs. There appeared to be no discernable symposium at the be- ginning. The panel plunged almost immediately into the discussion following only two introductory symposium statements, one by Dr. Yost and the other by Dr. Nelson. There was a considerable amount of rough-and-tumble, give-and- take, in the discussion period. Some speakers recognized the Moderator's chairmanship regularly, some only occasionally. The summation was orderly and limited to a thirty-second resume, except for Rev. Mr. Forney, who spoke thirty-five seconds, and Dr. Nelson, who spoke thirty-five seconds. II. Description and Analysis of Ehe Work of the‘Moderator A. Pre-Symposium Comments: The‘Moderator functioned with considerable involvement in this discussion program. His deeper involvement stemmed basically from two contributing factors: 1) a large audience was observing the panel in action which three times called for reprimand and the gavel; 2) the extremely controversial nature of the discussion topic brought the Mbderator more frequently 201 into action. It was interesting to note that the‘Moderator in this program of twentyfthree minutes, thirty-three seconds, spoke 305 seconds in fourteen participations, or a total of nearly 22% of the discussion time. The Moderator was seated directly in front of a replica of Independence Hall, erected in the Academy of Music for this occasion, a replica possibly ten feet high, and of proportioned length. The psychological effect of conducting Sunday law discussions in the "presence" of an Independence Hall backdrop cleverly and appropriately created an atmosphere of "history-making." Within five seconds after the program went on the air, Bishop Leiske walked onto the stage amidst a burst of applause. The other panel members were already seated. He recognized Philadelphia, "It is wonderful to be in Philadelphia," then looked straight into the camera and smiling broadly, added, "Hello, America." He then announced, "The American Religious Town Hall Meeting is now in session," and brought down the gavel. B. Duringithe Symposium: Following an announcement period by Dr. Shaw, theIModerator spoke first to the nation's viewers, explaining the purpose of the Town Hall: 1) to bring about a better understanding among all peOples, and 2) to aid in the preservation of our civil and religious freedoms. The‘Moderator then introduced his main guest, "My friend . Rev.‘Mr. Forney." Then the panel introduced one another in counter- clock fashion. Following the introductions, the Moderator introduced the topic 202 by simply raising the question, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" C. During;the Panel Discussion: The first major involve- ment that confronted the Moderator came soon after the discussion began, when Rev.‘Mr. Allen challenged Dr. Yost that in past times whenever the Sabbath had been desecrated, a nation suffered, to which Dr.‘Yost immediately shot back, "The Sabbath is not the first day of the week, but according to the Bible, the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week." The audience burst into a thunderous applause, which called for the Moderator's intervention, "Just a minute! Let's not applaud." The Mbderator felt that the time used in receiving applause should better go to the panel for discussion. "It takes too much time, and the time is so precious right now." Following Rabbi Gordon's first speech, the Moderator spoke about procedural concerns. He rapped the gavel twice, "Members of the panel, I think that we are dealing in platitudes right now," and asked that the panel come to the point in their comments. "The point is," continued the Moderator, "whether one church should have the privilege of legislating its church doctrine in preference to another church." The Mbderator was heard again clarifying a point just made by Dr. Nelson, a point about the working man and a day of rest. The iModerator asked for further discussion on, 1) whether the working man should have a day of rest, and 2) whether it is legal to set aside a day of rest for the laboring class. Once again, following a point by Dr. Frank‘Yost, a thunderous applause broke up the discussion, and the Moderator rapped the gavel for order, with an added plea, "Please give the panelists more time." 203 Midway through the program, the‘Moderator asked the panel to consider the question of a day of rest for the laboring man, but on a non-legislative basis, "Let him choose the day he wishes to rest." Again the Moderator broke in, and this time included his TV viewers, "This is democracy in action," then made a brief observation, asking the panel to consider Sunday legislation versus the First Amendment. Near the latter part of the discussion, the‘Mcderator spoke sharply to the panel, "Cut your speeches short," and when Dr. Yost and Dr. Nelson were exchanging comments out of order, he rapped the gavel for order. D. During the Summation: The program closed on a high note of interpersonal interaction. The Moderator asked for summations, and then closed the program by expressing appreciation to the panel for their participation and to the television audience for their interest in the Town Hall. ‘He assured the audience that, "This telecast from coast to coast will be a dynamic force in the life of the American people."1 v 1‘Leiske Interview, October 28, 1966. It is reported that immediately following this telecast, Rev.‘Melvin Forney bitterly and angrily attacked the Moderator verbally, charging him with showing partiality to the discussants who favored another day than Sunday. 204 ooefi new nod nea Gag onN 00H mom ml no fl: ea ml .mxoea senses gonna come nvcoooe mo noses: gmuOu one mouoouvnH m .mcouumeauuuume unscu>qnuw mo woman: deuce any nmumounnH m \aka¥ \a\ \ a \ Hath aaas\a\ .aocme oeu mo .oocusvoa cowumeuouuuun new exams” \ o as!“ Haaakaaaxe kaaasss\sa\a %.\ ¥.¥ *.% \ a k \ k.¥ \a\a\a\a#*«\ _aa#s_\ _a «asas\aaaaaa a a.s \ a s \ a s.\ s.¥ kakkkakass_\ saaa\a\s\aa\ .nquuoe nouumaaom oeu axnmzfl _ a .avOHuoe saunonahm use exams“ A v wsuxmoeo mo unnooom o>wm exams” #. .nzmuflu \# \:\a \:¥ :s a:saaass \# ::a :: \a \Aaaskskv _aaaaaa_ asa\aasasaxsaaasaxaaav Hakkai a\aasaaasa\¥sa\naaaasv akkaaa\¥aaa«a\akaksskv skaaas_\aa«aska¥«aaaa aa\aaaaaas\naaaaaaasav HaassaaaH \astaa\asa\aat\fiaaaaav sasatk\ka\#a\saaeas#t satesxaassk*s*s\axns#v coauonvouusu u.u0umuovo= on» wooden“ no: moon mafia nowumafiouuuum uoa Honaoz Baum cameo 30am mono: omumawa ~m>uounH cocoomum>um .HHH uaow 52¢ novuou .33 songs: hunMOM mxmuufl Sun the U8e. Pan: 30h: The RQOr, enQOy 205 IV. 'Description and Analysis of the Werk of the Participants A. Five-Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart Interpretation: The panel spoke a total of 1400 seconds, or a period of twenty-three minutes and twenty seconds. The speaking time for each panelist is recorded as follows: Leiske Yost Nelson Allen Forney Gordon Daly 305 seconds 265 " 250 " 165 " 160 " 145 " 110 " With two major religious divisions present on the panel, Sunday-worshipers and Saturday-worshipers, it is interesting to note that Leiske, Gordon, and‘Yost, worshiping on the seventh day, combined, used a total of 715 seconds or a total of just over 51%. The four panel members worshiping on Sunday spoke approximately 49% of the time. B. Participation Schedule: A total of sixty-five par- ticipations was recorded throughout this program. The participation schedule recorded was as follows: Leiske YOst Forney Gordon Allen Nelson Daly 14 times 14 " 90‘000 In this schedule, the‘Moderator and Dr. Yost scored equally. The three men who worshiped on Saturday had a total 56.9% participation score . C. Panel‘Members in Interactionary Exchanges: The first encounter that presaged a degree of tension came even before the A1 Dr. whc fro EXP them the Dr, dam; Plat five tOty Crim daYs Cans 0' t: Of t] [Dost 206 program got under way. During the introduction period, Rev. Ira B. Allen, about to introduce Dr. Frank Yost, paused a moment, then faced Dr.‘Yost, flinched a moment, then blurted out, "On my right is a man, who--I'll tell him right now, I don't agree with him." A degree of antagonism was also present when Rev.‘Mr. Forney challenged the‘Moderator on a point of comment. On three separate occasions, a thunderous applause broke out from the audience, who appeared to be heavily in favor of the views expressed by Dr. Yost. Probably Judge Daly remained as calm as any one single panel member. His comments, measured and precise, reflected a confidence that was highly acceptable to the panel. A three-way discussion took place several times involving Dr. Ybst, Dr. Nelson, and Rev. Mr. Forney. Dr. Yost, throughout, demanded total abolition of all Blue Laws. He cited a five-step p1atform.why they should be repealed. Dr.‘Yost stuck closely to these five steps, demanding their repeal: 1) because they are discrimina- tory; 2) because we declare by artificial legal definitions that to be criminal on one day of the week which is not criminal on all the other days of the week; 3) because they are harsh and unenforcible; 4) be- cause they are essentially religious in nature, thus not the concern of the state; and 5) because religious practices are the responsibility of the church. Dr. Nelson, Dr.‘Yost, and Rabbi Gordon appeared to present the most logical arguments in favor of their respective views. An atmosphere of seriousness permeated the entire proceedings. 207 Apparently panel members were conscious of their role in the eyes of possibly millions of viewers. The panel was extremely divided in its approach to the problem and no real solution was posed. A spirit of cordiality and interfaith goodwill prevailed. It appeared that Dr.‘Yost was the most skillfully prepared man on the panel on the topic, with Dr. Nelson and Rev.‘Mr. Forney following. CHAPTER VI TWO PROBLEMS CENTERED IN ESCATOLOGICAL AND DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY Problem One: "The Second Coming of Christ," An Escatological Question A Brief Historical Background on Escatology.--It is not sur- prising that the panel should be discussing the escatological questions 1 With inherent in Christ's personal statement, "I will come again." varying degrees of interest and intensification of interest, the Chris- tian church has, throughout the nineteen hundred years of her existence, shown an intense interest in the Parousia. ihe Creeds and Escatology,--The Second Coming promise is re- peated weekly by millions of worshipers in the recitation of the Apostles' Creed, written in 325 A.D. "He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead."2 This same escatological expression appears in the Athanasian Creed, "Who [Christ] . . . sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead."3 It also appears in the Nicene Creed, "From thence He shall come to judge the lJohn 1421-3. 2Philip Schaff, ihe Creeds of Christendom (New York: ‘Harper and Sons, 1919), vol. 2, p. 45. 31bid., p. 69. 208 pc te 2) Da: whc III-r}1 Ven 0:: Of, 209 quick and the dead,"1 and has become a universal Christian doctrine. Even the Koran alludes to the Second Coming of Christ: And Jesus shall be a Sign for the coming of the ‘Hour of Judgment: Therefore have no doubt about the ‘Hour, but follow ye‘Me: This is a Straight Way. Let not the Evil One hinder you: for he is to you an enemy avowed.2 Reformatiop Teachingfand Escatolpgigal Doctgipg.--Much of the power of the preaching of the sixteenth century Reformers rested in teaching the escatological sequence of events: 1) Signs of His Coming, 2) His Coming, 3) the Judgment, 4) Eternal Life, and 5) Eternal Damnation. One of the great escatological prOponents was‘Martin Luther, whose anticipation of the Lord's return in 100 years stirred Europe. "The world cannot stand long, perhaps a hundred years at the outside."3 Even more pronounced was his comment, which through the inter- vening centuries has created considerable interest. Luther, commenting on the significance of the four horsemen of Revelation,4 in the sequence of prophetical interpretation, added, 1Ibid., vol. 1, p. 29. 2Koran, Sura XLIII, in The Holy Qur-An, Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (New York: Hefner Publishers, 1946), Vol. 2, p. 1337. 3Martin Luther, The Table Talk of Martin Luther, Translated and Edited by WilliamflHazlitt (London: George Bell and Sons, 1902), p. 325. 4Revelation 6. This chapter is traditionally understood to refer to a chronology of events, under the symbols of horsemen, tracing human history from the early church to the escatological terminus at the Second Coming. 2:1 210 Es ist in Apocalypsi koulnen bis aufs weise pferd. Die welt wird nicht lange stehen; ob Gott will, nicht fiber hundert Jahre. Der Herr erlfise uns vom uebel. John Calvin expressed his theological concerns on the Second Coming, "Scripture uniformly commends us to look forward with eager expectation to the coming of Christ, and defers the crown of glory which awaits us till that period."2 The doctrine of the Second Coming has, through the centuries, received intensive concern and interest from a variety of people. Sir Isaac Newton, a brilliant student of Bible prophecy, expressed a deep interest in escatological matters. The many and clear prophecies concerning the things to be done at Christ's second coming are not only for predicting, but also for effecting a recovery and re-establishment of a long-lost truth5 and setting up a kingdom wherein dwells righteousness. The Great Awakening of 1755, under the powerful preaching of John and Charles Wesley and of George Whitefield, was anchored in escatological anticipations. William Cowper's delightful poem, The Task, catches the cataclysmic spirit of the Second Coming: Sure there is need of social intercourse: Benevolence, and peace, and mutual aid, Between the nations in a world that seems To toll the death-bell of its own decease, And by the voice of all its elements 1Martin Luther, "Verkundigung D. M. Luther's Vom Jungsten Tage," Tischreden Vbn Sammtiiche Schriften (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1910), vol. 22, Column 1334. 2John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (London: Thomas Tegg, 1844), V61. II, Book III, Chapter 25, p. 180. 3S1: Isaac Newton, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St..John (London: J. Darby and T. Browne Co., 1733) , p s 252 s ' II] Je th 211 To preach the general doom. When were the winds Let slip with such a warrant to destroy? When did the waves so haughtily o’er leap Their ancient barriers, deluging the dry? Fires from beneath, and meteors from above, Portentous, unexampled, unexplained, ‘Have kindled beckoning in the skies; and th' old And crazy earth has had her shaking fits ‘More frequent, and foregone her usual rest. Is it a time to wrangle, when the props And pillars of our planet seem to fail, And nature with a dim and sickly eye, To wait the close of a11?1 Thus it is clear that the doctrine of the Second Coming was emphasized by religious leaders of the past. It is not an isolated doctrine, the teaching being a part of the intricate fabric of theolo- logical concepts held sacred in the Christian church from the time of Christ's spoken words, "I will come again." The great leaders who have left their impress on the history of the church did not discard this doctrine, but made it a real hope in their lives and the lives of their followers. Specifically, then, IMartin Luther, in the midst of the throes of the Reformation, wrote, "I ardently hope that, amidst these internal dissensions on the earth, Jesus Christ will hasten the day of His coming. Likewise, Calvin saw that this was the church's true hope. "We must hunger after Christ, till the dawning of that great day when our Lord will fully manifest the glory of His kingdom." In the same manner, John Knox, the great Protestant champion of England, wrote to friends of his, "Has not the Lord Jesus, in despite of Satan's malice, carried up our flesh into heaven? And shall He not return? we know that He shall return." John Wesley believed this same truth, as is shown by his comment on the 1William: Cowper, "The Task," The Poetical Works of William qupgr (London: Bell and Daldy, 1865), Vol. II, p. 39. h: C1 $1 of SEQ 212 closing verses of Revelation: "The spirit of adoption in the bride in the heart of every true believer, says, with earnest desire and expec- tation, 'Come and accomplish all the words of this prophecy.'" It formed the burden of Milton's sublime supplication, "Come ferth out of thy royal chambers, 0 Prince of all the kings of the earth; put on the visible robes of thy imperial majesty; take up that unlimited scepter which thy Almighty Father hath bequeathed thee. For now the voice of thy bride calls thee, and all creatures sigh to be renewed." It was the prayer of Richard Baxter in the Saints Everlasting Rest, "Hasten, 0 my Saviour, the time of thy return."1 The early nineteenth century witnessed a tremendous resurgence of interest in the Second Coming. As the prophetical statements uttered by Inspiration came, one by one, into fulfillment,2 discerning men sensed that the human family was moving into the last days of human existence. The Great Awakening saw hundreds of Church of England clergymen preaching the Second Coming. In Sweden, little children of six to ten years of age held audiences captive by their pronouncements of the beginning of the last days.3 1General Conference Committee, Source Book for Bible Students (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Company, 1922), p. 10. See this entire section, "Second Advent." 2Increase of Knowledge, Daniel 12:4. The Passing of the Dark Ages, Matthew 24:22. The Falling of the Stars,‘Matthew 24:29. The Darkening of the Sun, Revelation 6:12-13. Human Unrest, Labor and Management, James 5:1-6. 3For a complete picture of this phenomenon, the reader is referred to: Einiges Uber Die Rufenden Stimmen Oder Die Sogenannte Predi tkrankheit In Smaland In Den Jahren 1842 Und 1843 (Leipzig: Leopold Michelsen, 1843), pp. 18, 20, 23, 27, 36, 38, and others. the esca was one denomin: the See: a liter: "Advent: the Lorc 15 proba Century, 38 Dwigh 213 In the United States, scores of clergymen and laymen preached the escatological prOphecies, of whom William Miller, a Baptist layman, was one of the most notable. In fact, virtually every Christian denomination today, to some degree, gives credence to the doctrine of the Second Coming. FOremost among contemporary denominations preaching a literal return, is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the word "Adventist" signifying its intense interest in the ultimate return of the‘Lord. Evangelist Billy Graham, with hundreds of thousands of hearers, is probably the foremost exponent of Christ's literal coming in this century, exceeding even the preaching of such renowned escatologists as Dwight L. Moody. The panel discussed Christ’s Second Coming. MODER REV. 1 DR. NE 214 Full Text, "The Second Coming of Christ," Transcribed from Film No. 53 'MODERATOR: Thank you, Miss McConchie. And now the discussion of this telecast,"The Second Coming of Christ." It should be of inter- est to all of our millions of listeners throughout the nation. How literally can we take the Scriptures that speak of the Second Coming of the Lord? I shall recognize the Rev. Mr. Allen. REV. MR. ALLEN! Thank you, Bishop Leiske. I am a little nervous to start off this telecast this time. But I’m going to read first of all out of the Bible, the fourth chapter of I Thessalonians, the 16th verse, "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." And now I want to read from II Thessalon- ians, the third chapter, Dr. Anderson, and the fifth verse, "And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ." If I interpret the Bible correctly, when Paul made that first statement, and he said that the Lord was coming with a about from heaven, he so upset the early Christian church that many of them quit work and sat around and looked up into the heavens and waited for God to send His Son the second time. And so Paul, in II Thessalon- ians, realized that the Lord wasn't going to appear when he first decided he was, so he changed his statement and said we were to patiently wait for Christ. I like to start off with that statement. DR. NELSON: my impression is that the doctrine of the Second Coming of our Lord, or the coming again of Christ is very real, and the Scripture has a great deal to say about it in the New Testa- ‘ment. The Christian church has always had it as one of its fundamental truths. We say it in the Apostles' Creed when we say, “He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead," and I think it has a very, very profound truth behind it. There has been so much misinterpretation and so much confusion about it that I think it needs interpretation because so many people have gotten excited, as Ira has said, about this partic- ular doctrine. But it has a very profound truth, its philos- ophy of history, that one day our Lord shall come again. REV}'MR. GIELMETT: I believe in the Second Coming, too, as it is stated in the Creed and in the Bible, but it‘s also true, isn’t it, that Christ did come a second time, to Paul, for example, that was after the Ascension, and to St. Stephen, too? That was after the Ascension. ‘ REV} MR. POMEROY: Well, I wanted to come in with this thought, which is basic in my own approach to this subject. I think it was a great deal of concern thirty to fifty years ago. I feel that people are much less concerned about it today than they were DR. DR. NE 215 then. My own feeling is that an individual should be prepared for this experience of meeting his Saviour whether he thinks of it as Christ coming down from heaven in a great display of glory, or whether he thinks of it in terms of Christ coming at the time of death, or whether he thinks in terms of it as Christ coming at the moment that he has a conversion eXperience. I think regardless of what it is, the relationship is such that the individual must be prepared. REVI‘MR. ALLEN: Well, I might as well quit beating around the bush. I don't think Dr. Nelson did, or Lloyd, or any of the others; maybe I did a little bit. I know the General Conference of the Methodist Church preaches the doctrine of the Second Coming, but I am, and I believe in the Second Coming, but I believe, as Lloyd did that Jesus did appear to Paul the second time, and that he also appeared at Pentecost, the second time. People were sitting around, and they were looking up into the skies. Nothing was happening in the Christian church whatso- ever. Nothing was going on, no activity, and then Christ came in the form of the Holy Spirit, and something started to happen. DR. NELSON: I wonder if we don‘t become confused because we speak of the Second Coming of Christ. I believe in Christ's constant coming. He came once in the flesh. He came, has come over and over again, and He’s coming constantly and it‘s one of the ideas in the New Testament, this mood of expectancy that every Christian is to have in waiting for the coming of our Lord. DR. ANDERSON: It‘s wonderful that we can discuss this question so freely. Yes, it does occupy a very important place in Scripture. It has been said that one verse in every twenty-five in the New Testament deals with this subject. Now, I would like to just ask my friend, Rev. Mr. Allen, here, if the Lord had come, we‘ll say, at Pentecost, and that were His Second Coming, then what did Paul mean when he wrote those very words that you read a little while ago? You remember it says, "The'Lord Himself shall descend from.heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord."1 But he went on and said, "But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you, for yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." Then he urged them not to be in darkness. He says that day will overtake some as a thief, but ye are the children of light, 1I Thessalonians 4:16-17. 2I Thessalonians 521-2. MODERA'n DR. CAR] REV, MR 216 and the children of the day."1 If we are going to understand the subject of the Second Coming of Christ, I think we‘ll have to study the prophecies concerning it. REV; MR. ALLEN: I think we also have to study the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself very closely, if we are going to understand the Second Coming when Jesus said, "Behold I stand at the door and knock. And if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in."2 I believe that Christ will come to a person. If you want to call it the Second Coming, all right, but I think that Christ is referring to the second coming of the Ho1y Spirit, to the Holy Spirit as His Second Coming. 'MODERATOR: Keep it short. Dr. Carbury, did you want to come into this? DR. CARBURY: I don’t know why we’re talking so much about the Second Coming of Christ. Didn‘t Jesus Himself say that He would never leave us or forsake us? And so He has never left us. If we are going to look forward to some future day on which we shall all see Him, isn't it just possible that we are going to put off our living as He wanted us to in the present, to some future time? I think it is very important for us to realize that He is within each one of us. REV. MR. POMEROY: Well, I would just like to say "Amen" to that, and go along with the same idea, because my feeling is that the challenge to us is to live the spirit of justice here. We're not putting off until the future judgment, or some time there- after, for our living and for our right relationships, but rather it is to live justly and rightly here in this life. DR. NELSON: I can't get away from the idea that the coming again of our Lord is a very, very important idea that runs in the New Testament, and that it has a profound doctrine to teach us, and that is the idea there. There is purpose and plan in history, that God is in history, and that one day he is going to triumph. This doctrine of the Second Coming, or the coming again of our 'Lord, has been particularly pertinent in these times of stress and strain, persecution in the church. And I think it's a great background. Our difficulty--our real difficulty--is when peOple start prophesying and thinking about when the time is going to be, and when the day is going to be. And then our Lord said very plainly, that of the times and the 1I Thessalonians 5:5. 2Revelation 3:20. REV. 1 MODEM DR. CA' DR. 217 seasons we were not to be concerned because only the Father has that in His power. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I think that the real danger--when you begin to talk about the Second Coming--is that you're going to forget that Christ is here. He does come. ‘He is present with us. we believe in the real presence in the Communion, for example. We must not ever forget the idea that Christ is present here now. But I also believe in this Second Coming when He's going to come to be our Judge, the Judge of the quick and the dead. ‘MODERATOR: Members of the panel, I do think that Lloyd Gillmett, Rev. Mr. Gillmett, really brought out a very, very important point there. And I think that we need to watch very carefully that we do not confuse the two points. I do, as I listen to the panel members, I recognize that all of you believe that Christ is here present now, and with us. But I think that this Second Coming of Christ that we are talk- ing about at the end is another very important topic, outside of that realm. REV} MR. ALLEN: I‘m not talking against your church, Bishop-~the Adventists-~but I believe what Dr. Carbury said was a real Christian statement, that, Why are we so concerned with the Second Coming if Christ is here? I wonder if it's, if it's actually Christian to be always talk- ing about the Second Coming, when Christ is here present with us, and when we should expect Him. If we won’t accept Him now, how--why would we ever accept Him if He‘d come later? DR. CARBURY: When our Lord said the Kingdom of Heaven is within you, I think He meant each one of us to realize our potentialities and to draw on the power which He gives each one of us to make our heaven here on earth. And--as for.His coming again--well, that would take care of itself, if we so live and love now as to demonstrate His coming within each one of us as an individ- ual. DR. ANDERSON: Here is something, though, that is very important. I'm quite sure that every one of us would recognize that the only one who would be ready to take his place in the Kingdom of God is one whose life is in harmony with the principles of His Kingdom. But Jesus did say that when He should come that the "tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one DR. NE REV.'MR. 218 end of heaven to the other."1 And then the Apostle John, in the last book of the Bible, emphasizes that same truth, "Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him."2 I believe it will be a personal, literal coming. POMEROY: Jesus says, "I am with you always,"3 and that is the final phrase in a verse where He is speaking about the people going out and teaching the, giving the message of Christ to the whole world. In other words, the people are to serve. And if they will do that, Christ will be with them through all the experiences of this life. I believe that, in that sense, the vital issue is answered. Now, this Second Coming of Christ-éHis appearance and how it may be--frankly does not too greatly concern me. My great concern is that we do this other thing, that we live in such a way that Christ is with us here and now. DR. NELSON: I think one of the problems in this whole matter of the coming again of our Lord is very much like the problem that arose in Israel when He came the first time. They didn‘t recognize Him. They had wrong ideas. They had materialistic ideas of His coming again. And Jesus came so quietly and so wondrously that they did not recognize Him at all. That has also been true of the church constantly when it has been talking about the Second Coming. Even the Apostolic church had a false and a wrong notion. They got the wrong idea of the coming again of our Lord. And so they thought He was coming very, very soon. And because of that, I think we need to be careful here so that we do not get into materialistic, literalistic ideas of the coming again of Jesus. But I do think that the idea is exceedingly important in the thinking and in the doctrine of the Christian faith. REV. MR. GILLMETT: But there‘s one thing that is stressed in this doctrine which the church has held to through the ages, and that is the fact that we are under Judgment. 'He shall come to be our Judge. And He comes to each individual daily, as the Judge. He certainly will appear, you will appear before Him at the end of your life, and there may be some great act when He will make‘His complete appearance in the future, I don't know. LMatthew 24:30-31. 2Revelation 1:7. 3Matthew 28:20. DR. CAE REV. 1' REV. ] DR. [5 REV. DR. 1 219 DR. CARBURY: Well, isn't it possible that He is always our Judge? That if we will realize within ourselves that by tuning in and listening to Him in the inner voice of the Christ within each one of us, that we realize that our Judgment is, if we are perfectly honest, every day of our lives. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I agree with you. That’s what I was just saying. But there's a future Judgment as well. REV. MR. ALLEN: I’d like to talk to Dr. Anderson just a minute. I have no business talking to a scholar of his caliber, but I'll talk to him anyway out of my ignorance, I guess. When Christ comes, when Dr. Anderson read out of the Bible there, or quoted that there was going to be great wailing from the peOple, did that mean that Christ, having the first time come in love and trying to win the people by love, is going to have to come the second time and conquer them by terrorizing them? DR. ANDERSON: No. REV. MR. ALLEN: Or by fighting a battle of Armageddon--is that what it means? DR. ANDERSON: No. Christ doesn‘t come to fight the battle of Arma- geddon. Christ comes to take'His peOple to Himself. He ex- presses it very, very clearly. And that is what the Apostle Paul indicated in this great fifteenth chapter of first Corinthians. He says, "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."1 He wasn't talking about the change that goes on in the spiri- tual life from day to day. He was talking about the glorious and marvelous return of our Lord in person. REV. MR. ALLEN: What about this great battle that is going to be fought after Christ comes? If Christ can’t win them in love, how does He ever expect to win them by the force of arms? That’s the question I was asking. DR. ANDERSON: Of course, that gets into another big area. REV3‘MR. ALLEN: Sure it does, but that‘s the question of the Second Coming. You see--that’s what I’d like to know, I mean—-if He can't win them by love, how can He ever expect to win them by fighting? 1x Corinthians 15:51-52. h DR, NI DR. NE- nR_ CA5 220 REV. MR. GILLMETT: JMay I say this. I think that love itself is a judgment. Now when Christ was put on the cross, it was because of His love for mankind. He submitted Himself to be put to death. And people stood in His presence judged. He forgave them, and they were judged. They then knew how far short they had fallen of the grandeur for which they were intended. REV. MR. POMEROY: On this matter of judgment, it strikes me that every individual does judge himself. He judges himself by the acts that he commits. He is breaking God’s laws, or he is going in tune with God’s laws. If he breaks those laws, then he is in a measure judging himself. It is true that there may be this moment at which the final decision is made, but all through the years of his life he has been the one who has brought about that which is the final judgment. REV} MR. GILLMETT: No man is able to judge himself. It‘s only Christ. Christ really is the Judge. DR. NELSON: It seems to me that the framework of the New Testament story of Jesus, with this background, or the foreground of his coming again in glory, is all a part of the most important thing that Jesus was talking about constantly--and that was His Kingdom, that the Kingdom.had come when He was here. The ' Kingdom was at hand, and the Kingdom was constantly coming, and even though He talked about the Kingdom being here in this world now, and our Lord being present here, there is this future dimension which I think is very, very important, a philosophy of history, as the Bible‘s reading of history, that God has a plan and the purpose for history itself and our Lord shall come and triumph and be victor over all. DR. CARBURY: Well, Jesus said that He was the same yesterday, today, and forever.1 In that case, is there anything more glorious than the coming of Him to any one of us, when we have been in difficulty, or in darkness about some matter, and by tuning in, as it were, to the Christ within us, we have that illumination of His Second Coming? Is there anything that could be more wonderful than that? Why look ahead, and look to the future for your love and all the happiness you can have, when you can have it right now? DR. NELSON: You wouldn’t give up the Biblical idea of the coming again of our Lord, would you? DR. CARBURY: No! No! But I do think that we have to be awfully care- ful in this day when the world is so sick and so hungry for LHebrews 13:8. DR. NI DR. A5 MODERA REV. M 221 good news, to stop putting off the good news if we have to tell them that He's here now. DR. NELSON: But actually, the coming of our Lord is good news} It’s the story of the triumph of God over the world and the power of evil. That‘s the greatest news in all the world. REVL'MR. ALLEN: Actually we, if we're talking about good news, we actually celebrate the Second Coming of Christ every time a sinner gets down on his knees and is converted. Every time that hate is turned into love, every time that good deed is done in the name of Christ, we’re actually celebrating the coming of the Hbly Spirit in a man‘s soul, and if that isn‘t the coming of Christ, then what is it? DR. ANDERSON: Celebrating the first coming of our Lord. That's what He came to do the first time, to find citizens for His Kingdom. And every sinner that gets down and confesses the Lord Jesus Christ becomes a candidate for His coming Kingdom of Glory. MODERATOR: Mahlon Pomeroy has asked for the floor. REV. MR. POMEROY: The complication that comes in here, I think is the fact that even in the time directly following Christ, the dis- ciples felt that His Second Coming was to be very soon, the type of Second Coming that some are speaking about here. And, therefore, there is that tendency to be waiting for that. My feeling is that we ought to be so full of living that we're ready for it no matter how it comes, when it comes, in what form. DR. NELSON: iMy impression of the reading of church history has been that when the sense of expectancy and eagerness and waiting, the spirit of waiting, and the mood of anticipation has been in the church, then the church has been strong. And that actually this understanding of the great fOregrounds of history has not been an escape mechanism-oinstead it has made people strong. It has increased and stimulated their social action. MODERATOR: Thank you, members of the panel. This is democracy in action. This is a wonderful discussion. We appreciate frank- ness. While these members may not agree, and differ in their religious approach, yet they agree that in America we have a right to differ. And now, summing up. DR. CARBURY: Well, I believe that the coming of our Lord is within each one of us at any time we will accept it. We can be re- lieved from our difficulties of being or thinking or acting at any time that we will accept the fact that the Christ within DR. NE'I REV. MR 222 us is more powerful than the evil which has overtaken us either mentally or bodily or spiritually. DR. NELSON: I believe that our Lord shall come again, and that that statement of the Creed, that statement of the Scriptures is a wonderful thing to say to us that God is concerned with the whole matter of our lives--the lives of the world. And yet, I believe that we should also let that doctrine be for us an intensification of our spiritual lives here, because always when our Lord spoke of His coming again, it was in terms of watchfulness. Let your loins be girded about. Let your lamps be burning. Let yourselves be like men waiting for their Lord. REV.'MR. POMEROY: I have the feeling that we are not just ants block- ing the traffic lanes of this world, but we are individuals. God created us as such. He wanted us to be such. He wanted us to live to the fullness of our lives here every day, and out of that experience to be ready for His coming, whenever that experience is for us. REVL'MR. GILLMETT: we believe, the EpiscOpal Church believes, of course, in the Second Coming. We say it in our Creed. We know that He has come, and is living--we are living. His presence becomes a real presence in the Holy Communion, but also, at the end of our life we will have a more dramatic coming of the Lord. REV. MR. ALLEN: I want to turn to the Bible again, and for my final thirty seconds, read: "I am the light of the world: He that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."1 "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."2 Not that it is coming, but that it is come. The Kingdom of God is within you. It was made very clear at Pentecost, and the disciples themselves were advised that the time was at hand for activity, and the power from on high had arrived. and that they were to go out into all parts of the world and preach the Gospel that Christ had brought when He came Himself. DR. ANDERSON: Seventh-day Adventist Christians believe in waiting for their Lord, but, in preparing their hearts to meet Him in peace. The Second Coming of Christ, as we understand it, is the climax of human history. Whatever the philosophy we may have of his- tory, it will come to a glorious completion. The consummation of all Christian hope is to see our Lord face to face, and have lJohn 8:12. 2John 1:9. MODE} 223 a part with Him in that Kingdom of Glory. "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the king- doms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."1 MODERATOR: Thank you, members of the panel, for your free discussion. fl 1Revelation 11:15. . III 1" "V II: the tin 226 functional. He directed the discussion in a general way, recognized the panelists, and maintained an orderly progression of events. The work was relatively routine--the use of the gavel, presenting the panel, and calling for summations marked his schedule and participation. He was genial throughout. His introduction of the guests was dignified, smooth, and competent. D. _Eggmag: The program was conducted in the American Broadcasting Company Studios in Chicago. Dr. Herace Shaw made an opening statement to the television audience to remind them of the objectives and ideals embedded in the Charter of the American Religious Town Hall Constitution, "the preservation of democracy." The strains of "America" filtered through the announcement as background organ music. Following the announcement, an extended welcome was expressed by the Mbderator, who then in turn introduced his guests, Dr. Carbury and Dr. Anderson. The panel then proceeded to introduce one another, counterclockwise. The discussion period which was introduced by the Moderator, proceeded on a symposium style, allowing each member an opening state- ment. Then followed the general period of discussion, a give-and-take. The program closed as each member was called upon for a thirty-second summation. VII. Egggription and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator A. Pre-Symposium Comments: Exactly ten seconds after the Town Hall was on the air, with the background music of "America" ringing out, Leiske spoke his first words, "The American Religious Town I'll 227 Hall Meeting is now in session." He brought the gavel down once, then settled back in his chair for an announcement by Dr. Horace Shaw. The panel was at ease; outwardly there appeared no signs of tension or frustration. The Moderator‘s main work in the program began immediately following the Shaw announcement. The Moderator first recognized his television audience, whom he solicitiously addressed as "friends," and expressed appreciation that his panel was able to "come into your homes." 'He recognized "The Great City of Chicago," and moved to explain the basic purposes of the Town Hall’s existence. "This telecast has been dedicated to bring about a better understanding of all peoples, regard- less of race or creed." He further noted the incoming fan mail, and added, "We appreciate the many letters from many parts of the nation," and added, "Keep them coming." He then turned to introduce his guests. B. During the Symposiwm: Following the introductions, the Moderator recognized Miss Loa McConchie, the Secretary of the American Religious Town Hall, who in turn thanked the viewing audience. "It's wonderful the way you are responding to the program. We need your help." Following the announcement, the cameras focused back on the‘Moderator. The Moderator then introduced the topic of discussion, "The Second Coming of Christ." "It should be of interest to all of our millions of listeners throughout the nation. How literally can we take the Scriptures that speak of the Second Coming of the Lord?" With these words, the Moderator first recognized Rev. Ira B. Allen. Only once during the symposium period did the Moderator take a TE 86 as he to act, 811nm 228 a part in the panel's progress, other than recognizing the speakers. Following Rev. Mr. Allen’s comments, the Moderator appealed to the panel, "Keep it short!" C. During the Panelfpiscussion: During this phase of the program, the Bishop's voice was heard three times, once following Dr. Gillmett's statement, "He's going to come to be our Judge, the Judge of the quick and the dead," to which the Moderator quickly replied, "I do think that Lloyd Gillmett, Rev. Mr. Gillmett, really brought out a very, very important point there." The Moderator then hastened to caution the panel not to confuse the Second Coming with the first coming. The Moderator asked the panel to stick to the point, to discuss the "Second Coming of Christ that we are talking about, at the en ." In other words, the Moderator here attempted to steer the panel back into the escatological setting and Biblical teachings--coming and judgment. The Moderator's second participation was a brief one, simply recognizing Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, in a restoration attempt at orderly sequence. “Mahlon Pomeroy has asked for the floor." His third participation involved a direct comment to the panel as well as a direct statement to the viewing audience. To the panel, he said simply, "Thank you, members of the panel," whereas his comment to the television audience was more protracted, 1) This is democracy in action, 2) This is a wonderful discussion, 3) We appreciate the frank- ness, and 4) We have a right to differ. D. Duringjthe Summation: The Moderator opened the summation phase with a simple comment, "And, now summing up." 229 The summations followed an orderly progression: Dr. Carbury spoke first, twenty-five seconds; Dr. Nelson next, thirty-five seconds; third summation speaker, Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, twenty seconds; Dr. Gillmett, with twenty seconds; fifth speaker, Rev. Mk; Allen, forty seconds; and Dr. Anderson, forty seconds. Except for the addressing of each speaker by name, the summation showed a minimum of participation by the Mbderator. His concluding comment was simply a "Thank you, members of the panel, for your free discussion." The Moderator was calm, collected, and generally competent throughout. DR. CAF REV. MI REV. MI DR. ANI REV. HF DR. ARI 219 DR. CARBURY: Well, isn't it possible that He is always our Judge? That if we will realize within ourselves that by tuning in and listening to Him in the inner voice of the Christ within each one of us, that we realize that our Judgment is, if we are perfectly honest, every day of our lives. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I agree with you. That’s what I was just saying. But there's a future Judgment as well. REV. MR. ALLEN: I’d like to talk to Dr. Anderson just a minute. I have no business talking to a scholar of his caliber, but I'll talk to him anyway out of my ignorance, I guess. When Christ comes, when Dr. Anderson read out of the Bible there, or quoted that there was going to be great wailing from the peOple, did that mean that Christ, having the first time come in love and trying to win the people by love, is going to have to come the second time and conquer them by terrorizing them? DR. ANDERSON: No. REV. MR. ALLEN: Or by fighting a battle of Armageddon--is that what it means? DR. ANDERSON: No. Christ doesn't come to fight the battle of Arma- geddon. Christ comes to take His people to Himself. He ex- presses it very, very clearly. And that is what the Apostle Paul indicated in this great fifteenth chapter of first Corinthians. He says, "Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."1 He wasn't talking about the change that goes on in the spiri- tual life from day to day. He was talking about the glorious and marvelous return of our Lord in person. REV. MR. ALLEN: What about this great battle that is going to be fought after Christ comes? If Christ can’t win them in love, how does He ever expect to win them by the force of arms? That’s the question I was asking. DR. ANDERSON: Of course, that gets into another big area. REV. MR. ALLEN: Sure it does, but that's the question of the Second Coming. You see--that’s what I’d like to know, I mean--if He can’t win them by love, how can He ever expect to win them by fighting? 11 Corinthians 15:51-52. DR. NE: DR. CAI 220 REV. MR. GILLMETT: May I say this. I think that love itself is a judgment. Now when Christ was put on the cross, it was because of His love for mankind. He submitted Himself to be put to death. And people stood in His presence judged. He forgave them, and they were judged. They then knew how far short they had fallen of the grandeur for which they were intended. REV. MR. POMEROY: On this matter of judgment, it strikes me that every individual does judge himself. He judges himself by the acts that he commits. He is breaking God’s laws, or he is going in tune with God’s laws. If he breaks those laws, then he is in a measure judging himself. It is true that there may be this moment at which the final decision is made, but all through the years of his life he has been the one who has brought about that which is the final judgment. REV. MR. GILLMETT: No man is able to judge himself. It‘s only Christ. Christ really is the Judge. DR. NELSON: It seems to me that the framework of the New Testament story of Jesus, with this background, or the foreground of his coming again in glory, is all a part of the most important thing that Jesus was talking about constantly--and that was His Kingdom, that the Kingdom had come when He was here. The - Kingdom was at hand, and the Kingdom was constantly coming, and even though He talked about the Kingdom being here in this world now, and our'Lord being present here, there is this future dimension which I think is very, very important, a philosophy of history, as the Bible‘s reading of history, that God has a plan and the purpose for history itself and our Lord shall come and triumph and be victor over all. DR. CARBURY: well, Jesus said that He was the same yesterday, today, and forever.1 In that case, is there anything more glorious than the coming of Him to any one of us, when we have been in difficulty, or in darkness about some matter, and by tuning in, as it were, to the Christ within us, we have that illumination of His Second Coming? Is there anything that could be more wonderful than that? Why look ahead, and look to the future for your love and all the happiness you can have, when you can have it right now? DR. NELSON: You wouldn’t give up the Biblical idea of the coming again of our Lord, would you? DR. CARBUKY: No! No! But I do think that we have to be awfully care- ful in this day when the world is so sick and so hungry for 1Hebrews 13:8. MC DR 221 good news, to stOp putting off the good news if we have to tell them that He's here now. DR. NELSON: But actually, the coming of our Lord is good news! It’s the story of the triumph of God over the world and the power of evil. That‘s the greatest news in all the world. REV. MR. ALLEN: Actually we, if we're talking about good news, we actually celebrate the Second Coming of Christ every time a sinner gets down on his knees and is converted. Every time that hate is turned into love, every time that good deed is done in the name of Christ, we're actually celebrating the coming of the Hbly Spirit in a man‘s soul, and if that isn‘t the coming of Christ, then what is it? DR. ANDERSON: Celebrating the first coming of our Lord. That‘s what He came to do the first time, to find citizens for His Kingdom. And every sinner that gets down and confesses the Lord Jesus Christ becomes a candidate for His coming Kingdom of Glory. MODERATOR: Mahlon Pomeroy has asked for the floor. REV.'MR. POMEROY: The complication that comes in here, I think is the fact that even in the time directly following Christ, the dis- ciples felt that His Second Coming was to be very soon, the type of Second Coming that some are speaking about here. And, therefore, there is that tendency to be waiting for that. My feeling is that we ought to be so full of living that we're ready for it no matter how it comes, when it comes, in what form. DR. NELSON: iMy impression of the reading of church history has been that when the sense of expectancy and eagerness and waiting, the spirit of waiting, and the mood of anticipation has been in the church, then the church has been strong. And that actually this understanding of the great foregrounds of history has not been an escape mechanisms-instead it has made people strong. It has increased and stimulated their social action. MODERATOR: Thank you, members of the panel. This is democracy in action. This is a wonderful discussion. We appreciate frank- ness. While these members may not agree, and differ in their religious approach, yet they agree that in America we have a right to differ. And now, summing up. DR. CARBURY: Well, I believe that the coming of our Lord is within each one of us at any time we will accept it. We can be re- lieved from our difficulties of being or thinking or acting at any time that we will accept the fact that the Christ within DR. NE REV. MI DR- ANI 222 us is more powerful than the evil which has overtaken us either mentally or bodily or spiritually. DR. NELSON: I believe that our Lord shall come again, and that that statement of the Creed, that statement of the Scriptures is a wonderful thing to say to us that God is concerned with the whole matter of our lives-~the lives of the world. And yet, I believe that we should also let that doctrine be for us an intensification of our spiritual lives here, because always when our Lord spoke of His coming again, it was in terms of watchfulness. Let your loins be girded about. 'Let your lamps be burning. Let yourselves be like men waiting for their Lord. REV. MR. POMEROY: I have the feeling that we are not just ants block- ing the traffic lanes of this world, but we are individuals. God created us as such. He wanted us to be such. He wanted us to live to the fullness of our lives here every day, and out of that experience to be ready for His coming, whenever that experience is for us. REV. MR. GILLMETT: We believe, the Episcopal Church believes, of course, in the Second Coming. We say it in our Creed. We know that He has come, and is living--we are living. His presence becomes a real presence in the Holy Communion, but also, at the end of our life we will have a more dramatic coming of the Lord. REV. MR. ALLEN: I want to turn to the Bible again, and for my final thirty seconds, read: "I am the light of the world: He that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."1 "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."2 Not that it is coming, but that it is come. The Kingdom of God is within you. It was made very clear at Pentecost, and the disciples themselves were advised that the time was at hand for activity, and the power from on high had arrived, and that they were to go out into all parts of the world and preach the Gospel that Christ had brought when He came Himself. DR. ANDERSON: Seventh-day Adventist Christians believe in waiting for their Lord, but, in preparing their hearts to meet Him in peace. The Second Coming of Christ, as we understand it, is the climax of human history. Whatever the philosophy we may have of his- tory, it will come to a glorious completion. The consummation of all Christian hape is to see our Lord face to face, and have lJohn 8:12. 2John 1:9. MODERA 223 a part with Him in that Kingdom of Glory. "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the king- doms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." 'MODERATOR: Thank you, members of the panel, for your free discussion. 1Revelation 11:15. t1 NE in wh: deg C 0m 224 Description and Analysis of the Program.--This description and analysis of the program.was divided into four sections. Each section dealt with a specific phase of interest. I. Overall Description and Analysis A. The Problem: The problem that the panel was discussing was the question of Christ’s Second Coming. The panel met in the City of Chicago, at the American Broadcasting Company Studios, and conducted its discussion. There were two aspects to the problem which divided the panel, namely: 1) the manner of His return, and 2) the imminence of His re turn. On the first point, the panel was divided into two segments. Dr. R. A. Anderson represented the literalist viewpoint. That is, he strongly believed and expressed his belief that Christ will return some day in a literal, personal, cataclysmic event. The other five members of the panel expressed a more diversified opinion on the Coming. These believed that conversion is a form of the Second Coming. The daily agitation of the conscience is a Second Coming. Dr. Carbury went a step further, "He has never left us," and drew a reference to the Biblical text where Jesus once said He would never leave nor forsake mankind. The second problem on which the panel differed dealt with the imminence of His return. R. A. Anderson spoke of fulfilled prophecies which mark the prelude to His return. The other panel members, to a degree, circumvented these prophetical utterances and stressed Christ‘s comment, "No man knoweth the day nor the hour." These two positions characterized the basic problem in this 01 W0 in; V1: Ida Lut SEC: SEW the Dr. 225 discussion. The panel sought a reconciliation in light of two teach- ings: l) Christ Himself said, "I will come again," and 2) the creeds, with a 1500-year history, teach His return. The question that the panel was seeking basically to answer was, “How?" Would He return in person, or in spirit? The discussion hinged upon these alternatives. B. The Panel and Guests: Of the four faiths, three (the Roman Catholic faith, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Jewish) were not represented on this program. It was understandable why a Jewish representative was not present, though Jewish views would have been of interest. The fact that the panel was entirely Protestant does not imply that the doctrine of the Second Coming is of Protestant origin or design, though it has a history of Protestant scholarship. One woman, Dr. Carbury, appeared on the panel. The panel was seated in V formation, with the Moderator occupy- ing the chair at the apex of the V. To his immediate right was Dr. Victoria Carbury, Pastor of The People’s Church in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. To her right sat Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, of the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Saint Paul, and to his right sat Rev. Mbhlon Pomeroy, of the Park Baptist Church in Saint Paul. To the left of the Moderator sat Dr. R. A. Anderson, Executive Secretary of thelMinisterial Association of the World Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. To his left was Rev. Ira B. Allen, Pastor of the Central Park Methodist Church of Saint Paul. And to his left sat Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett, of the EpiscOpal Church of Saint John the Evangelist in Saint Paul. C. W: The Moderator, Bishop A. A. Leiske, is a Seventh-day Adventist. His work throughout the program was largely lll..||1||!l| I“ 226 functional. He directed the discussion in a general way, recognized the panelists, and maintained an orderly progression of events. The work was relatively routine--the use of the gavel, presenting the panel, and calling for summations marked his schedule and participation. He was genial throughout. His introduction of the guests was dignified, smooth, and competent. D. Format: The program was conducted in the American Broadcasting Company Studios in Chicago. Dr. Horace Shaw made an opening statement to the television audience to remind them of the objectives and ideals embedded in the Charter of the American Religious Town Hall Constitution, "the preservation of democracy." The strains of "America" filtered through the announcement as background organ music. Following the announcement, an extended welcome was expressed by the Moderator, who then in turn introduced his guests, Dr. Carbury and Dr. Anderson. The panel then proceeded to introduce one another, counterclockwise. The discussion period which was introduced by the Moderator, proceeded on a symposium style, allowing each member an opening state- ment. Then followed the general period of discussion, a give-and-take. The program closed as each member was called upon for a thirty-second summation. II. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Modeggtgr A. Pre-Szmposium.Comments: Exactly ten seconds after the Town Hall was on the air, with the background music of "America" ringing out, Leiske spoke his first words, "The American Religious Town Ha pa de 16 at 81'. m1; tak All, 227 Hall Meeting is now in session." He brought the gavel down once, then settled back in his chair for an announcement by Dr. Horace Shaw. The panel was at ease; outwardly there appeared no signs of tension or frustration. The Moderator‘s main work in the program began immediately following the Shaw announcement. The Moderator first recognized his television audience, whom he solicitiously addressed as "friends," and expressed appreciation that his panel was able to "come into your homes." ‘He recognized "The Great City of Chicago," and moved to explain the basic purposes of the Town Hall’s existence. "This telecast has been dedicated to bring about a better understanding of all peOples, regard- less of race or creed." He further noted the incoming fan mail, and added, "We appreciate the many letters from.many parts of the nation," and added, "Keep them coming." He then turned to introduce his guests. B. During the Symposium: Following the introductions, the Mbderator recognized Miss Loa McConchie, the Secretary of the American Religious Town Hall, who in turn thanked the viewing audience. "It's wonderful the way you are responding to the program. We need your help." Following the announcement, the cameras focused back on the Moderator. The Moderator then introduced the tapic of discussion, "The Second Coming of Christ." "It should be of interest to all of our millions of listeners throughout the nation. How literally can we take the Scriptures that speak of the Second Coming of the Lord?" With these words, the Moderator first recognized Rev. Ira B. Allen. Only once during the symposium period did the Moderator take a t} tc at at Bi Te 8e. as he to ac; Des “Um 228 a part in the panel's progress, other than recognizing the speakers. Following Rev. Mr. Allen's comments, the Moderator appealed to the panel, "Keep it short!" C. During:the Panel Discussion: During this phase of the program, the Bishop's voice was heard three times, once following Dr. Gillmett‘s statement, "He's going to come to be our Judge, the Judge of the quick and the dead," to which the Moderator quickly replied, "I do think that Lloyd Gillmett, Rev. Mr. Gillmett, really brought out a very, very important point there." The Moderator then hastened to caution the panel not to confuse the Second Coming with the first coming. The Moderator asked the panel to stick to the point, to discuss the "Second Coming of Christ that we are talking about, at the end." In other words, the Moderator here attempted to steer the panel back into the escatological setting and Biblical teachings--coming and judgment. The Moderator's second participation was a brief one, simply recognizing Rev. Mi. Pomeroy, in a restoration attempt at orderly sequence. “Mahlon Pomeroy has asked for the floor." ‘His third participation involved a direct comment to the panel as well as a direct statement to the viewing audience. To the panel, he said simply, "Thank you, members of the panel," whereas his comment to the television audience was more protracted, 1) This is democracy in action, 2) This is a wonderful discussion, 3) We appreciate the frank- ness, and 4) We have a right to differ. D. DuringEthe Summation: The Moderator opened the summation phase with a simple comment, "And, now summing up." spoke third with t Dr. An Showed Commen discus throug 229 The summations followed an orderly progression: Dr. Carbury spoke first, twenty-five seconds; Dr. Nelson next, thirty-five seconds; third summation speaker, Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, twenty seconds; Dr. Gillmett, with twenty seconds; fifth speaker, Rev. Mr. Allen, forty seconds; and Dr. Anderson, forty seconds. Except for the addressing of each speaker by name, the summation showed a minimum of participation by the Moderator. His concluding comment was simply a "Thank you, members of the panel, for your free discussion." The Moderator was calm, collected, and generally competent throughout. .chmn— Qfiu NO COduUDDOhqu OshOthU—hvo: Win QDDHUCfi UOC QWOD gwu CONUQQHUNUMDN on woasaz Euwk Hue-4&0 30H“ UUQDJUUMIW—Bfifi wawtumvu—CH DCOUUWIQ>HL~ .HHH 230 Re. new omN omH omH mwm ooa 00H mlo‘ .mxoeu Manama gonna some mocooom mo popes: Hence use .m:0aumeuoaunme Hmsvw>wona mo noose: Hmuou one .ounonuom nodumeqowuume .noo«uoe coaumaasm .nmo«uoe auueoeahm noumoumnu m monouqvnH m on”. 33d: \ on”. exam: H _ 2: 32s.: A v .uauu wuaxmoaa mo nonoooa o>am exams” a .nzuuufl assess \saaaaaska Haaatkaaafl\aa \aaaaaa\a \aa\aa \«aeaaa\eas \ « a.a a a a a a \ a \aaaaaa Haaa*a_\aaa\a Haa_\a\a aaaa~\asa\aa\k\asasaa aaaxaaaaakaaakaaaaaaa aaa\aaaa\aaksaak\aaaa aaakae\fiaaaaaaaaaka aa\aa\aaasaxaaaaa me a *.a a a \ a a a.a # x A #4: \a\saaaa¥aaaa takaaa\aaaa\a k.# ¥ .1 4: “Kit «I _a ¥\-k .fi asks .x it-k'k *«k-k aaaak\aaa\a¥aaaxaaaaa sa\a\*\a\aaaaaaa\sxas mm umnabz Baum uumno Beam mononoomnuaas Hm>uounH onooomno>uh .HHH 'k-k'k * .4. .k v nonnovq< k. e v noH~< _ a v uuuafifiae .1 a v honueom _ .1 a v nonaoz a v hunnumo «V 333 .Honme one no nofiuoavonunu nsnOumnovoz_o£u wooden“ no: noon mafia nodumeaoquumm 8p: tel for sugg Firs; have denotn bUSh. 231 IV. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants A. Five-Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart Interpretation: The panel spoke a total of 1440 seconds, or twenty— four minutes. The speaking time was recorded as follows: Nelson 325 seconds Allen 290 " Anderson 265 " Pomeroy 190 " Carbury' 140 " Gillmett 130 " Leiske 100 " Dr. Nelson occupied a total of 22.5% of the discussion time. B. Participation Schedule: A total of fifty-two partic- ipations was recorded throughout the twenty-four-minute discussion period. The participation sequence was as follows: Nelson 9 times Leiske 9 " Allen 8 " Gillmett 7 " Anderson 7 " Pomeroy 6 " Carbury 6 " C. Panel Members in Interactionary Exchanges: The first speaker in the symposium period, Rev. Ira B. Allen, acknowledged public- 1y a moment of personal tension, "I'm a little nervous to start off this telecast this time." Rev. Mr. Allen did not elaborate on the reasons for this nervousness. iHowever, an analysis of the discussion sequence suggests two possible reasons fer his publicly acknowledged tension. First, Rev. Mr. Allen's views on the Second Coming of Christ appear to have been in conflict with those of the official teachings of his denomination. Said Allen, "I might as well quit beating around the bush. . . . I know that the General Conference of the Methodist Church l: t: re re re: defi: 1°81: 232 preaches the doctrine of the Second Coming, but I believe . . ." Second, he may not have been sure of his convictions, and felt a degree of insecurity in the presence of a man whose scholarship in this field he acknowledged, Dr. R. A. Anderson. "I’d like to talk to Dr. Anderson just a minute. I have no business talking to a scholar of his caliber, but I‘ll talk to him anyway, out of my ignorance." Rev. Mr. Allen then acknowledged Dr. Anderson’s scholarship by asking personally for a clarification of a theological point on esca- tology, namely the place of Armageddon in escatological sequence. It was interesting that two panel members actually used a Bible in their discussions, Rev. Mr. Allen and Dr. Anderson. Others used Scripture in their arguments, but only these two men dis- played the Bible as they read. Dr. Nelson spoke 325 seconds in total. "I can‘t get away from the idea that the coming again of our Lord is a very, very important idea that runs in the New Testament," though his views on a point or two would differ with Luther’s. Luther spoke of a literal return, as recorded earlier in this chapter; and Luther set time periods for His return. Both of these views are unmentioned by Dr. Nelson. Probably Dr. Carbury expressed a complete denial of a literal return, equating the Second Coming on the basis of a spiritual level. I don‘t know why we're talking so much about the Second Coming of Christ. Didn’t Jesus Himself say that He would never leave or forsake us? And so, He has never left us. He is within each one of us. The spirit of the discussion throughout was cordial, firm, and definitely sectarian. The discussion itself was Biblically and theo- logically oriented. tr WI 1933 233 Problem Two: "The Authority of the Church" An Issue in Doctrinal Theology A Definition of Terms gnd a Brief Historical Backgggund.--The termm, Doctrinal Theology, and Dogmatic Theology, are used interchange- ably in theological parlance. Doctrinal is defined by the German Protestant theologian Reinhold Seeberg as, "An ecclesiastical doctrine, or an entire structure of such doctrines; . . . the formal expression of the truth held by the church at large, or by a particular church; . a public declaration of the church."1 The term.doggptic is defined as, "Proceeding upon a a priori principle accepted as true, instead of being founded upon experience or induction."2 Thus doctrinal or dogmatic theology is primarily concerned with definitive theological propositions, compounded under the guidance of Inspiration, and taught as beliefs above and beyond the acceptance or rejection of man. In other words, dogmatic theology is concerned with "fixed" teachings handed down by God, and are thus beliefs beyond the alteration of man. "The Authority of the Church" is believed to be one such doc- trine. Probably in no area of Protestant-Catholic thought is there a wider breach of belief than in the question of Church Authority. Scripture and Tradition as Bases fer Authority.--Whereas Protestant doctrinal theology rests primarily upon the sufficiency of 1Reinhold Seeberg, History of Doctrines QGrand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1952), val. l, p. 19. 2The Oxford Epglish Dictionagy GOxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), Vbl. III, p. 583. Miami‘s.” Max SQI 234 the Scriptures, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Catholic doctrinal theology rests upon the sufficiency of the Scriptures and upon the traditions of the church as compounded by the Fathers and preserved by the church. The Roman Catholic position on the place of tradition in Church Authority is defined by the prelates of the Council of Trent: Seeing clearly that this truth and discipline of the Gospel are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating them, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand: The Synod following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affec- tion of piety and reverence, all the books, both of the Old and New Testaments . . . as also the said traditions. John Laux, a Roman Catholic scholar, further elucidated upon this point in these words: Since the truths contained in Scripture and those handed down by tradition are of equal value as sources of faith, both deserve the same reverence and respect. Each alone is sufficient to establish a truth of our holy faith. Father Joseph Vesiliou, being the Eastern Orthodox Catholic member on the panel, would not vary his position from that of the Roman Catholic. His church discipline states: The Holy Tradition does not compete with the Holy Scriptures, but both contain the same truth, for they have the same author, the Holy Spirit.3 1"Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures," Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), translated in Philip Schaff, The Qpeeds of Christeflom (New York: Harper Bros. , 1919) , 4th ed. , revised, V61. 2, pp. 79-80. 2John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (New YOrk: Benziger Brothers, 1936), p. 50. 3Nicolas Zernov, Eastern Christendom (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1961), p. 230. would Roman churc Metho Autho: Luthe] th801c the ve Mmber of the orthod Church Bonifac an: ho] nei f 331 O I"? n) a, a... a a»... 235 Rev. Lloyd R. Gillmett, the Episcopal member of the panel, would be in basic accord with the Eastern Orthodox Catholic and the Roman Catholic views on tradition as a basis for Church Authority. His church polity states: Whosoever through private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church . . . ought to be rebuked openly.1 The other three members of the panel-€Lutheran, Baptist, and Methodist--wou1d reject tradition as a divine discipline of Church Authority. Lutheran Clifford Ansgar Nelson would adhere rigidly to Luther’s Sola Fide, and the other two would basically agree. Church Authority versus Salvation.--Probably in no area of theological discussion could six clergymen differ more sharply than in the very interpretation of the word church itself. Protestant panel members would be almost completely opposite in their thinking to that of the Roman Catholic teaching, as well as to that of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic teaching. The Roman Catholic Church expresses her church-salvation-centered philosophy in these words, taken from Pope .Boniface VIII, Papal Bull Unam Sanctam: we are compelled, our faith urging us to believe and to hold-- and we do firmly believe and simply confess--that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. Father Joseph Vesiliou, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic priest, of Saint George Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Paul, Minnesota, a guest \_ 1A. A. Benton, "Tradition," Church Cyclopedia of the Protes- Lant Episcopal Church mew York: M. H. Mallory 6: Company, 1883), p. 748. 2Anne Fremantle, The Papal Engyclicals (New York: G. D. Putnam's Sons, Publishers, 1956), p. 72. it‘ll!“ 236 on this discussion program, by vitrue of his profession and training, would take a more latitudinal position on the matter of Church Author- ity. ‘His official denominational position is that, "The church is diffused among its members."1 The difference between the views of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church on this matter are well expressed in an exchange of letters between Pope Pius IX (1841-1878) and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch. In 1848, thirty-one Eastern Orthodox bishops signed and sent a letter to the Pontiff, asserting their definition of the church and its authority. The Pope is greatly mistaken in that we consider the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be the guardian of dogma. . The unvarying constancy and the unerring truth of Christian dogma does not depend upon any of the hierarchical orders; it is guarded by the totality of the people of God, which is the body of Christ.2 The Protestant members of the panel would conferm to the historic Refonmation definition of the church and ecclesiastical authority as basically formulated in Luther’s teaching in the Augsburg Confession of 1529. This Confession defines Church Authority as "the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered."3 Church doctrine is an exceedingly complicated historical structure. It has in it various constituent parts, constructed as it 1Zernov, loc. cit. 2Ibid. 3James R. Page, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Epgland, and an Appendix Containipg the Augsburg Confession (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1851), p. 523. 237 has been in the face of multifarious forms of opposition. Under the inspiration of many practical, ethical, and devotional impulses and external political and canonical occasions, church doctrine has re- ceived the impact and impress of different theological tendencies. Thus Christian doctrine has been deepened or has totally disintegrated-- has been superficialized--or has been logically developed. With the sequence of time, many doctrines have been transformed, renewed, re- stored, or entirely reinterpreted. Basically, however, each denomina- tional body has given its adherents a fixed form of doctrinal dogma, held to be truth. The adherence to such a truth would be paramount to the believer’s salvation. It is thus not surprising that this panel chose as one of its topics for discussion, the tapic, "The Authority of the Church." MODER REV. 1 but ha: 238 Full Text, "The Authority of the Church," Transcribed from Film No. 4 MODERATOR: Ladies and Gentlemen. It‘s wonderful to come into your home again with the American Religious Town Hall Meeting that has been dedicated for the preservation of our American way of life. And now, the members of the panel. We have two guests. To my right is Father Joseph Vasiliou, and to my left is Rabbi Bernard Raskas of the Jewish faith. We are glad to have these men on the telecast with us. And now the regular members of the panel who have dedicated their lives to greater devotion to their God, their church, and our nation. And now we have for our discussion, "The Authority of the Church." Is it necessary to belong to the church? We recognize the Rev. Mr. Lloyd Gillmett. REV. MR. GILLMETT: There evidently, there are a lot of people who do not believe that it’s necessary to belong to a church because they simply do not belong or attend. But from our point of view, it is absolutely essential to belong to a church, or to the Church, let us put it that way. You've got to recognize that the Christian life is different from a natural life, that the natural life that a lot of peOple are living is not the Christian life at all. And that if a person is going to live the Christian life, then he has to live it in the fellowship of the church, under the influences of the church people with whom he himself lives. ‘Moreover, from ancient times, in order to be a Christian you had to be baptized. ‘You were never recognized as being a Christian unless you were baptized into the church, became a member of the church and that is another reason why I believe that a membership in the church is absolutely essential. MODERATOR: Thank you. The Rev. Mahlon Pomeroy. REV. MR. POMEROY: From the Christian point of view--this is not the point of view of all religions, of course, but from the Chris- tian point of view--John 3:16 says, "Whosoever liveth and be- lieveth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."1 1John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 239 Whosoever liveth and believeth in Him. Now that does not say that the individual needs to be a member of the church. But it does say, if an individual believes, he will have everlast- ing life. Now, we believe that is true, many of us. We do feel that it is wonderful to belong to a church, and in the course of this discussion more points will come out on that. It is a wonderful thing to be a church member, but from the point of view of being absolutely essential, I have to say, no, it is not. REV. MR. ALLEN: Lloyd, when you say you have--it‘s absolutely essential to belong to the church, I wonder what you're thinking? What do you mean? Is that true, essential to belong to the church before you get to heaven? or before you can live a good life, or what do you mean by that? That's what I'd like to know. REV.‘MR. GILLMETT: I qualified what I had to say, that if you want to live a Christian life, then it’s absolutely essential for you to belong to the Christian church. You've got to receive .the strength and the grace, which is to be received through the sacraments and through worship in the church, and through the influence of other Christian people living in the church. You cannot live that Christian life, which is the spiritual life and not a natural life without those helps. ‘MODERATOR: Rabbi Raskas, which church are you going to join? (laugh- ter) RABBI RASKAS: I think I'll stay with the synagogue because, after all, the synagogue teaches that a man does and ought to have a very easy relationship with his God. We are all children of God. And we can speak directly to him without any other mediating influence within our lives. We need not belong to any partic- ular religious institution, although it helps, of course, to belong to a community of like-minded worshipers. It certainly is not indispensable in living the good, honorable, and honest life. DR. NELSON: I would say this that you can’t have real religion as we know it, either in the Old Testament tradition or the New Testament tradition without the church. I know that one of our present day philosophers,‘Mr.‘Whitehead, has said that religion is what a man does with his solitariness. But all religion as I have read of it through history is what we do with our togetherness when we are believers in God, and when we are believers in Christ. I believe that it‘s true, as John Wesley once said, that there is no such thing as a solitary Christian. But wherever there is a Christian, he will want to be where other Christians are, and there you have the church. And I also believe that old Latin aphorism that has been used in the church for many, many centuries that, wherever Christ MODERA FATHER REV. 14 240 is, there you'll find the church. It‘s just the nature of the Christian religion that where you have Christ you have pe0p1e together who believe in Him, and therefore, I believe in order to be a Christian, it's absolutely necessary to have the church and to be affiliated with the Christian church. ‘MODERATOR: Thank you, Dr. Nelson. Father Vasiliou. FATHER VASILIOU: (Speaks with a heavy accent, and has slight difficul- ty with his English sentence structure.) Bishop Leiske, I think from what Rev. Pomeroy and Rabbi Raskas say that one may come to the conclusion believing one can have individual church or have his own religion, he go to heaven that way by himself. I don't believe that. Even the quota- tion that Rev. Pomeroy read, he himself believes it, but he has a church, and the only one who will recognize definite, conscious, positive identity with church organization, whether it be synagogue or Christian church--the salvation of that individual is in the church! (Laughter from the panel. Father Vesiliou is very emphatic!) REV. MR. POMEROY: I want to come back on that very definitely at this point, that basically religion is an individual thing. It is a personal thing. It is what you feel in your own heart. It is your own relationship with your God. It is not your rela- tionship with your church, or with your synagogue. It‘s your relationship with your God. And that is the individual rela- tionship. And I believe that is established by the individual in his context with his God. Now Jesus, as we find it related in Matthew 6:6, indicates that we even go into our own private rooms and there we pray a- lone. And there presumably we pray effectively, because we are alone with God. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I just want to say that I‘m sure that it's abso- lutely necessary for a person to belong to a church if he is going to be saved, if you wish to put it that way, or live a Christian life or even a Hebrew life. You take the best Hebrew you've got, or you take the best Christian you've got, and place him in a pagan land, separated from all other Christians and, in the course of time, with a few exceptions, perhaps, that man will go pagan! There‘s no doubt about it. He'll go naked, because he's not living in the church, worshiping in the church, receiving the grace and the help he gets through the sacraments, and living under the in- fluence of the other Christians in the community. RABBI DR. REV. P 241 REV. MR. ALLEN Dr. Nelson and Lloyd Gillmett, I want you to listen now. (With panel laughing, Moderator interjected humorously, "We always listen when you speak, Ira.") They asked a man, "What must I do to be saved?"1 They didn't say join the church. They didn't say anything about the church at all. They said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."2 And they didn’t say anything about joining the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, or the Episc0palian Church, or any church! (The panel here broke up in a spontaneous outburst of laughter at Allen's dynamic enthusiasm.) RABBI RASKAS: Let me interpose or interject another idea at this point. You peOple who are arguing that salvation can only be obtained through a specific religious institution, would you deny salvation to the individuals who lived before the church was established? What about all the people who really founded the church, who really were predecessors of the church? Would they be denied salvation? Surely they were without any specific church. DR. NELSON: Well, I think the only answer here is to say that reli- gion is a matter of an individual’s relation to God, but if an individual is related to God through faith, he will want to be with other peOple and you have the church. And the church was born out of exactly this kind of experience on the day of Pente- cost. But it came from the same idea in the Old Testament, where men were gathered together. And you have the community which was known as the Kingdom of God, which was the sacred community out of which the church was born. REV. MR. POMEROY: There is no question that throughout all centuries, men have been striving towards a God, towards some concept of God. We find the comment in the Old Testament, for example, of the man who cut down a piece of wood and then from it he made a fire with which he warmed himself. And he took another part of it with which he cooked some food, and then the third part he used the residue thereof to make a God, it is said. Even then he was striving towards a concept of God. And I believe that is still true and has been throughout all centuries, whether an individual was alone, by himself, out somewhere, or whether he was in the group. He has been striving toward God. Now, don’t misunderstand me. I believe that the church is important. I believe that it is wise for people to belong to 1Acts 16:30. 2Arts 16:31. FA' M0] DR. 1 242 to the church, but I cannot say that it is essential. FATHER VASILIOU: I think that it is imperative he belong to the church. And as far as saying that you can have a wholesome, total Christian spiritual personality without the church, I think it’s a mistaken view. Even the Jewish people in their early history had the commonwealth of the theocracy, if you please, they had a church. The entire nation was a church, and they were saved within the church, not as individuals. MODERATOR: Thank you, Father Vasiliou. REV.‘MR. GILLMETT: I want to comment on the Rabbi‘s statement. How about the other people who lived before the church or the synagogue was established. The fact is that God‘s grace is not limited entirely to the confines of the church, that He does reach out and reveal Himself to other individuals beyond the church. But, the church has been given to us, the reve- lation of God in Christ has been given to us, the teaching of Jesus has been given to us. I would say, at least for us living at the present time, with this opportunity before us, we simply cannot live the Christian life and inherit, perhaps, eternal life, except in and through the church. RABBI RASKAS: I think it is an act of fundamental atheism to say that God is only to be limited to this one specific group. What about the millions of'Mbhammedans? What about the millions of people around the world who do not embrace the western form of religion? but whose conduct, whose moral codes are equal, if not higher than our own? What about those millions of people? To deny them.the reality of God is to say God is limited in this world, and this certainly would indicate an extremely narrow kind of theology. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I would just like to comment on that. So far as the Christian church is concerned, it is our belief that Christ died for all individuals, Mohammedans and Japanese and everybody else, whoever lived upon the face of the earth, and all who in the course of time respond to Him do inherit eternal life. Now, that‘s the Christian point of view. REV. MR. ALLEN: I never heard so much dogmatism on this program the two years we've been on. What about the thief on the cross? The fellow probably never saw a church, didn’t know anything about a church. And Jesus said, Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise. He didn't have to belong to your church or mine, or any church, in order to gain Paradise. He had to believe in the teachings and the principles of Jesus Christ, the Saviour. DR. NELSON: Of course I think that's an extreme instance. Here’s a man who was saved on his deathbed. If that man had lived as mm DR. Ii 243 a Christian for a year, he would have been with the believers in Christ and he would have been a part of that first church. There‘s no question of it. But I think that I would have to say that I don't see how in the world I could possibly have been a Christian or be a Christian today except it had been for the church of Christ. The church of Christ that has preserved the teaching and has been teaching and preaching the Gospel across the years, I don't see how it's possible that we could keep alive except that it were for the church. And it's a part of the Gospel itself. The church is an expression of the Gospel, that where Christ is, there you'll find the church. FATHER VASILIOU: Ah--Bish0p--I belong to liturgical sacramental church. And I believe, of course, the sacraments are necessary. But I think even in the most loose, free Protestant or even Jewish type of a sectarianism, the sacred elements of religious prepagation and religious nurture have to be gotten through the church for the individual. Otherwise, the man is hopeless. You might have a mysticism of a type, there might be individ- uals who are mystics, but the average religious person, I think he has to gain, to attain his highest spiritual life within the frame of organized religion. REV.‘MR. POMEROY: Well, I would like to say that I think that w -- there are many things that we can do much better together than we can do separately. Now, the whole missionary program of any denomination, we do it much better as an organized church than we can possibly do it as individuals. iMissionaries sent out might not know where their bread and butter might come from next week if it were not for the organized church. The same is true at many points. In our Baptist Church in St. Paul, we have a Christian Center Program. Now, we're able to carry that on because we‘re an organized group. I couldn't carry that on by myself. It runs into thousands of dollars as a program. And so we find that we do many of these things to- gether. But from the point of view of the relationship of the individual with his God, it is humanly possible, I contend, for the individual to be a saved individual, to be a Christian individual, or a Jewish individual, perhaps even apart from his organization. DR. NELSON: ‘May I ask this question while it's still hot? Do you say that it’s perfectly possible to be a real Christian and not to be a member of the church? REV. MR. POMEROY: ‘Yes, I think that there are some peOple who might be able to do that. I think that an individual might be able even to go out as a missionary somewhere, or go out as a worker somewhere, far away from the confines of New York City, REW DR. BA! FA] ‘ MOD 244 or some of the large city centers of our country. They might be able to go out into the wilds somewhere and do a wonder- ful Christian piece of work--I think that’s entirely possible. They might be able to do that without having any church affilia- tion. REV} MR. ALLEN: Dr. Nelson, I could answer that perhaps when John Wesley rode the plains on horseback. He found.many a pioneer out there in little log cabins that didn’t belong to the Christian church, as formal members. And yet they had their family altar, they opened their Bibles, had their prayers. They were Christians. They were living as close to the throne of God as the man who belongs to the church. DR. NELSON: That was an unusual situation. With the extraordinary situation, there wasn’t a church there. But, to me it’s in- conceivable that a person should be a normal Christian and not be a part of the fellowship of the Christian church. It’s a real part of the revelation of God in Christ in the New Testament. BARRI RASKAS: You know, it's an interesting thing if you observe the history and growth of religions. You will find the real re- ligious advance and creativity has only come when peOple have broken away from established religion and gone on their own. I'd like to ask you to cite one genuine instance when a great movement has been formed within any organized body. It is only when people break away, go back to the very simple values, the very decent values, when they break away from the organized sense that we find real growth. You will find this in all the phases of religion! (Laughter by panel.) FATHER VASILIOU: I want to interject another idea here. While we humanly speak for and against it, I think there are a lot of pe0ple abroad who are members of the church, nominal members of the church. I think something ought to be said about that-- those people who are members of the church and say, "Well, I’m a member of the church and I think I'm all right." I think there's a deeper element involved here in the church membership and I think we ought to look into that angle. MODERATOR: Friends, this is democracy in action. I think this is really a wonderful discussion as you see it. These men are very serious. They believe what they say. They differ in their theology, but when it comes to American democracy, they stand united. And now Lloyd Gillmett. REVl‘MR. GILLMETT: Well, I was just going to make the comment that, even though there are people who apparently live a Christian life outside of the church, yet it is only because of the un- lcmc [ 245 conscious influence of the whole church community in which they are living without being definitely affiliated with it. They are getting their Christianity by a process of osmosis, if you wish to put it that way. And there is no question about that. Yet, it's the influence of the church upon those individuals, too, that enables them to live even a semblance of the Christian life. REv; Hm. ALLEN: Well, you fellows are using words I don’t understand, creativity and osmosis. You fellows will have to culture me after the program. I do think, though, that people are better if they go to church. They are better citizens, they build better homes, and they’re more honest and all of that. But I don't think the church, as has been indicated here tonight, is an absolute essential in order to reach the throne of God. DR. NELSON: 0n the other hand, I would say, even though someone may not be consciously affiliated with the church--it's a blind ‘spot that he isn’t--if he has Christ in his home and he has Christ in his heart, he’s got the church with him there be- cause the Bible and whatever he has learned of Christ comes from the church. You can’t--I can’t-~conceive of Christianity without the church. And I think it‘s absolutely necessary for doing the job that God has called the church to do. REV. MR. POMEROY: Well, the point here, that of course some of us are driving at, is this matter of whether it is absolutely essential to salvation, or to getting into the kingdom of God--some of us are holding that it is not essential. 0n the other hand, I want it to be clearly understood by any- one that we still do believe in the importance of the church. I believe that the church has been largely responsible for establishing schools, hospitals, mental institutions,--all the rest of these. And then as quickly as they could, the church has turned these over to secular organizations. I think the church has moved forward in a wonderful way. I think it is basically the Christian church, and the Jewish synagogue, the religious elements in the world, in other words, that have moved the whole level of civilization to a higher plane. I think that's awfully important for us to understand. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I think it is understandable that all who are baptized make up the church. And Jesus said, "Except ye be born again, be born of water and the spirit, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."1 'You've got to be baptized, be 1John 3:3,5. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Jesus answered, verily, verily I say unto thee, except a ma: be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of Go . 246 born of the water. That's what He meant by baptism, in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And you see, therefore, you cannot really enter into that kingdom unless you are bap- tized and are a member of the church. MODERATOR: Gentlemen, sorry that our time is up. And we must sum up our discussion so we can give a clear-cut answer on our posi- tion as churches. May I say this in behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They do believe that it is very necessary to belong to the church. But we do also believe that the individual who does not fully understand, and has accepted Christ, he is accepted in heaven. ‘However, when the light comes, and he understands that he ought to join the church, it becomes a matter of sal- vation at that point. FATHER VASILIOU: I would hate for anyone to think,and get the impres- sion that the church is irrelevant in the salvation of the individual. I, for myself, I want to say that man can‘t-- it would be impossible to be a Christian or to be a spiritual person and gain salvation without the aid, and the means of salvation and grace that the church is offering. DR. NELSON: Well, I want it made clear that I believe in the church. I believe that it‘s a divine institution, that it’s a part of the gift that God gave to us when He gave us Christ, that He planned it, that Christ loved it, and that we ought to love it and serve it and that we need it, and that we need the church to do the job that no one else is doing in all the world today, to keep the light of faith alive in our world. REV. MR. POMEROY: It seems to me that every individual should seek a fellowship of kindred souls, regardless of whatever fellowship. And I mean by that, and I want to make it very clear, that I do believe that every individual should be connected with a religious organization, a synagogue, or a church, where he will find the help he needs in his spiritual experience. I think it's wonderful, I think that everyone should, if it is at all possible. The onky point that I was trying to make was, that so far as I am concerned, it is not essential to salvation. REV} MR. GILLMETT: That's where you and I disagree, because as I have pointed out at the very beginning, I believe that the Christian life is entirely different from the ordinary natural life so many people are living in this country at the present time. In order to live that spiritual life, you have to live in the community of the church, enjoy the benefits and the grace and the strength which you receive through the sacraments. REV. MR. ALLEN: I’d like to say this to the hundreds of thousands of people who are listening, that God loves those of you who do MC 247 not belong to the church, just as much as those of us who do belong to the church. God wants you to join the church, however, not because it's essential for salvation, but because it will help you to find Christ even better, and maybe quicker than you would otherwise. RABBI RASKAS: While it is certainly desirable, of prime importance, for the individual to affiliate with like-minded individuals, to join his own particular religious organization-~Judiasm has held dear to its historic faith--namely, the rank of people of all faiths have a share in the world to come. And the only key that unlocks the door of salvation is the one labeled--righteousness--not creedalism, not denominationalism, but only righteousness. MODERATOR: Gentlemen, this was a wonderful discussion, and surely you have enjoyed this telecast. These men have spoken freely and clearly. P1 01 tC p! qU ca 248 Description and Analysis of the Program.--This description and analysis of the program was divided into four sections. Each section dealt with a specific phase of interest. 1. Overall Description and Analysis A. The Problqm: The American Religious Town Hall was discussing the question of "The Authority of the Church" in the studios of the American Broadcasting Company, in Chicago. The question before the panel may be synthesized to a relatively simple issue, "Can a person be saved, or receive eternal life, only as a member of a church or of a congregation, or is there salvation outside of the church?" Seven members appeared on this program, of whom five were Protestant (including the Moderator), one member was an Eastern Orthodox priest, and the other was a Jewish Rabbi. It was interesting to note that the Roman Catholic Church was not represented on this program. The Eleanor Roosevelt-Spellman confrontation involving the question of salvation within and without the church added to the Ameri- can temperament toward the question under discussion. B. The'Panel_and Guests: The American Religious Town Hall was seated in V formation, with the Moderator, Bishop Leiske, seated at the apex of the V. The panel was seated as follows: To the Bishop’s right was a special guest, Father Joseph Vesiliou, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic priest of Saint George Greek Orthodox Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Next was Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, of the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in Saint Paul. To Dr. Nelson’s right was Rev. Mahlon W. Pomeroy, pastor of the Park Baptist Church in Saint Paul. To the Mbderator's left was a special guest, Rabbi Bernard Raskas of the Temple Rev. Ir Paul. Of Salt Seventt name p] Panel u Dr. G1] a "hous a“110mm and his to his dignifi aimed 8 humor 0U member 249 Temple of Aaron Congregation in Saint Paul. To the Rabbi’s left was Rev. Ira B. Allen, pastor of Central Park Methodist Church in Saint Paul. To his left was Dr. Lloyd Gillmett, rector of Episcopal Church of Saint John the Evangelist in Saint Paul. Bishop A. A. Leiske is a Seventh-day Adventist clergyman. Each panel member was identified for television viewers by a name plaque just in front of each participant. Three members of the panel were dressed in clerical garb: Dr. Nelson, Father Vasiliou, and Dr. Gillmett. C. The Moderator: The Moderator functioned primarily as a "housekeeper" in this discussion program. He recognized his announcer, Dr. Shaw, also his office secretary, Miss Loa McConchie, and his panel, all in routine manner. The Moderator made an appeal to his viewers, seeking their loyalty to the program. His introduction of the two guests on the panel was smooth and dignified. His work throughout the discussion was directive, and aimed at regulatory sequence. He reflected serious moments and several humorous flashes. BishOp Leiske reminded the panel of closing time for summation views, which he directed in the final moments by calling each panel member by name. The gavel was used three times throughout the period. D. Egg-Lat: The overall format of this discussion ElPpeared to have been 1) symposium, 2) panel discussion, and 3) sympo- s1mm sunsnation. While the symposium in the introductory period was slightly modified by an early exchange of views before each speaker -—._ __ ,— ’——.— ‘ ——- —-—._h._ m 10 8h Th. er Cat Jae of Win the H firs 250 had been given an opportunity for an introductory statement, yet this phase, the introductory speeches, technically may be classed as symposium in type. The panel discussion followed in give-and-take form as speaker after speaker called for recognition and was acknowledged by the Moderator. In the summation’s phase, the panel adhered almost rigidly to symposium style. Each member took his turn at the request of the ‘Moderator, and in a brief time each summarized his point of view. II. Description and Analysis of the Work of theJModerator A. Pre-Sympgsium.Comments: Within ten seconds after the program was on the air, the Moderator announced, "The American Relig- ious Town Hall Meeting is now in session." This was followed by a sharp tap of the gavel which the Moderator held poised in his hand. Then the Moderator immediately turned to Dr. Shaw, the program.snnounc- er, who in turn made a special appeal to the television viewers. The cameras again turned to the Moderator. Bishop Leiske was smiling. He appeared to be wearing a sports jacket--the loud flecked pattern in the suit jacket gave the impression of a sports jacket. The Moderator opened his pre-symposium comments with, "Ladies and Gentlemen," then proceeded to thank the viewers for the privilege of coming into their homes. He extolled the virtues of "the American way of life," then proceeded to introduce his two guests, first Father Vesiliou, then Rabbi Raskas. The panel members then intro- duced one another in counterclockwise sequence. The Moderator’s introduction of the two guests was brief, 251 cordial, and precise. His diction was clear, and his image expressed warmth and confidence. Following the introductions of the panel members, the Moderator asked the cameras to focus on his office secretary, Miss Loa McConchie. Miss McConchie was smiling while the Moderator made a sweeping invita- tion, "If you have any problems, address the American Religious Town Hall Meeting," and emphasized, "If you have any question or any problem, we'll be glad to help you." Following this brief invitation to the viewers, the Moderator presented the topic, "The Authority of the Church," and immediately recognized Rev. Mr. Gillmett. B. During the Symposium: The Bishop presented the first speaker by a simple statement, "we recognize the Rev. Mr. Gillmett." The Moderator recognized the second speaker, Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, then the third, Rev.IMr. Allen. At this point, Rev.‘Mr. Gillmett and Rev. ‘Mr. Allen exchanged thoughts. The Moderator waited until the confrontation had reached an impasse, then directed a humorous question at one of his guests. "Rabbi Raskas, which church are you going to join?" to which the Rabbi humorously but firmly replied, "I think I’ll stay with the synagogue." The Chairman still had not heard from one guest, but recog- nized Dr. Nelson. Finally, 275 seconds into the discussion (four minutes and thirty-five seconds), the Moderator openly invited Father Vasiliou to join the discussion, "Father Vesiliou, please." With every member having now spoken once, the symposium method was discarded and a more free give-and-take pattern emerged. S.‘ be Of Wi Pa} 31115 See toP: nize 252 C. During the Panel Discussion: The discussion moved along smoothly and harmoniously. The Moderator laughed frequently, and occasionally indulged in a piece of humor to help the flow of emotions. For example, Rev. Mr. Allen, at one point, demanded, "Dr. Nelson and Lloyd Gillmett, I want you to listen, now," which brought a spell of laughter to the panel, to which the Moderator laughingly added, "We always listen when you speak, Ira." The main body of the discussion was moderated with relative ease--a recognition of speakers, a tap of the gavel at two points, and an occasional look at the clock to keep time. About midway through the discussion period, the Moderator took out time to recognize the television audience. "Friends, this is democracy in action," and added his pleasure at the spirit of the discussion, "These men are very serious, and they believe what they say." TheiModerator acknowledged that differences of theological belief cannot be readily bridged, but praised the panel for its spirit of democracy in frankly airing opposing views. The Mbderator's work during the discussion was purely routine, with a recognition of hands and time absorbing his interests. D. During the Summation: The BishOp broke into the latter part of the discussion. "Gentlemen, sorry that our time is up, and we must sum up our discussion." The Moderator here took a thirty-five- second interval to express the Seventh-day Adventist belief on the topic. The summation was orderly. Each member spoke as he was recog- nized by the Chairman. Each summation recorded was a thirty-second 253 resume, or less, except for the comments of Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, who spoke forty seconds. The Moderator concluded the discussion by reaffirming the merits of the program, "Surely you have enjoyed this telecast." The JModerator again praised the panel members for their democratic freedoms expressed throughout the program. Bishop Leiske concluded the program by drawing attention to the Charter of the Town Hall, which he read in part, namely, that the wan Hall is Open to all who wish to be heard, regardless of race or creed. c : l<..lCUI QEwL. -w>u~m~uEH VCOUW“: max» NR .HNH 254 omqa cad mfim nmm nNN mag ONH ooH ed0\ .oxoam umosoa gonna some cocoome mo umnasc fimuOD may .m:o«umm«oauumm fimsoa>uoag no names: ~muou one _aaaa \ it 4: 4‘4‘ _ a a a a a \akkk _ k H \ « asks are... sake aaaa use... _ \ t.a k_« t \ a.a.a H t .1 .fi k an nouauunaH m moumouonH m .ooumavon nouumauowuumn man exams“ \ .ecoquoe wouumaESm onu exams. _ _ .aoo«uoo asaeooahm unu exams” A v .uaau wnuxmoen mo uoaoooe o>am exumz_ k .mzmumn «%\aaaaa\aaaa\aaaaaa\Asa»; :32 ”asaaata \akakk¥a\aaaaa\ketasaakaa «\aatkaa\AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavDuos—:3 Haaaaaaak_ aaa\akaaaaa\kaaatkaaaaaat asta\akta.sta¥a\Aaaakaaasav mouuaom _ataaaagxaaasa\ataa\«a aaa\atkaaa\Aatakatataaasav souguz « a a \ a «he a «_a \ a a.a « a \ A a a.a_a a a_« v assume _««a#_ aaataaaa*\uaaat\Aaaaaaaaavsofiaag \a\a\akstaaa\a\e\#\aaa\Ass; 3.33 ¢ nooasz Bade uumnu soak oouosuomuuaua ~m>uouaH uncommoo>qm .HHH .Hocmm one no cowuoavouunq m.u0umuoooz.o£u condom“ uo: moov mafia coaumauouuumm t1 Se fc as Ea ti1 255 IV. Description and Analysisgof the Work of the Participants A. Five-Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart Interpretatigg: The panel spoke a period of 1430 seconds, or a total of twenty-three minutes and fifty seconds. The speaking time for each panelist is recorded as follows: Pomeroy 335 seconds Gillmett 315 " Nelson 225 " Vasiliou 170 " Raskas 145 " Allen 140 " Leiske lOO " With three religious bodies represented on this interfaith program, it is interesting to note that the Protestant faith, with fewer representatives, occupied 78% of the speaking time. The Eastern Orthodox speaker, Father Vasiliou, occupied 11.9% of the time for his faith, and the Jewish Rabbi spoke 10.1% of the time for his church. B. Participation Schedule: A total of forty-seven par- ticipations was recorded throughout the twenty-three minute, fifty- second discussion period. The participation schedule recorded is as follows: Leiske 9 Gillmett 8 Pomeroy 7 Nelson 7 " Allen 6 Raskas 5 Vasiliou 5 Rev. Mr. Gillmett scored the highest number of participations as a panelist. In terms of percentages, the Jewish Rabbi and the Eastern Orthodox priest each showed a total of 10.6% of the participa- tion schedule, with the Protestant panel sharing the balance of 78.7%. VC PI a1 Wh: be: at} Cot 256 The psychological reaction to this participation imbalance among the three faiths is grounds for some study by the Town Hall. C. Panel Members in Inter-Actionary Exchanges: Father Vasiliou spoke with a distinct accent, which made it a little difficult at times to follow him clearly. His general decorum, his professional dignity, however, far exceeded the accentual difficulty. He blended very acceptably into the pattern. The entire panel showed a most cordial spirit, though Rev. Mr. Gillmett occasionally became overly enthusiastic, yet not at all objec- tionable. The men addressed each other in dignified respect. At no time did the discussion get out of hand in a flurry of voices. A.smooth, steady pattern prevailed throughout the entire program. Humor, seriousness, deep conviction were a part of the over- all interaction observed throughout. Rabbi Raskas, on one occasion, resorted to a defensive retort when Rev. Mr. Gillmett maintained his theological view that one had to belong to the church to be saved. "I think it is an act of fundamental atheism to say that God is only limited to this one specific group." Other than this brief confrontation, the program moved with cordiality and logical progression. CHAPTER VII TWO PROBLEMS CENTERED IN SOCIAL AND MORAL CONCEPTS Problem One: "The Control of the Population," A Religio-Social Issue A.Brief'HistoricalTBackground of the Issue.--Certainly one of the ranking questions facing many countries today is the question of population control. If current statistics bear any relevance to sound thinking, then the future of civilization appears doomed. It would seem that a massive population explosion has all but shattered the tranquility of this planetary living pattern. If the current statis- tics are even reasonably accurate, then the projected birth rate and population increase in the next several decades will place a heavy burden upon the world’s economy and culture, as well as upon mankind's destiny as a civilized being. The concerns expressed by the panel of the American Religious Town Hall are studied views of a contemporary widespread concern by political, economic, and religious leaders all over the world. India, Japan, and China are among some of the countries giving considerable study to the problem of papulation control; and numerous fears of over- population are being expressed. The growth of population, now rapid enough to threaten to overwhelm even the potentialities of modern science, has revived interest in Malthusianism, a theory that many had 257 258 written off as no longer relevant to the present-day world.1 Thomas RobertiMalthusl Theories.--Thomas Robert Malthus (1766- 1834), an English economist, appears to have been the first man in western civilization to show a studied concern for population expansion in relationship to food subsistence levels. 'Malthus spent a good por- tion of his life collecting data on population growth. His Essay on the Pgigciple of Population, first published in 1798, reflects his findings and his theories on population control. The basic Malthusian theory may be summed in a singular para- graph which he first penned at the close of the eighteenth century. It is referred to frequently as the law of geometrical and mathematical ratios. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison to the second. Malthus added: I say that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. With these theories in mind,'Mm1thus proceeded to define papu- lation control as, "preventive checks," and "positive checks."4 iMoral restraint, Malthus taught, is the main preventive check to papulation LWilliamPetersen, "Population," Collier’s Encyclopedia, 1965 ed., Vbl. XIX. 2Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Population as it Affects the Futureélmprovemgnt of Society (London: Printed by J. Johnson in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1798), p. 14. 3Ibid . 41b id. cc be th fu 01 Ma as to sa fe 259 control. To accomplish this, he believed that sexual congress should be limited in such a manner that children would be conceived only in the quantity that parents could afford to support and sustain. Malthus further taught that marriage, wherever possible, should be limited to older years, thus reducing the number of pregnancies among the young. .Malthus would today conceivably support such contraceptive devices as lead to family planning and pregnancy spacing, thougthalthus seems to have opposed any views that would permit the free and unrestricted satisfactions of sexual polarization. The energies thus expended, he felt, would go into work and a better quality of economic production. 260 Full Text, "The Control of the Population," Transcribed from Film No. 33 MODERATOR: And now, friends, we have such an unusual topic for this REV. MR. REV.‘MR. telecast, and I know that it is going to create not only interest, but it might even create a sensation, you can't tell, and . . . This is the question, "The Control of the Population." Is it necessary to control the world population in order to maintain an equal balance? Lloyd Gillmett. GILLMETT: I certainly think that it is most necessary. Since 1840, the world population has more than doubled, from one billion up to two billion, two hundred million. And--you know, it takes two and one-half acres of land to support one individual on a good standard of living. The world in which we're living, when you consider the arable acres of land, simply cannot support the three billions of peeple which will be on the face of the earth some fifty years hence. So it's most essential for us to control the p0pu1a- tion in one way or another. POMEROY: We see in India, of course, what can happen by hav- ing a population greater than the advance of science has made it possible for them to produce food. There may be great changes in the future so that much smaller areas of land may produce the necessary food, but there is still the problem of education. There is still the problem of proper training and background for children, so that it seems that there is some desirability in the control of population within certain, and in certain directions. DR. EDWARD F. FLYNN: I think we‘re taking a pessimistic position here REV. MR. on the amount of land it's going to take to support each person. We mustn't forget the atomic age. We mustn't forget science. We mustn’t forget the wonderful things that peOple are doing around the world today. We mustn't forget, too, that atomic power, in a short time, will be taking the ocean's water and making fresh water from it, very cheaply, and we'll be raising many crops on the deserts of the United States and Africa. ‘ ALLEN: I don’t think that India's population is their real down-to-earth basic trouble. I think that the real trouble in India is the ignorance and the superstition of the people, the lack of knowledge of knowing how to live. They have a large enough country and enough arable land to support their mil- lions and millions of people if they were not so superstitious and not so ignorant. REV. MR. REV. MR. 261 GILLMETT: I’ve got some figures here which show that India has 400 million people, and really, from the land which is arable , it can support only 300 million, really, on a good standard of living. Now, in EurOpe, in England, seven-tenths of an acre of land; Italy, seven-tenths of an acre; Greece, a little less than that; in China, five peOple for every one acre of land. You see, the world is becoming over-papulated when you consider the soil which is available for good production of food, and to maintain people in the same standard of living that we want them to have. POMEROY: Well, I did have a comment that I wanted to bring in here. It seems to me that in India, one of the reasons for ignorance, one of the reasons for the lack of opportunity that is involved there is in part the over-population. If there was not so much over-population, there would be the opportunity for education, there would be opportunity for the advancement of the individual. And if you could thereby lift the level of society, you would not have the lack that there is now in the matter of food, the lack in every aspect, perhaps, of life in many of the people of India. RABBI RASKAS: Let‘s leave India alone and come back to America. I REV. MR. want to speak frankly about the subject that is facing all of us--name1y, birth control. Don't you think that it's about time that peOple became wise and understanding in the ways of life? How many children can one raise intelligently on a certain financial level? When a mother is ill, and pregnancy might be a threat to her health, is pregnancy wise in such a parenthood? How can we raise a great many children in one family and give them all an equal amount of time and love and affection? To be a parent is a full-time job, and one must plan parenthood wisely, safely, and soundly. . GILLMETT: In the past, of course, the population was con- trolled a great deal by war and by disease. But you know the life expectancy has increased so tremendously. In 1892, you could expect to live only thirty-six years, but at the present time you can at least expect to live to sixty-seven years. You see, that increases the population again. KEMPE: I'm not concerned about the support of the increased population as much as I'm concerned about the local family unit, and its ability to take care of its children. We could take the entire population of America and place it in the State of Montana, and have only just a limited number of people within every square acre. We have here unlimited resources to support the people of our own country, and I think that will obtain also in some of the other continents. However, I am not against the planned parenthood, which we are discussing tonight. 262 REV. MR. ALLEN: I think, answering you, Rabbi Raskas, since you're sitting so close here, I think that one of our difficulties in America is not that the families are too large here in America, but I think we in America will have to admit that we are a rather selfish people, that our standard of living is far be- yond anything else anywhere in the world. In fact, it’s too good for us. And people, instead of—-they'd rather have a new Buick, let's say, than a baby. And so they have one Buick each year, and fOrget about the baby. That's one of the troubles here in America. We'll have to admit it. We're too selfish and we‘re living, we're on too high a standard of living. DR. FLYNN: Aren't we forgetting what the Bible says is the purpose of life? Weren't Adam and Eve told to go out and procreate? What’d we get married for? Shouldn't we speak of those things, especially you men who are clergymen? Don't we believe in what the church teaches? My church says it's against birth control, and I think we all should be. And, I think if we'll practice continence, we can take care of ourselves. RABBI RASKAS: There are several purposes involved in marriage, and one of the basic reasons for marriage, of course, is parent- hood. But companionship figures largely. I think there is nothing more terrible in this world than to bring an unwanted child into this world. Certain peOple are not emotionally ready to have children, and for them to bring children into the world will only inflict more psychological scars on a world that's already over-burdened. We’ve got to treat these things realistically. We just can't bring children into the world without bearing the full re- sponsibility of raising those children properly, loving them properly, providing for their future properly. What if a family raises a dozen children and can't support them? Who'll support them? Society. Where will the mother and father be when the time comes to marry them off, and take care of them properly in the future? REV. MR. POMEROY: I have been happy to see what I believe is the trend in our country toward larger families now in prosperous times. I think we see a very definite difference in it between now and the time of the depression years. I think that's a very wholesome trend, and I think that it indicates a lack of sel- fishness that has been implied here. We are selfish, I suppose, to a certain extent, but on the other hand, I think that basically we are ready to take on the responsibility of children as rapidly as we can adequately support those children. 263 REV. MR. GILLMETT: I want to say something in respect to that which Dr. Flynn has said, that his church is against birth control. His church, in fact, is the only church which has legislated on birth control, permitting two methods by which birth is controlled. The other churches, except the Anglican Commun- ion, at the Lambeth Conference, did legislate, saying that one method could be used, but it had in certain very limited cases advocated abstinence. But there is birth control in your church just as much as in other churches. DR. FLYNN: You are mistaken! The Pope has come out absolutely against those methods to which you have referred. REV. MR. GILLMETT: Now, continence is another method of birth control. MODERATOR: Gentlemen, this is a wonderful discussion, and you are bringing out some very fine points. But I think there is another point that this panel ought to give attention to, and I need to enter into the discussion here to point something out, and that is, the sins of the world. I think that if we would pay a little more attention to some of the teachings of the Scripture and convert the world, it's possible that that might control the population to some extent. Here I read the Master’s prediction. Jesus points out, if we fail to pay attention to His teaching, civilization might collapse. And He says that "as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark."1 In other words, in the days of Noah, they didn't even recognize marriage. And it's possible that, with so much lawlessness going on, and a good many children being born out of wedlock, that it might have some bearing on the papulation. It's possible that we ought to preach the Gospel a little more forcefully. REV. MR. ALLEN: I'd like to ask a question of the panel. Anyone on the panel can attempt to answer it if they'd like to. I'd like to know what you fellows would do here in .America with people who are morons, and people who are criminals? Should we say, as Nazi Germany said before World War II, that you cannot get married, that you do not have a right to get married, and to bring a family into the world? Or should we allow them to be married and to bring in a lot of little morons? Now, what would you do with that? I want to ask you that question. I'd like to have an answer for myself and for the rest of the people who are listening. 1Luke 17: 26-27. 264 REV. MR. POMEROY: Well, I would say this. For one thing, it is the intelligence of the individual, if it's a basic inherited intelligence, it will probably carry on for the next genera- tion. If it is brought on by some other cause, it is not necessarily inherited. I think, in other words, that this allowing to marry and prOpagate depends a great deal on what the causes are for those matters of shortcomings, mentally speaking. REV. MR. KEMPE: Churches have been mentioned here that may have de- clared themselves for or against planned :nrenthood. The segment of the Lutheran Church to which I belong adopted a set of statements relative to this matter at its annual convention last June. It covers a couple of pages in a printed volume. In it are some of these statements, that, of course, children are a heritage of the Lord, that they may bring much joy. They may also bring much heaviness to parents. And normal couples will eXpect to have children. But children can expect love; they expect care and nurture. They expect that which can be given them. It's a tragedy when they are not wanted. RABBI RASKAS: The Jewish point of view is basically that the sexual urge within men and women is wholesome and wonderful when used wisely and properly. It must be used wisely and properly, and the only way which we can teach people to use it wisely and properly is to inform them, to teach them to have respect for other people, not to use them, but to honor them and to respect them, and to use all of their human God-given gifts wisely. If we do these things, we need not worry. We won't save them by hiding information from them, only by giving them the truth, and in wise guidance. This is the way we're going to solve the problems of the world. And if we give them wise guidance on birth control, then they will raise children in love, they will want their children, and they will love them. REV. MR. GILLMETT: As far as I can see, there is no Scriptural objec- tion to birth control. And also, as far as I can understand the Scripture, there is no moral objection. Some churches have taken to the fact that you should not prevent conception. They say that is immoral. But I wonder which is more immoral, to prevent people from coming into the world, being born, giving life to all, or to let 100,000,000 people starve to death, even as they did during the last century in China. Now, that's an immoral thing as far as I'm concerned. MODERATOR: Rev. Lloyd Gillmett, in view of the fact that there might not be a text of Scripture that wouldn't cause you to say that the church wouldn't have a right to legislate in matters of that kind, would you? 265 REV. MR. GILLMETT: Well, our church bases all of its legislation upon the Scripture. I don’t think a church should base its legis- lation on anything but the Scripture. MODERATOR: Dr. Flynn, I think you ought to come in on this. DR. FLYNN: I believe that when the Scriptures were written there was no such thing as we're doing nowadays not to have kiddies. (Considerable vocal confusion followed here. A number of voices were clamoring for recognition.) RABBI RASKAS: Let's clarify this a bit. What do we mean by legislate? The church has every right to legislate for the people who have joined this church, but they have no right to legislate for the rest of the peOple in a democracy. People in a democ- racy have a right to the free access to all the information at their fingertips. As a matter of fact, we owe it to them. We must teach them all about life. If the church wants to re- strict this to the members of its own church, that’s fine, but it cannot do so for the rest of the citizens in a democracy. ‘MODERATOR: May I say this, that Rabbi Raskas is correct. When it comes to matters of legislation, I repeat again, that a church has a right to legislate in its own behalf, but it cannot force that legislation upon the rest of the citizens of the nation. REV. MR. ALLEN: As a Methodist, I'm not against birth control entire- ly, but I am against birth control when it feeds to the sel- fishness of mankind. And Lloyd, a hundred million people starved to death in China, not because there was not enough food. At the same time they were starving to death, we were killing off our little pigs over here. We were letting our corn rot in the bin, because we wouldn't share it with the rest of the world. I say, we have to learn to share, and use this kind of a control to satisfy our own selfishness when used in the wrong way. REV. MR. GILLMETT: May I answer you. The land is not able to support as many people as we have on the earth at the present time, on a standard of living to which we are accustomed. Now, I want to say something more about what the Rabbi has said on this matter of legislation. He said that everybody has the right to full information. I maintain that the laws on the books of our states which prohibit the giving of infor- mation by doctors to people in regard to the control of parent- hood are an infringement upon our fundamental freedoms, upon our fundamental rights as citizens of this country. 266 ‘MODERATOR: ‘May I call your attention again to the fact that this is a very important discussion here. And I think that we ought to talk very frankly and that we ought to give our attention to it. Isn't it true, gentlemen of the panel, that the commandments are violated to a great extent? If people would pay more attention to the Gospel, and to the truth,--and isn't it also a fact that it is clearly pointed out in the Bible that, for instance, in Acts,1 that God has made all nations of one blood, has determined their bounds and their habitation beforehand? Isn't God still living and ruling in the affairs of nations and people? Doesn't God come in here some place? RABBI RASKAS: Yes, but God has also given man the free will, the right to choose, the right to make decisions. He's not only given it to man, he's posed this as a solemn obligation upon man. As man must make decisions about other things, he must make decisions about his life, the lives of his children, how he will raise his children. These are the fundamental obliga- tions upon men and women. And we cannot shirk them off by saying that this is what God will do, and God has determined. God has given man free will, and this is predominant in all of our thinking. REV.‘MR. KEMPE: Will you give me a quotation from the Bible on that, please? RABBI RASKAS: This doesn't have to be given in the Bible, the whole range of tradition, because if we're not given free will, you would not have the opportunity to sin as well. This is funda- mental to all of human existence. The freedom to sin or to do what is good. MODERATOR: I might say this. There is a passage in the New Testament that says, he that does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel.2 I think that a man should carry more responsibility than to produce children. I think he has a definite responsibility. In fact, the wise man says he that doesn't work ought to go to the ant heap and learn how to work. RABBI RASKAS: It is also written in Deuteronomy, Dr. Flynn, that, "See, I have given unto you this day the life and the death. Ye shall choose life, and ye shall live."4 This is clearly an 1Acts 17:26. 21 Timothy 5:8. 3Proverbs 6:6. 4Deuteronomy 30:15. 267 element of choice given by God to man. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I think that this matter of choice, whether or not you're going to have children, have a family, is a moral one. You have the privilege, and it's a moral choice that you're making when you're bringing a child into the world. And it's --if you don't remove the choice by removing the planned parenthood plan--then you're not making a moral decision any more at all. REV. MR. KEMPE: It is the spirit in which the control is exercised that decides the rightness or the wrongness of it. Our con- science, under the direction of proper medical care and ad- vice, has to be brought into the picture of controlled parent- hood, or planned parenthood. REV. MR. POMEROY: The only thing that I can say is that, as an individual hitches his wagon to a star, he still needs to keep his feet on the ground. In other words, 1th a wonderful thing for a couple to have children, but you have to be realistic about it. MODERATOR: And now summing up. There's a wonderful commandment in Exodus there, "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."1 I think that if the human family would honor God and would recognize Him as their heavenly Father, that He would guide them in all of their spiritual and physical activities in this world. DR. FLYNN: I still think we have no right to control birth or to plan parenthood in the way it is generally considered. I want to repeat that through research, we're going to be able to take care of all the people in the world, if they are willing to be taken care of. REV. MR. KEMPE: Unrestrained production of children without realistic regard to God-given responsibilities may be as sinful as com- plete avoidance of parenthood. REV. MR. POMEROY: Flowers in June may bring wonderful memories in December. I like to feel that as children are brought into the world, we find in that experience great blessing in years that are to come. I think it gives us a great opportunity to serve in the kingdom work as we bring children into the world, as we accept the responsibility of guiding another human soul. Now, that is true whether our faith be Christian or whether it be Jewish. It's a wonderful privilege and a wonderful Oppor- * 1Exodus 20:12. 268 tunity, and I think it's one that God has given us. I think, however, we do have to put into that this matter of planned parenthood for the good of the parent and for the good of the child. REV. MR. GILLMETT: The great increase in population, 300 billions of people by the end of the next fifty years, together with in- creased life expectancy, and a shortage of arable land in the world, regardless of all our scientific advancements, simply cannot make up for the need of controlling population. We cannot support all of the peOple boarding in the world at the present time. We've got to control it. There's no Scriptural objection to it, and no moral objection to it. It's a God- given right to every individual to control and plan his family. REV. MR. ALLEN: I believe in planned families when it's honestly done to protect the health of the mother, or to protect the health of the child that is born. But I honestly believe that most of the planned families, many of the planned families, are done because people want new automobiles every year instead of having a baby, and they're selfish beyond means. RABBI RASKAS: Living together in sacred marriage is the finest ex- pression of people who love one another. And the natural expression of that bond is a child, but only if the child is planned for, can be born in an envelope of love, and can expect to receive the support, materially, physically, spiri- tually, and emotionally of his parents. ‘MODERATOR: Thank you, gentlemen of the panel. Now, while these men may not agree in their religious approach, in theology, they 'do agree that under the American flag they have a right to differ. 269 Description and Analysis of the Program.--This description and analysis of the program was divided into four sections. Each section dealt with a specific phase of interest. I. Overall Description and Analysis A. The Problem: The American Religious Town Hall panel was dealing with a very controversial and relevant issue, "The Control of the Population." The United States has for many years shown little direct concern in the matter, basically because a high birth rate was desirable for its survival. To populate the United States, the nation has followed two basic patterns: 1) unrestricted births, and 2) immi- gration. Subsequently, the population has risen enormously since the turn of the century. Since World War II, the United States has become increasingly aware of its rapid population growth. From an ever-increasing crescen- do of voices-~economists, clergymen, political leaders, and sociolo- gists, the concern for this increase has mounted steadily. Unemploy- ment, the heavy influx of population to the cities, and migration of semi-skilled workers to these cities hawaproduced massive slum condi- tions, necessitating more and more state aid, federal aid, relief monies to sustain these populations. Consequently, more and more cries have gone up demanding some form of birth control, some form of planned parenthood. The United States is basically split on the question of birth control. The Roman Catholic Church is totally opposed to such means of birth control that Operate outside of the forces of the natural human menstrual rhythm. The Protestant and Jewish populations largely support 270 birth control as epitomized in the Planned Parenthood Federation. The Catholic Church has repeatedly blocked attempts at repeal of birth control laws, especially in such states as Massachusetts and Connec- ticut where the church has majority pOpulations. The American Religious Town Hall is basically concerned with discussing the pros and cons of the issues. B. The Panel and Guests: The panel was seated in a V formation, with Bishop A. A.‘Leiske, the Moderator, seated at the apex. The American Religious Town Hall emblem, a globe surrounded by a fan of flags, was directly behind the panel. To the Moderator's immediate right sat Dr. Edward F. Flynn, a Roman Catholic layman, an attorney in Saint Paul. To his right sat Rev. J. Walton Kempe, associate pastor of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Saint Paul. To his right sat Rev. Mahlon W. Pomeroy, pastor of the Park Baptist Church of Saint Paul. To the Moderator's immediate left sat Rabbi Bernard Raskas of Temple of Aaron Congregation of Saint Paul. To his left was Rev. Ira B. Allen of the Central Park.Methodist Church of Saint Paul. To his immediate left was Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett of the Episcopal Church of Saint John the Evange- list of Saint Paul. The panel appeanulmore sober than generally, an expression ‘Nhich could be the result of certain tensions due to the extremely <=ontroversia1 tOpic before them. This thought was born out in the lfloderator's introduction of the topic, by referring to it as being not <3nly "unusual," but "it might even create a sensation." The panel was, <>f course, fully aware of Dr. Flynn's presence, who was the Roman Catholic, and whose views were deeply entrenched in anti-birth 271 control legislation. C. The Moderator: The Moderator participated nine times in the general discussion, clarifying, redirecting, drawing attention to, et cetera. ‘His total participation in the discussion amounted to 250 seconds of time. Outside of the early expressions of tenseness on the Bishop's face at the onset of the program, he returned to his smiling, congenial manner. He introduced the panel, directed the discussion period, and asked each panel member to make a summation speech near the close of the program. His involvement appeared largely routine in the sense of acting as a chairman. D. Format: The format followed much the same pattern of the other programs studied thus far. The program began in sympos- ium style, with three speakers having their first thoughts expressed, then the program moved directly into a full-fledged discussion with participation by the full panel. Panel members were orderly and respectful in their views, though firm in their convictions. The summations were orderly, with only three members exceeding the halfeminute summation period. The reading of the Charter closed that part of the program immediately involving the panel. II. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator A. Pre-Symposium Comments: The program was officially opened by the Moderator who, with his panel, was seated. "The American Religious Town Hall Meeting is now in session." He brought down the 272 gavel, then turned the program over to Dr. Shaw for announcements and promotional matters. Following this break, the program again focused upon the ‘Moderator. In a five-step sequence, the Moderator did the following: I) thanked Dr. Shaw, "Thank you, Dr. Shaw;" 2) expressed gratitude to the television audience for the privilege that the panel had in coming "into your homes;" 3) reminded the television audience that the Town 'Hall was designed to promote and preserve "our American democracy;" 4) made an indirect appeal for fan mail by telling his TV audience how happy the Town Hall was to hear from them; and 5) proceeded to introduce his guests, Dr. Flynn and Rev.‘Mr. Kempe. In introducing Dr. Flynn, the Moderator took special recog- nition of the presence of a Roman Catholic in these words, "I'm sure your people will be glad to hear you and see you on this telecast." This indirect word of welcome anticipated a cordial response from the Roman Catholic viewing audience. Immediately following the introduction period, the Moderator recognized the Town‘Hall Secretary, Miss LoahMeConchie, who spoke and promoted TVeviewer correspondence. The topic was introduced with a trace of tension in the Bishop's face. The introduction was a three-pronged comment: 1) "an unusual topic," 2) "might even be a sensation," and 3) "how necessary to control population?" With these preliminaries, the program moved into the symposium phase. The Moderator spoke a total of 100 seconds in the pre-symposium period. 273 B. During_the Symposium: The Moderator in this discussion program departed slightly from his usual manner of informality, and became not only rather formal, but showed a degree of tension in this program as it got underway. Such an expression as, "I will now recog- nize the Rev. Mr. Gillmett," is a most formal eXpression. An air of formality appeared throughout this entire symposium period. The speeches appeared formal, parts of them were read. It is generally conceded that the symposium type of public address tends to be formal. The Symposium is more formal than other types, both in organization and in the manner in which it is conducted. It is generally used with large audiences.1 A marked degree of tension was present. The Moderator had sketched a brief background to the problem; he had noted the topic's potential as a discussion issue. "It might even be a sensation," he said. The Moderator continued to show a degree of tension as the program got underway. The panel members plunged immediately into the symposium, each presenting a resume of some facet of topic interest. Except for recog- nizing the speakers, the Moderator's work during the symposium period appeared to be routine chairmanship or "housekeeping." Amidst an aware- ness that "birth control" or "population control" was a controversial topic, the Moderator appeared fully alert and on his job. In an almost pragmatic manner the panelists opened up vistas of thought for discussion. Gillmett introduced the question of land needs, whereas Pomeroy raised the question of India's population and Inass poverty. Dr. Flynn firmly opposed birth control in any form. ¥ 1Giles Wilkeson Gray and Waldo W. Braden, Public Speaking; Pry;- SLLples and Practice (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963), p. 418. 274 C. Dugiggrthe Panel Discussion: The‘Moderator recognized the panel members in the following order: 1) Gillmett, 2) Pomeroy, 3) Flynn, 4) Allen, 5) Gillmett, 6) Pomeroy, and 7) Raskas. In other words, he permitted Gillmett and Pomeroy to speak twice before Raskas gave his first speech. Three minutes and five seconds elapsed before Rabbi Raskas came into the discussion. The program moved along smoothly in a give-and-take exchange of views and ideas for a period of 540 seconds (nine minutes) before the Moderator intervened. The intervention was characterized by an eighty-five-second observation which began with appreciation to the panel, "A wonderful discussion," and shifted to a "but." "But I think there is another point that this panel ought to give attention to." The Moderator then invited the panel to examine the "sins of the world," and "as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man," "marrying and giving in marriage." The ‘Moderator made the point that the promiscuous and indiscriminate "marital relationships" tend to breed and increase the population. The IModerator wished that the panel might consider the fact that, "A good many children are born out of wedlock." The point was apparently accepted by the panel, for Rev. Mr. Allen spoke immediately and sought an understanding of what can be done about "morons breeding morons." The program moved again freely in a give-and-take fashion. However, just before the summation period, the Moderator came on again. At this point in the discussion, he appeared slightly disturbed by the panel’s evasiveness of a point he considered important. "Doesn't God 275 came in here someplace?" What the Moderator was saying basically was this, that while population explosion was to a degree an economic-birth control question, it was also a question of recognizing God's presence in the life, and thereby bringing into the world only such children as are wanted and can be cared for. ‘He admonished the panel and the viewers, that people should pay more "attention to the Gospel." The point he seemed to make here was that godliness and biological drives are related. On only one other occasion did the Moderator openly interpret an observation by observing the Commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother."1 The Moderator assisted Rabbi Raskas, who had just been challenged by Rev. Mr. Kempe, to produce a Bible text to sustain the argument that family relationships are freewill relationships. The Bishop believed that the family honoring relationship was a freewill relationship. D. Durigg the Summation: The summation period was relatively smooth. Each speaker took his turn, recapitulated his views, and solidified his point or points. The Moderator, following the last speaker, Rabbi Raskas, entoned, "Thank you, gentlemen of the panel." With a clang of the gavel, he sounded the closing minutes of the tele- cast. ‘He noted that, "While these men may not agree in their religious approach, in theology, they do agree that under the American flag they have a right to differ." The Moderator then turned the program over to Dr. Shaw for summation announcements. 1Exodus 20:12. 276 mmN CON nma om omm ml ea ad .oxoem Lenses House some mocoooe mo Hogans fimuou emu .mcoaumefioauume Hmsou>uoeu mo amass: ~mu0u may .oocmsumn ecuumeqowuume .noOHHoe eoqumeesm moumuuoaH m moumouoeH m at same \ o5 exnmz _ H .eoouume asumoeahm one exams. A v .oauu wewxmoeo mo eoaoome m>au expel” t Haasa.\«a\e \sasatsaasaxtaaakat \s¥k«a*\atat«tsa\as \«sst\¥ttk¥ats \skksaskxastka\¥k«¥ _# \saaxa\ssaasks\aa as Hasta\aas\s\eaaakk.¢ _a«_\aattt\ta .¥ Hass_\aka\ \ \asaa\¥ka\#aaataaaa .Hmcme one no soauosoouueq m.u0umuooozwonu omsaona mm umaaaz Saab * k * ¥ k ya k 4: UOG ~QZHUEH \atktaxskkka. aaxaakktaaaav assume Haas—as. assaaxastaaav s33. gaskets—aka aa\%s«¥kea\a «\Akktttaaaavuuflafiao stata_\ata\a sasxaatkaatav mousse.” a\mkk««tsatav mason at«\aatka«¥av c503 a#\aatatat#t a¥¥a%#\ntssav 333 nooo mafia cowumeuuuuumm .HHH uumnu 30am mono3m0mnuaaa Hm>uoumH onoumm-o>«h 277 IV. Description and Analysis of the Work of thg_Participants A. Five-Second Interval Time-Sequence Flow Chart Interpretation: The panel spoke a total of 1375 seconds, just five seconds short of twenty-four minutes. The speaking time for each panelist was recorded as follows: Gillmett 295 seconds Leiske 250 " Raskas 240 " Pomeroy 200 " Allen 165 " Kempe 135 " Flynn 90 " It is interesting to note that the lone Roman Catholic on this interfaith program spoke only ninegrseconds as compared to 1285 seconds for the remainder of the group, whose views on birth control would have considerable agreement. He had 6.5% of the time to express his views. B. ParticipatiOQVSchedulg; This discussion program had a total of forty-eight participations. The participation schedule is as follows: Gillmett 10 times Leiske " Raskas Pomeroy Kempe Allen Flynn H #U‘UINIQUD C. Panel Members in Interactionagy Exchanges: A very fine spirit of mutual respect prevailed throughout the program. At one point, Dr. Gillmett met Dr. Flynn head-on in an exchange of views. Dr. Flynn challenged the panel members, "Weren't Adam and Eve told to go out and procreate? What do we get married for? Shouldn't we speak 278 against those thinglbirth control], especially you men who are clergy- men?" At the first opportunity, Dr. Gillmett shot back, "I want to say something [to] Dr. Flynn . . . ." Dr. Flynn had just stated emphatically that his church is against birth control, to which Dr. Gillmett replied, "There is birth control in your church just as much as in other churches." Dr. Gillmett pointed out sharply that the Roman Catholic Church not only has birth control methodologies, but enforces them upon others through legislation. Rabbi Raskas showed a considerable amount of emphasis in citing the Jewish views on population control. Early in the program, he showed a moment of irritation as the panel dwelt on India's population problem. "Let's leave India alone and come back to America. I want to Speak frankly about the subject that is facing all of us--namely, birth control." Rabbi Raskas was the first member on the panel to introduce the question of birth control. Dr. Flynn remained firm on the supposition that all birth control methodologies were condemned by his church. “My church is against birth control, and I think we all should be." An interesting letter, among others, reached the Columbia Broadcasting System Studios following this telecast. It is here attached in full. 279 April 22, 1957 Columbia Broadcasting System 485 Mad is on Avenue New YOrk 22, New York Gentlemen: I am sorry to report that I have witnessed one of the most defaming and calumnious programs against the Roman Catholic Church that I have ever experienced. This took place over your network on the program entitled, "American Religious Townhall," with the show title, Control of Populatigg. Though there was a Catholic layman present at the panel program I feel that even if a priest had been present to defend such untrue and unfor- tunate misrepresentations of the teachings of the Catholic Church, it was most unfair to insult and belittle the millions of Catholics who were watching. I have never seen this program before and therefore don't know if this has taken place on previous occasions but I hope that you can do something to prevent such unfortunate incidents from happening again. Sincerely yours in Christ, /s/ JOE H. CROSTHWAIT Father Joe Crosthwait cc: American Religious Townhall 1615 Scheffer Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 280 Problem Two: "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" A.Question in Moral Theology A Definitign of Terms and Brief Historical Backg;gund.-€Moral theology may be defined as a branch of theology, the science of God and of divine things as interrelated in man's interpersonal relationships. The field of moral theology, its contents, and the boundaries which separate it from kindred religious subjects may be summarized as follows: TMoral theology includes everything relating to man's free actions. . . . It includes the rule, or norm of the moral order, human actions as such, their harmony or disharmony with the laws of the moral order, their consequences, the Divine aids for their right performances. The question of participation in war would thus qualify as an issue in moral theology. Pastor Russell Rees, the Quaker guest member on the panel, made a very vital point interrelated to moral theology. "Whoever transgresses the commandment, ’Thou shalt not kill,' in my book is a murderer."2 This thought is, of course, hardly original with this dis- tinguished cleric. The history of mankind’s relationship to war, in the light of its destructive forces to human beings, has repeatedly been challenged by astute minds as being open to the serious charge of running counter to the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The Enigma of God's Participatiop in war.--From the time that 1August Lemkuhl, "Moral Theology," The Catholic Encyglopedia, 1913 ed., XIV, p. 601. 2Pastor Russell Rees, American Religious Town Hall Film Inventory Listing, a descriptive by-line describing Film Number Six. 281 God traced the Law with His finger upon tables of stone at Mount Sinai, including the penetrating words, "Thou shalt not kill," right through to our day, men have sought a reconciliation with this commandment. Reconciliation has been even more difficult in the light of God's direct war-like intervention in human affairs. The discerning scholar is quick to read of Biblical "holy wars" which God Himself, the true "man of war," conducted in order to fulfill His promises to His chosen nation. In Israel's confrontation with Egypt, God promised to lead the battle. "The Lord shall fight for you."1 Israel's difficulties with the Amorites were noted by the Lord, who in turn promised, "I will . 2 put your dread and your fear upon the nations." The battles of Joshua are replete with promises of God's leadership and His partici- pation.3 Israel's encounter with the Canaanite princes forced issues to war. Encouraged to do battle, Israel launched out against Sisera, the prince of the Canaanites, with the full revealed cooperation of God. "And the Lord struck Sisera and all his army with the edge of the sword."4 Then, too, the story of Gideon's battles for the Lord, and His intervention, even to the disruption of the sun’s behavior, is known. "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon."5 wfi— V 1Exodus 14: 14 . 2Deuteronomy 2:25. 3Joshua 7 (See this entire chapter). 4Judges 4:15 (See full account in this chapter). 5Judges 7:18. 282 All of Israel’s wars, whether defensive or aggressive, and all of her victories or defeats, while being pedagogical means in God’s hands, were, nevertheless, marked by God’s presence. Even the cruelest battles and the fiercest soldiers inflicted grievous wounds and death under the benevolent eye of a "Thus saith the Lord." Thus the pro- ponents of war, holy or unholy, have ample precedent to justify war from the records of the Sacred Canon. By contrast, in almost para- doxical manner, the Messianic promise is that instruments of war will be "broken and shattered."1 Spears shall be beaten into plowshares and pruning hooks.2 The promise of peace is divinely predicated upon a "no one shall learn war anymore."3 Thgfighristian Church Faces the Moral Issue of War,--In its long history, Christianity has repeatedly faced the moral problem of God, war, and human conscience. The records of church history show that Christian men and women have, through the centuries, held highly divergent views. Convictions have ranged from total condemnation to the highest glorification of war and the soldier. The wide divergence of views, deeply entrenched in convictions and emotionalism, is due to a degree to theological differences con- cerning the Scriptures and their interpretation. In particular, the following areas have played a major role in this diversity: 1) the Ten Commandment Law, "Thou shalt not kill,"4 2) the Sermon on the 1Psalms 46:9. 2Isaiah 2:4. QMicah 4:3. 4Exodus 20: 13. 283 Mount, "Blessed are the peacemakers,”1 and 3) the nature and state of man’s relationship to human governments, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s,"2 and, "we ought to obey God rather than men."3 In their basic inter- pretations these areas have, through the centuries, led to innumerable theological convictions, conflicts, and splintered sectionalisms. The American Religious Town Hall, in its attempt to discuss this question was not unmindful of the complexity of this question, for all panel members were clergymen well acquainted with the histories of human conscience. The question of war and the conscience has been highly dramatized since the advent of atomic destructive power, making it possible now to annihilate whole cities and population segments. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has raised a thousand voices on the moral issue of such mass destruction of life. The cry of "mass atomic murder" has now echoed and re-echoed for some twenty-odd years. ThepChurch Fathers on war and Conscience.--Individual respon- sibility in a oummulative devastation has been questiOned for centuries by religious leaders. The third century Fathers, Tertullian, Origen, and Gyprian, were among the first to examine the question of war and individual conscience. All three came away with the basic Tertullian philosophy. "It is granted us to be killed rather than to kill."4 1Matthew 5:9. 2Matthew 22:21. 3Acts 5:29. 4Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian, Apologetical Works (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950), Vol. X, p. 96. Translated into English by Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain. 284 These men declared military service and participation in war to be positively incompatible with Christianity, and they even demanded that soldiers must leave the army before they are accepted as members of the church. Hence, many men in the post-Apostolic period died as martyrs rather than serve in the destruction of war. Baptized believers members of Christian congregations, died by a variety of forms of execution rather than don a uniform or lift a sword. However, by 312-313 AuD., beginning with the Constantinian era, and the Synod of Axles, 314-316 A.D. in particular, Christianity having now become a legalized religion, the Synod declared that failure to bear arms for the new Christian state was gg.§§g£g.reason for excom- munication from the church. From this Synod, through the long centu- ries of the church to our day, from one "holy war" to another, the rationale and justification of participation have remained an issue. Saint Thomas Acquinas, who died in 1274, perfected the ration- alistic doctrine that war is just if the cause is just, if the means is just, and if the purpose is just. While this is basically the Roman Catholic position to this day, it leaves woefully undefined as to what constitutes a "just war." What is just? Herein lies the con- troversy of the centuries. It appears obvious that many wars fought as "just" were in the final analysis nothing more or less than the out- bursts of human belligerence, circumscribed by both ignorance and human degradation. During the Reformation, the problem of the Christian attitude toward war became a burning issue. The great Reformation humanist and scholar, Erasmus, totally condemned war; and he challenged the 285 Christian church’s participation in the destruction of life for any cause, just or unjust. Erasmus expressed his opposition to war’s destructiveness in his exchanges with Luther over the Peasants’ War.1 From this peasants' revolt, and in confrontation with Luther’s strong demands to crush the peasants, developed the solidifying conscience of the Quakers, Brethren, Anabaptists, and Mennonites against the taking of life in war. Pastor Rees' position on the panel reflects this historic position against the taking of life. 1Robert H. Murray, Erasmus and Luther_(London: The‘Macmillan Company, 1920). See Chapter VIII, "The Peasants' War." 286 Full Text, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" Transcribed from Film No. 6 MODERATOR: And now the question for this evening and the discussion, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" This sounds very fascin- ating and stern. Should a Christian, under any circumstances, kill his fellow man? We shall recognize the Rev. Mr. Ira Allen. REV. MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Bishop Leiske. I didn’t come here today to argue. And I don't want to get our Quaker friend angry at me right away, but I do have some convictions on this business of killing in time of war we're talking about. I think, sincerely, that if we’re attacked by an evil nation, let's say, we have a right to stand up and if necessary to kill members of the opposing armies in order to preserve the right things of life. I also believe that we have the right to kill if someone attacks one of our loved ones. If someone should come into our home, if someone should attack our wives, for example, we have a right, if necessary, to kill that person in order to keep them from destroying our wives and our loved ones. I also think that it's necessary to kill people in order to preserve a way of life, a way of life like the American way of life, like the democratic way of life, or best of all, like the Christian way of life. MODERATOR: Now, the panel has the question. It does sound as though in some circumstances, Mr. Allen thinks it's all right to take life. But, now what about the Christian’s standpoint? I shall acknowledge Lloyd Gillmett. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I'd like to comment on that because there are certain teachings of Jesus which are very much against or op- posed to the teaching of the belief which you have just put forward. Jesus said, "resist not evil," "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. Turn the other cheek and go the other mile."1 Now, it seems to me those teachings are very much opposed to what you have just set forward. 1Matthew 5:39-44. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." 287 MODERATOR: The Rev. Ira Allen. REV. MR. ALLEN: Well, Lloyd, many times in the New Testament Bible, Jesus became angry, very angry--just as real in His anger as we get today. He became angry when others were abused, not when He Himself particularly was abused. When others were abused, Jesus became angry and actually used force in order to drive, let's say, the evil money changers out of His house.1 MODERATOR: Of course, He didn't take life for Himself. He felt that life is a very precious thing and He kept on teaching that each child is precious in God’s eyes, and that was one of the fundamental teachings of His. Mahlon Pomeroy. REV. MR. POMEROY: The Scripture says in Matthew, "Ye have heard that it has been said, ye shall not kill, but I say that ye shall not even be angry with your brother."2 It seems to me, there is involved in the kind of thing Lloyd Gillmett has been talking about, a Christian principle that is very hard to reconcile with any sort of killing, because it seems to come into the matter of inner feelings of the in- dividual. You are not even to feel the desire to destroy a human life. I think this goes for in war and out of war. On the other hand, I want to make it very clear that I would not condemn an individual for killing in time of war. I think there is a point that is involved there. MODERATOR: Dr. Nelson. DR. NELSON: It seems to me that every Christian gets into a real dilemma in the whole question of peace and war, and our involve- ment in this present moment, this present day, in the system of war which has become a part of our historical civilization. Now, a Christian reads in the Scripture, our Lord said, "Bless- ed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."3 And yet on the other hand, here we are in a place where nation rises up against nation. And there is a sense in which I think our question is not exactly just right today, "Is a Man a‘Murderer in Time of War?" There is a sense, which in time of war, a soldier goes out to do battle in a community, and there 1John 2:15. 2Matthew 5:21-24. 3Matthew 5:9. 288 is a responsibility that's placed not upon the soldier, but must be placed fairly and squarely upon the community, upon the organized government, and that organized government has its place in the plan of God as well. MODERATOR: Ira Allen. REV. MR. ALLEN: I think there is a vast difference between killing and murdering. As someone said, "Murdering is premeditated." You think about it, and you plan it before you come to it. When you kill a man in self-defense or to preserve the love of some- one else, I mean to protect the love of someone else, and one of your loved ones--that isn’t what the Bible is against. The Bible is against the murdering, the pre-meditated murder and not the killing, let’s say. ‘MODERATOR: Father Smith. FATHER SMITH: In looking at nature, we find a rather interesting point of view, that we might apply in our Christian philosophy. Certainly all life is divine, and yet God, who created all of this nature, has created certain laws upon which this universe or by which this universe is regulated. When we study nature, we find that throughout it there is the law of self-preserva- tion. There is the law of the preservation of the species. There is the law also as we come towards the human realm, the law of the preservation of a way of life, the law of the preser- vation of an ideal, which will influence the species and the race and the civilization of the future. So, the real question then is, can we fight a war of survival or can we kill in the case of survival? MODERATOR: Ah, fine, and now, just one thing. Pastor Russell Rees, do you think it's all right to take life in time of war? PASTOR REES: Of course, my answer to that would be that I do not think it right, and that the fact that war is undertaken does not change a moral principle at all. Even the fact that a nation-- the killing that is involved in war does not change a moral principle if there is one involved. And I think there is one involved. I take the position that it is wrong to kill, that it is evil to kill. I take that position outrightly, and the fact of conditions, expediency, or excuses of expediency do not change the situation for me. MODERATOR: Lloyd Gillmett. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I agree with you in that statement. But there is another aspect of Jesus' teaching which hasn’t been touched on very much. In addition to His teaching about non-resistance, there is also the teaching that the wicked shall be punished, and that they ought to be punished, that God is going to punish 289 the wicked, and therefore His followers will attempt to be His instruments to carry that out. REV. MR. POMEROY: One of the things that we so often think of when we speak in terms of war is the idea that with war, it is the only basis on which people are killed. Now, you see, people can be put to death because of not going to war--the Jews in Germany were destroyed not because they were at war with Hitler, but because he was just determined to exterminate them. In other words, killing can occur because we do not fight. Perhaps there will be less killing in some cases because we go to war than there would be if we did not go to war. ‘MODERATOR: Now, before we call on Dr. Nelson, the last time Dr. Nelson definitely pointedmout a distinct law or responsibility. I believe that the panel should come back to that again, that is, that the community or the state does possess a responsibility. Is a man really guilty when the state goes to war? the individ- ual person? And I think Dr. Nelson definitely brought out a point that should be further explained. Dr. Nelson. DR. NELSON: I wanted to come back to that again because the Christian church traditionally has discussed this problem, and it has been discussed in every generation. It's one of the problems that will not down, and that is very real today. The Christian church has usually turned to the thirteenth chapter of Romans, with its expression of what the state was.1 And St. Paul, when he wrote that letter was living in what we consider to be a pagan and corrupt state, and yet he said even that state was given its "power from God," that the state bear not the sword in vain. But is a minister of God an avenger of wrath to him that doeth evil? Now, that means that the state bears the responsibility. And we must all, always be eager that our state shall shoulder its moral responsibility in this respect. PASTOR REES: I would say,1umever, that no action of government or state can solve the conscience of a man, that one cannot escape the responsibility for his own actions simply by saying that he was ordered by someone else to do that thing. He must accept responsibility for his own action. DR. NELSON: I'd like to add this, too, that the church also is strong- er and better for the witness of the pacifist and the peace 1Romans 13. This chapter is traditionally used by Christian bodies to define state-church relations, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." Romans 13:1. 2Romans 13: l. 290 groups, and we respect it and honor it very, very much. And I think that in America we have begun to understand that a man's conscience ought not to be violated, and provision has been made even in our military system for that. REV. MR. ALLEN: I’d like to talk to Dr. Rees here, I have him close at hand. I'd like to say this, that-—and to answer, and to Dr. Nelson’s pardon and the Bishop’s-~the state in America belongs to us. We are the state. We’re not talking about somebody that's living in Washington. We are the state. Therefore, when war comes on in America, we are to blame, and not the few senators, let’s say, and representatives in Washington. And yet, if we are not responsible for the state, and do not go out to defend the good things that our American democracy stands for, the Russians will come over and take over our state, and we no longer will have a state, but we'll have a dictator- ship, right here in America. MODERATOR: Pastor Allen, isn't it a fact that not even the Democrats take the responsibility when the Republicans are in, or the Republicans when the Democrats? Why should a local individual body take the responsibility of the state? After all, we do have a government. Whenever the President of the United States speaks, he speaks of the government. What can we . . . ? REV. MR. GILLMETT: I'd like to come back to what has been said. I think it's wrong to kill, and if there is any killing done by any one individual, those sitting behind the desk in the office in Washington are just as much responsible as the soldier on the battlefield for the death that is taking place. I think killing is wrong, but we're all guilty. REV. MR POMEROY: It strikes me that life is a trust from God. And I believe that with that premise, if we accept that, and I think we do, then we sense the fact that it is the matter of the least of destruction of that life. Now, I believe that you can kill in poor housing conditions. I believe you can kill as Hitler did, people within his own country. I believe you can kill on the battlefield. I think all of these things can come out of the conditions of war. Now, the question is, How can we determine what is the least amount of killing? It seems that there--we'd have to move for- ward in the direction of the guidance we think we get from God. If we feel that the least amount of destruction can be done by actually ending a war, then it seems to me that is the proce- dure we are to follow. FATHER SMITH: I'd like to touch upon the individual conscience and the individual decision in matters of this kind. I am personally very, very much apposed to war and think that killing is a crime under any circumstances. I do, however, feel that there 291 are situations in which I would not hesitate to do that killing if I felt that, if it was for a purpose greater than myself, that it was for a purpose of humanity, that it was for the pur- pose of preserving civilization. And then I feel that I could easily adjust my conscience to the situation. DR. NELSON: There's another element that hasn't been touched on yet, that I think needs to enter into our discussion. I am sure of this, that war is a real manifestation of a most evil and sin- ful and diabolical power that we have in the world. But I can- not be a complete pacifist, even though I feel that way about war. And yet a new element has entered and I am on the way to becoming a pacifist in a different sense because of the new kind of atomic weapons that are being promulgated and perfected in laboratories of the scientists, not only of the United States, but of other countries. It seems that in the face of this, that Christians and the Christian church need to stand out and speak up, because if anything or part is true of what the scientists have told is possible in an atomic war, killing will be on such a vast and bestial scale that we'll have to stand against it, and I think that’s the Christian’s duty today. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I don't think that the killing makes any differ- ence, if you're going to kill on a large scale or individual scale. The death of one individual is just as important as death of all individuals. It seems to me . DR. NELSON: I don't agree. It seems to me that the atomic bomb which can kill 10,000 in one moment makes a difference in this whole business. REV. MR. POMEROY: One soul is worth more than the whole world. Jesus pointed out, if I understand His illustrations correctly, and I really believe that it is true, I want to come back to the thought that I have been trying to set forth here, throughout this program--the idea that we need to seek in terms of the least amount of destruction, and the greatest amount of good that is done. What is the final result? Have we at the end of the period of war, or at the end of the period of concilia- tion, or whatever it may be, have we come to a just decision that will mean the greatest good for the greatest numbers? the greatest number of people who may live, both physically and thereby have an opportunity spiritually? It seems to me that there comes one of the basic points in this whole matter of killing in the war. MODERATOR: I believe that there is a point that we need to consider in this discussion, and that is this. Is it not possible that our nation might also be somewhat responsible in contributing toward the action of war? Is it always the foreign nation that is altogether responsible? How would you react as a church? Should we take a definite stand in some way? REV. m. 292 ALLEN: I think America is the easiest country in the world to be a pacifist in. And if my country was fighting for some- thing I didn't believe in, in that respect I could be a paci- fist. But, if my country was in the right, and if the loved ones about me were being destroyed, and if an aggressor was approaching us, I could not be a pacifist! And I don't think that there is anyone that can be a real pacifist, because a real pacifist, right down at the bottom of it, couldn't even accept police protection, in my score, because the policeman would have to use his gun to protect him. And when you use his gun to protect you, how are you going to be a pacifist? PASTOR REES: I certainly will have to speak to that, because this is REV. MR. implying that an army and a police system, police force, are the same thing, which, of course, it is not. An army is organ- ized for the avowed purpose of killing as many people as possi- ble. All its tools are the kind of tools that it thinks are the most effective in taking human life. The police system, the police force, on the other hand, is organized for the pur- pose of preserving life, and its force is only to be used in the very last extremity of preserving life. So that, I don't think, to say that one does not believe in the army, therefore one does not believe in the police force,is an accurate state- ment. ALLEN: An army, Dr. Rees, is a military force on a larger scale than police, and I would say, I belonged to the armed forces for four years, and I never was attached to any army that was designated to kill as many people as possible. They were designated to defend as many of the things that were right as possible, even though they had to kill some in order to do that. And that's what the police are, on a smaller scale. They are to protect you and your home, your loved ones, and to protect the right way in a city like Chicago or St. Paul, wherever we are, and to use force if they have to do it. PASTOR REES: Of course, I think the answer to that is that you have never heard of a police force being organized in Chicago to fight against the police force in Minneapolis! And that's what armies do. It's an army organized in one country to fight against a similar army in another country. Police forces are established in a homogeneous society to preserve order and dis- cipline in society. MODERATOR: ‘Mahlon Pomeroy, thirty seconds, please. REV. MR. POMEROY: I think the analogy does not quite carry there, how- ever, in the fact that it would not be a police force against a police force, but it would be a police force against a gang. We think in terms of war being fought because one nation is in the wrong. Now, which nation that may be is not for me to determine. 293 FATHER SMITH: In the case of a police force, the criminal is the aggressor, and certainly we need to keep up the same kind of protection there as we would in an army. ‘MODERATOR: Sorry, gentlemen, our time is up, and we must sum up our position. First of all, I would like to sum up for the Seventh- day Adventist Church. Seventh-day Adventist do hate war, but they do not fear war. We are not afraid of guns. But we do feel that we must stand definitely for the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not blame God for war in this world, but we blame the one who is just in opposi- tion to God, which the Bible declares to be Satan, or the Devil. And we blame all misunderstandings among the human family on that power. And now, Father Smith. FATHER SMITH: I think that the vieWpoint of the liberal Catholic Church in this problem is liberal, in that it will allow every individual to determine for himself just what stand he is to take. But if I were to sum up the sum total of thought, I would say that they stand very strongly for the protection of the individual when there is an aggressor--the protection, the preservation of the race, and the preservation of the ideals of civilization. DR. NELSON: I think that my church will stand as a Christian church opposed to the method of war--saying that war is evil, and that war is sin, and that every Christian ought to be on the side of being a peacemaker, and that it is important that the church should be on that side. My church would also make room for the state to wield the power of the sword. REV. MR. POMEROY: I would like to say that I think that you have seen here an underlying unity of our thought, the fact that we all have the basic idea that there are Christian principles that are involved here. And yet, there is a plurality of ways of expressing the thought that has been brought out here. We have expressed and developed the various phases of this thought. REV. MR. GILLMETT: I served as a captain in the navy during the Second World War, and yet I have come to the belief that, because war does not accomplish anything, the only possible way that we will get peace ultimately is by the Christian church standing up for the teachings of Jesus about "resist not evil, love your enemies, and bless those that curse you," and so on. REV. MR. ALLEN: If there were wild animals running loose in this great city, I'm sure we'd use force to protect ourselves until we had them caged. When there are wild men running loose in the world, we must use force till we get them educated, coralled, and even Christianized, let's say. 294 PASTOR REES: While the Society of Friends will call itself a pacifist church, I think it is not as such in Opposition to war. What they have tried to do is to say, "What can we do as an alter- native to those who propose to kill?" 295 Description and Analysis of the Program.--This description and analysis of the program was divided into four sections. Each section dealt with a specific phase of interest. I. Overall Descriptionfiand Analysis A. The Problem: This discussion took place in the City of Chicago, at the American Broadcasting Company Studios, October 14, 1954, during the rumblings of the Korean War. Following World War II, pacifism became an increasing philosophy in the United States. This increase was noted on college campuses, in religious circles, and in a general resistance towards war among draftees to the United States military. This pacifistic tendency has increased in intensity and proportion until today the United States war effort in Vietnam is seriously challenged by many responsible American citizens. Protest marches, draft card burnings, and urgent rallies indicate the clash between war and pacifism. With the increase of more and more devas- tating instruments of war, with the prospects of utter defenselessness of whole cities against scientific war, the cry of pacificism has emerged louder and clearer than ever in the history of mankind. It is not surprising that a panel of clergymen should be in- vited to discuss this problem. The phrasing of the question is indic- ative of certain guilt factors. "Is a‘Man a Murderer in the Time of War?" B. ThggPanel and Guests: The panel was seated in V shaped formation, with the‘Moderator at the apex of the V. To the‘Moderator’s immediate right sat Father Henry A. Smith, an M.D. from Chicago Univer- sity, a liberal Catholic. To Father Smith’s right sat Dr. Clifford 296 Ansgar Nelson, pastor of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Saint Paul. To his right sat Rev. Mahlon W. Pomeroy of the Park Street Baptist Church in Saint Paul. To the Moderator's immediate left sat Pastor Russell R. Rees, a Quaker from Chicago, Illinois. To Pastor Rees' immediate left sat Rev. Ira B. Allen of the Central Park Methodist Church in Saint Paul; and to his left sat Rev. Lloyd R. Gillmett, Rector of the Episcopal Church Of Saint John the Evangelist in Saint Paul. A deference was paid Pastor Rees by members of the panel, who were aware that Rees was totally opposed to war in any form, a strict pacifist. This deference appeared here and there throughout the discussion, but was especially conspicuous during the first symposium speech when Rev. Mr. Allen, in an uneasy moment, said, "I didn't come here to argue today, and I don't want to get our Quaker friend angry at me right away." The panel was composed of six Protestants and one Roman Catholic, all clergymen. Although the Jewish faith was not represented, a.Jewish view on modern war would have added interest because of Jewish Old Testament wars. C. The Moderator: The Moderator introduced the panel, -directed the panel members, and kept a watch on the time for each speaker. This basically constituted his work as chairman. At no time was his involvement in the program other than routine chairmanship. He participated seven times, and was involved a total of 155 seconds during the twenty-two minute-plus symposium- discussion-summation period. This amounted to just a little over two and one-half minutes. 297 In this program, the Moderator used a very pronounced speech inflection in pronouncing his "R's." In such words as religious, American, very, et cetera, he gave the "R's" an almost Scotch "burr." This appeared unnatural and foreign to the Bishop's general speech pattern, which ordinarily contains not a trace of a "burr." The Moderator appeared at ease throughout the program, though on one occasion he introduced Rev.‘Mr. Pomeroy, and addressed him as "Lloyd Gillmett," but made the correction, "Mahlon Pomeroy, I'm sorry.” D. Format: The program opened with the organ strains of "America" in the background. The panel was shown in a brief flash; then the program was turned over momentarily to Dr. Horace Shaw, who took care of the promotional matters. The Moderator then introduced the panel, after which he intro- duced the program while the television cameras gave a momentary picture of the American Religious Town Hall Secretary. The discussion was introduced in a panel-symposium-type of order. Before each member had a chance to make a symposium statement, the give-and-take had already begun. The discussion itself was orderly throughout the program, and followed an easy listening pattern. The discussion ended on a symposium summation format, after which the Charter was read and the program closed. The Summation was orderly; each speaker spoke less than the thirty-second time allotment except Leiske and Smith, whose summations ran forty and forty-five seconds. II. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Moderator A. Pre-Symposium Comments: Within five seconds after 298 the cameras were on and the program was on the air, the Moderator announced, "The American Religious Town Hall Meeting is now in session." He brought down the gavel in a single rap, symbolizing that the program was under way. The Moderator, seated in front of a huge globe of the world, was next seen in action, introducing the program. His first word, "Friends," was a word that he drew out with evident intentional accent. One was reminded of Monsignor Sheen, who, some years ago, opened his national radio religious program with the accent on the word, "Friends." Leiske's "Friends," carried warmth and rapport. The MOderator’s next comments centered in the aspirations and endeavors of the program's purpose, 1) to come into American homes by the television medium, and 2) to preserve American freedoms. The Moderator then introduced his two special guests on the program, first, Father Henry A. Smith, then Pastor Russell Rees. He expressed a special word of welcome to these two men. "We are very happy to have these men on this television program." The MOderator next recognized the regular members of his panel, and eulogized their presence--men who have dedicated their lives to the greater devotion to their church, their God, and our nation. Just before turning the time over to the panel for the tOpic, the Moderator made an appeal to his television audience, "If you have any questions that you would like to ask, or any problems, send them in to the American Religious Town Hall‘Meeting." Bishop Leiske then quickly introduced the topic, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" and added, "This sounds very fascinating." 299 He first recognized Rev. Ira B. Allen. B. Duringjthe Symposium: The Moderator's work during this brief phase of the program can be classed, in most respects, as "housekeeping," that is, routine chairmanship. However, following Allen's introductory comments, the Moderator asked for a clarification on the matter of "taking life." Said he, "What about the Christian's standpoint?" and with that the symposium moved to the next man, Rev. Mr. Gillmett. While still in the symposium period, following once again Rev. Mr. Allen’s comments, the Moderator sought to clarify a point, namely, that Jesus at no time took "life for Himself." Apparently, the ‘Moderator felt that a wrong impression had been created by Allen, who charged Christ with becoming at times, "angry, very angry." Though Christ was angry, He took no life; this viewpoint seems to have been the‘Moderator's point of clarification. C. During:the Panel Discussion: During the discussion phase of the program, the Moderator put in five appearances. First, turning directly to Pastor Rees, the Quaker, he Openly asked, "Do you think it’s all right to take life in time of war?" This forthright question brought out a forthright reply, "Of course . . . I do not think it right." The Moderator's second point during this period had to do with man's responsibility to the state. "The panel should come back to that again, . . . Is a man really guilty when the state goes to war?" With this redirection, the panel discussed the question of man’s moral obligations to the state. 300 Third, the Moderator tossed in a slight bit of humor, chiding Democrats for not assuming responsibility when Republicans are in the White House and chiding Republicans for not assuming responsibility when Democrats are in the White House. This brief jibe was followed by a rhetorical question, "Why should a local individual body take the responsibility of the state?" The fourth involvement was a brief interaction with Rev. Lloyd Gillmett and Rev. Mr. Pomeroy. The Moderator introduced Pomerqy, calling him Lloyd Gillmett, for which he apologized. The Moderator's fifth involvement was an observation. "Is it not possible that our nation might also be somewhat responsible in contributing toward the action of war?" and added philosophically, "Is it always the foreign nation that is altogether responsible?" D. During_§he Summation: The‘Moderator gave opportunity for each panel member to express a final thought. "We must sum up our position." However, before the summations got under way, the Moderator gave a resume of the Seventh-day Adventist position on war and military involvement as related to killing. The summations were smooth. Each member took his turn, after which the‘Moderator closed the program by referring to the Town Hall Charter. 301 nmmH CON mm." can new mg n: mg ml Mac .939. umaaua Honda sumo 33303 no non—8:6 demo”. on» amused—x; .eeouumewuauume ~mno«>«on« mo women: amuou man mausouncH .ooconvoe dogma—«03.85“ can 57am: .evounoe madame-Em 9.3 uses: .23.:me finances—hm mnu Baum: 66.3 wcwxmoen mo nvnouoe 25m oxen: Hask_\ataaa¥a\# \aaaaaaae\aaaaaa\aasa\Assesses atakatku\ats\ak#¥\ttk«¥\k¥\ Htaaasu\aaat\akat¥¥ \sataataaka\tattatka\Axes Haassau\tt\tsaa¥«¥¥ \sasaa\aaatssa¥aaa\Asksaak \kakaa\aasktaaat\sattt\Asks mas \astka\kastk¥kaa\Areataaka _stakes_\aaasta\aska\a\tattaa\stxkk m m \ _L AV k. .863 states a «_a a a.a v co-< Atatksv 38.25 assess «assasv 338m assets atatsav conaoz _«as_ _a a a a a a v some ¥k«k«_ stakes; :35 a\A¥t%v 333 Amuse of mo nononvouuna 3.323332 man muse—25 no: noon man nowumeqoquumm o nongz EH «m uumno 30am mononuomnmaaa ~m>uounH unoommuo>qm .HHH 302 IV. Description and Analysis of the Work of the Participants A. Figs-Second Interval Time-Seguence_Flow Chart Interpretation: The panel spoke a total of 1335 seconds. The speak- ing time for each panelist was recorded as follows: Nelson 245 seconds Pomeroy 240 " Allen 240 " Smith 175 " Leiske 155 " Rees 155 " Gillmett 125 " B. Participation Schedule: A total of forty-two partici- pations was recorded throughout this program. The participation schedule was as follows: Leiske Allen Nelson Pomeroy Gillmett Rees Smith h~u:o~o~ox\:a> It is interesting to note that three panel members each had a total of six participations. The distribution of participations would indicate good moderatorship, since no one person dominated the discussion, and all members had a good participation score. C. Panel Members in Interactionary»Exchgnggg; A spirited discussion was in progress through this program; at no time were there signs of hostility or antagonisms. Each member spoke his convictions. Rev. Mr. Allen tossed in what appeared to be an irrelevant thought about Jesus being "angry, very angry," without connecting this thought to the question of murder in time of war. However, his dis- tinction between killing and murder later in the program appeared to 303 have been an excellent contribution. A brief flourish of words exchanged between Dr. Nelson and Rev.‘Mr. Gillmett came closest to a sharp confrontation. Dr. Nelson expressed more concern for the prospect of killing on "a vast and beastial scale," in an atomic war, and appeared not too concerned about the one by one killings in traditional war. To this Rev. Mr. Gillmett shot back rather indignantly, "The death of one individual is just as important as death of all individuals." Again Dr. Nelson came back with a flat, "I don’t agree, . . . The atomic bomb which can kill 10,000 in one moment makes a difference." The program throughout showed a good level of scholarship, and it moved along in animated and spirited pattern. CHAPTER VIII BISHOP LEISKE'S SPECIFIC CONCEPTIONS REGARDING THE PROCEDURES AND METHODS OF A DISCUSSION PROGRAM The purpose of this chapter is to present Bishop Leiske's ideas concerning a number of specific matters of procedure and tech- nique--in a sense, his principles and methods related to the manage- ment of a discussion program. Whereas the purpose of Chapter IV was to present Leiske's general conceptions concerning discussion and several issues related to it, the purpose of this chapter is to ex- plore a number of "bread-and-butter" matters pertinent to the manage- ment of his televised program in particular. These materials were derived from a lengthy interview with the Bishop, an interview struc- tured in terms of the exact questions used as the basis for the develop- ment of this chapter. As will be noted in Chapter IX, the principles and methods Of discussion management reported here will provide the criteria for the evaluation of the case studies illustrating the work of Bishop Leiske and his panel. In other words, Chapter VIII raises the question: "What does the Bishop 'preach' concerning the procedures of discus- sion?"; and Chapter IX raises the question: "Does the Bishop 'practice what he preaches’ concerning the procedures of discussion?" The Purpose of the Discussion What is the Putpose of the Discussion?--To this question the 304 305 Bishop responded emphatically and categorically: I feel that it is our purpose to air the problem, to give as wide a scope to the problem as our discussion time allows, allowing the peOple to form their own conclusions.1 In this respect the Bishop's position on problem ventilation parallels John Dewey's first step in problem solving. The Bishop believes that in his type of program it is necessary to place a heavy accent upon problem ventilation rather than upon solutions, because few problems in the social, political, religious, or theological world permit a ready solution. Our program calls for an exchange of expressions, ideas, and of positions, not necessarily to form.conc1usions for the masses. I feel that it is not necessary for our panel to form conclusions, or even to adopt solutions, though we occasionally propose solutions. I feel that the people should hear an airing of the problem and let them make their own deductions. Bishop Leiske’s ideas of democracy are so strongly people- oriented that he frequently, during the interview, exclaimed, "Let the people decide what are the facts," and he added, Americans have a right to hear the many sides to a problem. They have a right to examine the many angles to a problem and to form their own conclusions. We make no claim to solving the problems upon which we raise issues, but we do hope to stimulate ingerest and discussion among our viewers and let them decide. In this respect the Bishop's views merge with those of Thomas R. Nilaen. If democracy is to function, ideas need to be expressed, 1Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 21bid. 31bid. 306 the ideas need to be critically examined, the best ideas need to be found. . . . That ideas may be examined, under— stood, and tested, we have discussion. The Bishop strongiy believes that in a free discussion, fact and fiction, truth and error, will be exposed. He is quick to quote James Russell Lowell. Who speaks the truth stabs falsehood to the heart, And his mere word makes despots tremble more Than ever Brutus with his dagger could. The Format for Discussion Whpt Judgments Do You Have Concerning the Format of the Discussion?--Bishop Leiske strongly believes that the format of his American Religious Town Hall program--symposium-panel, discussion, and symposium-summation--constitutes an ideal working pattern for his telecast. He defends this arrangement on several grounds. First, it enables each panel member to present a thirty-second studied viewpoint, to present a brief 10 os, as it were, in capsule form, stating his view on the subject. This brief statement may even be read to reflect the panelist's considered position on the question. Second, the Bishop believes that this period gives the "newcomer" or guest on the program an opportunity to become conditioned to televising. It is simply amazing how many public speakers, unaccustomed to television, freeze under the hot lights. The symposium period allows for a conditioning.3 1Thomas R. Nilsen, "Free Speech, Persuasion, and Democratic Process," The Qparterly Journal of Speech, XLIV (October, 1958), p. 236. 2Sir Gurney Benham, ngham's Book of Quotations (London: George G. Harrap and Company, Ltd., 1958), p. 219B. 3Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 307 Third, the Bishop has developed a symposium "pacesetter's" technique. That is, just before the program goes on the air, the Bishop invites two regular panel members, whose views he feels are opposing, to set the pace of the discussion by leading off in the discussion. The pacesetters set the tonus, the pattern of the discussion. "Only regular panel members are ever called to be pacesetters. They know our purpose and mission on the air."1 The Bishop believes, further, that the symposium gives the audience a preview of things to come, and that the two pacesetters will immediately catch viewer attention by their opposing views. Once the program is under way, the Moderator attempts to see that the program rolls along, that the discussion is kept active, free from rancor, free and uninhibited, and sufficiently spontaneous to receive and hold an audience. The summation period again reverts to a symposium style to allow each guest and panel member to express a summation view, to express a prepared thought. Bishop Leiske feels that this step is essential so that, If a regular panel member has spoken inaccurately, or has been misunderstood by his own denominational viewers, the final summation period enables him to make a more studied statement and in a sense redeem himself and safeguard any unintended adverse viewer reaction. *— w l H bid. 1 2 '6' I. i 308 The Moderator’s Relationship to the Content of the Discussion What in YOur Judgment Should be the Moderator's Relationship to the Content of the Discussion?--Frequent1y the Bishop leaves the role of moderatorship and becomes a participant in the discussion. This unusual procedure has been commented about by members of the panel and is best expressed by one member. "The members of the panel have become accustomed to the Bishop's participation, though we are not always agreed that this is the Moderator's role."1 The‘Moderator's views on participation are expressed along several lines. First, he feels that participation is necessary in this type of an interfaith attempt. I feel that the‘Moderator of an interfaith program such as ours requires a degree of participation in various forms. I feel that periodically it is essential to ask a question, sometimes directed to a member of the panel, to reamplify a given point, realign the conversation if it drifts too far from our basic purpose, and attempt a renewal of interest on some point I feel has been overlooked. On the matter of interpreting content material for the panel or the viewer, Bishop Leiske has the following rationale: At times I interpret a view of theirs, especially when doctrinal matters are being discussed. It is easy for a panel member to temporarily lose himself in his denomina- tional view or language, and I must seek to reinterpret those views to an interfaith listening and viewing audience.3 Frequently the Bishop is known to make content summations in 1Telephone Interview with Dr. Ansgar Nelson, Minneapolis, iMinnesota, February 10, 1967. 2Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 3Ibid. 309 behalf of a panel member. This he does for a reason, basically to see whether he has fully understood the viewpoint expressed, to visualize what has really been said, "Is-this-what-you-rea11y-mean?" approach. The Mbderator is anxious to make sure that the frankness Of expressed views is in reality the panelist’s position. By summarizing such a point, he feels the panelist has an opportunity momentarily to re- examine his views and, subject to the‘Moderator’s recapitulation of the point, to rise or fall on its clarity or lack of clarity. Then, too, the Bishop frequently summarizes a panelist's views to recapture audience reaction. If, for example, a point has brought forth a positive audience reaction from my live audience before me, it appears to me to be good policy to momentarily recapture that thought for a second exposure, thus strengthening our audience rating. The Bishop sees no valid reason on the Town Hall program for remaining aloof, or for conducting himself on a strictly traditional ‘Moderator's role of "no participation," except for directive acts. Bishop Leiske added, The Moderator must be an informed person on the topic under discussion, and as such, becomes an effective leader when he uses that background to the inservice of the panel program. At no time do I feel myself an isolated member of the team--simply steering it from a functional position only. He further added, I feel that the Moderator represents an organization, not merely a point of view, and must thus, from time to time, contribute a view to protect his organization from being misunderstood.3 IIbid. 310 The Moderator's Role as a Promoter of the Program What Responpibilities Do You Believe That You Have Regarding Hggmments About" the Prog;am.to the Audience?-Periodically throughout the discussion program, the‘Moderator tends to "break into" the dis- cussion, to brief the viewers about the program in general, "This is .democracy in action," or he may make a specific program comment, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the statement made by . . . really reflects the ecumenical spirit," et cetera. The‘Moderator believes he has a re- sponsibility to do this for a number of reasons. When our discussion comes to a point of real confrontation, when to the viewer it might appear that there is a danger Of things getting out of control, I feel that it is necessary to step in with a comment. My break-in is intended to do several things.1 He defines the "several things" to include: 1) calming down the opposing panelists; 2) reminding the panel that they are on the air; 3) giving panelists an opportunity to regroup their thinking; 4) frequently bringing to a halt the cantankerous view by introducing a new thought; and 5) affirming contact with the viewers. Instead of hitting the gavel and saying, "Let's start another point," I feel that this method not only serves as a transition method, but serves in a directive manner to keep the program running along smoothly.2 The Moderator's Role in Discussion Preparation What Adyance Preparation Do You ag_a Moderator Make?--Bishop Leiske does not subscribe to the rather common notion, so prevalent 311 in group discussion circles, "It’s only a discussion, so I won’t have to prepare for it." In fact, the Bishop has little illusion about hiding within the group. He has even less illusion about hiding behind the group when it comes to making preparations for the discussion. He is very conscious of his role as Moderator, and is very conscious of his need for thorough preparation of the topic under discussion. He is very conscious of the fact that he occupies the central spot in the group's structured seating arrangement. He is also very conscious of the fact that his place and position on the panel have a bearing on the success of the Town.Hall. In brief, Bishop Leiske goes about with deliberate intent to prepare himself for the panel discussion. I not only spend time in reflective thinking about the topic, but endeavor to read as widely as possible on the topic. Books, magazines, or materials that really interest me on the subject I read to prepare. BishOp Leiske not only reads and browses, but makes notes. I make notes; I glean little facts, statistics, and quotations from historical, Biblical, social, and whatever- the-topic-is-on sources. I feel myself in too responsible a position not to be fully prepared.2 The Bishop not only makes a personal preparation for each discussion, but actually prepares a "discussion outline,"3 as he called it. When asked why he goes to the trouble of preparing an 1Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. The Bishop has been known to read and browse through twenty to twenty-five books for a single discussion. IHis personal library numbers well over a thousand volumes. 2Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 3Six samples of discussion outlines appear in Chapter IX. These discussion outlines are simplified, typewritten, and in question form. On them are also written comments by the Bishop, little points of interest to be used on the program. 312 outline with notes and comments, he replied, my purpose is to organize a line of thinking--to accomplish a line of organized "airing" of the question before us. In order to guide or to direct the work of the panel and the destiny of the Towanall, I feel it is my responsibility to make preparations. What Advance Preparation DO YOu Snggest, Encourége,por Dirgct on the Part of the Panelists?--On this point the Bishop referred this research to several facts. First, he asks that every panel member come with a "prepared" thirty-second opening statement, and that every panel member come with a "prepared" thirty-second summation of his view on the topic under discussion. Second, he encourages panel members to "bring prepared statements, notes, facts, statistics, and use such material on the program."2 Guests and panel members are invited to bring Bibles from which to read, to quote, to sustain their views. A number of Bibles appear on their television programs. The Bishop is deeply concerned about his personal, as well as his panel, preparation. He cites a number of inner concerns for this pre-occupation with preparation. First, he feels that the public knows when a panel or panel member has not made adequate preparation; and he believes that this inadequacy will, in time, hurt the viewing ratings. Second, he considers the monetary aspect of television time: The actual cost of a total show on some one hundred stations on a network runs to about $26,000 of TV time. We just can’t afford to Offend by not having a prepared panel. lLeiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 21bid. 3Ibid. 313 Panel members are asked to begin preparation "months in advance." The Bishop has set an absolute minimum of "two weeks for preparation time." Each panel member is asked periodically to read Horace J. Shaw’s "Questions to Ask.Myself When Planning for a Dis- cussion."1 The Moderator’s Role in Discussion Management What Responsibilities Do YOu Believe That You Have at the pgginninggpf the Discussion?--The Bishop, as Moderator, feels that it is his place to introduce the program to the television audience be- cause "people sort of expect it from a Chairman orIModerator."2 On this point, the Bishop is aware of "expectancy roles," and acts upon that expectancy. He also feels that it is a matter of preparation that makes it most logical for him to present an impartial presenta- tion. "My panel tends to be segmented and sectarian. I try to be representative of the whole and neutral."3 The Moderator also takes the lead in introducing the guests. .He does not introduce the regular panel, feeling that it is better for the regulars to introduce one another to remind the audience that a spirit of ecumenical brotherhood prevails among the men, and to give them an opportunity to warm up together. He further feels that the panel introducing one another helps to "create a team rapport." LHorace J. Shaw, "Questions to Ask Myself When Planning for a Discussion," unpublished material. Full copy in Appendix C. 2Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 3Ibid. 314 Bishop Leiske, however, always introduces the guests on the program. His rationale behind this may be thus summated:l l) to help the guest condition himself to the lights and surroundings; 2) to give proper recognition to the guests’ social status; and 3) to integrate the guest into a more personal relationship with the panel and televi- sion audience. Regarding the definition of terms, Leiske's philosophy becomes more general. He reasons that since their discussion program is not based upon a precise problem-solving purpose, the definition of terms is of less significance. Since we are not dealing in specific problems, and are not seeking specific solutions, I feel we need not have specific and precise definitions of terms. PeOple do have a general picture of the topics we discuss, and our purpose is only to activate that picture, to start them thinking, and we hope they will form their own conclusions. The Moderator is quick to add that the television time is limited, making any elaborate definition of terms costly. The BishOp, however, does acknowledge that if the panel were to undertake a more technical question, involving terminology not in general usage, a definition of terms would not only be advisable but essential to assure panel communication and television viewer interest. He contends that most people have a mental picture, and an understanding to a degree, of the meaning of such general religious and theological terms as sin, eternal life, God, salvation, conscience, right, wrong, et cetera. Our purpose is not to be hair-splitting theologians with strict theological definitions, many of which differ with 315 differing faiths, but rather to air general areas of critical interest.1 The Bishop believes strongly that the program should get quickly under way so as not to jeopardize the viewing rating. To do this he feels that definition of terms, prolongation of topic intro- duction, or the extension of introductory materials may, in a sense, defeat the purpose of airing the problem. The quicker you get into the subject matter the better off you are for your TV audience--the audience is thus immediately with me. This is what counts in TV work.2 What Functions Do YOu Believe That You Have Reggrding the Mangggment of the Discussion As It Prpgggsses?--Bishop Leiske shows a marked conscientious concern on the matter of discussion management. His concerns center in a number of areas. Bishop Leiske believes management to be necessary to: 1) maintain a degree of orderly progression; 2) give equal opportunity for all panelists to be heard;3 3) prevent a member from carelessly occupying an unequal share of time and taking over; 4) keep the ratings in mind by regulating discussion when discussion shows signs of lagging; 5) bypass a regular panel mem- ber if it appears that he is poorly prepared, permitting the more pre- pared to take an active part; 6) regulate the discussion when it appears to get out of control as panelists become too directly involved with one another; and 7) regulate time. 11bid. 2Ibid. 3Bishop Leiske does not insist that each panel member speak exactly the same amount of time, but he does believe it his responsi- bility to see that each panel member is given an opportunity to ex- press his views, and that no member "take over." 316 However, on the point, regulating the discussion when it appears to get out of control, the Moderator is quick to add a view that he believes favors television ratings: The general public loves a good fight. More frequently than not I allow the issue to boil, and ride it out. By stopping a good heated discussion, I believe we stand the risk of irritating the public. Unless it becomes personal, I do not interfere. The Bishop is strongly convinced that one of the functions of leadership is the function of management. What Functions Do You Believe You Have Rggarding the Develpp- ment of the Subject as the Discussion Progresses?--Bishop Leiske be- lieves that from time to time, a Moderator has a responsibility for the proper progression of the discussion. The American Religious Town Hall panel has certain established goals; and in order for these goals to be reached, the Bishop feels that it is the duty of the Moderator of the group to become, at times, directly involved in the discussion. In this respect, Leiske does not differ too widely from Gulley: In general, leadership in discussion consists of perform- ing functions that influence the group to achieve its objectives. . . . It is in the best interests of the whole group to have guidance, direction, and some degree of control. Leiske's rationale for participating to a degree in the dis- cussion may be expressed as follows: to clarify, to summarize, and ‘to form a transition. I frequently break into a discussion with the sole purpose of clarifying a point. Sometimes a panelist finds 1Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. zGulley, loc. cit. 317 himself struggling with what appears to be a good point, but by a quirk of emotion or momentary frustration, fails to make that point clearly. I feel I should break in and have him restate the point, assist him in cutting through the issue to the point, to clarify the issue.1 Then, again, there are times when the Bishop believes that a panel member may overstate a point to the degree of irritating viewers. Again, he says, the Moderator has a responsibility not so much to the panel, but to the viewers whose ratings he covets, to break into the discussion to help clarify or correct a comment. The Bishop is quick to add, Few people are aware of the tremendous pressure upon a IModerator who is responsible not only for a smoothly func- tioning panel, but for holding millions of viewers’ attention and interest. Therefore I find it necessary at times to clarify issues for the good of all concerned.2 Frequently the Bishop summarizes an issue. He believes that when a point has been well made, it warrants "expression" or Moderator recapitulation. He believes that this reiteration of a high point aids the rating of his program. Speaking of moderatorship participation as the discussion is in progress, the Bishop believes that there are times when it is necessary for him to break in and with some comment to form a transi- tion in the discussion so as to avoid heading into a dead spot, to Open a new stream of thought, or to redirect and reactivate the discussion. The Moderator believes that this is his function, "to act as the coach of the team,to be a part of the team, and to be its guiding head." 1Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 21bid. 318 Whpt Responsibilities Do You Have at the End of the Discus- pippl--To a degree, Bishop Leiske believes that the summation period of the discussion is an important one, meriting special recognition. He speaks of this period as "the period of final impressions." He is quick to add that the "final taste"1 to a large degree determines the audience’s dialing the program again. Accordingly, at the end of the discussion period, Bishop Leiske invites each guest and panel member to make a summation statement; and he makes sure that each member speaks. As previously noted, each panel member has been asked weeks in advance, to prepare a final statement on the topic. This statement he insists may be written, but should accurately reflect a personal view, or the view of one’s denomination, or the philosophy of the organization which the panel member represents. To assure himself that every panelist gives a summation, the Moderator writes down the names of his panelists and guests; and he checks off these names as they complete their summations. Bishop Leiske believes that this last "round" should accurately reflect the panelist's position, to fortify the panelist’s view, or to correct an impression which might prove Offensive denominationally. Each panel member is given a thirty-second period to complete the summation. An interesting participation act by the Moderator is often observed during the summation period. When a panel program contains a Seventh-day Adventist on the panel, the Bishop refrains from summa- rizing his denomination’s views. However, when no denominational member appears on his panel representing his faith, the Bishop feels 1.1.242. 319 justified in expressing his denomination’s views on the topic. The justification for this participation rests on the "we" factor of the team spirit. The Moderator believes that in pointing up the discussion, he should include the views of his own beliefs. DO You Believe That a Degree Of Showmanship is Necessary in a Discussion Program?--To this question the Moderator replied: I cannot Speak for a small group in private discussion, but I feel absolutely clear that on a television program, a discussion group hinging on ratings, showmanship is not only good for the program, but essential to its survival. The Bishop quickly reminded this researcher that "everything on TV is to some degree anchored to showmanship," and added, We’d commit program suicide to conduct an academic, straight-faced technical discussion without the recognition of showmanship.2 The Bishop defined showmanship as follows: By showmanship I feel that a panel member must act natural. He must let his emotions behave naturally, laugh, or even drop a tear, whisper, argue, use h r, take every advantage to reflect man’s true nature. To catch and accent this natural showmanship, the Bishop has standing instructions with the television camera crews to "move in close" at times to catch facial expressions, the wrinkles of a person, the furrows of a laugh. "A good camera crew can perform a sort of ’candid camera' thoroughness and thus immensely heighten the showman- ship of a discussion program.4 11bid. 2Ibid. 31b1d. 4Ibid. 320 Thus Bishop Leiske feels that such matters as humor, clerical dignity, a sense of sacredness, laughter, tears, et cetera, are a composite which, when rightly photographed, add to the program's show- manship and success. Rule III of the "Rules of Panelists Appearing on the American Religious Town Hall Meeting," clearly calls for a recognition of show- manship. "All speeches should be spontaneous, with an eye toward showmanship. Prepared reading material should be very brief, definite, and to the point."1 1"Rules of Panelists Appearing on the American Religious Town Hall Meeting," unpublished material. From the files of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. A copy Of the rules appears in the Appendix C. CHAPTER IX EVALUATIONS BASED UPON BISHOP LEISKE'S CONCEPTIONS 0F DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP An Evaluation in Depth of Leiske's Practice The basic purpose of this chapter is to evaluate Bishop Leiske's philosophies of discussion and discussion leadership. In chapter four we have the BishOp's general conceptions and practices regarding dis- cussion, whereas in chapters five to seven we have a sampling of six cases. In chapter eight we have the Bishop's specific conceptions re- garding the procedures and methods of a discussion program. It is the purpose of this chapter to evaluate the Bishop's general and specific conceptions and practices as they relate to discussion and discussion group leadership. This evaluation will be conducted along the following lines: 1) Leiske's discussion-purpose evaluated, 2) an evaluation of the sym- posium format, 3) an evaluation of the MOderator's program participa- tion, 4) the‘Moderator's program-promoting evaluated, 5) an evaluation of Leiske’s program-management practice, and 6) an evaluation of Leiske’s discussion preparation practice. Leiske's Discussion-Puppose Evaluated.--A meaningful discussion is always characterized by a purpose. Bishop Leiske stated that the purpose of the American Religious Town Hall‘Meeting discussion program was to "ventilate," to "air," and to encourage "an exchange of expres- sions, ideas, and positions concerning a problem." The panel's policy 321 322 "to air" rather than to solve problems is acceptable procedure in light of two noted discussion authorities. We define discussion as reflective thinking by two or more persons who co-Operatively exchange information and ideas . . . to gain a better understanding of the problem.1 It is generally recognized in the field of discussion literature that the use of discussion as a communication tool is to widen the field of knowledge on a given topic through the exchange of ideas, experiences, and Opinions. Thus discussion becomes a teaching method for informing or instructing group members, or an audience. Many of life’s problems appear to have no final answer, but tend to have a specific answer for each individual. Hence a general discussion of a problem may be most beneficial to aid in the making of a personal decision or individual problem-solving. Discussion "requires a group of persons who have a common back- ground of experience and are interested in discussing problems of judg- ment for which there are no standard answers."2 Because of the diversity of our American religious culture, it would be difficult to apply a standard answer to the question of send- ing an "Ambassador to the Vatican." An examination of the program re- vealed that the panel attempted no specific decisions, but spent con- siderable time "airing" the problem. Dr. Nelson noted that the early history of American-vatican re- 1William‘M. Sattler and N. Edd Miller, Discussion and Confer- ence (Englewood Cliffs, N..J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), p. 6. 2C. F. Klinefelter, Social Leadership (Washington: U. 8. Office of Education, 1940), p. 5. 323 lations indicated "very great Opposition," while Rev. Mr. Gillmett en- lightened his audience by projecting the question whether the Vatican was a "state or a church.” The Baptist member of the panel, Dr. Pomeroy, believed that his audience should be enlightened on the actual land acreage size of the Vatican, "just a little over 108 acres." The two Roman Catholic panel members, both guests for the day, Dr. Wolf and Representative Sheehan, expressed the Roman Catholic tra- ditional views on the needs for developing deeper American-Vatican ties. Their positions noted the benefits of 1) past traditions of these two powers, 2) a united front against Communism, and 3) a fellowship of Christian ideologies. Dr. Frank Yost, the editor of Libertnggggzine, aired the tra- ditional Protestant views on American-Vatican relations, as embodied in the philosophy of the "separation of church and state." In the program, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?", the Moderator again demonstrated latitude in the discussion, as noted in his criteria, to "ride out" a controversial issue. Likewise he called for no limitations to the scope of the study, and no problem-solving solutions. He encouraged a free exchange of ideas in accord with his philosophy of "airing" a problem. This is not to say that solutions were not projected, but merely to suggest that such a position was not reflected in the MOderator’s approach. He especially invited the panel to avoid "platitudes" and to discuss, "should the church assume its re- sponsibility?" or should the state step in to bring about a "spiritual" Sunday? The panel responded by l) airing the legal aspects of Sunday 324 observance, 2) examining the types of merchandise to be sold on Sunday, 3) airing the Spiritual decline attributed to "Sunday buying," and 4) examining the "constitutionality" of Sunday legislation. The Moderator closed this program by inviting the viewing audience to "examine their remarks," referring to the panelists’ diver- gent views, and trusting the viewers to form their own conclusions. In the program, "The Second Coming of Christ," again one does not find a problem-solving discussion in process. With a simple, "How literally shall we take the Scriptures that speak of the Second Coming of the Lord?" the discussion opened and ran its course. It appeared to be an "airing'procedure. Rev. Mr. Allen, the‘Methodist panelist, start- ed the ventilation process by reading a Biblical description of the Lord's ascension as recorded in I Thessalonians 4:16. The second speak- er, Dr. Ansgar Nelson, noted the relevance of the doctrine in the "Apostles' Creed," whereas Dr. Pomeroy Observed a lack of contemporary interest in the event. "I think it was a great deal of concern thirty or fifty years ago."_ Dr. R. A. Anderson expressed no problem-solving concern but merely appreciation for the opportunity to air the question. "It's wonderful that we can discuss this question so freely." Dr. Carbury added a further dimension to the informational level of the study by adding that "His appearance," rather than being a literal event, might also be equated as a spiritual event, "He is within each one of us." The MOderator expressed approval of this free exchange of ideas, and concluded the panel program with a word of thanks to the panel for "your free discussion." NO reference was made to a solution to the 325 divergent views, namely, time sequence of His coming, or the event as being either Spiritual or personal. The Moderator intended apparently for each viewer to draw his own conclusions. This is in accord with the panel’s policy to "ventilate" the problem, allowing conclusions to be formed by each viewer. The fourth program examined by this researcher, "The Authority of the Church," followed a pattern similar to the preceding three. The Moderator raised a question in his introductory comment, "Is it neces- sary to belong to a church?" Strong views were expressed both in favor of "belonging" to a church to obtain salvation, as well as strong views against the need of belonging to a church. Both the Jewish Rabbi and Dr. Pomeroy, the Baptist panelist, maintained the view that salvation was more of an individual matter rather than institutional. While the discussion centered heavily upon theological, christological, and eccle- siastical claims, no concrete problem-solving procedure was discernible in the discussion. The program was definitely a "ventilation" one, with views from mild to dogmatic present. The program closed on the note of ventilation. "These men have spoken freely and clearly." In the fifth program sample, "The Control of the Population," one finds again the fOrmat of free discussion, ventilation, and the airing of a problem, rather than solving the problem. For example, the Moderator's first comment, following the introduction of the program, was, "Is it necessary to control the world population in order to main- tain an equal balance?" but did not suggest a response to "what steps" should be taken to control the population. Here again a level of 326 problem ventilation was requested, with any solutions prOposed being of apparent secondary value. The content material presented by the panel was informative. It recognized 1) housing problems, 2) land shortages, 3) birth control ideals, 4) religious values, 5) family planning care, and 6) Biblical concerns for the care and welfare of a child, "children are the heritage of the Lord." Protestant, Jewish, and Roman Catholic views were clearly ex- pressed on the issue of world population problems, yet no Specific solution was proposed as to how the widely divergent beliefs could be synthesized into a working solution. The Moderator's summation explicitly affirmed the panel's pur- pose to ventilate the problem. His acknowledgment was "they have a right to differ." No solution was proposed as a group decision. In the sixth program in the sampling, "Is a Man a Mbrderer in Time of War?" again there is present in the total format of the dis- cussion the purpose to ventilate, to "air" the problem rather than to solve denominational differences. The views expressed by the panel on the question of killing hedged in and about such problematical supposi- tions as l) circumstances, 2) motive, and 3) authority,--to an outright rejection of killing by the Quaker clergyman on the panel. Even a ref- erence to "holy wars" gave the panel no clue to killing as a justifiable or non-justifiable act in war or out of war. An analysis of the program identified it as a free discussion, airing the many sides of a complex issue. The arguments ranged from total killing justification in time of war to pacifism. The panel rep- 327 resented the views of Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Liberal Catholic, Quaker, and Seventh-day Adventist ideologies. The ventilation aSpect of this program was best summed up by Dr. Pomeroy, "There is a plurality of ways of expressing it." In the Moderator‘s summation, no solution was suggested. The panel had done its work in accord with its policy. It had aired the divergent views and expected the audience to draw its own conclusions. Certainly one of the fundamental rules of discussion programming is best summed up by an authority who recognizes that in a diversity of views expressed there is richness of productivity. A primary virtue of group discussion is that it brings to bear on a problem a diversity of background, information, and viewpoint. This richness of resource remains untapped unless all contribute freely . . . in a Spirit of c00peration. It is this expression of viewpoints, this sharing of ideas that fulfills the major purpose of the Town Hall panel discussion program. "Let the people decide."2 This "airing" process harmonizes with Bishop Leiske's philosophy of discussion. Americans have a right to hear the many sides to a problem. They have a right to examine the many angles to a problem. We hope to stimulate interest and discussion among our viewers and let them decide.3 As Professor A. Craig Baird put it, "Panels are chiefly set up as occasions for learning."4 This is in accord with the Bishop's 1William E. Utterback, Decision Through_Discussion (New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1950), p. 51. 2Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 31bid. 4A. Craig Baird, Argumentation, Ilscussion,gand Debate (New York: McGraweHill Book Company, 1950), p. 281. 328 discussion philosophy of "airing" a problem for the benefits derived from a mutual exchange of ideas. The Town Hall panel program is basi- cally a learning program. An Evaluation of the Symposium Format.--The basic distinction to be made between a panel discussion and the symposium is that the sym- posium replaces informal conversation among discussants with a series of Short, prepared Speeches, presented in turn by members of the group. Usually the symposium topics represent a partitioning of a discussion problem into as many subtopics as there are Speakers. In the case of the Town Hall panel, the division was not subtopical, rather sectarian. Each_symposium Speaker is expected to eXpress a prepared view that re- flects his view or his denominational view. In the case of the Town Hall, the symposium is partitioned in the sense that the "speakers are invited to take opposing views on a controversial issue."1 Thus there is a Catholic viewpoint, a Jewish viewpoint, and a Protestant vieWpoint. "These pre-arranged talks . . . reflect the rep- resentative approaches."2 The symposium format of the American Religious Town Hall rota- tion sequence differs considerably from that of normal symposium rota- tional Speaker procedures in that not every panel member is a symposium participant during the symposium format. The right to different methods finds credence in sound scholarship on discussion methodologies. We should like to emphasize that in our opinion there is no set formula for discussion; that the form discussions 1William S. Howell and Donald K. Smith, Discussion (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956), p. 165. 2Baird, op. cit., p. 282. 329 take varies widely with the purpose they serve and with the personalities involved. . . . It is the purpose for which a group meets that must determine the structure and procedure of discussion.1 The cited reason, why the symposium Speakers rotation sequence is not encouraged all around, before permitting full discussion, is ex- plained by Bishop Leiske as follows: If even after the first symposium Speech, the panel explodes into a cross-fire of enthusiastic discussion, I feel it would be most unwise to proceed with the rest of the symposium. Rather, when the discussion Spirit is ignited, I feel we Should use this point as a take-off for the discussion.2 The Bishop justifies this "pattern" on the grounds that he has a TV audience to consider, and adds, "Indeed, we‘re not playing to a captive audience." The Moderator is consistent on this matter. In the first pro- gram analyzed, "An Ambassador to the Vatican," there were six panel mem- bers on the program. Dr. Ansgar Nelson began the symposium discussion, followed by two other speakers who made general comments. However, following the fourth symposium speaker, Dr. Wolf, the symposium pattern was broken by Dr. Nelson, who found himself Strongly stimulated by the fourth Speaker’s symposium Speech. An analysis of the procedure indi- cates clearly that this fourth Speech was the Speech that ignited the discussion. Dr. Wolf took a very positive stand, and for some time the discussion centered in his views. 1John Burton, Group Discussion (London: Central Council for Health Education, 1958), p. 4. 2Leiske Interview, February 10, 1967. 31bid. 330 In the second program under evaluation, one observes that, though there are six panel members, only two symposium Speeches were given when the symposium format was shattered and the discussion fanned out into a rather heated exchange. In fact, the sixth member of the panel, Judge Daly, was not heard from until the panel had exchanged twenty-five participations. Judge Daly’s first Speech was the twenty- sixth panel exchange. The third program, "The Second Coming of Christ, An Escatologi- cal Question," also had Six panel members in total participation. How- ever, all Six members did not Speak in rotation to complete the sympos- ium. Following the fourth Speaker, Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, the discussion turned into a flurry of exchanges. The Sixth member of the panel, a guest, Dr. Carbury, was not heard from for some time. She was the ninth participant. The fourth program, "The Authority of the Church," reflects the Moderator's consistent principle of permitting the discussion to ignite at a point of natural exchange of ideas. Following the Mbderator's introduction of the topic, the Speakers were recognized in the following symposium order: 1) Rev. Mk; Gillmett, 2) Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, 3) Rev. Mr. Allen, and 4) Rev. Mr. Gillmett. Thus the persistent waving of the hand gained for Rev. Mk. Gillmett the nod of the Moderator. Three other panel members had not yet spoken. Rev. Mr. Gillmett's second participation appears to be the take-off point. From here the discussion fanned out in an exchange. The Sixth member on the panel, Father Vasiliou , gave his first Speech as the tenth par- ticipation. 331 Rev. Mr. Gillmett's positive assertion, "It's absolutely essen- tial for you to belong to the Christian church," triggered off the dis- cussion exchange and broke the symposium pattern. This positive posi- tion brought back a strong comment from Rabbi Raskas, who preferred to stay with the Jewish "synagogue" for salvation. In the fifth program under investigation, "The Control of the Population," the symposium format followed a very familiar pattern-- three panel members, and then an exchange of discussion ideas. Rev. Mr. Kempe, the sixth panel member, was heard as the ninth participation, his first contribution; and Rev. Mr. Gillmett Spoke three times before Rev. Mr. Kempe was heard from. The sixth program, "IS a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" re- flected a deviation from a strict symposium format. Two Speakers Spoke, and then the discussion opened to a full interchange by the panel mem- bers. Pastor Rees, the Quaker member on the panel, a guest for the day, was not heard from until thirteen Speeches had been given. Regarding the Moderator's "pacesetter technique," using only regular panel members to start off the discussion, the Bishop appeared fairly consistent, though he did violate this rule in the program, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" by inviting Dr. Frank Yost, a guest, to make the pacesetter's symposium speech. Three possible reasons might be cited for this deviation: 1) Bishop Leiske and Dr. Yost are friends of many years standing; 2) Dr. Yost, an experienced public speaker, was acquainted also with television work; and 3) Bishop Leiske and Dr. Yost share the same religious convictions on the issue, thus permitting the Mederator a degree of security in asking Dr. Yost 332 to set the discussion pace. An Evaluation of the Moderator’s Program Participation.--In the sampling of Six programs that this investigation has undertaken, it was found that the Moderator participated a total of forty-six times, with an average of 7.66 participations per program. This participation fre- quency is exclusive of his Statements while introducing the program, and is exclusive of his summation comments. Since neither the intro- ductory nor the summation comments were "panel participation" in the strictest sense, they are thus not included in this study. In these six programs, the panel and Moderator Show a total of 319 participations, with the Moderator involved directly forty-Six times. The panel members combined had a total of 276 participations, or an individual average of forty-five participations. Thus the Moderator appears to have partici- pated just a slight bit more in the total picture than that of each of his panelists. The question of the Mbderator's participation will be evaluated in terms of the following functions: 1) questioning, 2) initiating, 3) coordinating, and 4) summating. Questioning: One of the functions of a Moderator is the re- Sponsibility of directing the panel discussion in such a manner as to evoke an effective interaction stimulus. 0f the number of methods of participation in which a moderator may direct the discussion, possibly none is more effective than the art of questioning. "The chairman functions mainly through the questions he asks."1 1John W. Keltner, Group Discussion Process (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1957), p. 226. 333 The author of this work places a high premium on the importance of questions by the Moderator. Throughout the six prograns, the Moderator asked a total of elev- en questions. Of this total, three appear to be management questions, or questions on procedure: 1) "Dr. Nelson, will you yield to Dr. Wolf?" 2) "Dr. Yost, do you want the floor?" and 3) "Dr. Carbury, did you wish to come in?" ‘However, eight of these questions must be classed as "content" questions, questions intended to be directive, leading, or general. 1. "Dr. Nelson, wouldn't it be better, then, as far as this country is concerned, to set aside . . . a day of rest and let him choose the day he wishes to rest?" This appears definitely to have been a lead question, placed by the Moderator to encourage a new line of thinking, namely, to permit a labor-management agreement to be set up permitting a one-day-in—seven, rather than a "fixed" day of rest. 2. "Shall the American people decide which day should be set aside, or shall we leave that to the individual when it comes to matters of conscience?" In this question the Moderator apparently again sought to avoid a serious confrontation, and asked his panel to consider the individual conscience. This comment was prompted because a strong position was taken by Rev. Mr. Forney, that "minority groups . . . have to take certain sacrifices." The'Moderator’s attempt here to get the panel to discuss the question of conscience failed inasmuch as Rev. Mr. Forney immediately reminded the panel and the Moderator that the "one-day-in- seven" concept was to him unacceptable; thus Rev. Mr. Forney appeared to be wiping away the delicate question of conscience. 334 3. "Rabbi Raskas, which church are you going to join?" The Mbderator appeared to have posed this question for a two- fold reason. First, his panel had fallen completely off its ecumenical track by insisting that to inherit eternal life it was "absolutely essential" to belong to a Christian church. Bishop Leiske's question reflected a stimulative rebuke. Second, the panel at this point appeared to have been wedged into the "Straight and narrow gate" of denominational sectarianism, forgetting the presence of the Jewish colleague. The humorous question Shattered the tenseness of the moment, and created an uproar of laughter. The Moderator's participation here appears fully justified in terms of his philosophy to "redirect" group thinking when tensions mount. 4. "Isn't God Still ruling in the affairs of nations and people? Doesn‘t God come in here some place?" The Mbderator here appeared to be desirous of realigning the progression of the program by inserting into the discussion a direct reference to divine intervention in human affairs. The Bishop was apparently attempting to say that because of a violation of the "Command- ments," 1) children are born without due regard for their welfare, 2) men destroy material means which might well produce greater quantities of food to sustain the needy, and 3) cannot God intervene if men will recog- nize His presence? It would appear that these thoughts present an attempt at realignment of discussion, from the scientific-material to the human-divine. 5. "But now what about the Christian's standpoint?" This it appears was but a "turnback"1 type of question, a 11bid., p. 228. 335 question placed in such a manner as to redirect the panel‘s interests back to the point under consideration, namely, "Should a Christian participate in the killing processes involved in war?" That the Modera- tor was successful in this method is apparent in that the next Speaker introduced the "teachings of Jesus" in his speech. The Moderator's question was apparently intended to accomplish this. It did. 6. "Pastor Russell Rees, do you think it is all right to take life in time of war?" Two things are immediately apparent in this question. First, the Moderator, a learned clergyman, fully understood the Quaker‘s posi- tion without directing a pointed question at him. Second, fourteen Speeches had been exchanged up to this point, and the Quaker panelist had not yet participated. This "person to person" question appears to have been intended solely to bring into the discussion the Quaker view- points as per Pastor Rees. The purpose of the question apparently was also to further stimulate the discussion, from which other questions and comments would arise. 7. "IS a man really guilty [of murder] when the state goes to war?" The MOderator here was riding a point made by Dr. Nelson, who introduced man's involvement to State reSponsibilities in time of war in his symposium Speech. The Mbderator's question was directed to Dr. Nelson. The ques- tion was one of far-reaching implications, for the Bishop was obviously aware of the Pauline doctrine that teaches that the founding of the state rests in the "power of God,"1 and that the New Testament admonishes I'Romans 13:1 336 Christians to be "subject unto the higher powers."1 Thus the question appears fully intended as an instrument of arousal, of provoking direct stimulation in the discussion. 8. "Is it not possible that our nation might also be some- what reSponsible in contributing toward the action of war?" This question, lifted from a complex of four, all interrelated to the question of States’ involvement, and states‘ reSponsibility versus foreign aggression, appears intended as a "shift-of-the-trend- of-discussion" type of question. The Moderator here was openly asking that the panel consider that war may not always be the result of hostile aggression from without, but may also stem from a nation’s own hostil- ity to other peoples, thus necessitating a Shift of thinking regarding war justification. The Speaker who followed this question appears to have caught the point and directed his comments to pacifism. These eight questions of content appear to have been for the purpose of l) stimulating interest, 2) Stimulating participation, 3) guiding the thought pattern of the discussion, 4) motivating a deeper intensity of reasoning, 5) focusing on some Special point, and 6) Shift- ing the trend of diScussion as the Mbderator deemed necessary. Initiation: A.moderator‘s functions include those of initiating l) the program, 2) new ideas when the panel finds itself stalemated, and 3) realignment and redirection when a confrontation appears destruc- tive to the discussion. In the six programs under evaluation we find the Moderator intro- ducing each program with varying techniques. For example, in the first 11b id. 337 program, he introduced the problem of a representative to the Vatican by a three-fold setting: a statement of the problem, "We are discussing a representative to the Vatican;" a rhetorical question, "Should the Vatican be recognized only as a church, or also as a State?"; and a value judgment, "That’s a very important question for the American people." In the second program, the Moderator initiated the discussion with a simplified rhetorical question, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Re- pealed?" However, in the same program, the Moderator's second partici- pation comment to the panel, after rebuking the panel for "dealing in platitudes," initiated a new line of thought. Should one church have the privilege of legislating its church doctrine "in preference to another?" This appears to be in harmony with the Bishop‘s view of break- ing into a discussion to amplify a point under discussion. Again, in the same program, the Moderator initiated a new thought by raising the concerns of Sunday legislation running into con- flict with the "first amendment." In the third program, "The Second Coming of Christ," the'Modera- tor introduced the problem in a two-phase initiation. First, in a clergyman‘s optimism, he admonished his hearers, "It Should be of inter- est to all of our millions of listeners," then followed a rhetorical question, "How literally can we take the Scriptures that Speak of the Second Coming of our Lord?" Except for this, no further initiation of thoughts were detectable in this program. In the fourth program, the program was initiated by a rhetorical question, "IS it necessary to belong to the church?" Nowhere else in 338 the program did the Moderator initiate a new idea, but permitted the panel to move along in its pattern of interaction. In the fifth problem, the Moderator introduced the topic, "The Control of the Population," with a three-fold value judgment followed by the title of the program: 1) "We have such an unusual topic for this telecast," 2) "I know it‘s going to create not only interest," and 3) "It might even create a sensation." Near the end of this program the Moderator took a full and apparent part in the discussion by intro- ducing the thought of "a church has a right to legislate in its own behalf, but it cannot force that legislation upon the rest of the citi- zens of the nation." This was a new thought introduced, and appeared to be intended as a justifiable break-in into the conversation to for- tify Rabbi Raskas' view on this point. In the Sixth program, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" the Bishop initiated the program by stating the question. The only other new thought initiated by him was a comment on Jesus, who "didn’t take life Himself." 0n the whole, the Bishop's initiation remained basically in the realm of introducing the topic for discussion at the beginning of the program. Coordinating: Certainly one of the major functions of a modera- tor is that of pulling together ideas, and relating them one to another. This appears particularly essential in an interfaith attempt where there is a divergence of opinions and convictions. The moderator may need to "harmonize" views to hold his TV audience. Several excellent examples appeared in the following programs which when evaluated, justify the 339 Moderator's direct participation in the discussion. The first such example of coordination appeared in the program, "An Ambassador to the Vatican." A heated discussion between the Roman Catholic element on the panel and the Protestant element on the panel brought the Moderator directly into the discussion with a coordinating attempt. "It is not to criticize nor reflect in any way, but we’re glad to announce that we have Protestants and Catholics" on the panel. Again, an attempt was made by the Moderator to coordinate the program, appearing in chapter five, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" The Moderator, of course, was aware that both Sunday worshippers and worshippers on Saturday were present. The Moderator was also aware that the panel was Split on "religious legislation or civil." Since each segment of the panel was Speaking on its own level, the Moderator, to coordinate the program, found it necessary to insist that the panel must "decide . . . whether it‘s religious legislation we're discussing or civil." Another example of discussion participation appears, this one in the program, "The Second Coming of Christ." The Moderator was aware that the panel was discussing the question of His return on two levels, 1) a Spiritual return, and 2) a literal return. The ensuing discussion necessitated the Moderator‘s intervention with an attempt to coordinate the thinking. "I recognize that all of you believe that Christ is here now . . . but . . . we‘re talking about the en ." [a literal return] The Bishop's intervention here appears justified when it is evaluated in terms of the two levels of thought that had been plaguing the discussion for some minutes. 340 A fourth coordination attempt is seen in the program, "The Authority of the Church." Divergent views on church authority here prevailed in abundance. Some semblance of coordination was needed here, and was provided by the Moderator when he acknowledged the interfaith impasse. "These men are very serious. . . . They differ in their theol- ogy, but when it comes to American democracy, they stand united." This comment by the Moderator appears needed here to harmonize the Town Hall‘s policy of "agreeing to differ" within the scope of an ecumenical brotherhood. In the program, "The Control of the Population," the Moderator made a direct intervention into the program by asking for a measure of coordination. The question of two levels of discussion was plaguing the interaction. The Roman Catholic panel members appeared to be Skirt- ing the basic question of birth control as related to the vital dis- cussion on population control, whereas the Protestant and Jewish ethnic was attempting to get at the question of population control but appeared a bit hesitant in the presence of the Roman Catholic panelists. The Moderator sought a degree of coordination by openly making a bid for a freer exchange of ideas. "This is a very important discussion . and I think we ought to talk very frankly." Summation: While a moderator basically does not take sides, nor show favoritism to one segment of the panel over another, nor does he traditionally give advice, yet there was justifiable grounds for his participation on the basis of interpretation or summation. The leader is there to help the group. He certainly has the right, in fact, an obligation to discuss problems raised 341 by the group members. It's their discussion, not his lecture. An evaluation of Bishop Leiske’s participation suggests his concerns for the good of the program. A number of interpretations or summations appear in the programs being investigated which Show the Bishop‘s direct participation. In the program, "Should Sunday Blue Laws be Repealed?" the 'Moderator made a brief summation point, then redirected the panel to a more productive direction as he saw it. The panel had for some minutes been discussing the "desecration of the Sabbath," and appeared stalled on the point. The Bishop quickly summated the principle of Sabbath desecration in these words, "I think we all agree that the Sabbath is not being observed in America as it ought to be." The 'Moderator then encouraged the panel to move on to another point, namely, legal religion or voluntary Sabbath observance. Another summation appeared in the same program. The Moderator summed three concerns: 1) "We must decide whether Sunday legislation is religious," 2) "Are we in the field of civil legislation?" and 3) "Shall the American people decide which day Should be set aside?" With this concise summation, the panel moved quickly into the topic of legislation versus conscience. In the program, "The Authority of the Church," the Moderator carried through the convictions established in his criteria, namely, to summate his own denomination’s view on the topic in the "absence" of a denominational colleague on the panel. His summation of Seventh-day 1Nathaniel Cantor, Learning Through Discussion (Buffalo, N. Y.: University of Buffalo Press, 1951), p. 85. 342 Adventist beliefs on Church Authority is two-fold, 1) "It is very necessary to belong to the church," and 2) "The individual who does not fully understand Christ . . . is accepted into heaven." It is this type of participation that is strictly content par- ticipation and thus appears somewhat irregular for a moderator; yet the ‘Moderator justifies this intervention in terms of his philosophy as noted in the criteria. Another example of summation inviting a restatement, appears in the program, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" Here the Moderator wished to have Dr. Nelson's law of community reSponsibility re-examined. The Moderator's direct intervention here Squares with the best of dis- cussion techniques which allow for the moderator to break in to clarify, amplify, or to add to a point. In evaluating the Moderator's summation participations, it appears that he adhered to his policy set forth in the criteria. His decisions fall into the category of decision review and of restatement summations. The'Moderator's ProgramrPromoting_§valuated.--Now and then Bishop Leiske left the functions of a panel moderator to promote some phase, or the general purpose, of the Town Hall. This promotion is present in a number of instances in the program samplings. For instance, in the program, "An Ambassador to the vatican," the Moderator broke into the program.sbout a third of the way through to remind his audience, "I think I need to make just one observation for our general audience throughout the nation." The Moderator then proceeded to make four ob- servations: 1) "This is democracy in action," 2) "This is a free 343 discussion," 3) "It is not to criticize or reflect," and 4) "I appreci- ate this frankness." This is in accord with his criteria in which he believes he should take advantage of high moments in the program to promote the program. It is interesting to note that this resume of "program adver- tising" did follow a moment of panel disturbance when a clamor of voices made it necessary for the Moderator to take some action. Again in the same program, near the latter part of it, the ‘Moderator broke into the program discussion to announce, "Gentlemen, this is democracy in action," then proceeded to advertise the program as a "wonderful educational program," In the same breath, so to Speak, the Moderator made a rather daring promotional pitch by exciting the imagination of his hearers, "I rather feel . . . that this is the first time that this was ever dared to be discussed openly so frankly." Obviously this would appear to be nothing less than program promotion on a level of daring and challenge. In the program, "Should Sunday Blue Laws Be Repealed?" appeared another promotional appeal. About midway through the program, the 'Moderator threw out a promotional feeler. "I'm sure that the millions of people throughout American will enjoy this clearing and this hot forthright discussion." Interestingly enough, this piece of promotion followed a rapid-fire exchange of panel member involvement. Again in the same program.sppeared a further selling point of the program, "I'm sure that this telecast from coast to coast will be a dynamic force in the life of the American people. We appreciate your support from coast to coast." The latter comment on "support" may 344 well have been intended to serve as a gentle nudge to contribute finan- cially to the Town Hall. In the program, "The Authority of the Church," the Moderator‘s introductory comments include a Town Hall promotional thought. "Ladies and gentlemen, . . . The American Religious Town Hall Meeting has been dedicated for the preservation of our American way of life." This appears to be a direct appeal to the public to examine the Town Hall's purposes, as well as a back-handed compliment. Probably the strongest promotion of the program by the Moderator appeared in the program, "The Control of the POpulation," in which the Moderator made a triple-crowned selling pitch for the program: 1) "an unusual topic," 2) "create not only interest," and 3) "a sensation." With this high-ballad introduction, the panel members moved into the discussion surrounded by an aura that their program would be assured an "interest" and even a "sensation." Generally speaking, the programs are relatively free from promo~ tional attempts by the Moderator. Such promotional ideas as do appear are centered in such generalizations as, "millions of listeners," "This is democracy in action," or "from coast to coast." An Egalgation offiggiske's ProggamsManagement Practice.--The chairman of a panel discussion group acting as leader and moderator of the group, functions under a number of interests. ‘His leadership func- tions may generally be classified to include the following concerns: 1) facilitating group action, 2) directing group behavior, and 3) pat- terning panel behavior. The Bishop believes that as an "expectancy role," the people 345 sort of look to the Moderator to introduce the program. In the evalua- tion of Six programs in the sampling, one finds the Moderator fulfill- ing this role. The Moderator also introduced each of his guests in the samplings. In this respect he met the standards of his criteria. Speaking of definition of terms, a close study of the six pro- gram samples shows no defining of terms by the Moderator. Rev. Mr. Allen, as a panel member, came reasonably close to making a definition of termm in his attempt to define "killing as self defense," an "mur- dering is premeditated." This distinction definition appearing in the program, "Is a Man a Murderer in Time of War?" is an inevitable out- growth of the discussion rather than a definitive position taken be- fore the discussion began. In the same manner, a definition of terms was undertaken by Dr. Frank Yost in the program, "An Ambassador to the Vatican." Dr. Yost found it necessary to define the term, "Vatican City," and to distin- guish it from the term "Holy See"--in his attempt to clarify his stand on the separation of church and State. In this same program, Dr. Wolf asked for a definition of an embassy, "What is an embassy?" but neither he nor the Moderator attempted a definition. Dr. Wolf in the same participation asked for a definition of the meaning of the word recog- nition, "What do we mean by recognition at the Vatican?"--and proceeded to give a general answer. Said he, "Recognition merely means a recog- nition of the existing facts." This appeared to be a rather latitud- inal definition. In the program, "The Control of the Population," one further attempt was made in terms of definitions. The phrase, "birth control," 346 was expanded by Rev. Mr. Gillmett to include "continence." In the matter of "definition of terms," both the Moderator and the panel followed a relatively agreed upon course as set out in the criteria, limiting the use of definitions so as to avoid making the discussion pedantic or heavy. On the question, "the general public loves a good fight," as noted in the criteria, the Moderator ran true to form. Several examples appear in the program samplings, reflecting the Bishop's philosophy to "ride it out." In the program, "An Ambassador to the Vatican," a number of sharp clashes took place with Dr. Wolf at the center of "the issue." The Bishop made no attempt to ease the situation. Dr. Wolf's comments, "You're completely wrong on that point," "throw that out," and "I don't agree," challenged the panel. The entire program was marked by strong convictions in a basic four-way "fight"--Representative Sheehan and Dr. Wolf, Roman Catholic laymen defending the sending of an Ambassador, and Dr. Yost and Rev. Mr. Gillmett strongly opposing such American-Vatican involvement on constitutional grounds. In the program, "Should Sunday Blue Laws Be Repealed?" appeared another example of "a good fight," with no direct interference by the Bishop. This heated exchange centered primarily between Rev.‘Mr. Allen and Rev. Mr. Forney, who Strongly favored Sunday legislation, versus Dr. Frank YOSt, who strongly favored repealing all Sunday Blue Laws. The exchange of emotion and views became at times so charged that the aud- ience burst into applause and on one occasion, even a mild booing. There was no evidence that at any time the Moderator found it 347 necessary to break up a "good fight" in the sample of six programs evaluated. An evaluation of the'Moderator's direct management of the pro- gram, directing behavior, facilitating group action, showed him to be an active man. In the program, "An Ambassador to the Vatican," the ‘Moderator, in addition to introducing the panel and setting the discus- sion mood by his introductory comnents, brought down the gavel twice on one occasion to break up a clamor of voices, calling for a semblance of rotational order. Again later in the program he rapped for order to give rotation to all Speakers. (Probably the most evident display of Moderator management appeared in the program, "Should Sunday Laws Be Repealed?" Dr. Yost's comment, "The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week," evoked an enor- mous audience applause. (The Philadelphia Academy of Music Auditorium audience of some 1500-2000 was apparently largely composed of Seventh- day Adventists.) The Moderator rapped his gavel nine times to restore order. "Just a minute," he ordered, "let's not applaud." Less than two minutes later, the Moderator again rapped for order. About midway through the program, Dr. Yost's comments again drew a thunderous applause, and the Moderator pled for order. Rapping the gavel he urged, "Give the panelists more time." Barely three minutes later, the Modera- tor again rapped the gavel, this time four times. On one occasion during this program.be charged the panel with, "Cut the speeches short." Again, Dr. Yost and Dr. Nelson exchanged private words; and the Moderator rapped the gavel for order. Again near the latter part of the program, Dr. Yost's comments on Sabbath 348 observance brought an applause-~much to the concern of the Moderator This entire program was marked with spontaneous outbursts of laughter and applause that kept the Moderator busy managing "a good fight" with- out Stopping it. A series of management expressions appear consistently through- out the programs: 1) "Keep it short," 2) "I will now recognize," 3) "The floor is yours," 4) "May I sum up," 5) "Our time is up," 6) "Let's get to the point," 7) "In view of these facts," 8) “May I call your attention to," 9) "Here is a point we need to consider," and 10) "Sum up your position." This evaluator sees a consistency between the Moderator's criteria and his practice in discussion group management. An Evaluation.of Leiske's Discussion Preparation Practice.--An examination of Bishop Leiske's discussion-preparation criteria indicates that he has a strong interest in favor of thorough preparation, both for himself as Mbderator and his panel. An examination of the discussion- preparation literature by authorities in the field makes it clear that a high correlation exists in moderator discussion-preparation, and the success of the panel discussion program. William.E. Utterback says, The better informed the leader is, the more useful he will be. He cannot lead a discussion successfully on information skimmed from the surface. Braden and Gehring place a Strong accent upon preparation and success correlation. "Dignity and power come from full knowledge, deep 1Utterback, op. cit., p. 30. 349 thought, and sure faith."1 A. Craig Baird and Franklin H. Knower emphatically stress, "Get a good background"2 before venturing into public discussion. Gilman, Aly, and Reid,in their treatment of discussion-prepara- tion for the chairmanship of a panel discussion, plainly Spell out the need of thorough preparation. The leader Should understand the method of discussion, and the special matter of the question. . . . Knowing the subject matter enables him to test the accuracy of information pre- sented and to keep the discussion moving. . . . His under- standing of the question Should be lively rather than academic.3 William Norwood Brigance not only gives forceful and sound counsel that the public discussant and speaker be informed of his topic through thorough preparation, but that he "outline"4 his speech so as to give opportunity to develop a more critical and knowledgable approach to the pool of information. An evaluation of the six programs under consideration shows the Moderator to be not only knowledgable and basically well-informed of the topics before him, but that he made preparation notes and "outlines" to suit his Moderatorship needs. In the program, "An Ambassador to the Vatican," the Moderator 1Waldo W. Braden and Mery Louise Gehring, Speech Practices (New York: Harper & Bros. Publishers, 1958), p. 23. 2A. Craig Baird and Franklin H. Xnower, General Speech (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., 1957), p. 21. 3Wilbur E. Gilman, Bower Aly, and Loren D. Reid, The Fundamen- tals of Speakipg (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), pp. 449-450. 4William Norwood Brigance, Speech Communication (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955), p. 87. 350 had before him an outline posing four Special areas of interest: 1) Should the Vatican be recognized only as a church, or also as a state? 2) Would a representative to the Vatican be a union of Church and State? 3) Would a representative be helpful in fighting Communism? and 4) Would it add strength to our State Department to have a listening post at the Vatican? In the program, "Should Sunday Blue Laws Be Repealed?" the ‘Moderator reduced his outline before him to two basic questions, namely, 1) Should Sunday Blue Laws be repealed? and 2) Are religious practices the reSponsibility of the state or church? In the discussion program, "The Second Coming of Christ," the Moderator had before him six penetrating questions, or a preparedness ratio of one question for every four minutes of total program-discussion time. The questions before him were: 1) How literally can we take the Scriptures that Speak of the Second Coming of the Lord? 2) Will the Second Coming be a physical or a Spiritual return? 3) How can we think of Christ as coming again when we as Christians claim He is already present with us? 4) Was the Second Coming experienced at Pentecost? 5) What should Christians do with the symbolismw found in the Bible? and 6) Does waiting for the Second Coming Show a lack of faith in our part? The question-outline used by Bishop Leiske in the program, "The Authority of the Church," was made up of four questions. The questions reveal the‘Moderator's understanding of the topic under discussion: 1) Is there salvation outside the church? 2) Is the church necessary? 3) Are people better off when they belong to the Church? and 4) Should 351 the church enter into modern politics? In the fifth program sampling, "The Control of the Population," this researcher found an outline that the Moderator used during the program, covering six areas by questions that show an understanding of the field under discussion. The questions are as follows: 1) Is it necessary to control the world's population? 2) What methods have controlled the world‘s population? 3) Have we a right to control parenthood? 4) Is there any Biblical teaching against the control of parenthood? 5) Has any church come out in favor of birth control? and 6) Is the fight to prevent laws being raised which allow doctors to give advice on birth control an infringement of our freedom? In the sixth program sample, Bishop Leiske became even more expansive, and prepared a discussion outline embracing seven areas of thought. Thus he was prepared to inject new blood into the discussion on an average of once every three minutes, should the discussion have indicated a bogging down. These seven questions are directive, and are as follows: 1) Is compulsory military training against the Christian teachings? 2) Should pacifists be locked up during war? 3) Is compul- sory military training against the democratic principles of our country? 4) Should the United States ever take the initiative in starting a war? 5) Is war ever justified? 6) Should the church support the chaplaincy? and 7) Are there any values to be found in military training for a young man or a young woman? In addition to this, each of these outlines contains handwritten comments, notes, facts, and little bits of information which indicate that the Bishop did his homework well before appearing before his panel 352 and his television audience. A quick check with the available panel members indicates that they follow the Bishop‘s counsel and come equally prepared. CHAPTER X SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS From this study of Bishop A. A,‘Leiske and the American Relig- ious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, the following summations and con- clusions emerge. It is the purpose here to take a retrospective view of the past chapters, and then to set forth certain conclusions. In the Second chapter, which discussed the biographical aSpects of the BishOp‘s life, we considered his social, religious, and educa- tional background. We found him to be, to a great degree, the product of his times. We considered a piligp.which in many ways favored "discussion atmosphere." The major religious controversies of the twenties: 1) the Scope‘s‘Monkey Trials, 2) Fundamentalism.versus ‘Modernism, 3) Aimee Semple MePherson's bizarre evangelistic appeals, and 4) Father Coughlin's social-fascist demogoguery all combined to set the stage for pe0ple-to-people discussion groups. The devastating banking depression, the prairie drought, and the expansion of prohibi- tion-lawlessness favored discussion groups among America's masses. This was an era in which Americans talked, discussed, and de- bated their mutual concerns. Leiske, as early as his high school years, showed an inclination to public discussion by calling for free Speech and freedom of discussion on such matters as civil rights, religious freedoms, and equal opportunities for all American’s regardless of "race or color." In the third chapter we noted the rise and development of an 353 354 institution devoted and dedicated solely to free discussion. Four factors became apparent as the research progressed, namely: 1) the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, is an institution unique in that it was the first and is the only television panel- discussion group of its kind in the nation; 2) it is a Strictly inter- faith panel, representing in its total discussion outreach theological, philosophical, social, and political views of representative and re- sponsible men and women from the three major religious groups in America: The Protestant, the Roman Catholic, and the Jewish; 3) the panel has by public proclamation and by legal concordat agreed and bound itself to public discussion by the establishment of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated; and 4) the solidarity of the panel of the Town Hall merits attention in light of the fact that the program is on the air now in its fifteenth year. The original panel is still working together. In the fourth chapter, we observe something of Bishop Leiske's general conceptions regarding discussion. We noted in this chapter that Bishop Leiske is a man whose philosophy of communication is deeply discussion oriented. He not only considers discussion "an acid test" of democracy, but believes that it is a major method of "ventilating" human problems and in so doing discussion aids in l) breaking down hostile social barriers, 2) vitalizing public opinion, 3) exposing truth, 4) strengthening intellectual development, and 5) generating and germinating new concepts. Bishop Leiske believes that discussion has a religious-oriented source, "Come now, let us reason together." We noted that the Bishop's American Religious Town Hall panel discussion 355 program is structured on the single premise of free speech. We noted also in this chapter that the Moderator is aware of the need for moderator-panel cohesiveness in discussion and that he has taken steps to achieve this by the selection of four capable clergymen to aid program moderator-panel cohesiveness. The four original panel members reveal a common determination to use the discussion methodology as their chosen means of ventilating problems. In the fourth chapter we also noted that the‘Moderator is aware of pre-program panel psychological tensions. As the group leader and Moderator, Bishop Leiske has availed himself of leadership techniques to reduce these tension factors by l) encouraging an atmosphere of pre- program panel informality, 2) the encouragement of panel socialization relationships before camera time, 3) interfaith prayer in the pre- program sessions to aid in creating group togetherness, and 4) the use of first name relationships. Regarding leadership qualities and group leadership methods, the following summations can be crawn: Bishop Leiske l) is a leader possess- ing a high degree of creative imagination, possessing wit, an infectious sense of humor, and directness; 2) is able to absorb panel dissonance without himself becoming adversely involved with his panel; 3) is char- acterized as being "fearless;" 4) tends to be an introvert: 5) is tact- ful, though direct, in dealing with his panel; 6) demonstrates a dis- cernible "we" panel relationship; 7) is an intelligent, responsible, and "just man" in his dealings and moderating; 8) has a competent panel of members who themselves are deeply interested and oriented in discussion as a "preaching" or teaching methodology: and 9) views productivity from 356 the standpoint of "problem ventilation"--problem "airing" rather than problem solving. It is the conclusion that because of these factors, Bishop Leiske seeks to, and does, make a Significant contribution to the success of the American Religious Town Hall panel discussion program. In Chapters V through VII of the dissertation we take a retro- spective view of Six case studies selected at random for research and Study. The following summations and conclusions emerge. A study of these six programs reveals the following: First, the programs selected are basically of a "controversial" nature in harmony with the Bishop's criteria of selecting only such materials for discussion as will assure listener interest. Second, the‘Moderator is consistent in his theory and practice of introducing, seating, and directing his panel members. Third, the Bishop shows a consistency in using the program as a "ven- tilating" or as an "airing" process rather than as a problem-solving approach. At no time in these Six cases under study were attempts made at a finalization of solutions. Fourth, at no time does the pro- gram of discussion bog down for want of Moderator enthusiasm or guidance. In Chapter VIII we noted Bishop Leiske's specific conceptions regarding procedures and methods of a discussion program. From the answers to eleven specific questions directed to the Bishop, grouped under six subheadings, we discovered something of Bishop Leiske's prin- ciples and methods related to the management of a discussion program. The principles and methods of discussion management reported in this chapter form the criteria for the evaluation of the case Studies illustrating the work of Bishop Leiske and his panel. 357 In an examination of Bishop Leiske's criteria, the following summations and conclusions emerge: l) Leiske views the purpose of the American Religious Town Hall panel discussion program as one of "venti- lating" a problem, rather than that of problem-solving; 2) He justifies the ventilation methodology on the grounds that his audience is thus encouraged to make its own decisions having heard the various sides of the issue; and 3) Leiske believes that most topics available to the Town Hall discussion group do not lend themselves to a concise solution in- asmuch as various religious bodies are represented on the panel who have no desire to Solve theological differences. His aim is to "air" the issues to permit a better understanding for the television viewers, who thus are presumably in a more enlightened position to choose or to reject theological, social, or political values as the panel propounds them. Regarding the "Discussion Format," the Bishop believes it is good practice to follow a symposium-panel, discussion, and symposium- summation format. This he believes, l) encourages a studied and mean- ingful introductory statement by the "pacesetters" on the panel, 2) per- mits a full and free discussion of the problem by all of the panel members, and 3) permits a studied and meaningful summation for each panel member. This format appears to meet the needs peculiar to the overall purpose of the American Religious Town Hall. Our research indicates that Bishop Leiske does participate frequently in the discussion, a part of the participation being on the level of program promotion. His theory is best summed up in these thoughts, to I) "sell the program," 2) take advantage of a "high interest" 358 moment to fortify the basic purpose for being on the air, and 3) pro- mote the idea of democracy, "This is democracy in action." Regarding the Moderator's relationship to the content of the program, the following summations and conclusions emerge: The Modera- tor l) frequently "breaks in;" 2) does so on the ground that he attempts to realign, reamplify, redirect, and renew a point under discussion; 3) attempts to correct any inadvertent statement made on the air by a panel member which might prove offensive to the viewing and listening audience; and 4) believes that his program-panel is representative of not only divergent religious views, and not only is expressive of a panel's views on a topic, but represents an institution for which Leiske shares a major reSponsibility for its success. Regarding Moderator and panel preparedness, the following views emerge: l) The Bishop is an ardent advocate of thorough prepara- tion for his panel program, both for himself as Moderator and for his panel members; 2) the panel does come prepared with graphs, charts, facts and figures, to sustain and support its positions, and 3) the IModerator comes prepared for the topic under discussion only after considerable reading and research. The‘Moderator is extremely interested in the quality of the program, and goes about selecting guests for the program by screening numerous candidates.. For example, if the guest is a clergyman, Leiske seeks approval of the local Ministerial Association before making con- tact with the cleric and extending an invitation to him. If the guest is a business or industrial leader, Bishop Leiske seeks a clearance from the local Chamber of Commerce. This procedure, he believes, aids 359 him in strengthening the caliber of the discussants. Regarding "Program Management," involving questions seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven of this chapter, the following summations and conclusions emerge: Bishop Leiske believes that l) the‘Moderator should act as chairman to introduce the topic in accordance with the public's "expectancy role" views; 2) a definition of terms in an inter- faith telecast could become a "hair-Splitting" exercise, thus destruc- tive to the best interests of the productivity of the program; 3) equal- ization of Speaking time is essential to maintain some degree of panel harmony; 4) it would be damaging to the program rating to break up a "good fight"--unless, of course, the discussion Spilled over into an embarrassment of personalities; 5) it is his reSponsibility now and then to break into the program to secure maximum.effectiveness; and 6) the discussion program leaves a better "final taste" if it is con- cluded by prepared summations by each panel member and called for in an orderly sequence by the‘Moderator. In the evaluation Chapter IX, we noted that the basic purposes of discussion were fulfilled in the Town Hall panel in session, and that in a free society the right practice of discussion unifies rather than divides a people. From this chapter the following summations and conclusions emerge: The Bishop is consistent in the practice of his theories. This chapter reveals in depth the relationship of the Bishop‘s practices to his theories. The following summations and conclusions emerge: Bishop Leiske 1) has a discussion conception's philosophy, "free Speech to all," and he shows evidence of practicing it in his panel program. This he does in the selection of panel members of 360 diverse religious backgrounds, in daring to duscuss topics of a "con- troversial" nature such as birth control, et cetera; 2) has no diffi- culty in aligning his guests and panel so that they confirm and apply the principles of "democracy in action" to the program; 3) has a set of rules or carefully conceived purposes for the Town Hall program, basically to preach and teach through the medium of the discussion methodology; 4) is not only the‘Moderator of the program, but is a group leader in the truest sense of the definition of a small group leader; and 5) fulfills the total functional needs of the American Religious Town Hall discussion program as a Moderator as well as the group leader. It is the conclusion of this researcher that the purpose of the American Religious Town‘Hall Meeting to "discuss freely the issues of the day" is fulfilled in its present programming, and that in con- tinuing this method of communication, this panel contributes essentially to the betterment of the American people. Furthermore, at least in terms of the criteria pertaining to the methods of discussion indicated in Chapter VIII, this program stands as an example of what mmy be termed "good discussion within the context of the medium of television." While ignorance, prejudice, ugly passions, and vested interests tend to obstruct the stream of public discussion, the American Religious Town‘Hall panel discussion program on an interfaith level, asserts a high degree of freedom in America’s ideal, "freedom for all, regardless of race, creed, or political affiliations." APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTERS AND TESTIMONIALS 363 S T A T E O F C O L O R A.D 0 Denver December 16, 1966 Dear Reverend Ritz: Thanks for your note and your penetrating inquiry. I am not certain I can be of much assistance even though your questions (interest-wise) have hit me in two of my moat sensitive spots. The Religious Town Hall Meeting, its earthy atmosphere and ecumenical approach to sectarian strife has terrific appeal. In addition, I am and have been devoted to Bishop Leiske personally and am a staunch admirer of his broad whole- some religious realism. I grew up close by College View in Lincoln, Nebraska, and had many friends among the Adventist people. It seemed to me then that their religious views generally were quite primitive and narrow, and that as a denomination they were on the defensive more than has been necessary. Their competent leadership in recent years has performed miracles! Religion is not a monopoly. It thrives on free and independent think- ing. Out in the sagebrush country of western Colorado I had a dear friend who was a talented MgD. and a hermit. He would say, "There are many roads, some are straight and narrow, many are rugged, but all of them.reach Heaven." I think Bishop Leiske believes that also. He is a devout man, and faithful to the tenets of his church, but he is realistic and very patient, and he strives with all his heart to bring the whole human family to God to Share His loving care. When our beloved Bishop was serving his Lord and‘Master in Colorado communities, I enjoyed many personal contacts with him. I liked him and I shared him with my friends. I have a wonderful assortment of friends. All of them.are precious. One of my closest is Jewish. Upon my suggestion he spent several hours with the Bishop. They had a long Spirited discussion. My Jewish friend was deeply impressed. "I want him to be my Rabbi!" he said. That startled me! A devout Catholic provided Bishop‘Leiske with tranSportation on a short business trip. They discussed their religious faiths all the way. When it ended the Catholic paid the Bishop a tremendous tribute and vice versa. There was no conversion, but there was solid mutual reSpect. They had a feeling of brotherhood. Now these men were separated by high barriers, but God lifted those barriers and gave them a good look at each other. ZMy official driver who was an agnostic, but later became a Christian when Billy Graham caught up with him, became very interested in Bishop Leiske's religion and his views. They became friends. He has gone to his reward. I am convinced that the good Bishop is one of God's favorite people! EDWIN C. JOHNSON Former Governor of Colorado 364 TIH E S T R A U S C OIM P A.N Y Fargo, North Dakota Valley City, North Dakota December 5, 1966 Dear Rev. Ritz: I first met Bishop Leiske more than forty years ago when he served as ‘Minister to his pe0ple in the valley City community. At first, we had a very casual acquaintanceship which turned into a lasting friendship in a rather unusual way. I was serving on a jury which was called to consider the case of a local grocer who was violating a North Dakota law by keep his place of business Open on Sunday. Bishop Leiske, then a very young man, rep- resented the defendant, who was a member of his church. By his movingly sincere and forceful presentation, Rev. Leiske was able to convince the jury that his client was abiding by his own relig- ious convictions when he observed the Sabbath on Saturdny. Although he was a member of a minority group representing a member of the same minority group, Rev. Leiske courageously presented his convictions and ideas to the jury. He was successful in opening the eyes of our com- munity to the rights of minority groups, he advanced the cause of relig- ious freedom, and he made another small advance in man’s constant fight for tolerance and the right to live by his convictions under God. We have been friends ever since. My admiration for the Bishop has grown as I have seen him move from community to community, expanding his ideas and his service until he has been able to serve almost the entire nation. If I were to try to offer an analysis of his success, I would say that it has been attained by his wonderful ability to make friends. He is interested in people, in what they think and feel. They, in turn, return that interest and admiration. He is a warm, outgoing, friendly personality that cannot help but gain him friends and admirers wherever he goes. Combined with courage, perseverance, and wisdom, he has the ability to get people to work with him, demonstrated by his latest achievement, Town Hall Estates, in Rochester. That to my mind, is the foundation upon which he has built his success. Sincerely, HERMAN STERN I/ _ a- 365 WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM September 17, 1958 Minneapolis, Minnesota Rev. A. A. Leiske American Religious Town Hall Meeting Ben Franklin Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE EFFORT TO STIMULATE PUBLIC REGARD FOR PRESERVATION OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS GUARANTEED AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, DURING THIS l7lST ANNIVERSARY OF SIGNING OF CONSTITUTION. PLEASED THAT I COULD CO-SPONSOR SENATE RESOLUTION CALLING UPON PRESIDENT TO DESIGNATE SEPTEMBER 14 TO 21 AS CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS WEEK. NOW mRETHANEVERWENEEDNATIONAL INTERFAITHEFFORTS SUCHASYOURS TO MAKE KNWN TO TE WORLD OUR DEDICATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF RACE, COLOR, OR CREED. MUCH OF MY PUBLIC LIFE HAS BEEN DEDICA'ED TO SIMILAR EFFORT BECAUSE OF MY CONVICTION IT INVOLVES HEART AND CORE OF TRUE AMERICANISIL HUBERT H. HUMPHREY U. S. SENATOR ERG! MINNEOTA 366 MACON CHRONICLE-HERALD Macon , Missouri December 5, 1966 Mr. O. J. Ritz East Lansing Michigan My dear Sir: Your letter of November 27th came to my desk while I was away and I have just received it. Suffice to say, I have not had time to do any memory refreshing and hence can not possible do the subject justice. Bishop Leiske came into my life more than a score of years ago. I was editing the ChronicledHerglg_when a young man with a brilliant eye and a pleasant smile came to my desk. He told me he was an evangelist for the Seventh-day Adventist Church and that he was looking fOr a place in ‘Macon to hold his services. I canvassed the situation with him and we became convinced the situation was one that could be solved and finally I was able to help him secure an old theatre building where he preached for some six or eight weeks. With that start, the Seventh-day Adventist Church here was formed and is still a memorial to his work. I followed him as he went through Missouri, in fact as a member of the ‘Missouri State Senate, I went to‘Marshall, Mo., and introduced him to a good audience there. He was never a man to forget. When I was in Washington as a United States Senator, my daughter had a breakdown. He rallied the forces of his congregation behind me and through his efforts she was admitted to one of the church's fine sanitariums. (I am not a member of his church.) It is difficult for me to remember any particular events in our associa- tion. His has been a busy life, as has mine, and so many things have tranSpired that to try to recall any one of them would be almost im- possible. However, I remember Mr. Leiske as a man with encompassing personality, sincere, frank and engaging. His happy approach to serious matters made them understandable and acceptable. His eloquent speech and friendly personality made him a desired leader. He was a man's man and one who attracted many to the cause he so faithfully espoused. There was nothing small or petty about him; he preached his own beliefs and did not try to shatter the belief of any other person. He asked for freedom of thought and speech and he was willing to accord it. I wish I had time to research my files for incidents but I cannot do so and get a reply to you as I must leave Macon tomorrow for about ten days. You have a good subject; do the subject justice! Respectfully, F. P. BRIGGS 367 C I T‘Y O F F A.R G 0 North Dakota December 16, 1966 The Reverend O. J. Ritz 1618 H Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Reverend Ritz: Some years ago--I believe about six years ago--Bishop Leiske and myself were discussing theological matters in his study and our minds were wandering off into somewhat involved dissertation regarding the cosmos, at which time the Bishop amiably stated his philosophy of service that all of us know so well to be the identifying symbol of the Bishop. I challenged the Bishop to come to Fargo and help us tackle the problem of housing for the underprivileged and the elderly. The remarkable thing about the Bishop is that he does not procrastinate, nor did he hesitate, and stated in his own way, "Why, yes, Mayor, we will help you. Tell me about it." I then told the Bishop that a tre- mendous re-development program was eminent in Fargo and that we hoped to clear out the Fargo skid-row and to come up with a new face for the city of Fargo‘s Original Townsite and to put Fargo in the vanguard of contemporary America. I told the Bishop that the most important thing we wanted was to provide for the human needs of our community. The Bishop listened attentively and reSponded, not with simply passive assent but responded enthusiastically: "Why that is a marvelous idea. We will help you," and quoting the Old Testament the Bishop stated fur- ther: "The meek shall inherit the earth but we must help them and see to it that they do not get buried in the earth. We must help them assert themselves in their full dignity. ‘You can count on me,‘Mayor; you can count on us." Shortly thereafter the Bishop came to Fargo and over a period of several weeks options were quietly assembled by the Religious Town Hall which were intended for a senior citizens center. Unfortunately, two property owners held out and the site had to be abandoned. But not to be dis- couraged, the Bishop and his associates looked elsewhere and, with the cooperation of the City of Fargo, arrangements were made which tenta- tively resulted in agreement for the sale of some buffer strip land near Hector Airport, approximately twenty acres thereof. ‘However, the Bishop and his friends had not reckoned with the specter of misunderstanding and mistrust and a huge hue and cry arose protest- ing "the influx of derelicts." Rather than enter the neighborhood under protest and distrust, for the second time the Bishop was obliged to abandon the site. Fortunately, 368 a civic-minded realtor, the late Harry Schnell, placed twenty acres at the disposal of the Religious Town Hall at a modest and reasonable price and a meeting of the minds was agreed to. Again, the Bishop failed to reckon with the gathering storms of misunderstanding and this time, under the guise of an "informational meeting," a huge protest rally was held on the far northside of Fargo, attended by what appeared to be about a thousand people, and protested the proposed development, again on the grounds of opposition to "an influx of derelicts." Of course, no mention was made of the fact that a two~million-dollar complex was planned and ultimately the long-range plans envisioned a nursing home to supplement the senior citizens center; and, of course, the protestors would not hear of the fact that rules and regulations of the center, together with the laws of the City, would apply, and that intoxication, disorderly conduct and lack of sanitation would be as alien to the proposed center as it would be to the protestors. Again, the Bishop withdrew, in deference to what appeared to be overwhelming public opinion. Not admitting defeat, but rather gaining inspiration, within a period of forty-eight hours the neighboring city of Twin valley,‘Minnesota, forty-five miles from Fargo, sought out the Bishop, offered him land, and "the deal was closed." Within simeonthS construction was under way and within a year there- after construction was completed and today a.modern $400,000.00 Senior Citizens Center graces the peaceful city of one thousand people, known as Twin valley, Minnesota, with its colony of honored elderly citizens calling it home. In the case of the Bishop it is not three times and out, but rather it is three times and upward and onward. I hope that the above narrative in some reSpects reflects the high esteem in which I hold the BishOp. Sincerely, HERSCHEL‘LASHKOWITZ Herschel Lashkowitz Mayor HLtcm 369 E L MZE R L. A.N D E R S E N 1150 Eustis Street St. Paul 8, Minnesota December 12, 1966 Rev. 0. J. Ritz 1618 H Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Rev. Ritz: Although I had met him previously, I really came to know Bishop A. A. Leiske after I became Governor of Minnesota in January of 1961. He talked to me about having a Prayer Breakfast to which the legislators and other public officials of our State would join. He indicated that he and those associated with him would take care of all the detail if I would simply give it my approval and support, and attend it. This I was very happy to do. I never met "all the associates" and have since decided that Bishop Leiske is a one-man-band, of indefatigable purpose and pleasant persistence. As the time for the Prayer Breakfast approached I had some qualms about it, wondering if anyone would really come, and if it wouldn't be somewhat strained to bring such a divergent group together, and could it really be a meaningful experience. I remember when I came into that first Prayer Breakfast and found one of the largest halls in Minneapolis filled with hundreds of people who had come together. Everything had been arranged with meticulous care and in perfect taste. The program.was short, a number of people gave brief testimonies and I remember very clearly feeling the wave of sincerity and unity of purpose that swept the entire hall. It was truly a worship service that had an impact on everyone who attended. The Prayer Breakfast was repeated each year thereafter while I was Governor, always with the same splendid effect. My impression of Bishop Leiske is of a man who does not think in small terms, has no hesitancy in going to whomever he needs to accomplish his worthy purpose, with a boldness and confidence that is admirable. Cordially yoprs, ELMER L. ANDERSEN Elmer L. Andersen APPENDIX B BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE BOARD 371 BOARD OF DIRECTORS - AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED (As of November, 1966) A. A.‘Leiske, Chairman Seventh-day Adventist Dr. Ira B. Allen Methodist District Superintendent R. E. Callicott Business Executive James J. Dalglish Roman Catholic Layman City Commissioner Kenneth Erickson ‘Manufacturers' Rep. Lyman Fletcher Business Executive Archie Fraser Attorney W. A. Gerrard Manufacturers' Rep. Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett Dean of Episcopal Church Father Basil S. Gregory Orthodox Catholic Clarence Horst Business Executive Dr. Almon G. Hoye Roman Catholic Layman Administrator and Educator Martin E. Kriesel Manufacturers’ Rep. Fred Rrym Canadian Representative York‘Langton Business Executive Herschel Lashkowitz ‘Mayor of Fargo, N. D. R. W. Leiske Administrative Assistant John W. MbRellip Business Executive Ray Mealey Business Executive Pastor T. Paul Misenko Seventh-day Adventist Bishop T. Otto Nall Minnesota Methodist Conference Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson Lutheran Cecil Newman Editor, Minneapolis Spokesman George Petersen Business Executive Dr. Mahlon Pomeroy Baptist Rabbi Bernard S. Raskas Temple of Aaron Samuel Scheiner Minnesota Jewish Council Dr. Horace J. Shaw Andrews University Dr. J. Ernest Somerville Presbyterian Church Dr. John C. Thompson Investment Banker John Wall Business Executive Charles E. Wiener Business Executive 372 EXECUTIVE BOARD - AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED (As of November, 1966) A. A. Leiske, Chairman Elizabeth Ann Leiske, Treasurer Lyman Fletcher, Undertreasurer-Auditor John W. McKellip, Secretary R. W. Leiske, Assistant Secretary Delano H. Forsberg Clarence Horst Martin E. Kriesel T. Paul Misenko George A. Petersen Charles E. Wiener A P P E N D I X C ‘MISCELLANEOUS‘MATERIALS PERTAINING TO DISCUSSION PREPARATIONS 374 DISCUSSION OUTLINE AND SEATING ARRANGEMENT FOR "AN AMBASSADOR TO THE VATICAN." Should the Vatican be recognized only as a church, or also as a state? Would a representative to the Vatican be a union of Church and State? Would a representative be helpful in fighting Communism? Would it add strength to our State Department to have a listening post at the Vetican? THE PANEL Representative Timothy H. Sheehan, U. S. Congressman from Illinois. Dr. Clifford Ansgar Nelson, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, St. Paul. Rev. Mahlon W. Pomeroy, Park Baptist Church, St. Paul. Dr. Frank Yost, Editor, Liberty Magazine, washington, D. C. Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett, St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church, St. Paul. Dr. Joseph B. Wolf, Chairman, History Department, University of Minnesota. SEATING PLAN Moderator Rep. Sheehan l. 6. Dr. Wolf Dr. Nelson 2. 5. Dr. Gillmett Rev. Pomeroy 3. 4. Dr. Yost 375 QUESTIONS TO ASK MYSELF WHEN PLANNING FOR A DISCUSSION H. J. Shaw I. When Preparing for a Discussion I can Profitably Ask Myself: A. Can I. complain b 5. I restate the problem in my own words, simply and directly? Are there any terms that need defining that will help limit the problem and avoid ambiguity? Does my restatement arrive at the heart of the problem? revealing is my present knowledge of the topic? What phase of the subject do I know the least about? What phase of the subject do I know the most about? Is my approach to the subject too personal,too limited, too broad? How up-to-date is my present information concerning this topic? a. Am I acquainted with the historical development contrib- uting to the problem involved so that I know the names, places, incidents, and dates that highlight it? b. Do I know the current issues that give the topic per- tinence today? c. Who has said the latest, most concise, and best on the pro and con side? Is there a middle-ground position that is over-emphasized or altogether ignored? C. What added information should I acquire to discuss this subject intelligently? l. 2. 3. Is there a letter, phone call, interview, or library visit that will fill the gaps in my mental bookshelf? Do I have a systematic plan for pursuing my Study such as asking myself these questions: a. Have I located and defined the problem? b. Do I know the answers to the who, what, where, when, and why that analyze it for me? c. What solutions do I have to suggest for this problem? d. Which of the solutions is the most feasible? e. How can I best get that solution accepted and acted on? Am I careful enough in gathering and recording information so that I have Specific references to facts, statistics, examples, and authorities. Have I made full use of cards for note-taking so I can shuffle them with purpose in making my discussion outline and also have them quickly available for use, if need be, in the actual discussion? D. What order have I adopted for organizing my material in final form: cause-effect relation, time sequence, topical order or Special arrangement? 1. 2. 3. Do I have three or four main ideas I wish to develop? Do I have effective material to develop each idea? Do I have those ideas and supporting materials reduced to key words or phrases so I can refer to them at a glance. 376 II. While Participating in a Discussion I Can Profitably Ask Myself: A. Is my type of reasoning adapted to this topic and this panel? 1. 2. 3. In my rationalizing do I use generalization, induction, deduction, causation, and analogy with variety and validity? Do I substitute emotionalization for rationalization? Am I alert to the speech-making pitfall and with it the clergy tendency to over-generalize without using Specific instances, facts, and figures, for support? B. In making my contribution to the discussion do I state the one idea I wish to make pleasantly, clearly before I support it? D. How 1. 2. Can I relate what I am about to say to what has just been said--in a smooth transition? Am I eager to ask a question or make a contribution without waiting to be called on? Do I help the Moderator keep the ball rolling? am I getting across visibly and vocally? Do I look alive and interested while my fellow participants carry on? a. Is my whole being entering into the discussion giving visible agreement or dissent? b. Do I lean into the group as I speak? c. Do I remind myself to be pleasant as well as earnest and to smile even if I must disagree? d. Do I hesitate to use gestures when, with propriety, they can add force and meaning? e. If I must read are my eyes and head up-and-looking at the panel more than the capy? Do I Speak with conviction even though my voice is subdued? a. Am I speaking "at" the mike or "through" it? b. Is my pitch, tempo, and volume adjusted to the mood of the topic and other panelists? c. Is my vocal pattern conversational rather than sermonic? d. Do I keep my hands away from my mouth and am I at rest from disturbing mannerisms? about my summary, if I am reSponsible for giving one? Am.I ready for the thirty-second summary with something other than a re-hash of what I have already said? IS it definitive and well-thought-out and yet delivered with the sparkle of Spontaneity? III. When Checking After the Discussion I Can Profitably Ask Myself: A, Am I a careful critic of myself? a: Ut-L‘ UNH “N Was I on time and prepared? Did I speak briefly and to the point? Was what I said a positive solution to this discussion prob- lem? In disagreeing, was I offensive or personal? Did I listen attentively to others and not interrupt another discussant before he finished expressing his thoughts? Was I open-minded and did I show a willingness to change my original viewpoint? What have I learned from the other participants? What grade will I give myself on my part in the discussion? 377 B. Am I a good encourager of myself? 1. When I missed fire or the gavel cut me short, do I take courage in knowing that every participant at one time or another has something to contribute he forgot as well as something to remember that he wishes to forget. 2. Can I make a valid paragraph profile with my best self on view? 3. Am I reminding myself that this particular panel is unique? a. Am I helping it emphasize the much—neglected areas of commonality and agreement? b. Am I happily recognizing that in Discussion we share honest differences in the true American spirit of freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to act? 10. 11. 12. 13. 378 Rules of Panelists Appearing on THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING INCORPORATED Be fully prepared and able to present your view on every question listed in the outline. All speeches should be short (not more than 30 seconds) but do not hesitate to urge the Moderator for the floor. All speeches should be spontaneous, with an eye toward showmanship. Prepared reading material should be very brief and definite and to the point. Remember the basic rule of a debate. Always recognize the chair, but make your desire to the Moderator urgent for the telecast is only 28% minutes. The other panel members’ views must always be respected, and the individual’s sincerity never challenged. THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING, INCORPORATED will always rule for the freedom of speech and for the rights of personal opinions, but will rule against a personal attack on a panelist. IMPORTANT - Be prepared to give a thirty-second summation of your point of view or belief, right after the commercial at the close of the discussion. The Moderator will recognize you. Wear your professional or clerical garments. IMPORTANT - Avoid, as far as possible, the dating or timing of the telecast by expressions such as "tonight," during the "Christmas season," during the "Easter season," et cetera. ‘You can use ex- pressions, however, as "now" or "today." Further, do not date a trip or current event, for you might be leaving for a trip around the world for months and years to come on these films. Do not discuss your viewpoint with panel members before the telecast, for this show is strictly produced unrehearsed. Prayer before televising. When the‘Moderator arranges with you to to give the invocation, do not hesitate to pray in harmony with your knowledge and understanding of God. The principles of individual rights and freedom under our Republic must be respected by every member of the panel even in prayer. IMPERATIVE - Keep the discussion sharp, factual, and alert, but re- solve differences with kindness, friendliness, and sympathy. Be prepared to quickly introduce the panelist to your right on the telecast at the opening of the show. A P P E N D I X D LIST OF DISCUSSIONS BROADCAST BY THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN HALL MEETING,INCORPORATED 380 APPENDIX!) LIST OF DISCUSSIONS BROADCAST BY THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TOWN 'HALL'MEETING,INCORPORATED Discussion Program Number 1. WHAT IS THE CHURCH’S ATTITUDE TOWARD COMMUNISM? Seven denominations voice opinions about Communism and warn the nation’s leaders about making the charge of Communism against good Americans. DiscussigngProgram Number 2. HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG? As the seven denomina- tions enter into this discussion, it becomes very clear that one must have more than conscience to guide in spiritual searching for truth. God leading through the study of His Word is the only safe course. Discussion Prgggam Number 3. SHOULD RELIGION BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS? "If religion were to be taught in public schools, what religion would be chosen?" asked Rabbi Bernard Raskas. Should parochial schools be closed? Discussion Program Number 4. THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. Father Joseph Vasiliou of the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church holds that salvation is in the Church. The age-old argument over the thief on the cross is on! Discussion Program Number 5. COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE. The Church frowns upon divorce, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." The Moderator suggests that there are peeple married that God did not join together. Mankind must not blame God for something man has united without His blessing. Discussion Program Number 6. IS A MAN A MURDERER IN TIME OF WAR? "Whoever transgresses the command- ment, 'Thou shalt not kill,’ in my book is a murderer," declares Pastor Rees, a Quaker. The battle for truth and honor is waged by seven denom- inations. Discussion Program.Number 7. HOW CAN INTOLERANCE AND RACE PREJUDICE BE OVERCOME? Reverend Jitsuo 'Morikawa, a prominent Japanese Baptist minister of Chicago, appears as a special guest on this telecast and maintains, "There is no room in the Christian Church for race hatred." Discussion Program.Number 8. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. A.1ively discussion by seven denominations on the eternal binding obligations of the Ten Commandments upon the human family. Rev. Ira B. Allen, Methodist, thinks, however, that a new commandment should be added. 381 Discussion Program Number 9. DOES PRAYER CHANGE GOD'S MIND? God knows and declares the end from the beginning. Then when His children pray, are they able to talk God out of His prearranged plan? If prayer does not change events, then why pray? This question will be discussed by five Protestants, one Jewish Rabbi, and a Liberal Catholic priest. Discussion Proggam Number 10. QUESTIONS YOUTH ARE ASKING? Some of the questions asked: Are young people better or worse than they were a generation ago? Can a student be a Christian and smoke and drink moderately? Is there a basic harmony between science and religion? Some answers and discussion by seven ministers. Discussion Program Number 11. WHY DON'T MINISTERS EMPHASIZE HELL AS THEY ONCE DID? This is not a cold subject. Unitarian, Methodist, Lutheran, Episc0palian, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist ministers, and a Jewish Rabbi eXpress their philosophy on Hell. Does Hell represent endless suffering and punish- ment for sinners? Discussion Program Number 12. IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION? The panel members differ widely on this question. There are some very strong convictions expressed by some of the speakers. Is it essential to salvation? Great love and caution are exercised by all members of the panel. Christianity is really at work during this telecast. Discussion Program.Number 13. THE HOLY COMMUNION. The panel members discuss not only the sacredness of Holy Communion, but ask whether Communion should be offered to everyone whether they are church members or not. In short, should the church have "closed Communion?" Father Henry A. Smith, Liberal Catho- lic, and Rabbi Bernard S. Raskas are special guests. Discussion Program.Number 14. IS THE NATION PROPERLY'OBSERVING THE SABBATH? Rabbi Bernard Raskas says, "No. If the nation were properly observing the Sabbath they would observe the seventh-day Sabbath--Saturday." You will be on your tip-toes as seven denominations discuss this controversial question without hesitancy, yet with great respect for each other. Discussion Program Number 15. ARE PAIN AND SUFFERING THE RESULT OF SIN? Do you think God deliberate- ly sends suffering as punishment to His people? and are people justified in dropping their faith when tragedy or disaster comes to them? If man were given the power to erase all pain and suffering from the earth, would man do so? Reverend Herbert Brockway, Presbyterian, and Father Henry Smith, Liberal Catholic, both of Chicago, are guests. 382 Disflision Prgggam Number 16. IS THE BIBLE THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN RELIGION? How far may the author- ity of the church go in matters of religion? Can man really claim the Bible as final authority? Rabbi Henry Fisher is prepared to take the Old Testament,but questions the authority of the New Testament. Discussion Program Number 17. WAS JESUS THE DIVINE SON OF GOD? "Every man is a son of God," declares Rabbi Henry Fisher; Five Christian denominations are ready to answer, 'Christ is more than an ordinary man." This is democracy in action. Discussion Program Number 18. HOW CAN WE LEARN TO FACE FEAR? A discussion for an age of fear. It is estimated that 75% of the people are mentally sick with fear of the divine and human, good and evil. The special guests are Reverend A. P. Jackson of one of the Negro Baptist churches in Chicago, and Father Henry A. Smith of the Liberal Catholic Church. Discussion Program Number 19. H0? DOES GOD REVEAL HIMSELF? Has God separated Himself completely from our modern generation, or does He reveal Himself to the human family as He did in the days of the prophets? How about revealing Himself through the Holy Scriptures? Discussion Program.Numberfi 20. HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH BE SUPPORTED? Could the Church eliminate many of its commercial burdens if the people returned to Bible tithing? This telecast will be a great blessing to the people and pastors. Discussiog Program Number 21. ARE CHILDREN BORN WITH ORIGINAL SIN? Are children born into this world with a bundle of sins or do they come free of guilt? Are children baptized to remove original sin? Rabbi Sidney Riback of Chicago is the special guest. Discussion Program Number 22. DIVINE HEALING. Is the doctor limited in his capacity as a healer? Is it necessary at a certain point to depend upon divine healing? Does God really heal through the office of a minister, who is ordained by the Creator as His representative here on earth? What is the role of the minister to the sick and dying? Rev. Mark Moore, Nazarene, and Rabbi Meshe Babin, are guests. Discussion Program Number 23. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. Seven panel members discuss the final resurrection of the dead. Will the saints came forth from their graves with a real body? If the soul of man is immortal and is in Heaven, then why come back and be called from the grave? Father Stanley Gogul, Polish National Catholic Church, and Rabbi Moshe Babin of Chicago, are guests. 383 Discussion Program.Number 24. HEAVEN. A discussion on the eternal abode of the righteous and the Kingdom of Heaven. What is Heaven like? Will we be real beings? Is modern man's conception of Heaven different from the conception of the Old Testament writers? These are some of the questions raised in the discussion. Reverend‘Mark.Mbore, Nazarene, and Father Stanley Gogul, of the Polish National Catholic Church, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 25. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THE FINAL JUDGMENT? Is all punishment from God delayed until the final judgment at the end of time? This striking question is discussed by a Methodist, a Nazarene, a Jewish Rabbi, a Seventh-day Adventist, a Lutheran, an Episcopalian, and a Baptist. What sins would God visit with His judgments now and what sins at the final judgment? Discussion Program Number 26. DO YOU BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL DEVIL? The Scripture says that Christ died on the Cross to destroy the Devil. If Satan is not a real being, did Christ then submit to death on the Cross purely on His imagination of an existing Devil? Discussion Program Number 27. DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? This discussion deals with the question of whether Christ‘s miracles conflict with our understanding of the operations of natural law. What is the greatest miracle in the world? Father Stanley Gogul of the Polish National Catholic Church and Rabbi 'Moshe Babin of Chicago are guests. Discussion Program Number 28. IS MERCY KILLING A SIN? This discussion deals with the very delicate question of how far society should allow the medical profession to go in administering medicine to a patient without hOpe of recovering. Special guest is Father P. W. S. Schneirla, Syrian Orthodox Catholic from New York. Discussion Program Number 22. WILL A.WORLD CALENDAR REVISION SAFEGUARD RIGHTS OF RELIGION? Six denominations discuss the rights of the minority. Bishop A" A. Leiske, 'Moderator, rules that democracy exists to protect also the minority. If democracy had worked in the days of Christ would He have been crucified? Discussiog Program Nggbe; 30. IS RELIGION A.DOON OR A.DAR TO BROTHERHOOD? Does religion, whether Christian or Jewish, really teach the brotherhood of man? If religion teaches brotherhood, why do some churches keep people apart? Is the spirit of brotherhood and understanding gaining or losing ground in America and the world? Dr. Alvin Johnson, Executive Secretary of the International Religious Liberty Association,-Washington, D. C., is the guest. 384 Discussion Program Number 31. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE? Is the purpose of life just to find personal security and happiness amidst selfishness and greed? or does God have a purpose for every human being much higher than we ordinarily attain? Rev. Mark Moore, Superintendent of the Nazarene Church, and Dr. Edward Flynn of the Roman Catholic Church, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 32. MISSIONS. Should we Americans send missionaries to other lands when our own country is far from being perfect? Is it not possible that the Church should send more missionaries to peOple in America? Is it right for missionaries to go into other countries and completely upset the customs and traditions of the peOple? Rev. Mark Moore, Nazarene Super- intendent of Chicago, and Dr. Alvin Johnson, Executive Secretary of the International Religious Liberty Association, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 33. CONTROL OF THE POPULATION. The members of the Town Hall discuss the question, Is it necessary to control the world population to have living space and food to survive? Is it necessary to have a war every few decades to cut down the population? A very challenging program, demonstrating democracy in action. Dr. Edward Glynn, a Roman Catholic, is the special guest. Discussion Program.Number 34. SHOULD THE CALENDAR BE CHANGED? Would a world calendar affect the rights and liberties of the American people? Has history ever broken the weekly cycle? Does the first day of creation come on the first day of the week? What about.Joshua asking the sun to stand still? Did that add a new day? Dr. Alvin Johnson, Executive Secretary of the International Religious Liberty Association, and Father P. W. S. Schneirla, Syrian Orthodox Catholic Church of New York, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 35. WHY HAVE BAPTISM? ‘Where did the Christian idea of baptism originate? What is the right baptismal form? Should the minister sprinkle or immerse? Is baptism.important and what is its spiritual basic purpose in the Church? Is it necessary for salvation? These questions will not be dull. Rev. James Adams, Nazarene, is the special guest. Discussion Program Number 36. IS MODERATE DRINKING ACTUALLY A.SIN? Reverend Ira B. Allen answers the question with a forward charge that drinking, moderately or otherwise, "is a sin." Other members of the panel challenge the Methodist pastor and the battle over liquor is on. Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, President of Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, is the special guest. Discussion Program.Number 37. CAN A.CHRISTIAN REALLY FOLLOW JESUS? Should the Church accept Christ as a complete pattern for spiritual life? and what He taught and did as Church doctrine? Are His teachings final in matters of religion? These 385 are some of the questions discussed on this telecast. Reverend James Adams, Nazarene, is the guest. Digcussion Program.Number 38. RELIGION AND HEALTH. How much influence does religion have on the health of the people of the nation and of the Church? How can prayer help in the recovery of the sick? Are there dangers and abuses in the religious approach to health? These and many other vital points will be brought out in this discussion. Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, President of Andrews University, is the special guest. Discussion ProgramflNumber 32. HAS A.PATIENT THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH? This discussion deals more directly with the patient on the deathbed. Should a patient who is not expected to live have a chance to know the truth and prepare hflm- self with his God, with his community, and famdly for death? Reverend James Adams of the Nazarene Church is the special guest. Discussion Program.Number 40. IS DIVORCE CONTRARY TO GOD’S LAW? Should the non-divorce law of the Church be used as a spritual club for intolerance and tyranny by a husband or wife? Is there a time when divorce is the lesser of two evils? Very pertinent facts for our present Christian society are discussed. Henry A. Smith, Liberal Catholic, and Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, a College President, are the guests. Discussign Progiam Number 41.. ARE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENCY? This is a frank discussion by the panel on the present-day behavior of both parents and youth. Is it possible that the mother being absent from the home, trying to add to the family income, is one of the basic reasons for undisciplined children? Discussion Program.NggDer 42. DO CHURCHES HAVE A TENDENCY TO TONE DOWN SIN? Why don’t the modern churches preach sermons against sin today as the ministers who pioneered in evangelism did? Hr L. Rudy, Vice-President of the World Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and Father Stanley Gogul, of Chicago, are the special guests. Discussion Program.Number 43. WHAT IS A RELIGIOUS PERSON? Would one expect a religious person to attend and belong to the Church? Are some people who do not attend also sincere and religious? What are the qualifications of a Christian? Is there a danger of losing one's religion by being too religious? Father Stanley Gogul of the Polish National Catholic Church of Chicago, is the guest. Discussion Program Number 44. HOW CAN ONE KNOW GOD’S WILL? Can.God reveal Himself and His will in spite of confusion? Is it important that one know God's will? H; L. Rudy, Vice-President of the World Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 386 is the special guest. Digcussign Program Number 45. DOES GOD STAND FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE? The panel members take very definite positions on the question of conscience. A number of the ministers maintain that no power has a right to force a person to worship contrary to his conscience. Does the enforcing of Jewish and Christian traditions upon worshippers favor or hinder a.man's can- science? H. L. Rudy, Vice-President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, is the guest. Digcussign Program.Number 46. ARE WE LOSING OUR FREEDOMS IN AMERICA? ‘Has the government taken over too much responsibility in the operation of private business? Is the Church urging its cause upon the nation to receive financial aid? Are the labor unions becoming too powerful for a free government? This is an outstanding discussion on the threat to American freedoms. H. L. Rudy, Vice-President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, is the special guest. Discussion Program.Number 47. RITUALISM. Has the Church become so involved in its ritualistic ceremonies and traditional services that it has lost sight of God? Is the Church laying too much stress on the sacraments, such as baptium and the Ho1y Communion? What did Christ have to say in His day about ritualistic practices? Father Basil Gregory, Greek Ortho- dox Catholic, and Rabbi Moshe Babin of Chicago,are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 48. WHAT IS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? Should any and every kind of religion have the right to propagate itself or should some churches be circumscribed and restricted in America? What is so unique about the American form of religious liberty, and are these freedoms threatened today? Father Basil Gregory, Greek Orthodox Catholic, and Rabbi Moshe Babin, guests. Discussion Program Number 49. IS COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING AGAINST CHRISTIAN TEACHING? The panel members discuss whether a Christian should take an active part in preparation for war? Christ came to bring peace on earth. Is the planning and conducting of warfare a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill?" Chaplain George Enyedi, Presbyterian, and Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand of the Central Presbyterian Church of Chicago, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 50. HOW MUCH DOES GOD DO FOR US? Does God expect us to contribute something to our redemption or does He take over and work out our entire salva- tion? ‘How far does faith go in getting the proper response from God in working out our problems? Rev. Mahlon Pomeroy, Baptist, challenges the other panel members. Father Basil Gregory of the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, Chicago, and Chaplain George Enyedi, are the special guests. 387 Discussion Program Number 5i, ARE YOU BORN AGAIN? What does it really mean to be born again? Is the world confused on this spritual experience upon which the Bible places so much importance? Is it true that one either makes or misses Heaven on this point? How can a person gain this experience? Father Basil Gregory, Greek Orthodox Catholic, and Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand, Central Presbyterian Church of Chicago, are the guests. Discussion Program NDgDer 52. PREDESTINATION. Is man’s destiny for eternity settled by God before man is born? to be predestined to be good or evil? Could Judas have avoided betraying Christ and could he have confessed his sins and returned to God? Is man‘s time set when he must die? Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand, Central Presbyterian Church of Chicago, and Father Basil Gregory of the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church are the special guests. Disgussion Program Number 53. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. The discussion is whether the Christian can take the Scriptures literally that speak of the Second Coming of the Lord, or if the promise of His Coming should be taken spiritually. Dr. Victoria Carbury, Ecumenical Church of Truth, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and Dr. R. A. Anderson, Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, are the guests. Discussion Progiam.Number 54. THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. Does man have scientific evidence of the creation of the world coming about through a lengthy process of devel- opment rather than in six-days-Creation as given in the record of the Bible? Is there harmony between the Scriptures and geology? Dr. Archibald J. Carey, Jr., African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Dr. R. A. Anderson, Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, are the guests. Discussion Program.NumDer 55. EVERLASTING LIFE. Is eternal life an imagination, or is it a real experience that will help man to overcome his fear of death? What can be said for sure about future life after death? What do we mean by the doctrine of immortality? Dr. Victoria Carbury, Ecumenical Church of Truth, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and Father Anthony Matla, Polish National Catholic, Chicago, are guests. Discussion Program.Number 56. THE DAWN OF RELIGION. Is the Gospel, "The Everlasting Gospel," from the beginning of the Creation of the‘world or did the Gospel originate with the ministry, life, and death of Christ nineteen hundred years ago? Strong positions are taken by panel members of six denominations. Discussion Program.Number 57. THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN. The panel members discuss the atonement for sin and the reconciliation between God and man. Does God deal directly with man in the forgiveness of sin? Father Anthony Matla, Polish 388 National Catholic Church, and Dr. William J. Faulkner of the Negro Congregation Church of Chicago, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 58. EPIC OF MAN. The discussion on this telecast deals primarily with two questions: Can the origin of man be traced to an animal organism? or should the church accept the epic of the creation of man as found in the book of Genesis? Pastor R. A. Anderson, Executive Secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and Dr. Victoria Carbury, Ecumenical Church of Truth, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, are the special guests. Discussion Program Number 59. DID THE ANCIENT JEWISH NATION LIMIT GOD? Did the Jewish nation limit God by not permitting the Gentiles to take part in the temple worship? Did the Jewish spiritual leaders feel that they had a grant or copyright from God on salvation? Is the Christian Church today guilty of limiting God by its closed Communion and worship? Dr. Damon P. Young, Negro Methodist Church of Chicago, is the guest. Discussion Program.Number 60. CHURCH DIFFERENCES. Should society enact a law to eliminate church differences? or should society tolerate differences? How should the different denominations be evaluated? Dr. C. E. Wittschiebe, Theolog- ical Seminary, Washington, D. C., is a guest. Discussion Program Number_§i. ARE CHILDREN PUNISHED FOR PARENTS' SINS? ‘How far reaching is the commandment that says, "The iniquities of the father shall be visited upon the third and fourth generations?" Is the theory still true, "Spare the rod and spoil the child?" Is it possible that this genera- tion has too much psychology and not enough of the woodshed? Discussion Program Number 62. DEMOCRACY. Should democracy stand for equal rights and opportunity in America? Is the Church lagging behind in giving equal chances and privileges to all Americans in fields of education, labor or politics? If the majority rules, is that necessarily a democracy? Dr. Archibald Carey, Jr., of the African Methodist EpiscOpal Church, is the guest. Discussion Program.NumDer 63. IS THE WORLD MAKING SPIRITUAL PROGRESS? As one looks back over history, can one say that the world has made great spiritual progress in plant- ing the spirit of Christ in nations, peoples, communities, and churches in dealing with one another? Dr. Archibald J. Carey, Jr., of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, and Dr. C. E. Wittschiebe, of the Theological Seminary of Washington, D. C., are special guests. Discussion Program.Number 64. WHAT DOES MAN MEAN BY "RELIGIOUS FAITH?" While denominations may dis- agree in their theology on the Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, yet it is amazing to see the fine spirit of brotherhood so highly 389 respected by each panel member. The different ministers sitting down from week to week and talking over the matter of salvation certainly demonstrate real faith. Discussion Program.Number 65. ARE THERE DEGREES OF SIN? This is a question that challenges the entire panel. Rev. Ira Allen charges that "some sins are blacker than others," and that there are definitely "degrees of sin." Discussion Program.Number 66. SHOULD THERE BE COMPULSORY CHURCH ATTENDANCE? Dr. Frank Yost, Editor of Liberty magazine, holds that if the courts have a right to sentence teenagers to regular church attendance, they also have a right to sentence adults to church. A real discussion by six denominations on separation of Church and State takes place in this discussion. Discussion Prggram.Number 67. DOES THE CHURCH BEND GOD TO ITS STANDARDS THROUGH CUSTOMS OF THE AGE? Since morals and standards of society change, how does man know what is right? Rev. Loren Doss of the Assemblies of God Church asks, "Why go by the customs and traditions of men? Why not take the Bible as a divine guide?" Discussion Program Number 68. IS MASS HEALING GOD'S PLAN? The Reverend Loren D. Doss of the Assemblies of God Church says it is. Five other denominations express caution. Discussion Program Number 69. DO COMMUNISTS HAVE RIGHTS? The panel members discuss whether society should curb the rights of Communists in America. Should society con- tinue granting Communists privileges and liberties under the government they are trying to destroy? How far can a democractic country go in curbing these liberties before it destroys the very freedomm man is fighting for? Dr. Frank Yost, Editor of Liberty magazine, and Father G. M; Kubose, a Buddhist priest of Chicago, are the guests. Digcussiog Program Number 70. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. How far should the Federal Government go in enforcing Supreme Court decisions? Should the military be called upon to enforce decisions of the high court? Should society exercise patience when a large area of the nation is affested? Dr. Frank Yost, Editor of Liberty magazine, Washington, D. C., and Father G. M; Kubose, Buddhist priest of Chicago, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 71. IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION? The questions discussed on this telecast are: Should America be recognized as a Christian nation? Should one look upon America as a government of all peoples ruled by men who accept the doctrines of Christianity? Rabbi Arnold Wolf of Chicago, and Dr. Frank'Yost, Editor of Liberty magazine, are the special guests. 390 Discussion Progrgm.Number 7D. IS THE CHURCH RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLD WAR? Rev. Ira B. Allen,'Metho- dist, claims that the Church definitely carries some responsibility. Dr. Frank Yost, Editor of Liberty magazine, thinks society needs to be realistic. Discussion Program Number 73. SCRIPTURE OR TRADITION. Is tradition more important than the Scrip- tures? How much can the Church rely on tradition to reveal divine truth? Can tradition become a spiritual pitfall? These are questions discussed by a panel of six faiths. Dr. Leo Pfeffer, American Jewish Congress, and Dr. Ernest Somerville, Presbyterian of Birmingham, Alabama, are the special guests. Discussion Program Number 74. AMERICAN FREEDOMS. Does American freedom mean that all must live "in the same house" and accept Communistic collectivism? Dr. John B. Wolf, University of“Munnesota; The Honorable Timothy P. Sheehan, Congressman of Illinois; Dr. Leo Pfeffer, American Jewish Congress, New YOrk; and Dr. J. Ernest Somerville, Presbyterian clergyman of Birmingham, Alabama, are the special guest panelists. Discuggign Prggram.Number 75. AN AMBASSADOR TO THE VATICAN? Should the Vatican be recognized only as a Church, or also as a State? Would a representative to the Vati- can be a union of Church and State? These are the live questions discussed by Protestants and Roman Catholics on the panel. Dr. John B. Wolf, University of‘Minnesota: Dr. Frank Yost, Editor, Liberty magazine; and the Honorable Timothy P. Sheehan, Congressman of Illinois, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 16. CIVIL RIGHTS. Should the Supreme Court decision on desegregation be brought into operation by force or by steps of education? Dr. John B. Wolf, University of‘Minnesota; Dr. Frank Yost, Editor of Liberty maga- zine; Dr. J. Ernest Somerville, Presbyterian, Birmingham, Alabama; Dr. Leo Pfeffer, American Jewish Congress, New York, are the special panelists . Disggssion Program.Number Z7. ABOLISHING INTOLERANCE IN AMERICA. We have city ordinances against selling secular or religious books. Should every church or religious sect have the right to worship, to publish, to sell, or to preach its particular church doctrine in America? Dr. Leo Pfeffer, American Jewish congress, and Honorable Timothy P. Sheehan, Congressman of Illinois, are the guests. ' Disgussion Program Number 78. IS THE CHURCH.DEFEATED? Christ commanded the Church to make disciples of all nations. Would one say that after 1900 years, the Church has failed? 391 Discussion Program Number Z9. ARE THE YOUTH NEGIEC'I‘ED? Are blighted districts a direct cause of Juvenile Delinquency? A discussion between Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Dr. C. Maxwell Brown, Methodist of Fargo; Dr. Henry Campbell, Congregational Church of Moorhead; and Rabbi Ralph Simon of Moodhead, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 80. SHOULD MARRIAGE BE ABSOLUTE? Has a wife the right to divorce an irresponsible husband? A discussion between Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Rev. J. N. Quello, Lutheran of Fargo; Rev. E. W. Pfluke, Methodist of Moorhead; and Rabbi Ralph Simon of Moodhead, are guests. Discusggn Progrim Number 81. DOES SIN EVER CHANGE? Is sin defined differently from one generation to another? A discussion between Town Hall panelists and the Minis- terial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Rev. Norman C. Neumann, Evangelical United Brethren of Fargo; Dr. C. Maxwell Brown, Methodist of Fargo; and Rabbi Ralph Simon of Moorhead, are the guests. Disgg. ssion Prgram Number 82. GOD AND SCIENCE. Is science taking the place of God in our education- a1 institutions? A discussion between Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minneso- ta. Rev. J. N. Quello, Lutheran of Fargo; Rev. E. W. Pfluke, Methodist, Moorhead; and Rabbi Ralph Simon of Moorhead, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 83. IS PRAYER DIRECTING GOD? Is prayer a nice way of telling God what He should do for us? A discussion between 'lbwn Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Dr. Henry A. Campbell, Congregational Church of Moorhead; Rev. J. N. Quello, Lutheran of Fargo; and Rev. Norman C. Neuman, Evangelical United Brethren, of Fargo, are the guests. Discussion Program rags: 4. RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE. Does fear help force man to obey God? A discus- sion between Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Rev. E. W. Pfluke, Methodist; Rev. N. C. Neumann, Evangelical United Brethren; and Dr. Henry Campbell, Congregation Church of Moorhead, are the guests. Discgsgig Program Number 85. STRUGGLE FOR mm. Should the abuses of freedom by Communists allow state powers to bypass Constitutional Law to deal more directly and swiftly with international and national criminals? A discussion between Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Dr. C. Maxwell Brown, Methodist; Rabbi Ralph Simon; and Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand, Presbyterian, are guests. 392 Discussion Prggram Number 86. RELIGIOUS DOGMA. What is dogma? Is religious dogma important to being saved? A discussion by Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. Lavern R. Hanson, Lutheran; Rev. James Bell, Presbyterian; Dr. Martin P. Simon; and Pastor Burdett W. Wakeman, Church of Christ. Discussion Program Number 87. THE TRUTH. Is there truth outside of Christ? A discussion by Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. Folke Ferre, Baptist; Dr. Samuel Scheiner, Jewish Council; and Rev. Melvin L. Frank, Congregationalist. Discussion Program Number 88. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Are students in parochial schools deprived of their constitutional right if they do not receive their tuition from the state? A discussion by Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. Melvin L. Frank, Congregation- alis t; Walter Trenerry, Episcopalian of Saint Paul, Minnesota; Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Samuel L. Scheiner, Jewish Council; and Dr. Martin P. Simon. Discussion Program Number 89. IS GOD IMPARTIAL? Does God favor Church people more than non-Church members? A discussion by the Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. James Bell, Presbyterian; Rev. Folke Ferre, Baptist; Rev. Lavern R. Hanson, Lutheran; and Pastor Burdett W. Wakeman, Church of Christ. Discussion Prgram Number 92. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. Is the state’s refusal of funds for tuition for religious education in parochial schools the denial of equal protection of the law? A discussion by the Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. Melvin L. Frank, Congregationalist; Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Walter Trenerry, Episcopalian; Senator Harold J. O‘Laughlin; and Dr. W. R. Beach, Seventh-day Adventist. Discussion Program Number 21. IS THE CHURCH FAILING? Why are the masses so restless and fearful today? Is the Church instilling faith and security? A discussion by Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. Folke Ferre, Baptist; Rev. James Bell, Presbyterian; Dr. Martin Simon, Editor. Discussion Program Number 92. CENSORSHIP. Under the new Supreme Court ruling, would certain portions of the Scriptures be banned? A discussion by Town Hall panelists and the Ministerial Association of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Rev. Melvin L.Frank, a Congregationalist; Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Samuel L. Scheiner, Jewish Council; and Walter Trenerry, Episcopalian of Saint Paul. 393 Discussion Program Number 93. NEAR EAST REFUGEES. Are the Arabs or Jews responsible for the care of the Near East refugees? Guests are Rabbi Stanley Rabinowitz; Dr. Kamel Monsour, Druze Arab; Dr. W. R. Beach; Rev. Orva Lee Ice; and the regular Town Hall panelists. Discussion Program Number 94. IS IT NECESSARY TO JOIN THE CHURCH? Is it necessary to belong to the Church to be saved? Guests: Reverend Gordon Peterson of Soul's Harbor, in Minneapolis; Father Vladimer Borichevsky, Russian Eastern Orthodox Catholic; Pastor E. E. Perry, Seventh-day Adventist; and Reverend Martin Luther S imons . Discussion Program Number 95. IS THERE A REMEDY FOR CLASS HATRED? Has the Church a remedy for class or racial hatred? Guests: Dr. W. R. Beach, Seventh-day Adventist; ‘Mr. Cecil Newman, Editor of the Minneapolis Spokesman; and the regular panelists. Discussion Prggram.NumDer 96. IS DRINKING A SIN? Is moderate drinking really a sin? Guests: Dr. Paul S. Rees, Covenant Church; Dr. W. R. Beach, Seventh-day Adventist; Judge Anthony Daly; Roman Catholic; Mrs. C. L. Jaeger, WCTU; and the regular panelists. Discussion'Progrrm Number 97. LABOR UNIONS. Are labor unions becoming too powerful for their own moral good? Guests: Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic; Dr. Walter Uphoff, University of Minnesota; Rev. Melvin L. Frank, Congregational- ist; and Dr. W. R. Beach, Seventh-day Adventist. Discussion Prggram.Number 98. LABOR AND MANAGEMENT. 'Does labor have any moral responsibility if industry fails? Guests: Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic; Dr. Walter Uphoff, University of Minnesota; Rev. Melvin L. Frank, Congregationalist, Dr. W. R. Beach, Seventh-day Adventist. Discussiog Program Number 99. ARE PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS AUDIVISIVE INFLUENCE? Do parochial schools adversely divide the nation's educational efforts? Guests: Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic; Walter Trenerry, Episcopalian: Dr. W. R. Beach, Seventh-day Adventist; and Senator Harold J. O'Laughlin. Discussion Program Number 100 UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Can separation of Church and State be complete? Reverend‘M. N. Forney, Lord's Day Alliance; Rabbi Arthur J. Rosenbaum; and Dr. Ernest Somerville, Presbyterian, all of Philadel- phia, are the guests. Discussion Program.NggDer lOl. SHOULD SUNDAY BLUE LAWS BE REPEALED? Reverend M. N. Forney, Lord‘s Day Alliance; Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic; and Rabbi Theodore 394 Gordon, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 102. RELIGION IN THE GOVERNMENT. Does the present governmental crisis demand a spiritual revival? iDr.Ellsworth Jackson, Presbyterian; Dr. J. E. Somerville; and Mr. Sydney Orlofsky, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Program NumDer 103. SHOULD THE STATE FAVOR A CHRISTIAN SABBATH? Should the state establish a Sabbath by legislation? Dr. Ellsworth Jackson, Lord‘s Day Alliance; Judge A. W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Rabbi Harold Waintrup, Philadelphia; and Rev. James Brasher, Methodist, are the guests. Discussion Prggram.Number 104. IS STATE SUPREME OVER CONSCIENCE. Reverend Melvin N. Forney, Lord's Day Alliance; Dr. J. E. Somerville, Presbyterian; and Rabbi A. J. S. Rosenbaum, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 105. SHOULD THE STATE FOSTER RELIGION? Should the state adopt or enforce majority religious practices? Dr. Ellsworth Jackson, Lord’s Day Alliance; Judge Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Rabbi Theodore Cordon, Philadelphia; and Reverend James Brasher, Methodist, are the guests. Discussion Program.NggDer 10 . IS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS? Should the United States be considered a Christian nation? Rev. M; N. Forney, Lord‘s Day Alliance; Dr. Ernest J} Sommerville, Presbyterian; Judge A“ W. Daly, Roman Catholic; and Rabbi Harold Waintrup, Philadelphia, are the guests. Discussion Program Number igl. RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE OR BILL OF RIGHTS. Should conscience or constitu- tional law and the Bill of Rights guide the Supreme Court in the inter- pretation of civil and religious freedom? Dr. Robert A. Christie, Director of Program Evaluation, Governor's Office, Harrisburg, Pennsyl- vania; Father Clarence E. Duffy, President, Society of Saint Dymphna; Dr. Claud Nelson, Methodist; Dr. Robert Cushman, New York University; Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, Andrews University; and Dr. John Coleman, Christian Amendment Movement, are the guests. Disgussion Program.Number 108. THE FOURTEENTH.AMENDMENT. Are the courts obligated to guarantee life and liberty to a single individual, even though such differs with the community? Dr. Robert A. Christie, Governor's Office, Pennsylvania; Dr. Claud Nelson, Methodist; Judge A" W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Dr. Robert F. Cushman, New York University; and Mr. James K. Withrow, Junior Christian Amendment Mbvement, New York, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 109. CAN DEMOCRACY SURVIVE IN THE SPACE AGE? Do science and religion hold out a UtOpia for constitutional government? Father Clarence Duffy, 395 Digcussion Program.Number liQ. CENSORSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM. Should classroom teaching be censored? Dr. J. W. Caughey, University of California; Judge A. W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Walter Trenerry, Roman Catholic; and Dr. F. Fowler, National Association of Evangelicals, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 111. DOES GOD TAKE SIDES IN WAR? Is God always with the democracies during war? Father Clarence Duffy; Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, Andrews University; Dr. F. Fowler, National Association of Evangelicals; Dr. F. Cushman, New York University; and Dr. Lloyd R. Gillmett, Episcopalian, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 112. THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT. Should Congress curb the power of the Supreme Court? Dr. John W. Caughey, University of California; Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic; Mk. Walter Trenerry, Attorney, Saint Paul; and Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, Andrews University, are the guests. Dircussion Program Number 113. SCHOOLS AND DEMOCRACY. Should the state insist upon teaching a course on Constitutional Government in parochial, private, and public schools? Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic, Dr. J. Ernest Somerville, Presby- terian; Dr. John W. Caughey, University of California; and Mk. Phillip Dunson, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 114. CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. Does constitutional government exist as an authority? Judge Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Dr. John Coleman, Christian Amendment Movement; Dr. Ernest J. Somerville, Presbyterian, are the guests. Discussiog Program Number 115. TAXATION AND GAMBLING. Will wagering help to ease the American tax burden? Father Clarence Duffy, Roman Catholic; Dr. Frederick Fowler, National Association of Evangelicals; Walter Trenerry, Attorney; and Dr. J. Ernest Somerville, Presbyterian, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 116. THE FIFTH.AMENDMENT. Should a man be allowed to hide behind the Fifth Amendment? Judge Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic; Dr. F. O. Ritten- house, Andrews University; Dr. E. J. Somerville, Presbyterian; Dr. John W. Cauthey, University of California, are the guests. Discussiog Program.Number li7. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. Would it be a mistake for a Mohammedan, a Buddhist, an Atheist, or a non-Christian to be President? Father Clarence Duffy;'Dr. G.IM. Robb, Christian Amendment Movement; and Dr. J. W. Caughey, University of California, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 118. WAS THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT A MISTAKE? Has the repeal of the Eigh- 396 teenth Amendment been a national mistake? Judge Anthony Daly, Roman Catholic; Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, Andrews University; Dr. Leo Pfeffer, Jewish; and Mr. Walter Trenerry, Attorney, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 119. CAN A DEMOCRACY DESTROY ITSELF? Can Constitutional Government be destroyed through class legislation? Dr. David M. Carson, Christian Amendment Movement; Dr. Leo Pfeffer, Jewish; Dr. J. E. Somerville, Presbyterian; Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, Andrews University; and Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 120. SHOULD PROSELYTING BE PERMITTED? Should non-Christian religionists be allowed to seek converts among the churches in America? Father Clarence E. Duffy, Roman Catholic, Dr. Leo Pfeffer, Jewish; Mr. Philip Dunson; and Rev. Edward Annable, Free Methodist, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number iii. ARE ALL GOVERNMENTS OF GOD? Are all governments ordained by God? Father Clarence E. Duffy, Catholic; Dr. A. J. McFarland, Christian Amendment; Dr. Leo Pfeffer, Jewish; and Dr. F. O. Rittenhouse, Andrews University, are the guests. Discussion Prggram.Number 122. THE PRESSURE OF COMMUNISTIC ECONOMY. Will the common people of the world sacrifice their religion under world communistic economics idealogical pressure? Dr. F. C. Fowler, National Association of Evan- gelicals; Father Clarence Duffy, Catholic; and Dr. Leo Pfeffer, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Progrg Number 123. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. Is Jesus Christ God? Rev. Byron Kelhem, Unitarian; Rev. John R. Reitan, Lutheran; Rev. Herman E. Wooten, Baptist; Rabbi R. H. Levine, Jewish; and Dean Paul C. Huebach, Walla Walla College, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 124. MANAGEMENT AND LABOR. Should management or labor decide for the man on the street? Rabbi R. H. Levine, Jewish; Rev. Charles W. May, Episco- palian; David E. Williams, Attorney; and Senator Harold J. O'Laughlin, Roman Catholic, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 125. CAN OUR DEMOCRACY SURVIVE? Is American selling her rights for a mess of pottage? Senator Harold J. O'Loughlin, Roman Catholic; Rabbi R. H. Levine, Jewish; Rev. Byron E. Kelham, Unitarian; Rev. Jack Wilson, Presbyterian; and David E. Williams, Attorney, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 126. WHY DO SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE DEFY AUTHORITY? The Honorable B. J. Ber- geson, Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand, Rabbi Diament, Rev. Francis Tennehill, and James L. Jacobs, are the guests. 397 Discussion Program Number iil. BAPTISM. Is baptism essential to Salvation? Rev. Harry B. Baird, Christian; Rev. John R. Reitan, Lutheran; Rev. Richard E. Nye, Metho- dist; and Rev. Jack Wilson, Presbyterian, are the guests. Dirgnssion Program Number 128. THE CHURCH. Can one be a Christian outside of the Church? Rev. Herman E. Wooten, Baptist; Rev. Ronald Yates, Christian Reformed; Rev. C. May, Episcopalian; and Professor Paul C. Heubach, Walla Walla College, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 129. HAS THE CHURCH.TONED DOWN SIN? Rev. Harold Blackwell, Presbyterian; Dr. Paul C. Heubach, Walla Walla College; Rev. Cevil Knippers, Church of the Nazarene; and Rev. Harry Baird, Christian Reformed Church, are the guests. Discorrion Program.Number iDD. TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD AMERICA.BE DESEGREGATED? Is the United States Government following the right course in its program of desegregation? Rev. Dolomon A. Bass, Methodist; Rev. T. C. Hanson, Lutheran; and Mr. Samuel Scheiner, Jewish, are the guests. Discnssion Program.Number 131. WHAT‘S WRONG WITH AMERICAN YOUTH? Is there a problem in the Home? Rev. Claude Bratvold, Assemblies of God; Rev. Warren E. Holcomb, Nazarene; Mr. George Simeon, Roman Catholic; and Pastor R. M. Whitsett, Northern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 132. ORIGINAL SIN. Father Peter Haskell, Eastern Orthodox Catholic; Rabbi ‘Moses Sachs, Jewish; and Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 133. WAS CHRIST DIVINE? Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, and Rabbi Moses Sachs, Jewish, are the guests. Discusnion Program Mer 134. THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, and Rabbi Moses Sachs, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 135. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, and Moses Sachs, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 136. SHOULD THE CHURCH TAKE A "LIBERAL" INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE? Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, and Rabbi Moses Sachs, Jewish, are the guests. 398 Discussion Program Number 137. ARE WE LOSING OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN AMERICA? Dr. M. L. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, and Rabbi Moses Sachs, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 138. IS THE SABBATH STILL HOLY? Dr. M; K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College, and Rabbi Moses Sachs, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 139. IS THE CHURCH CONFORMING TO A.NEW MORALITY TODAY? Does man need a modern revision of the Ten Commandments? Dr. William Loveless, Seventh- day Adventist, and Rev. Dexter Henley, S. J., Georgetown University, are the guests. Discussion Program Nnnber 140. IS THE CHURCH DOING ENOUGH FOR RACIAL INTEGRATION? Should clergymen demonstrate for civil rights? Dr. John C. Thompson, Seventh-day Adventist; Mk. Samuel Scheiner, Jewish; and Mr. Almon G. Hoye, Roman Catholic layman, are the guests. Discussion Program NunDer 141. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Are we losing separation of Church and State in the United States? Mr. Roland Hegstad, Editor of Liberty magazine; Mk. Samuel Scheiner, Jewish; and Rev. Dexter Henley, S. J., Georgetown University, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 14;. HOW AUTHORITATIVE IS THE BIBLE IN RELIGION TODAY? Is it possible to rely too much on the Bible? Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College; Dr. C. F. Henry, Editor of Christianity Today; and Rev. J. C. Haughey, Georgetown University, are the guests. Discussion Program.Number 143. SHOULD THE CHURCH REVISE ITS EVANGELICAL METHODS TODAY? Does fear have a place in Evangelism? 'Dr. M. K. Eckenroth, Columbia Union College; Dr. Carl F. Henry, Editor of Christianity Today; and Mr. Samuel Scheiner, Jewish, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 144. WHEN IS A CHURCH REALLY ECUMENICAL? Is one, big united Church a desirable thing? Mr. Kenneth Wood, Review and Herald; Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, Editor of Christianity Today; and Rev. Gerard Sloyan, Catholic University of America, are the guests. Discussion Program.NumberDfli. RIGHT TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. Should non-union labor have a right to work in the United States? Dr. John Thompson, Seventh-day Adventist; Mr. Samuel Scheiner, Jewish; Mr. Reed Larson, National Right to Work Committee; Rev. Dexter Henley, S. J., Georgetown University; and‘Mr. Almon G. Hoye, Roman Catholic layman, are the guests. 399 Discussion Program NunDer_ig§. IS THE CHURCH JUSTIFIED IN COMPROMISING TRUTH FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY? The Honorable B. J. Bergeson, Rabbi Saul Diament, The Honorable Her- schel Lashkowitz, Rev. Francis Tannehill,and The Honorable Bernard Delmore, are the guests. Discussion Progrgm NumDerrigl. WHAT IS LEFT OF CHRISTIANITY IF GOD IS DEAD? The Honorable B. J. Bergeson, Rabbi Saul Diament, The Honorable Herschel Lashkowitz, Rev. Francis Tannehill, and The Honorable Bernard Delmore, are the guests. Discussion Program.NonDerriflfi. IS THE CHURCH ECLIPSING BIBLICAL TRUTH WITH HUMAN PHILOSOPHY? The Honorable B. J. Bergeson, Rabbi Saul Diament, The Honorable Herschel Lashkowitz, Rev. Francis Tannehill, and The Honorable Bernard Delmore, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 149. SHOULD THE WORLD RETURN TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR ITS RELIGIOUS STANDARDS? The Honorable B. J. Bergeson, Rabbi Saul Diament, Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand, The Honorable Herschel Lashkowitz, and Rev. Francis Tannehill, are the guests. Discussion Program Number 150. SHOULD THE HOME BE MORE THAN JUST AN EATING PLACE FOR THE FAMILY? The Honorable B. J. Bergeson, Rabbi Saul Diament, Dr. Kenneth Hildebrand, Rev. Francis Tannehill, and James L. Jacobs, are the guests. Discussion Program.NonDer iii, SHOULD THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ENDORSE AN UNDECLARED WAR IN VIETNAM? The Honorable B. J. Bergeson, Rabbi Saul Diamont, Dr. Kenneth Hilde- brand, Rev. Francis Tannehill, and James 1. Jacobs, are the guests. BIBLIOGRAPHY 401 BOOKS Adams, Harlen Martin and Pollock, Thomas Clark. Snnak U2. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. Adams, James Truslow. Dictionary of American History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940. Baird, A. Craig. Argnnnntation, Discussionrrnnd Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950. Baird, A. Craig and Knower, Franklin H. General Sneech. New York: ‘McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957. ' Bales, Robert F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press, Inc., 1951. Bartlett, John. Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1955. Benham, Sir Gurney. Benhamierook oeruotations. London: George G. Harrap and Company, Ltd., 1958. Bishop, Glen A. Chicago's Accomnlishments and Leaders. Chicago: Bishop Publishing Company, 1932. Braden, Waldo W. and Gehring, Mbry Louise. Sneech Practices. New York: ‘Harper & Bros. Publishers, 1958. Brembeck, Winston L. and McLaughlin, Theodore J. A Clasnified Biblio- granhy of Group Discussion. ‘Madison, Wisconsin: Univer- sity of Wisconsin Press, 1948. Brigance, William Norwood. Sneech Communication. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955. Brown, J. F. Psychology and Social Order: An Introduction to the Dynnnics of Study of Social Fields. New York: MbGraw- Hill Book Company, 1936. Browne, C. G. and Cohn, Thomas S. The Study of Leadershin. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958. Burton, John. Group Discussion. London: Central Council for Health Education, 1958. Calvin, John. Ingtiguteg 9f the Christian Religion. London: Thomas Tegg, 1844. 402 Cantor, Nathaniel. Learning Through Discussion. Buffalo, N. Y.: University of Buffalo Press, 1951. Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin. Group Dynnnics. New York: Row, Peterson and Co., 1960. Cochran, Thomas. Concise Dictionary of American History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962. Day, Donald. Will Rogers. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1962. Einiges Uber Die Rnfenden Stimmen Oder Die Sogenannte Predigtkrankheit In Smaland In Den Jahrenr 1842 Und 1843. Leipzig: Leopold Michelsen, 1843. Eisenson, John, Auer, J. Jeffery, and Irwin, John V. The Psychology of Communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963. English, Horace B. and English, Ava Champney. A Comnrehensive Diction- any of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms. New'York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1959. Fremantle, Anne. The Panal Encyclicals. New York: G. D. Putnamis Sons, Publishers, 1956. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Church Manual. Washing- ton, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1951. Manual for Ministers. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1954. Source Book for Bible Students. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1922. Gilman, Wilbur E., Aly, Bower, and Reid, Loren D. ihe,Fundamentain of Sneaning. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951. Goldsmith, Oliver. The Deserted Villnge. Boston: J. E. Tilton and Company, 1866. Gordon, Thomas. Groun-Centered Leadershin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955. Gulley, Halbert E. Disgnssion, Conference, and Groun Process. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1960. Hence, Kenneth G., Ralph, David C., and Wiksell, Milton J. Princinles of Speaking. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1962. ‘Hansen, Harry. The World Almanac. New York: New York Sun-Telegram Publishers, 1954. 403 Hare, A. Paul, Borgatta, Edgar F., and Bales, Robert F. Small Groups. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Company, 1955. Harris, G. Montagu. Comnarative Local Government. London: Hutchin- son's University Press, 1948. Hemphill, John K. Situational Factors in Leadershin. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1949. The Holy Bible . ‘Howell, William S. and Smith, Donald K. Disgussion. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. Keltner, John W. Groun Discussign Process. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1957. Klinefelter, C. F. Social Leadernhin. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Office of Education, 1940. Koran, Sura XLIII, in The Holy Qur-An. Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. New York: Hafner Publishers, 1946. Lamont, R. P. Fifgnnnth Census of the United States. Vol. I. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931. Lasher, Bruno. Democracy Through Discussion. New York: The H. W. Wilson Company, 1949. Laux, John. A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1936. Leighton, Isabel. Inc Asnirin nge. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1949. Luther, Martin. The Table Taik of Martin Lnther. Translated and Edited by William Hazlitt. London: George Bell and Sons, 1902. What Luther Says. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959. Macbride, Thomas Huston. In cabins and Sod4Houses. Iowa City, Iowa: State Historical Society, 1929. Machen, John Gresham. Christianity and Liberalisn. New York: The Macmillan Company , 1923 . Mackinnon, James. Luther and the Refornntion. New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1962. 404 Malthus, Thomas Robert. An Essay_on the Population as it Affects the Future Improvementrof Society. London: Printed by J. Johnson in St. Paul‘s Churchyard, 1798. Manvell, Roger. On the Air. London: Andre Deutsch Limited, 1953. Mathews, Mitford M. ArDictionarL of Americanisms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. ‘McBurney, James H. and Hance, Kenneth G. Discussion in.Human Affairs. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. ‘McKnight, John P. The Panagy. Toronto: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1952. IMorison, Walter. Pushkin’s Poeng, London: Unwin Brothers Limited, 1945. Murray, Robert H. Erasmus and Luther. London: The Macmillan Company, 1920. Newton, Sir Isaac. Observations Unon the Pronhecies of Daniel and the Anocalynse of St. John. London: J. Derby and T. Browne Company, 1733. Odom, Robert Leo. Sundny in Roman Pnganism. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1944. Overstreet, Harry and Overstreet, Bonaro. Town Meeting Comes to Town. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1938. Oxford English Dictionany. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Page, James R. An E osi io of the irt -nine Articles of the C rch of England, and nn Annendix Containing the Augsburg Confession. New York: D. Appleton 5: Company, 1851. Perry, Ralph Barton. The Thought and Character of William James. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1935. Pichon, Charles. The vatican and Its Role in World Affairs. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1950. Regamey, Pie-Raymond. Poverty, an Egsential Element in the Christian Life. New York: Sheed and ward, 1950. Ridley, Clarence E. and Nolting, Orin F. ,ihe.Municip§1 Yearbook. Chicago: International City Managers Association, 1940. Sattler, William M. and Muller, N. Edd. Disgussion and Conference. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice4Hall, Inc., 1955. 405 Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. New York: Harper and Sons, 1919. . Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910. Sears, Lorenzo. The History of Oratory. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company , 1903. Seeberg, Reinhold. History of Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book 'House, 1952. Sheyenne River Academerearbook, gynosure. Class of ‘22. Harvey, North Dakota: Sheyenne River Academy Press, 1922. Tertullian, Quintus Septimus Florens. Apologetical Works. Translated into English by Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin W. Quain. New Ybrk: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Boston: John Allyn Publishers, 1876. Towne, Arthur E. Old Prairie Days. Otsego, Michigan: Otsego Union Press, 1941. Trumbull, J. Hammon. The Trnn Ding Lnys of Connecticut and New Haven, and the False Blue igws Forgedrby Petero. Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1876. Utterback, William E. Decinion Through Discussion. New York: Rine- hart & Company, Inc., 1950. WCCO-TVQiMinneapolis-St. Paul. Television Fact Book, Vol. XVI. Wash- ington, D. C.: Television Digest Publishers, January 15, 1953. White, Ellen G. The Degire of Ages. washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1950. Educagion. iMountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1942. . Evnngelism. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publish— ing Association, 1946. . Thoughts from the Mount of Biessing, Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1943. Zernov, Nicolas. Easiern Christendom. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1961. 406 ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS "Accent on America," TV Guide, I (January 22-28, 1953), p. A-17. Anderson, R. A. "A Father on the Ordination of His Son," The Ministry, XXXV (February, 1962), p. 31. The Anoka Herald (Anoka, Minnesota), July 2, 1953, p. 1. The Audirmium Star_L Extrn (Coffeyville, Kansas), May 15, 1942. Benton, A. A. "Tradition," Church gyclmedia of the Protestant; Episco- pal Church. New York: M. H. Mallory & Company, 1883. Berry, James. "Climate and Crop Service," Monthy Weather Review, XXIX (March, 1902), p. 103. Bible Temnle Edigion (Mercedes, Texas), March 28, 1940. Bible Temnle Snecial (Boulder, Colorado), November 26, 1937. Bible Temnle Snecial (Grand Junction, Colorado), April 21, 1939. Brible Tempie Speciai (Longmont, Colorado), April 29, 1938. Christian Science Monitor, February 17, 1922. Clevenger, Theodore, Jr. "A Synthesis of Experimental Research in Stage Fright," Quargerly Journal of Sgch, XLV (April, 1959). Cowper, William. "The Task," ine Poetical Works of William Coyer, II. London: Bell and Daldy, 1865, p. 39. "Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures," Council of Trent, Session IV (April 8, 1546), translated in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom. New York: Harper Bros., 1919, pp. 79-80. Denver Pong (Denver, Colorado). Detroit News. Monday, October 30, 1950. "Editorial," ARTH News, I (October-December, 1961), p. 2. "An Editorial," Christianity Todg, LXVI (August 10, 1949), p. 931. Frank, Glenn. "The Parliament of the People," The Century Mngazine, XCVIII (July, 1919), p. 403. Fuess, Claude M. "Know-Nothing Party," Engyclonaedia Britannica, XVI, 1964. 407 Good Will Mesnenger (Valley City, North Dakota), June 7, 1932, p. 1. Greelgy Tribune (Greeley, Colorado). Jackson, Samuel Macaulay. "Evangelist," The New Schaff-Herzog Encyc lo- pgdia of Religious Knowled e, IV. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950. Judd, Walter H. "We Must Recapture Faith in Our American Heritage to Survive," ARTH News, I (October-December, 1961), p. 5. Lea, Henry Charles. "Will Rome Lose America?" _Tne Review of Reviews, ed. W. T. Stead, XXXVIII (1890), p. 202. Leiske, A. A. "The American Religious Town Hall Has a Divine Mission," ARTH Newg, II (June-August, 1963). "Memoirs," gynosure, Sheyenne Riyer Acadgm Yearbook. Harvey, North Dakota: Sheyenne River Academy Press, 1922. Lemkuhl, August. "Moral Theology," The Catholic Engyclonedia, 1913 ed., XIV, p. 601. Light, Paul. "Gee, Thanks," Once Over Lightly Column, St. Paul Pioneer Press, November 2, 1960, p. 15. Lippmann, Walter. "The University and the Human Condition," ih_e_ Chicngo Jewish Forun, XXV (Fall, 1966), p. 27. Luther, Martin. "Verkundigung D. M. Luther's Vom Jungsten Tage," Tischreden Von_Samtliche Schriften, XXII. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1910. Macon Chronicle-Herald macon, Missouri), July 9, 1937, p. 3. Minneanolis Herald Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota). Monitor News (Denver, Colorado). Nall, T. Otto. "Television’s Free-for-all on Religion," Christian Advocate, CXXX may 19, 1955), pp. 10-11. New York Times . Nilsen, Thomas R. "Free Speech, Persuasion, and Democratic Process," The Quarterly Journal of Sngngn, XLIV (October, 1958), p. 236. Osmunson, E. R. "New TV Program," Northern Union Ouriook. XVI (January 13, 1954), p. 4. Palisade Tribune (Palisade, Colorado). 408 Petersen, William. "Population," Collier's Encyclopedia, ed. 1965, XIX. Post-Dulletin (Rochester, Minnesota), September 26, 1966. "Religion--American Plan," These Times, LXII (August, 1953), p. 8. "Retailing: Battle of the Discounters," Time, LXXVII (September 15, 1961), p. 85. Rocky Mountnin Neg; (Rocky Mountain, Colorado). Roosevelt, Mrs. Franklin D. "Mrs. Roosevelt‘s Reply to Cardinal Spellman," Now York Times, XCVIII (July 23, 1949), p. 26. Rosenthal, Paul I. "The Concepts of Ethos and the Structure of Persua- sion," _peech Monographs, XXXIII (June, 1966). "Secret Societies--The Know-Nothings," Putnam's Monthly, V (January, 1855), p. 88. Shuster, George Nauman. "The Catholic Controversy," Harper’s Dngazine, CXCIX (November, 1949), p. 25. Spellman, Cardinal. "Text of Cardinal’s Letter to Mrs. Roosevelt," Ney York Times XCVIII (July 23, 1949), p. 26. Stogdill, R. M. "Personal Factors Associated with.Leadership: A.Survey of the Literature," Journal of Prycholo , XXV (January, 1948) , p. 64. St. Paul Pioneer Pres; (St. Paul, Minnesota), January 3, 1953. Towne, Oliver. "The Oliver Towne Column," St. Paul Dispatch, Saturday, April 16, 1960. Weeks,.Howard B. "Television’s Experiment in Freedom," Liberty, LII (First Quarter, 1957), p. 17. Wrage, Ernest J. and Baskerville, Barnett. "American Speeches on Twentieth Century Issues," Contemporary Forum. New York: Harper Bros. Publishers, 1962. Yoder, Dale. "Pressures on Universities," Social Science and Freedom. Social Science Research Center of the Graduate School, University of Minnesota. New York: Printed by the Fund for the Republic, Inc., 1955. 409 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS U.S., Congress, Senate, Resolution Number 383, Requesting the President to proclaim the Constitutional Bill of Rights Week, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., August 19, 1958, pp. 1-2. U.S., Congressional Record, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961, CVII, Part 19, A2571. U.S., Constitution, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I. ‘MICROCARD Willard, Samuel. Some Miscellaneous Observations in Our Present Debates Respecting Witchcraft, in a Dialogue Between 8. and B. (Philadelphia: William Bradford Printers, 1692). (Charles Evans Microcard 631) . UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, "Articles of Incor- poration," St. Pau1,'Minnesota, Office of Register of Deeds, 1955. Brochures of Governor's Prayer Breakfast, held in St. PauléMinneapolis, 1961-1965. Fall Council of Seventh-day Adventists, Action taken, Washington, D. C., October 17, 1954. Leiske, A. A. "The Basic Purpose of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated," an unpublished tract. . "History of United Action Under God for Religious Leadership in Minnesota," The Governor's Prayer Breakfast Brochure, 1961. Personal Diary, 1944-1953. Minneapolis Proposed Sunday Closing Ordinance, introduced by Elsa Johnson, Ward 8, Minneapolis, Minnesota. vetoed February 15, 1962, by Arthur Naftalin, Mayor of Minneapolis. Minutes of the Signing of the American Religious Town Hall Agreement, St. Paul, Minnesota, December 30, 1952. In Leiske's Scrapbook. 410 "Rules for Panelists Appearing on the American Religious Town Hall Meeting," unpublished material from the files of the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated. Shaw, Horace J. "Questions to Ask Myself When Planning for a Discussion," unpublished material. Villa Vista Brochure, Rochester, Minnesota, September 25, 1966. Vitrano, Steven P. "The Chicago Sunday Evening Club: A Study in Contemporary Preaching" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State University, 1966). LETTERS Allen, Ira 3., Panel Member, to O. J. Ritz, February 20, 1967. Andersen, Elmer L., Former Governor ofIMinnesota, to O. J. Ritz, December 12, 1966. Briggs, F. P., Former Senator fromIMissouri, to 0. J. Ritz, December 5, 1966. Colson, Ellis R., Treasurer, American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, to O. J. Ritz, October 29, 1966. Evans, L. C. , President, Southwestern Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Richardson, Texas, to A. A. Leiske, June 28, 1955. Figuhr, R. R., President, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Washington, D. C., to A. A.‘Leiske,‘March 7, 1955. Finney, R. E., Jr., President, Wisconsin Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Madison, Wisconsin, to O. J. Ritz, September 7, 1966. Humphrey, Hubert H., Former Senator fromIMinnesota, Telegram to A. A. Leiske, September 17, 1958. Hutches, G. E., Secretary of Education, Lake Union Conference of Seventh- day Adventists, Berrien Springs, Michigan, to O. J. Ritz, December 23, 1966. Johnson, Edwin C., Former Governor of Colorado, to O. J. Ritz, December 2, 1966. Karth, Joseph E., United States Congressman from Minnesota, to O. J. Ritz, December 2, 1966. 411 Lashkowitz, Herschel, Mayor, City of Fargo, North Dakota, to O. J. Ritz, December 16, 1966. Leiske, Robert W., Manager, Town Hall Estates, Rochester, Minnesota, to O. J. Ritz, September 28, 1966. Lenheim, L. E., Former President, Atlantic Union Conference of Seventh- day Adventists, South Lancaster, Mesachusetts, to A. A. Leiske, June 20, 1955. ‘Misenko, T. Paul, Chairman, School of Religion, American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, to O. J. Ritz, December 23, 1966. Nelson, W. A., Former President, Canadian Union Conference of Seventh- day Adventists, Oshawa, Ontario, to A. A. Leiske, June 23, 1955. Pomeroy, Mahlon W., Panel Member, to O. J. Ritz, October 28, 1966. Richards, H. M. S., Founder and Speaker of the Voice of Prophecy, Los Angeles, California, to A. A. Leiske, August 10, 1955. Scriven, C. A., Former President of North Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Portland, Oregon, to A. A. Leiske, March 8 , 1955 . Stern, Herman, Industrialist, Fargo, North Dakota, to O. J. Ritz, December 5, 1966. INTERVIEWS Interview with A. Leiske, June 9, 1965. Interview with A. Leiske, June 10, 1965. Interview with A. Leiske, June 12, 1965. Interview with A. Leiske, September 28, 1965. Interview with A. Leiske, March 22-25, 1966. Interview with A. Leiske, September 13, 1966. Interview with A. Leiske, September 28, 1966. Interview with A. Leiske, October 20, 1966. Interview with A. Leiske, October 26, 1966. Interview with A. Leiske, October 27, 1966. . Leiske, October 28, 1966. >>z>???>?.>>> Interview with A. Interview Interview Interview Interview Interview Telephone Interview 412 with A. A. Leiske, January 20, 1967. with A. A. Leiske, February 10, 1967. with Mrs. A. A. (Mae) Leiske, June 10, 1965. with T. Paul Misenko, Chairman, School of Religion, American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Incorporated, October 27, 1966. with T. Paul'Misenko, February 10, 1967. Interview with Dr. Ansgar Nelson, Panel Member, February 10, 1967. with John Wimmer, Philanthropist, Twin valley, Minnesota, October 28, 1966.