"THE MORAL PITFALLS OF AUCKLAND."

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 257, 31 October 1888, Page 2

"THE MORAL PITFALLS OF AUCKLAND."

(To the Editor.) gi X) _In our enlightened nineteenth century, tho truth upon many subjects of personal importance is at a great discount; and in perusing the account of the Rev. Mr Gilmore's lecture in your issue of Tuesday fright. I find that not even that gentleman has arrived at a iust conclusion of a most; .important calling in life's history. The rev. gentle man has evidently collected together only the " heads " of subjects which would .take perhaps far too much of his time to enlarge upon ; but without his going into details',, ho has first of all to learn the right nature of the subject in question, and therefrom render, with an unbiassed mmd,_ any opinion he may have to offer, and in the interests of everybody individually it is our rifht to correct any erroneous ideas that may be gathered from unguarded, inexperienced remarks, uttered, no doubt, with an unconsciousness of doing injury. , The theatre, I observe, is classed among the " pitfalls." Now, there has been far too much decrying down of this—one of the | most ennobling arts—by the so-called goody class of almost every city in the world, and but very few have raised their voices against tho uncalled-for slanders. Every right-minded individual, however, should maintain and protect that which has done far more towards educating the minds of the community and bringing them to a higher knowledge of the world's history than ever the emptyminded, .shallow sermons have done. Will the rev. gentleman kindly read up the records of crime—he can begin at 250 8.C., about which time the drama was in its infancy in Greece —and contrast the life of the stage with that of the Church ? If so, I think he will find there has been less immorality about the former than the latter. 1 should like the rev. gentleman to point out to me one instance, in the annals of Christian history, where an actor or actress has ever suffered an ignominious death by the gallows, or committed suicide through the purloining of other people's money. Can he say as much for the Church ? lie must remember that when he decrys tho stage or those connected with it —that he not only fails very far short of extending that Christian charity of which he in his position should be the embodiment, but attempts to villify a hard-working class of humanity, who have had to call into action, not only brains, but an untiring energy to gain a position which they are fully capable of maintaining. In cases of distress, who are the first to offer the helping hand of charity? The Church ? Certainly not; but rather those members of a profession who are not valued in their true light by a bigoted community. The Church, moreover, seems not unwilling to profit by theatrical representations, for I have seen lately. Christian young men and young ladies acting in such farces as "Cox and Box," "Turn Him Out," etc., and for charity? Oh, dear no ! to fill the coffers of the church. I will conclude by reminding the rev. gentleman that one of the greatest " moral pitfalls" is the after prayer or teameeting walk, indulged in by some of the younger members of the Church, whose consequences have caused more heart-aches and destroyed the har- ! mony of many more households than the stage has ever done, or its living actors, whose time is fully occupied in studying to place living pictures before the great universe.—Yours, etc., Retrospect.