THE CHORCH AND THE DRAMA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8061, 23 September 1887, Page 6

THE CHORCH AND THE DRAMA.

By Co 7 uOnus.

The hoetility of the Church to the drama has keen brought into striking prominence by an incident which haii just txeurred. An Amateur Dramatic Society has tender »d the proceeds of two dramatic entertainments to a benevolent object. The offer' was accepted, but a lady occupying a prominent position in religious movements, and associated with the benevolent institution that wae to have been the beneficiare, forthwith forwarded her resignation of membership, and in deference to her religious scruples, and in order to retain her connexion, the managers of the institution declined to receive the proceeds of the intended entertainments.

it is not my intention to call in jueetion the purity of the motives that lave prompted such action. The lady i?ho has takon this stand is too welltnown for her genuine Christian goodness for any one to doubt her sincerity, ind in her action she haa given expression to a feeling that unquestionably rules in religious circles. But the incident prompts the question, la there anything inherently wicked in the drama, &nd is the Church—by which 1 mean the religious world—wise in thus presenting an uncompromising front to dramatic representations ? That the love of dramatic entertainment is inherent in human nature is a fact that can hardly be questioned by any observer ; but aa this may not be accepted as any proof of its goodness, let us analyse the drama and seek to discover wherein »ts wickedness consists. And what is the essence of the drama 1 A moment's thought tells us it is simply imitatior. The drama purports to represent the life either in its natural features, or with its peculiarities exaggerated, or it takes thrilling scenes of history or imagination and reproduces them before the eye, and thia it does through the agency of living persons assuming the characters and performing the actions of others. It may seem atrango that the human mind shonld hare a bias towards taking pleasure in euch deceptive or mimic representation ; but we see the same in the pleasure afforded by a beautiful picture or a beautiful statue, which commonly charms more than gazing on the original, and which at all events produces »3thetio emotions of a distinct character from the feelings that arise from viewing that of which it is the image. We do not inquire why it should be so, or what pleasure there can be in beiug so deceived; but 1 do assert that if ever there was a tendency in the human mind clearly marked it is this love of representative entertainment. It is so natural that we see it in the merest child ; so deepseated in the heart that we find it interwoven in the history and religion of every nation. The little girl can scarcely walk when she geta * doll and plays mother, She lulls it to sleep, clothes it, talks to it, and is perfectly happy in the enjoyment of her little dramatic entertainment; and where is a group of children so happy as when playing king of the castle ? or with a few pebbles on a board with mimio beam and scales playing shop ? or ■when, advancing in intelligence and learning more of the complexities of life, ■with gown, and wig, aud plaintiff, and defendant, they play judge and jury? The natural tendency to take delight in Bcenic representation is manifested so early ; and I shall not insult any one's Intelligence by asking if these children are committing sin, and if that little girl as she artlessly fondles her doll is doing what is offensive to the eye of Heaven. And yet she is a little actress, and she is playing domestic dramas. « But what I wish especially to note in this is that not from training, not from any perversion of the taste, not from having ever seen a drama acted, bat from the very constitution of the human mind as given from the hand of there is an iuherent and innocent tendency to take satisfaction in drama Lie representation. Or let us look to the infancy of nations, and we do not find a people emerging from the earliest stages of barbarism and entering on the enjoyment of social life, bat the drama in some form ia among its earliest institutions. Among the Greeks it was associated with their earliest forms of religious worship, and the rude dancings and pantomime performed by satyrs around the altar of Bacchus, aa instituted by Thespis—the first theatrical manager— ■were as fascinating to the dramatic instincto of that early people as were the noble tragedies of Eschylus and Sophocles and Euripides to the polished Athenians, who assembled the whole J9&rte~of Grecian history testified how intimately associated was the drama with the profoundest ieelings of their hearts. Among the early Romans the drama iirst took form under the awe-inspiring influence of a terrible plague, and in the movements of religious emotion, the most deeply moving influence that can sway the human heart, the drama had its origin, and continued ever after associated vriih the religious feelings of the nation. But it may be said that all this is the rude prompting of ignorance and barbarism, and can be taken as no indication to those who hare illumination from a higher source. Let us then examine into the means which the Great Being himself who haa formed the mind of man, and who should know its constitution best, has taken to impress the human mind and to train it for Himself. Let us look into the earliest system of religion sad religious observances which He has himself appointed, aud there we find that in conformity with this universal tendency the Hebrew ritual was in the fullest sense dramatic representation. He had taken a people whose minds he meant to draw to Him and train them to spiritual perceptions. And it was not by Bending messengers to reason with them on the abstract nature of holiness and sin, to expound the relations between God and man, the state of misery in which they were and the means of attainment of pardon, peace, and spiritual perfection. But when the assembled thousands came together for worship and instruction a /oat is taken, and in solemn form the eins of the people are laid upon his head, j and the scapegoat is driven into the I wilderness. J

Are they to be taught that the sufferings of a .Saviour are to be taken ia satisfaction fur their sins ? Aα animal is made to bleed and die; a scenic representation of the sufferings of Him who was to come to take away the sins of the world. Ara they to be taught the only relief from the sorrow and pain that eiu brings? The eye is pointed to a brazen serpent miaed aloft to lift their thoughts to Him who should be lifted up for the healing of the nations. Are they to be taught the only meane by which they can have safety from the slavery of Bin and from the Destroying Angel that niu has let luose to hy on his dark mission over the earth ? Then in a scenic representation of exceeding beauty a lamb is taken without blemish, and hia blood is shed and sprinkled on their door poata ; while with Btaff in hand and shoes on feet they enact the thrilling drama of that eventful night, for ever to be remembered among the hosts of Israel, when in hot haste their fathers marched from the house of bout dsge under tbe guidance and protection of Almighty power. And so it is throughout the Hebrew ritual; from first to last it was a varying series of dramatic representation.

And be it remembered that this was Ako teaching of the Creator ; and Hβ that

hath made che eye of man shall He not see ? and Hβ that hath made the ear of man shall Hβ not hear 1 Anil Hβ that framed the constitution of the human mind, shall Hβ not know the means, the very best, to awake and interest and influence the eoul in training and moulding it to purposes of good ? And what is the natural conclusion to be drawn ? Iβ it not that the Great and Wise Creator, in employing dramatic representation to teach and influence His chosen people, bears irresistible testimony to this inherent tendency in the human mind, and to the powerful influence that can be exerted by the right aee of the drama ? But it may be said that things are changed since then, and that under the purely spiritual form of worship that has since been substituted the dramatic element is wanting. How, while I might allude to two standing ordinances in the Christian Church — the Lord's Supper, a sacred drama with the tenderest associations and full of thrilling interest ; and Baptism, whioh is a eoenio representation of spiritual purification— I will concede that religion has ceased to bo dramatic. The second dispensation is for an advanced stage in the march of the human mind, and the same Being who onoe gave drama to the Hebrew now ordaina that they who worship Him ehall worship Him in spirit and in truth. But I have not bean contending for dramatic representation in religious worship, and I have only noticod its existence there, ae a iecognition on the pajt of the Creator of the power which He acknowledges it to have in attracting and influencing the human mind ; and I think I am warranted in concluding that so far as the principle of dramatic representation is concerned, and in the influence which it may exercise over the hinaan mind there is not, there cannot be, anything inhereutly wicked.

Wβ see the leaning to dramatic scenes in the innocent child at play. We see their power in the fascination which they have for the adult ; we see it strongest where human nature ie most natural, and the mind most unconstrained shows its primitive dispositions. Wβ tind the drama interwoven with the religion and polity of the earliest nations ; legislators and philosophers, statesmen aud demagogues have seen, and noted, and turned to their several purposes this universal tendency to love the drama. The Creator himself has laid hold of it as a means of elevating, enlightening, and sanctifying His people, and we find it even recognised in the standing ordinances of the Christian Church; and outside the Church, and in the world around, so fascinating, so enthralling ie the drama in its varied forms that beyond all others it may be called par excellence the amusement of the people. How what, I ask in the circumstances, is the duty of the Churches in relation to this pre-eminent amusement of the people 1 Should they shut themselves up in self seclusion, and utterly ignore the existence of such a potent influence for good or evil 1 Or seeing it possessing such a power, observing how inherent the love of the drama in in the heart, and the influence it universally possesses, should they not seek to turn it to purposes of good ? Should they cast from them as a wicked thing, and utterly repudiate what has been once used for the advancement of religion and spiritual life, and hand it over to the devil tor his own particular purposes This latter is certainly the course which the churches have pursued. Nearly the whole religious world is in arms against the theatre, and the theatre laughs back defiance at the church. Pastors denounce it, and warn that its ways are the ways of death, and the people throng those ways and crowd to its representations. Which has got the better in this con- ; flict ?—the Church or the deviL I unhesitatingly say it IB the deviU As against the theatre the church's denunciations are impotent ; and freed from the control of religious influences, the theatre is only restrained by a not very rigid public opinion, and by considerations of will it pay ? I am not going to maintain that the stage as at present constituted is a moral institution. It is not necessary for my purposes that I should, but I do without hesitation assert that it is not as bad as it is painted. There have been theatrical companies in Auckland, whose representations might have been given in any church in the city; there are plays that bring the blush to no cheek, and the teachings of which are as pure and noble as those of the Sermon on the Mount ; and I say without fear of contradiction that such is the tone of public opinion in Auckland, that if the churches willed it, and backed their wishes by a little effort, no other class of play durst ever appear on the stage in Auckland. Now it is quite as much in the way of my argument to admit that the play-ur.i-rL.i«-ii;.—i_^— * — -an undoubted fact that taken altogether there has been a sensible elevation of the moral tone of theatrical representations. But let us accept the picture at its blackest ; and in a hundred cases it in true. Theatrical people are the pariahs of society; actors are scamps, and actresses—well no better than they ought to be. The play is spiced with gags of profanity to cause "tun Atheist laugh, the poor reward of Deity offended." Rarely a play without the double entendre or worse to bring the blush to the ckeek of modesty. In the baJlet, which is so often in interlude, the dress and attitudes are designed to minister to evil desires, and the uproarious encore which the ballet receives, though ostensibly a tribute to the pretty dancing, is more generally a tribute to the pretty figure so unreservedly disclosed to view, in the theatre there is a conspicuous portion in which persons of light character display themselves, and usually in the vicinity of theatres places recognised as place* ot assignation. Is this the result of the conflict between the pulpit and the stage? and which, I ask, has got the better of it? TheChciroh or the devil ? I think it is the devil. The Church gives an occasional growl and then turns in and minds its own business; the theatre laughs and goes on; and meantime, with impure plays, and impure acting, sad impure surroundings, continues to spread impurity among the thousands that attend it, teaching woman not to blush and man to not be too particular; and quietly sapping the foundations of public morality. And for this we have to thank the Churches. They have wilfully put away from them one of the mightiest means that Nature has left to their hand for moulding public morale, aye, and even inculcating religious truths. They know that there are theatres, they believe they are impure, but they have neither the manliness to grapple with them nor the common sense to leave them alone. The pulpit denounces the stage intermittently, sufficient only to show that the Church is piqued, and with the effect of making people feel that there is just enough of wickedness in the theatres to make them nice.

By these denunciations no doubt many members of the Churches are kept from entering theatres, whereas if religious men habitually attended, a public seutiment would be formed which profanity and impurity would not dare to meet. By the religious world remaining aloof or going on the sly encouragemeat is given to the sentiment that the theatre is dedicated as a temple of wickedness. The member* of the Churches going there feel that they are doing a naughty thing; injury is done to the eeneitivoncsE of their own consciences, and from the acknowledged character of the place into which they have entered, they feel they have no right to protest or resent any offence to morals or roligion. They have come as a kind of fugitives from religion, and their coward hearts ate yot ia thr framf to defend its cause.

Nothing in the world would be easier than to cheok immorality in acting. The general sentiment of the public does not crave for public representation of impurity now so much as in the bad old playgoing times. Even a single generation has shown a wonderful advance, and a little determination on the part of a few, and very certainly on the part of a number, would purify any stage. Actors and actresses are keenly sensitive to disapproval ; popular applause i» the very breath of their nostrils, and if impurity in word or gesture is met with a good sound " hies," boldly given, it ie hot likely to be repeated. The religious world could drive impurity from the stage. But, no; it would require too much boldness, too much sacrifice of spiritual pride, too much positive religious action. We are told to resist the devil and he will flee from you, but it's easier to leave him alone, and one might get scratches in tho conflict. The Churches know well that the great body of the people love the drama, and go habitually to the theatre ; they know that the influences of tho drama are being nightly poured forth over hundreds, they believe that these influences are generally impure, and yet the Churches whioh are to shine as lights in the world, mind only their own tea meetings, to which the outside world will not go, hug themselves up in self-satisfaution and leave the rest to go to the devil. Of course conventionalism has a good deal to do with it. For many an age it has been the custom of the pulpit to look askance at the 9tnge, and no wonder. And denunciation of the stage having become traditional from the times when the play-house was real infamy, it is easier to make ugly faces at the theatre lhau to seek to turn the drama to higher purposes. It requires a bold aud vigorous nature to break through the trammels of conventionalism, and there is a good deal of religious laziness as well as pious Bel tishness in the attitude maintained by reiigiou towards the drama. The Church may turn its face away from the drama as a wicked thing. It may warn against its fascinations aud denounce it; but as a power for weal or woe it cannot despise it ; aud taking into account the inherent bins of the human mind and its fondness for the drama ; considering the high purposes to which it has been devoted, aud to which it may be devoted still, I ask is it the duty of those who seek the amelioration of their feliow-men to thrust from them one of the most powerful of human agencies for promoting either purity and happiness or impurity and woe ?