CHURCH AND STAGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3420, 27 March 1879, Page 3

CHURCH AND STAGE.

We were informed the other day tliat the Bishop of Sydney had expressed counter viows fco those of the Bishop of Melbourne on the subject of the theatre. We are happy to find that tho Sydney Morning Herald adopts -*he more liberal, and in our opinion, the more rational view of the Bishop of Melbourne. The Herald says :— " Bishops differ. Afc tho Bible Society meeting on Monday night the Bishop of Sydney declared his diverg. nee from the well-known views of the Bishop of Melbourne respecting the attitude of the church to the theatre. Both prelates have the courage of their convictions on this question, and both have had to encounter much ungenerous criticism. With each of them it is a necessity of conscience to speak out, and each of fchem represents a considerable following. Dr Moorhouse contends that the idea of the theatre is not a vicious but a noble one ; that the actual theatre should be purified and elevated to the ideal conception ; and that this business of regenerating a popular and indestructible social institution is a proper one for Christian people to undertake. On tlie ofcher hand, Ur Barker declines to discuss the ideal theatre until ifc comes into existence,' asserts thafc there is a ' world' (using tho word in an occult theological sense) with which Christians should have no intercourse, because it is controlled by a disreputable spirit ; and announces tlufc fche theatre is part and parcel of that forbidden world. Now it seems to us that, in this matter, men who zealously desire the highest welfare of society — as Bishops Barker and Moorhouse do— have to choose betwixt a policy of suppression and a policy of purification. In regard fco fche firsfc, one fatal objection is tbat fche theatre cannot be suppressed. Tho stage is as tough as the church, and all attempts to destroy both ono and the other by physical and moral means have been miserable failures. Suppose all who accept Dr Barker's opinions never enter the theatre, but liberally denounce it from outside, will that courso have an iota of effect upon its existence? Will it not flourish despite all such abstinence and protest ? Another objection is, thafc unless tho theatre is radically vicious— i.e., vicious in its idea— it ought not to be suppressed. A suppression of thafc kind, if it could bo accomplished,- would be a confession that civilised society could not prevent the hopeless perversion of a noble idea ; and civilised society ought to bo very loth to make such a shameful confession as that. So wo conclude that the true policy of right-hoarted men in respect to fche stage is ono, of purification. Such a reform maybe difficult, but ifc is not to be classed among the impossibilities. Tho Bishop of Melbourne was not wrong, in our opinion, in taking this larger view of the situation. Let the Church join tho Press in encouraging puro and lofty representations, and in scathing every drama which goes to coarse vices for its attractions."