THE KING’S BUSINESS 295 the attempt has been made to lift the stage to where people-of decent morals would have it, but the attempt has failed and always will fail. The people who desire (that which is evil, at least in suggestion, far predominate among theatre going people over the men and women of high moral standards, and theatrical managers feel that they must appeal to the people from whom they get the largest patronage, and the largest patronage of the theatre always has come and always will come from those whose moral standards are not high. Many and many a woman has gone on the stage with high moral ideals, but as a rule they have soon discovered that they must either lower their moral standards or give up the stage. Mr. Irving says that people “must be amused, just as they must be fed and clothed.” That is true, but the question is how to make amusements elevating and not demoralizing, and the general influence of the stage from time immemorial has been demoralizing, and it is certainly increasingly demoralizing. Mr. Irving discloses his superficiality and utter lack of sense of moral propriety in a comparison of the church with the stage, in which he says, “The preaching must be, if possible, stirring and exciting— even in the gloomiest religions the hell fires to which the sinful are assigned must be made to flame brightly.” His words need no comment, they are a sad revelation of the lack of depth and moral earnestness of the man who wrote them. Mr. Irving himself admits, though apparently somewhat uncon sciously, “the steady growth of every form of lighter and more frivolous entertainment.” He says further, “There is a spiritual side to the theatre as well as to religion.” This is simply an illustration of the very loose way in which the word spiritual is used. Evidently Mr. Irving has no conception of what the word means in its proper sense from a Christian standpoint. " One of his strongest statements in defense of the stage is, “If the primary object of the theatre must always be to amuse and interest, yet it can interest in such a way as to elevate men’s minds arid make them think of something higher and nobler than the mere trivialities of life.” This is entirely true from the the oretic standpoint. It is very easy to conceive of a theatre from the mere stand point of theory, that would elevate men’s minds, but the question is not what is theoretically possible,, but what is an actual fact, and beyond an honest question the effect of the theatre as a whole has been extremely demoralizing, though it i$ only fair to admit the theatre at its worst was never as demoraliz ing as the movie shows which are so largely taking its place. The movies put on the stage without the slightest hesitation, things so vile and foul as the theatre would never have thought of staging, and yet the movies resent all censorship. They have recently seen the commercial peril that there is before them from an aroused public, and therefore, while resenting outside censor ship, have promisedi that they themselves will organize and suppress the vicious, but their ideas of what is vicious are so unsatisfactory that nothing can be hoped for from that source. If the church undertakes to elevate either the stage or the movies it will undertake an impossible task. The true attitude of the church toward the stage and the movies is that set forth by the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor. 6:17, “Touch not the unclean thing.” The Bishop of London is to be congratulated that his words had such force as to awaken opposition.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker