Churches Should Run a Theatre

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 874, 18 January 1930, Page 24

Churches Should Run a Theatre

Plea from Melbourne

“Let the churches run their own theatre” is the plea of the Rev. C. Irving Benson, of Melbourne. In support of his plea he wrote the following article in a Melbourne exchange. The decision to close two of Melbourne’s leading theatres has set me thinking on the question as to whether the time has not arrived for the churches to conduct a theatre of their own. I have tried to skittle the very idea as ridiculously impossible, impracticable and undesirable, but still it persists in my mind. It will be said that It is no more the business of the church to run a theatre than to run a zoo. Noah ran a zoo, and Jeremiah acted some of his best sermons. Then It will be said —“Let the church concentrate on its own work, which is to get people converted ,and to build up noble characters.” While that cannot be too strongly emphasised it must be granted that in practice the church is increasingly recognising the fact that religion covers the whole field of life, and not a fenced-off corner of it. The majority of churches have their tennis, football and cricket associations, and provide wholesome amusements by means of socials, clubs and guilds. I would not minimise the apprehension of those who feel that spiritual religion is fading because there are today so many agents ministering to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. The most urgent need of our civilisation is a strong infusion of soul life. But while that is true, relaxation from the strain and stress of modern life is a necessity, and wholesome amusement has a real recreative value. The churches -would he lacking in courage if they did not protest vigorously against the immoralities, double entendre and indecencies of some modern productions on the stage and screen. Some of these productions are not art, but abominations. What is called love is often lust. The posters on our hoardings prove that much that is produced panders to the lowest tastes, gilds vice and applauds infamy, is calculated to debase the thoughts of young people and injure the standard of public morality. But I firmly believe that the theatre can be saved. We have to admit that the theatre is a force in modern life. It will not do then to turn away in disgust without honest thinking and offering a constructive policy. Thousands of church people go to theatres, and for the most part they exercise a wise discrimination against plays which make mirth over immorality. But I think the church ought to face the responsibility of providing the people with clean, well-staged and well-produced entertainment. Let the churches run their own theatre and run it well. It can be done. My suggestion is that a committee of all the churches should consider the practicability of establishing a theatre of their own—the shares in it to be held by them in proportion to their percentages of the population, I feel confident that there are laymen of vision who would put up the money necessary ,and these men might be the directors. They would employ professional managers and actors able to present first-rate shows. It would be profitable, but profits would not dictate its policy. lam not advocating for a moment that the theatre should be turned into a preaching station or a lecturers’ rostrum. Nothing is so tedious and so boring as what is called didactic art; in fact didactic art is a contradiction in terms. But it is possible to produce thoroughly enjoyable comedies, revues and dramas which are not offensive to the Christian standpoint. The late General Booth asked: “Is there not room for a really wholesome play which would inspire as well as amuse?” There surely is.