The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-13

REVIEWS THE MILBURN SERMON.
rs it possible that the theater receives
/ such a blow and was much endangered
| by it that our eloquent Brother Milburn had
to be prevailed upon to come to its rescue
| and in such terms denounced his humble
| brother minister for doing his duty in his
| humble way2
Il would have you spend few moments
| in reviewing this remarkable sermon-notice
| first the Inconsistencies of it. He falls into
the same mistake he charges us with-the
mistake of failing to discriminate. He
| himself fails to discriminate between the
| drama and the stage. The drama is a de-
paartment Of literature which every scholar
| played, with all scenic attraction. The one
| may be helpful. the other harmful. To place
| in biblical drama the passion and death of
| our Lord may not injure the reader, but to
| enact it upon the stage, as the attempt was
! made, were sacrilege
| consistently value the drama, reading it
and studying it with discriminating criti-
| nounce the theater. There are the excite
| ment of scenic effects. the evil associations,
the overwhelming appeals to the sense, the
| gloss put upon impurities and very much
| else making up the difference. The study of
| anatomical plates for scientific purposes is
| quite another thing from the exhibition of
| those plates to a mixed assembly some of
whom may find in them a stimulus to the
| basest passions. We condemn the stage
| burn fails to discriminate between them. He
| is inconsistent when he condemns us for
forming an opinion about the theater When
| we are not accustomed to attend it-because
! he does the same thing himself He seems
| to have quite decided opinion about the
| theater, and yet he acknowledges that he
| does not attend it. If he can form such d
| decided opinion of the theater without at
| tending it, why it is "a very great baseness
| and very great cowardice' for us to do the
| identical thing?"
THE fact is it is not for none of us need
attend the theater to form an opinion of it
| any more than we need to frequent the rum
| shop and drink rum to frame an opinion of
| it or visit the brothel and know by sad ex~
| perience it's deadly effect on body and soul
| to form opinion of it. The physician
! does not need to take poison, as has been
| truly said, to know it's effect on his pa
| TENTS He is inconsistent when he eulogiZes
| the theater as harmless and as a perfectly
| fit place for Christians and yet declares
| that he does not go himself. If his influence
as minister of Jesus would be injured by
| his attending the theater will not the in
| fluence of his members who attend suffer
! likewise? What is injurious for a minister
| is injurious for his members. If, as he
| says the theater in its inmost heart is pure
and beautiful and will be made one of the
| greatest and most impressive of all the in
| situations of righteousness as he claims,
why does he keep away from it lest he
| may cripple his usefulness a minister
of righteousness and a promoter of the pure
| and beautiful? Can he not see the glaring
! inconsistency of his position?
| THE contradiction as we'll as the incon-
| sistency of his sermon appears when he
charges us with SANDER and an act of
very great baseness and very great coward
| ice,' and yet, in the same breath almost
| he says Mr. Hare is a noble and upright
man and devoted minister and we all love
| him. The compliment is somewhat marred
| by the denunciation. | confess, but the
4 point l want to emphasize now is that a
slanderer and one capable of "a very great
| baseness and very great cowardice' cam
not be a noble and upright man and de-
voted minister, loved by ALL any more than
! black can be white. The one sentence con-
/ no and the inconsistency is
| apparent.
SAYS HE is NO SLANDERER.
but Mr.. Mlburn is mistaken. L am not
| a slanderer. 1 have not been guilty of very
| great baseness and very great cowardce' in
| warning my people against the evils of the
| theater.
ITO tell the truth is not to SANDER, and
what 1 have said about the theater is what
| L honestly believed then and believe now,
most profusely, to be the truth, Mr.. Mil
| burns conclusions are not convicting be-
cause his premises are incorrect, as you
will see at a glance at his arguments. He
| says surely the stage would never have
| drawn to 1t the noble men and women that
| it has drawn unless in its inmost heart it
had been pure and beautiful. Does he not
| know that many noble spirits whose names
are legion have been drawn TO pursuits and
| practices which age at heart black as sin.
| May not the financial compensation, the
| love of fame. the outward glamor and
many other attractions of the stage have
| drawn the noblest of them first, and after
! they are there they find 1T too hard to for
| sake it. Is it not true that the nobest
spirits in youth are attracted by such
| things?
THE vain hope of effecting a reformation
may draw and hold some of the noblest.
| Another fallacy in his argument is that he
c cIean of the Vice WHICH attaches 10 it.
| He holds up before us for our admiration
and patronage the theater as one of the
| of righteousness. Now, all agree with Mr..
! Milburn that such theater as he pictures
would not be harmful, but helpful. 1t would
really be. Christian theater and no one
spotless angel. but the sad fact
and t the it i thef IS vsry de nsa Rss
tuition from that, and if Mr.. Milburn would
| only attend it regularly he would know
| what ii is He need only see the vulgar and
revolving hand bills posted in public places
| showing the nasty bill of fare served on the
| the stage to be convinced that the theater
| he pictures and glorifies is an imaginative
| institution. And we are speaking of the
| theater as 1T is.
THEATER REFORM FAILURES.
such theater as Mr.. Mlburn pictures
could not be made a financial success. That
| has been tried and it has failed. The theater
| is run not as a philanthopic, but as a bust
| ness enterprise. Clean plays have not proved
| a financial success. The theater plays to the
| emotion and the baSer passions because tnat
| only has proved successful financially, end
| hence the tendency is downward and de-
| grading The theater cannot be reformed, it
| is rotten at heart It's reformation has been
| tried and it has failed. A committee ~ the
| British Parliament appointed to devise
| means of cleaning it, after a full investiga-
| ton of the subject reported that the only
way to reform the theater was to burn 1t.
| Garrick tried the experiment and utterly
| failed. Goethe and Shiller battled for re-
| form in Germany, but Goethe was inglo-
| riously dismissed from the charge Of Wei
mar Theater because he would not furnish
| vulgar dramatic entertainment
Henry Irving attempted to reform 1t III
| London and failed. Booth tried the hopeless
| task in New York city, wrecked his fortune
| in the vain attempt All this proves that
| DIR. Herrick Johnson, an authority in the
| Presbyterian Church. Is right when he says:
| The reforma ton of the theater is cut of the
| question just pure, chaste public human
| nudity is out of the question with men and
man passions. The ideal stage is simply an
| impossiblity. The stage as an institution
| has within itself the seeds of corruption and
| it exists only under the laws of degeneracy.
This is apparent from the history of the
| theater. Its ancient history is pleaded in its
| favor. 1t is here to stay they say, and we
| had better make the best of it.. Other forms
reason. Human slavery is older than the
theater The brothel is older than either,
| and by the same false argument of its an
| tiquity, by which the theater is defended.
we could defend the institution Of slavery
| and the brothel. Slavery has disappeared,
! and so will the theater before the light of
| the Son of righteousness. Yes, the theater