"The Menace of the Religious Movie" by A.W.Tozer

May be read on-line.http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/menace.html

Thanks for sharing this, that is a thought provoking article. I think it is incredibly timely, may we all prayerfully consider these words.In Christ,Ron

Ouch!Indeed. Would love to hear some thoughts amongst us.Need to chew on this for awhile.It's a big sandwhich. That I may be as clear as possible, let me explain what I do and do not mean by the religious movie. I do not mean the missionary picture nor the travel picture which aims to focus attention upon one or another section of the world's great harvest field. These do not come under consideration here.Wish he has expounded a bit more on this.Starter question(s):Considering the timeliness of this, how do you see it ?(refering to anyone here)What do you think he meant by the 'missinary picture'?Does it (The Passion) fall into the above catagory?

Considering the timeliness of this, how do you see it ?(refering to anyone here)What do you think he meant by the 'missinary picture'?Does it (The Passion) fall into the above catagory?I don't think "The Passion" would fit into the missionary picture category. I think by saying "missionary picture" he is talking about a movie that brings to light, to the church, a specific area of spiritual need in the world. I think these were more documentary type movies and they were more common in the church years ago.I believe that the type of movie Tozer is speaking about in this article is a movie used as an evangelistic tool, something used by the church in place of, so to speak, preaching; This is exactly how I have heard "The Passion" being promoted in my own church. I found Tozer's arguments compelling. In particular he spoke of faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Some may argue that they are hearing the word of God in a movie but a movie is primarily visual, and only secondarily auditory. God has ordained the foolishness of preaching as the primary method for imparting His mind to men. To quote Tozer in that article, " Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message."He also speaks about how these movies tend to move people emotionally but the will is never really touched, isn't that an indictment on much of what goes on in the church today? That's how I see it anyway, I'm also interested in more thoughts from members here.In Christ,Ron

The question crsschk asked begs an answer with an open heart. I am open to rebuke on what I am about to write, for I realize that it might offend some. If I am wrong from the scripture, please tell me.Is it right to pretend to be Jesus?First, the evil effect upon the "actors" who play the part of the various characters in the show; this is not the less because it is unsuspected. Who can, while in a state of fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence? Where is his fear? Where is his humility? Any one who can bring himself to act a part for any purpose, must first have grieved the Spirit and silenced His voice within the heart. Then the whole business will appear good to him.Apply this statement to "The Passion":One thing may bother some earnest souls: why so many good people approve the religious movie. The list of those who are enthusiastic about it includes many who cannot be written off as borderline Christians. If it is an evil, why have not these denounced it?The answer is, lack of spiritual discernment. Many who are turning to the movie are the same who have, by direct teaching or by neglect, discredited the work of the Holy Spirit. They have apologized for the Spirit and so hedged Him in by their unbelief that it has amounted to an out-and-out repudiation. Now we are paying the price for our folly. The light has gone out and good men are forced to stumble around in the darkness of the human intellect.The religious movie is at present undergoing a period of gestation and seems about to swarm over the churches like a cloud of locusts out of the earth. The figure is accurate; they are coming from below, not from above. The whole modern psychology has been prepared for this invasion of insects. The fundamentalists have become weary of manna and are longing for red flesh. What they are getting is a sorry substitute for the lusty and uninhibited pleasures of the world, but I suppose it is better than nothing, and it saves face by pretending to be spiritual.Let us not for the sake of peace keep still while men without spiritual insight dictate the diet upon which God's children shall feed. I heard the president of a Christian college say some time ago that the Church is suffering from an "epidemic of amateurism." That remark is sadly true, and the religious movie represents amateurism gone wild. Unity among professing Christians is to be desired, but not at the expense of righteousness. It is good to go with the flock, but I for one refuse mutely to follow a misled flock over a precipice.If God has given wisdom to see the error of religious shows we owe it to the Church to oppose them openly. We dare not take refuge in "guilty silence." Error is not silent; it is highly vocal and amazingly aggressive. We dare not be less so. But let us take heart: there are still many thousands of Christian people who grieve to see the world take over. If we draw the line and call attention to it we may be surprised how many people will come over on our side and help us drive from the Church this latest invader, the spirit of Hollywood.Prove the truth of it with an open mind. Where is the foolishness of preaching anymore? Have we come above that? Have we become weary of the Manna so that now even the Death of Christ has become a form of entertainment for us? God help us! What Tozer prophesied is coming to pass. "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:14May we earnestly seek the truth!Philip

I found Tozer's arguments compelling. In particular he spoke of faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Some may argue that they are hearing the word of God in a movie but a movie is primarily visual, and only secondarily auditory. God has ordained the foolishness of preaching as the primary method for imparting His mind to men. To quote Tozer in that article, " Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message."1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.Hi allothers have made reference to the verse which speaks of the 'foolishness of preaching'. The good old KJV has led us a little astray here by its ambiguity. The word translated 'preaching' is kErugma, but the kErugma is not the method but the content. It is an heraldic pronouncement.It is not saying that the act of the herald is foolishness, but that his pronouncement is foolish. It is not the act of preaching is foolishness, but the topic. In other words, it is the gospel that is foolish to the world, not the manner of its proclamation.Just thought it would be as well to take that out of the discussion, so as not to distract from the real issue.I would like to know when Tozer actually wrote this article, and whether there is anything from a later period which would indicate that he modified his views in any way. His logic, as always, is impeccable, but I wonder he begins with the right premise. God spoke in visions and ultimately in His Son. The Son is called the Word but is that really just saying that He is the perfect revelation of the mind of God. Sometimes NT prophets acted out their messages e.g. Agabus with Paul’s belt. there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. Acts 21:10. Could Agabus not have said this just as clearly? Apparently there are times when a vision (the visual) is what is necessary.If a film or a play (the religious variety) is designed to move the emotions, I am uncomfortable with that idea. If it is a graphic portrayal of truth, a living illustration, I am OK. If it is designed to entertain, I am uncomfortable with that idea, if it informs in a creative way, I am OK. Almost 40 years ago I co-created a robot for a children’s talk. The robot kept breaking down, and was repaired and modified, but never reliable until we changed his heart. After the talk one of the parents came, looked me deep in the eye, and said “I know what you are saying”. I am for communicating the truth of the gospel. To communicate I need a beachhead in the other person’s thinking, sometimes I have to create one.On a different but connected theme. What about Gospel Music? What would Tozer have said about that? And was Handel a more godly man than some others? The music used in Tozer’s meetings would not have been 1st Century music. It would have embraced ideas and rhythms from Tozer’s own day. Oh, I know he preferred older things, but older is not always better. And what about Christian performance music, the gospel concert? I play DJ for a week every year at a Conference; my taste in music is very wide. But I don’t like performance music, but for a different reason to Tozer. I think there should be lots of gaps in our meetings to give people time to respond to what God is saying. I think to awake a conviction and then move on to the next song is dangerous. There is an old saying of Wesley’s that comes to mind “I am more and more convinced that the Devil himself desires nothing more than this, that the people of any place should be half-awakened, and then left to themselves to fall asleep again; therefore I determined, by the grace of God, not to strike one stroke in any place where I cannot follow the blow.” Just my 2 cents as most of you folks say.

I would like to know when Tozer actually wrote this article, and whether there is anything from a later period which would indicate that he modified his views in any way.Had the exact same thought...Anybody? Any Tozerphiles out there with more info?As usual great insights Ron.Reading this (Tozer article) did give me pause for concern as I have the utmost respect for A.W.Tozer.Shortly after reading this I was listening to Chuck Swindoll and his message happened to be somewhat timely, it was regarding legalism.Following him was a local favorite out here, Fred Wilson, he was speaking on jealousy.Taking everything into consideration, the danger of compromise, and the means justifiying the end's, it did make me wonder if maybe this could be a form of leagalism, haven't really worked that through, just more food for thought.It just so happened that Chuck did discuss the movie at the end of the program. Kind of a quick little interview. He was very impressed by it, highly recommended it and said that he was 'more in love with Christ after watching the movie He said it really had that much of an effect on him and I have never found the man to be given to hyperbole.In the following program Fred was talking about a situation I think with Chuck Smith(?)and the Calvary Chapel Churches. What it amounted to was he had started to bring in the 'hippies' from the beaches in the area and the congregation was having a fit because of their new carpet and pewsand here were these guy's tromping around barefoot, draging in the dirt and tar. As the rumblings grew louder, he finaly took a stand before the whole church and said that if the carpet and the pews were going to stand between getting these people saved he would personally rip it all out and dump it in the parking lot.How much that apply's here...Still a good story :-) Last thought.I believe this movie is filmed with the actors speaking Aramaic, with English subtitles, which would cause the viewers to actually have to read. So there's another wrench in all this if that holds true.

The article "The Menace of the Religious Movie" can be found as chapter 17 in:A.W. Tozer on Worship and EntertainmentSELECTED EXCERPTSCompiled byJAMES L. SNYDERwith the comment -This booklet was probably published sometime in the mid 1950’s.Lars

More musings from a God struck fool.Begining to wonder if there is not a broader indictment in Mr. Tozers article. That being namely, us.Do we all not 'play act' at times?Even with the best intentions, is it not part of our 'condition' if you will?"I'll pray for you...""God Bless you..."Mar 14:29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. Mar 14:72 .... And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him.... And when he thought thereon, he wept. Jam 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. ______________________________________Was Jesus problem with the Pharisees not the fact that they were worse than the Hypocrites?Don't find Him criticising them, the actual actors themselves. The actors were 'playing'. The Pharisees were living it.HypocrisyHYPOC'RISY, n. [L. hypocrisis; Gr. simulation; to feign; to separate, discern or judge.]1. Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one's real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Luke 12.2. Simulation; deceitful appearance; false pretence.Hypocrisy is the necessary burden of villainy.PhariseePHAR'ISEE, n. [Heb. to separate.] One of a sect among the Jews, whose religion consisted in a strict observance of rites and ceremonies and of the traditions of the elders,and whose pretended holiness led them to separate themselves as a sect, considering themselves as more righteous than other Jews.__________________________

On another note.Reality check.The movie is coming out.Both persuasions of creatures will be going to see it.There is still time, 2 more weeks.To pray.Like never before.That this movie be used to go past the emotions.To cut to the heart.May it be thrust in and not pulled out.Let that conviction rest that You are the man! and bring them to repentence. Even if it is days and weeks later.For the Jewish people.That their eyes be opened to see their Messiah.The anti-semitic mouth be stopped and they toobe broken under their folly.And Dear Lord, let us not fail You in this time, to be able to "... always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope in you, with meekness and fear;" 1Pe 3:15 edit: We can be more than observers, but actual participants during the movie, praying for the conviction of The Truth. That what they are seeing is in fact, fact. Oh that that point be driven into their very marrow!There is a great opportunity here.Let us be ready for it.

I feel like I know Tozer fairly well now thanks to this site and some of his books. I have enjoyed about 100 of his sermons or so while I work everyday. I'd say that he was one of the earliest and most outspoken detectors and opposers of the church-growth movement in America. He was a simple man who never owned a car or anything nice. He just had a few books and gave away all his money from his books. He was fanatical about the Scripture, the Spirit, and the NT church. What he saw coming to the church was the current norm of entertainment by music, drama, and video presentations that "focus on the family" and are utterly void of anything that would bring anyone to conviction or instruct in godliness.This movie that Mel Gibson is bringing out is interesting. He feels moved as a professional and a Catholic to bring forth an accurate historical account of Christ's last few weeks. I will enjoy watching it on my own time with family just as I would anything else. I do not expect to see or hear much about it at church or to have a church-wide viewing together in leiu of a service.I'd say that this movie is not what Tozer was primarily focused on since it is not a presentation by an evangelical church for the proclaiming of the Gospel. The ones he would like to jump from his grave and "plow into" with an hour sermon are those who are in the Willow Creek Association and think that "The Purpose Driven Life" is a deep theological work. I come out of such a church and share in Tozer's distaste for such a prostitution of the ministry. If long biblical preaching is too boring and worship not the same without wailing electric guitar solos I don't know if spiritual fellowship is even possible.

Another comment:I fear that what we are going to have is a lot of people who are embraced by the church and given false assurance after this movie sweeps through. Accepting the historical facts and having a positive word to say about Christ is not repentance and salvation. Knowing the facts is unlikely to really change many people's heart. Even the persecuters of Chritianity in the first century didn't deny the events that this movie will present. I guess what I'm trying to say is:29Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30And he said, "No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31But he said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."

I'll mention something that might go along with this. As most of you know, the Purpose Driven Life is now being done in probably 50% of the churches- probably 80% of the bigger churches. Now take this into account as we get new people into the churches from the affect of the movie.They will see a "repentance free" gospel, even from those who are "seasoned " christians.I don't like the whole idea of this all going on at the same time. Now that I think about it- this could be a major "falling away" of that which is the true gospel- being preached to masses of people.An old friend just called me this morning, inviting me to her "new Church" (she left our old one because there was a "mass exodus". She has been a christian for most of her life (should be mature by now) and asked if I had heard of the "Purpose Driven Life:- and that they are now doing this at their new church. "Heard of it? I have nightmares about it!" Just kidding. ;-) This is a perfect example of christians that should be maturing on "meat" but instead are being fed watered down milk.That book may be fine, and a stepping stone for a new christian- but when I looked at it- I thought to myself- "My kids know this stuff!" This is the basics of a "good life". Not a Holy one.Just my thoughts coming together about the religious events going on. :-) In Him, Chanin

Sorry, I think this should have been under the other "Passion" thread. Or we could start a whole new one on "THe Purpose Driven Life".In Him, Chanin

The way the Holy Spirit moves...When I came back to this posting yesterday evening after listening to a message from Richard Bennett re: The Catholic church and the merging with the 'new evangelicals' (I could link to it later. P.S. Thanks to Eagleswings)and also the Leonard Ravenhill 'Three-fold vision' (recommened!) that Greg put up...was feeling a bit embarrassed about this overzealesness in my comments re: this movie.Was tempted to edit them out, but I don't mind being a fool, especially if I can learn something.Chanin and Greg both of your comments are siting in accordance to my thoughts right now.I do hope this movie still moves people to repentance. But I may have jumped the gun (That never happens, Mike! lol)Being that I can't say it any better, we will just repeat it here:I'll mention something that might go along with this. As most of you know, the Purpose Driven Life is now being done in probably 50% of the churches- probably 80% of the bigger churches. Now take this into account as we get new people into the churches from the affect of the movie.They will see a "repentance free" gospel, even from those who are "seasoned " christians.I don't like the whole idea of this all going on at the same time. Now that I think about it- this could be a major "falling away" of that which is the true gospel- being preached to masses of people.It is a scary thought. One that I also began musing on yesterday. Where will they go? To what I am increasingly becoming opposed to?Yikes.Have also gone through that book Chanin in bible study. My sentiments are the same:This is the basics of a "good life". Not a Holy one.Nothing to add.Glad Roger (Eagleswings) brought up the Tozer article to challenge our thinking.Also glad you both shared your thoughts here.There is a lot more to be taken into consideration than I had originally thought.I have an illustration that keeps coming back to haunt me. It's of a sign. On one side it says "DONT JUMP!!" and on the other side "To conclusions!"After I climb back up, will have to see if I can't find it. :-)

Philip asked me about my thoughts on movies and mentioned my "Spiderman" experience, so I'd thought I'd share it.First of all, I don't endorse movies or going to movies, etc... Our family does go to see movies occasionally and we ban "R" movies for even Dan and I.I also don't advise looking into movies to get a message, just to try to see into it. If you get my meaning. :-) I think this was just a one time experience. All I know is that God can choose to speak to us however He wants.For some reason, we just happen to have the Spiderman movie at our house (a present for my son, ha ha) and he has a Spiderman Blanket that he had been sleeping with.That spiderman blanket was rolled up in a ball on my bedroom floor one night.I woke up a few times and looked directly at it, not knowing what it was- just a dark "bundle" on the floor. Each time I woke up, I heard "There is a message right there." I was tired and didn't want to get up and see what "it' was. After the third time, I finally got up to see what it was and it was the Spiderman blanket. I knew the Lord was trying to say that there was a message for me in that movie.I watched it the next day, with pen and paper ready. This was the whole thing: Three times he says "With great power comes great responsibility." The last time he said it, he ended it with "that is my gift, that is my curse."I could really relate to that last statement myself. Sometimes you wonder if your giftings are really a blessing or a curse when they get many people upset with you. One other thing that was said to Spiderman(the nerdy, hero) "Even though you try to help them- they will end up hating you!" This is soooo true! As time goes on, we will experiance this more and more.To me, this was just a neat way that the Lord spoke to me. I would never seek this kind of thing out. "With great power, comes great responsibility!" Great lesson and I ponder it often!In Him, Chanin

From Phil Johnson who runs The Spurgeon Archiveamongst other things.http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/thepassion.htm___________________The Spurgeon ArchiveBookmarks

Phil Johnson wrote:"While I have not yet seen the film, I'm troubled by two things about it:"1.\tMel Gibson's sources included the dreams and visions of a couple of Roman Catholic mystics who claimed God revealed more details about the crucifixion than we find in Scripture. Given the fact Gibson himself is a committed Latin-rite Catholic, I feel sure he'll include the "stations of the cross" and other extrabiblical Catholic superstitions. Those things will severely mar the account of the crucifixion featured in the movie, I expect."2.\tI'm uncomfortable with ALL movie portrayals of Christ, because they cannot possibly convey an adequate sense of His glory. They instill in people's minds an image of Christ that cannot possibly be accurate. It seems to me a violation of the 2nd commandment. "In the providence of God, however, the movie will focus attention on the crucifixion and raise questions about the meaning of it. Since the movie itself is merely a portrayal of the event with no explanation of its meaning, I expect it will provide Christians with many opportunities to explain the meaning of Christ's death to those who will inevitably want to understand more than the movie spells out. "For that reason, I think much good may come out of it, and my public comments about it won't focus exclusively on the things I dislike about it, but on the truth that underlies the event it attempts to portray. That's the message I hope unbelievers get from the Christian public's response to the film. "For a detailed biblical examination of the crucifixion I recommend John MacArthur's book The Murder of Jesus. "©2004 by Grace to You" John Piper has also written a remakably timely new book: “The Passion of Jesus Christ”. There is a splendid selection of excerpts which may be read athttp://www.therightbooks.com/40201/passion.pdf(The five chapter excerpt is in PDF format. If you have trouble accessing it, go to http://www.therightbooks.com/ , scroll down and click in the indicated place.)I’ll be posting this link to the excerpts in a new thread, “Piper on ‘The Passion’” simply to call the existence of the book to the attention of folks who might not be following this thread.Roger

Should have been copied and pasted to the forum rather than linked. The site linked has disappeared and a great text is gone from the internet, until some other holy soul puts aside some time to bring it back.

It's available on archive.org as a scanned document. There is also a link to a reading in mp3 and the text here on SI.

Text of "The Menace of the Religious Movie" by A. W. Tozer
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=314

MP3 Reading of "The Menace of the Religious Movie" by A. W. Tozer

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=13545&commentView=itemComments

Were man happy, his joy would increase in proportion as his amusement lessened, as is the case with the saints, and with God. Pascal.

----------------------------------------------------------

2 Tim. 3:4.

"LOVERS OF PLEASURE MORE THAN LOVERS OF GOD."

THE Theater is an institution whose character may fairly be judged from its history. This history stretches over a period of about 2500 years, during which time its excellencies and defects, its capacities for good or evil, have had ample opportunity to be developed and observed. The friends of the Theater have always represented that it could be made a powerful ally of true education, of morality and religion; a place where the young would have the taste refined, and would see the beauty of virtue and the hideousness of vice,””these possibilities I intend to examine, but it is not a Theater which might or ought to be, that you will attend, if you patronize the institution; and the main practical topic to which I shall ask attention is the Theater as it now is, and the character that it has made for itself, through these ages of its history.

The primary characteristic of the institution is best set forth in a motto, which may be read across the curtain of a New York Theater; "WE STUDY TO PLEASE." It is preeminently the place where men go simply to be pleased””the House of Pleasure. As an institution it is sustained, not to educate, to draw out the powers of body or mind; not to train the muscles like the gymnasium, or the mental faculties like the school, or the moral faculties like the church; not to blend instruction and refinement with pleasure, like the lyceum and exhibitions of the fine arts; its sole object, its simple aim is to please, to amuse. It is not intended to educate any faculties of the soul, to make them healthier and stronger for the real duties of life, and so to add something to the permanent stock of human happiness; it professes no such design; Theater-goers would ridicule the very suggestion, but it is to set all these faculties, for a few hours, in a state of pleasurable excitement.

The Theater is a house of pleasure, or amusement, and not of recreation. The distinction is a vital one. Recreation, as the word imports, re-creates, renews the man, while amusement (amuser) simply kills his time. Recreation restores the wasted energies by some innocent pleasure, or change of employment; relieves the taxed powers, and allows them time to regain their wonted spring and vigor. Athletic games are thus a recreation for the body, poetry and music for the mind. Some of the hardest workers that the world has seen have depended on music for pleasurable rest and renewal. Frederic the Great played the flute half an hour every day, Luther played the flute and guitar, and Milton a great variety of musical instruments. A recreation may be abused so as to become a mere amusement, but this is no abuse of the Theater; it is its use, its primary and special design. This is what the public demand of it, and when it fails to amuse, it declines and falls. When the lyceum ceases to instruct and refine, as well as please, when it becomes a place of mere amusement, we say that it has degenerated. It may still be patronized as largely as when it was true to its claims and profession, but it is by a different class of the community. When the church ceases to be a place of religious culture, and becomes a place of amusement, we feel that it ceases to be a church. Throngs may crowd thither, but it is not the church-going and church-loving public. It is an abuse to make the lyceum or the church a place of amusement, but it is no abuse of the Theater. Let the Theater cease to make pleasure its sole aim, and endeavor to refine and instruct, and we all know that the class of the community on which it depends for patronage would forsake it. Pleasure is all its capital. We see this in the character of its patrons, of the plays, the actors, scenery, music, decorations, and in fact in all the machinery and appurtenances of the institution. All converge to this one point; that play is best as a play, which pleases the most, the actor is most popular, and fills out most truly the ideal of an actor, who pleases most completely his audience.

I have been somewhat diffuse in unfolding this, the central idea of the Theater, that it may be clearly seen that this discourse is not directed against any abuse of the institution, but against the institution itself, when it most completely carries out the plans of its founders, and the expectations of its patrons. Against this, its central idea, we protest in the name of all that is good and true. A man or an institution may lawfully aim to please, but if this be the sole aim, if every thing else be bent to this, that man becomes a very contemptible specimen of human nature, and that institution tramples on the dearest interests of human life. Aiming to give pleasure, at the hazard of every thing else, taste, truth, virtue, religion; this, the central idea of the Theater, is destructive to man, and dishonoring to God; it curses all who touch it, proprietors, patrons and actors.

The Theater is no place for the invigoration and renewal of the mind, but for exhaustion. It is not designed to restore wasted powers, but to excite, to stimulate, to arouse the passions and stir the blood; and, if it does not do this, it fails to fulfil expectation. Successful plays and players stir their audiences into tumults of riotous passion, and are applauded in proportion as they produce this effect. True, a man may become as excited at a political or religious meeting, as at the Theater, but at such a place the pleasure of the excitement is not the object of the meeting; there is some practical end in view, for which the excitement is a means, and that political or religious meeting is a success in proportion as it achieves this end. But in the Theater, the excitement itself is the sole end; it is stimulus for the sake of stimulus, a mental intoxication. And, like strong drink, Theater-going operates on the most delicate machinery of human nature, and sets it in a whirl of activity; it exhausts and enervates the most precious faculties of our nature. The play-goer, like the inebriate, craves excitement; life is tame without them. Play-going is preeminently dissipation; instead of renewing and refreshing, it dissipates, scatters the energies of the man.

I. As the inevitable result of this, its fundamental idea, the Theater, notwithstanding all the hopes and dreams of its friends, never can become a reformatory institution. Men go there, not to have their tastes reformed, but gratified; and this the play-writer and play-actor ever keep in view. The grand question with manager, writer and actor is, "What will please?" These men do not present themselves before the public as reformers of taste or morals, but as speculators, who agree to furnish a given amount of pleasure for a given pecuniary consideration.

1. The very constitution of the Theater precludes the possibility of its ever becoming an institution of moral reform. Men never would go to the House of Pleasure to hear their faults and crimes rebuked and reproved. Are the twinges of a guilty conscience pleasing? But no man can ever be reformed of any sin, till his conscience is made to feel moral delinquency; and the stage can never be allowed to trouble the conscience. The play-going public would desert it at the moment it assumed this character. Men may theorize about making the Stage display the beauty of virtue, and the hideousness of vice, for public reform, but it is a mere chimera; in the nature of things it is utterly impossible. Plays would cease to be acted the moment that they began to touch the conscience, that is, the moment that they began to do any good.

Excerpted from THE THEATER; A DISCOURSE PREACHED AT THE
BROMFIELD STREET M.E. CHURCH, March 15, 1863.

BY REV. F.H. NEWHALL, Pastor.

A closing thought from the above discourse:

"Be not deceived; if you are lost, the sin which shall ruin you is not one that looks hateful and loathsome, but alluring and enchanting. Satan’s snare for you is baited with a pleasure that has a charm for you. The way to ruin is not strewn with hideous sights, and echoing with jarring discords””there is no temptation in such a path. Men dance to hell over gardens of flowers, they march thither to delicious music. Oh, love not pleasure more than God. And if, in spite of every warning, you are ensnared at last, do not reproach me that I have failed to do my duty."

Savannah,

Thank you for posting this. We would do well to learn from this today and where it say 'theatre' we could insert 'movies and most TV shows'.

I thought that this was an interesting statement:
"When the church ceases to be a place of religious culture, and becomes a place of amusement, we feel that it ceases to be a church."
Sadly this is the position of a great many churches today.

As an aside it was interesting to read back on the posts from around 10 years ago here. Most of those brothers no longer contribute, but what I noticed was the grace displayed towards one another in the discussion. I for one was somewhat convicted that the forum today is much more confrontational and I realised I had tended to become this way in many of my post. May we all (including me) learn from this and become much more gracious in our postings here.