Finally, the burden of proof where it ought to be.

How many times does one have to give this crowd an answer to the question, "Why can't we _______?" I remember old fundamentalists having to explain this to their children who were wanting to go to the prom. Of course, "Christian" education temporarily side-stepped this. Now, we have those from what has been considered the most restrictive of these "Christian" educational institutions opining the same whining question.

The question ought to be, "Why should we _______?" I'm afraid that it is more than mere bumpkin-hood, Dissidens. It is perverse sentiment. Those who reflect seriously about the motivations of the sins to which they were slave know these things. The question is can true faith and repentance reside with such misplaced love? I think not, or else we will have to rethink the lexical meaning of the term, meno, as found in John 15.

In this play of yours, The Importance of Being Earnest, whatsoever things were there in this theatrical event that were true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and virtuous?

It's not my play, but I think it's true, honest, and just that superficiality, triviality, and foolishness are worthy of mockery; that deceptive schemes will eventually be exposed; that pedigree is of little true value.

Profound? No.

Are there better ways to spend one's time than Earnest or "Golf"? Yes.

Does an hour with either sully one's character and disgrace fundamentalism? I still don't see it.

Of course you don't see it.

And the word to describe those who are insensible and unconscious of goodness, beauty and truth is reprobate.

Are you questioning Austin's salvation?

Greg:

I’m able to question no one’s salvation but my own. He’s the one making the claim that he can’t detect the difference between the two activities. I’m not accepting that claim as true. That’s why I used two paragraphs. The first has to do with his claim not to be able to see a difference where the entire historic church has made a staggeringly obvious distinction as to propriety. The second has to do with the very real consequence of an on-going pretense that moral distinctions do not matter; there is such a thing as sclerosis of the conscience. Whether my pronoun includes Austin or not is not my judgment to make.

Frankly, I don’t even believe Austin anymore. He interprets people’s words for whatever use he can put them to. I think he does that with his own words as well. I believe he really does see a difference between playing an innocent table game and such an egregious misuse of the professing Christian’s imagination.

I think the difference is obvious to all, and I think all that we have seen here (and on neighboring blogs) is an attempt to finesse this unambiguous mark of decline in fundamentalism’s judgment. There was a time when these same people would not permit their minions to go see The Love Bug or Gone With the Wind. Now they themselves produce such a work as Wilde’s.

This particular work. And at this particular moment in the American politics. The very same people who choked on The End Of The Spear.

I mean, seriously!

Which brings us back to the point that has people so upset. There are only two options, either they know what Wilde intended with this literary work in which case you have one sort of scandal: a witting desecration on the order of a witch’s Sabbath, a desecration of holy things they profess to cherish when in the public square, and an elevation of perverse behavior as entertainment.

The other option is that they just don’t have a clue as to what a literary form is intended to accomplish and they suppose that if they excise the egregious lines their stunted sensibilities did catch, they have made an acceptable entertainment.

Bob Bixby is hardly a dissidens divine but it is obvious to him that if you take out of this play what scandalizes the Christian faith, you do not have a play at all. In fact, though I hadn’t pointed it out, a knowledgeable reader would dispute that you would even have a suitable cast of characters left.

I think the games that Bible colleges are playing with their minions is a very dangerous one.

Of the two options, reprobates or bumpkins, I am charitably clinging to the latter.

I don’t know how much longer I can hold out. My fingers are seriously cramped.

Dissidens,
I started the thread in question--at this point, I originated it simply to ask questions to better understand how people look at this matter. At this point, within the thread, there seems to be a need to elevate holiness over the doctrine of Scripture--I am waiting with a worm on my tongue to see if Scripture wins out...I figure its just a slip of someone's keyboard, but it is a day old now...

Well, of the bit I've followed over there, some are groping for reasons to condemn what they manifestly do not understand while others are grasping for a defense of what went over their head.

I'll be interested to see if anybody does any serious reading.

I do not think one needs to read Plato or Augustine to understand the problem. One need not go to the university and study literary forms.

The entire play by design mocks virtue. The title itself is a mockery of honesty. I can't find any "redeeming value" in it.

RE: "there seems to be a need to elevate holiness over the doctrine of Scripture"

Do these people really know what holiness is anymore? What referent do they have?

dissidens,

Not all who dispute your critical judgment are dishonest, bumpkins, or reprobates. There are at least two other possibilities, one of which is that we are simply wrong, something I would be willing to accept in the face of good reasoning. If your conclusions are as obvious as you claim, then such a defense of them should be easy. Instead, you offer damning insinuations and vague assertions about how you're backed by the weight of the "entire historic church." Why?

I fear you are hopeless, Austin.

It is not possible for “wrong” to be a separate category. There are wrong people in the two categories I mentioned, and the other category you suggest, “dishonest”, would also qualify as wrong. The reprobates are wrong and the bumpkins are wrong. I take it as a given that dishonest people are also wrong. And, of course, the class of Wrong is filled with people who shall forever be known as not right.

I used to work in the bookstore of a small college catering to the academically ungifted children of wealthy people. Money was not an obstacle; making the Dean’s List was.

My supervisor had a stock answer for the problems of his life: “SEP”. SEP stood for Someone Else’s Problem. In the categories of my life, you fall squarely in the SEP column.

Better to be backed by the weight of the entire historic church than to be whacked by the bait of the entire contemporary church.

Just a meager attempt at humor...

Groan

lol

Actually, dissidens, the category I mentioned was "simply wrong."

Your categories--reprobate, bumpkin, and dishonest (the category you explicitly and falsely accused me of being in)--involve being wrong, but they also involve either moral or educational failure or some combination.

Being charitable, I'm willing to assume for now that your wrongness isn't a result of moral or educational failure but is instead another kind of wrong like I mentioned, the kind reasonable, intelligent, and good people participate in at times.

But again, all I get with regards to my substantive question is a glib answer, laced with another personal attack.

I wonder what you hope to accomplish with this kind of behavior. It's not just me; anyone who dares to disagree with you is treated similarly. There's no persuasive benefit, as it appeals only to the convinced and antagonizes those who aren't completely. The thinkers you regularly cite as being your guides did not argue this way. And most importantly, it completely avoids substantial discussion about the topics with which this blog supposedly concerns itself.

Oh! "Simply wrong".

Well, that difference really clarifies matters.

"Simply: syn. merely; only;"

To put it another way, people can be wrong without being a reprobate, a bumpkin, or dishonest.

Clear?

Are you willing to discuss something of substance now?

Austin, what are Christians to do when they find themselves "simply wrong"? When they KNOW they are "simply wrong"?

Austin,

I don't think you are hopeless, if for no other reason than that you keep returning for more "abuse." Since you asked for more than just mention of "the historic church" I'll provide some support for Dissidens' argument. Not that he needs it...

But if we ought to abominate all that is immodest, on what ground is it right to hear what we must not speak? For all licentiousness of speech, nay, every idle word, is condemned by God. Why, in the same way, is it right to look on what it is disgraceful to do? How is it that the things which defile a man in going out of his mouth, are not regarded as doing so when they go in at his eyes and ears—when eyes and ears are the immediate attendants on the spirit—and that can never be pure whose servants-in-waiting are impure?...What you reject in deed, you are not to bid welcome to in word.

The Author of truth hates all the false; He regards as adultery all that is unreal. Condemning, therefore, as He does hypocrisy in every form, He never will approve any putting on of voice, or sex, or age; He never will approve pretended loves, and wraths, and groans, and tears.

Seated where there is nothing of God, will one be thinking of his Maker?

These are quotes from chapters 17, 23, and 25 of Tertullian's De Spectaculis. As Dissidens has mentioned, it is not just about Earnest, its about the form in its entirety. It is about culture. One can censor a play, but why such an attraction to something that needs censoring in the first place?

Austin, what are Christians to do when they find themselves "simply wrong"? When they KNOW they are "simply wrong"?

Admit it and turn from their error.

de profundis,

I think your explanation points out the scattered nature of the concern about Earnest. Varying by post and comment, the objection seems to be against

1. drama in general as a form
2. the sinful reputation of the playwright
3. the immoral message(s) of the play itself
4. the bad timing of this play at this time and in this culture

I'd love to know more about 1), by which I mean something more than repeating "entire historic church" while pounding one's fist. I'm curious enough that when I have time I'm going research Christian theories on drama.

Even dissidens seems not to think 2) is a principal concern (so I gather from his response to Greg's Copland question). As well he should, because this blog's success depends on the fact that readers will pay attention to the words of someone independently of that person's reputation. Not only are all the principals here pseudonymous, but we just saw how Bob Bixby agrees only with reluctance seemingly because he has publicly questioned the ethicalness of dissidens' name-calling and "derisive condemnation." Even admirer Kevin Bauder says that dissidens' "lip has been twisted into a permanent curl." Not exactly a "true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and virtuous" reputation, but it doesn't affect the merits (or demerits) of the content.

dissidens and sympathizers have asserted 3) by quoting the characters of the play. Yet what they haven't explained is how anyone could think the characters are meant to be taken seriously; to me it seems they are held up for our mockery. It's this point about which I've asked for elaboration; above you see the kind of response I've gotten.

Regarding 4), I'm not sure exactly what dissidens has in mind. The playwright's homosexuality seems to be in view, along with what? A former Maranatha president who may have made sexual advances to a woman not his wife? The marriage amendment propositions on ballots around the country last week? It's vague enough that one doesn't have to be a bumpkin to miss it, or so I flatter myself.

Wow. Well I tried to give you just a little bit on your number 1) and apparently you completely ignored it. If you ever do start caring about it, I would certainly encourage you to read De Spactaculis. The homilies of Crysostom would be another good place to start.

Your comments re 2) seemed to be pretty cheap shots. I have no idea who wrote Hebrews, and it doesn't really matter. The material is what matters. But when a person is known and God has passed evaluation on said person's character it does have an impact. Hence I read Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad a little diferently than Job.

It is somewhat pointless for me to discuss a single play, when the issue is really drama in general.

Even allowing for drama in general, if you can't see the problems with number 4, I guess I cannot help you.

I should perhaps offer a bit of clarification for those of you who perhaps a) are following this thread exclusively, b) are as unread as our novice, Austin, who seems not to want to learn from anyone, or c) might still be sorting through the whole question of the Christian and drama.

It will be helpful for you to keep some categories separate. The occasion of the performance of Oscar Wilde has raised a lot of serious questions. As lilrabbi said, this is wrong at so very many levels. This issue has annoyed people with very contradictory views, and it must aggravate some who find themselves on the same side of the barricades as dissidens.

I know this can be extremely uncomfortable, and I extend all the sympathy I can muster.

Here’s the thing. Not all fundamentalists object to the theater. Some fundamentalists claim to see value in what the church has rejected for so long. Some of us who reject it entirely do so on the basis of clear and explicit words like those of Tertullian which de profundis adduced.

Some fundamentalists who accept the usefulness of the theater will object to this play.

Some fundamentalists cannot abide sexprofanityandviolence in their entertainments and are willing to use dramas if they are cleaned up of those things they find objectionable. This means that our discussion of The Importance of Being Earnest has introduced several, sometimes contrary, voices in objection to it.

Please observe the nuances here.

As I have stated, it is of interest to me that the author is homosexual. This is staggeringly unremarkable because it is of interest to me to know that, say, Arvo Pärt is Estonian or that Richard Weaver is a product of the traditions of the South, or that was a Langston Hughes was a Negro. This is, as I say, unremarkable. Sex is profoundly significant to who we are as an individual, as a personal being. Only a bumpkin could think otherwise.

But it is not dispositive for me. I have a sentimental desire that Horowitz should be in Heaven; that probably isn’t going to happen. But his sexuality does not determine my appreciation for his work. That’s just me.

Others in this discussion of Wilde have already embarrassed themselves on the question of sodomite artists. In their reprehensible behavior with respect to an actor in an evangelical movie they actually brought nationwide contempt on the church by their intemperate and widely reported overreaction.

So that whole question is in play here even though some of us don’t find it essential to the issue. Here it is a question of consistency. How can you scream your fool head off about an actor in a movie and then perform a play, this play, by this author, on a fundamentalist campus? It makes no sense.

For some it is a question of simple hypocrisy. For them, sodomy and its proponents are an intermittent outrage. And this fact is of significance to me.

Then there is something else many of us here in this discussion have first hand knowledge of. We sat in chapels of seminaries, Bible colleges, universities and Christian high schools, whether as students or campus guests, and heard the most earnest and aggressive preaching from Romans 14. We have been told that “the mere appearance” of evil is to be aggressively, even ostentatiously shunned. You know it and I know it. We can name the people who preached those sermons. We have friends who preached those sermons. I personally know two men who officiated at my wedding who preached those sermons. This was, as we all know, “the law of the land”, this is the standard by which we were judged and the standard by which we were to judge.

Now this!

Certainly comment can be made without someone trying to fold the argument over and over on itself in an attempt to suggest a contradiction. The absence of integrity in the arguments we are being offered is also significant. As I said with respect to fundy liturgy, the people who set the highest standards for others have reserved the lowest standards for themselves.

As I’ve said, for people who denied us (well not me personally, but my wife) the option of watching Gone With the Wind to now produce The Importance of Being Earnest is just shameful. It justifies rebuke.

But what we are seeing, contrary to their own sermonizings, is the reaction of people intolerant of correction. These people are above the law.

That too is worth noting.

Re Post #21: "the issue is really drama in general."

Although not explicit in post #21, I occasionally see the assertion (or at least the assumption) that the church historically rejected the dramatic form as acceptable for use by and for Christians. The mere existence of the mystery, morality, and miracle plays is enough to tell us that the church has not spoken with a single, unified voice on the topic. Augustine, Tertullian, and others make strong statements against drama, as did certain segments of the church including the Puritans. Nevertheless, Everyman, the Creed play, the Corpus Christi play, and the Pater Noster play are clear evidence that signficant segments of the church did not reject drama as a form.

Thus, appeals to church history do not support either the rejection or acceptance of the dramatic form, and broad statements that claim that the church as a whole rejected (or accepted) drama are based on a slanted selection of the evidence.

Actually, that is not quite correct either.

First, paternosters, or morality plays, were a substantially different thing from the drama the church fathers at first condemned. In fact they didn’t even yet exist for them to condemn. They were in effect animated allegories where characters personified the virtues. To compare them to the Greek or Elizabethan dramas churchmen did condemn, or to use them as some sort of precedent is not at all accurate. To equate them is rather like comparing a sitcom to a flannelgraph lesson. They were used, rightly or wrongly, as visualizations and for didactic purposes and are not the genres Aristotle and Augustine and Milton spoke of.

[I mentioned Milton’s Samson Agonistes earlier; if you want to get some sense of the nuance involved, you might start there. [link] http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/samson/tragedy/[/link] Milton himself described it as “...that sort of Dramatic Poem which is call'd Tragedy”.]

This may seem to be a subtle a point for people with only a vague grasp of literary forms. I do think it is a distinction worth maintaining.

Second, these entertainments were predominantly produced by the Roman Catholic church, which by its nature was culturally syncretistic, and by some state churches. (There were also theaters privately maintained by some aristocrats.) They certainly did not typify the attitude of the separatist, evangelical or reformation churches. Indeed some of the strongest objections came as a reaction to their excesses. I recall, for instance—but can no longer footnote—the mentioning of their abuse of roles: the best parts and the highest pay went to actors playing Satan rather than Jesus. This outraged the preachers who perceived that something nefarious was afoot.

Thirdly, as my church history prof repeatedly pointed out: this practice tended to be limited to the periods of spiritual decline within the church. I think his observation is quite accurate, and even squares with the sense of my lit. crit. professor, Dr. Lautenberg. (The discussion actually did come up during our reading of Poetics.) You do not, for instance, find even these rudimentary dramatic forms in use during revivals, spiritual awakenings or reformations. It is at those times that the church closed down the theaters, not filled them.

I have been scrupulous in my own mind when speaking about this. I have never said the church ever spoke unanimously against the theater. The church never spoke unanimously on anything. But I would challenge anyone to produce for me the sort of strong defense of the theater to counterbalance the strong condemnation.

I have never said on the blog (though I have said privately) that if the church wanted to include some form of drama, it should do the proper critical legwork, produce a literary theory to justify it that would answer the objections of men like Tertullian, Augustine, Pascal and the Puritans.

I would be interested in reading that.

RE: "I have been scrupulous in my own mind when speaking about this. I have never said the church ever spoke unanimously against the theater."

Thanks for clarifying that the acting of a story on a stage for an audience has not been universally, unanimously condemned by the entire historic church. The unqualified use of the terms "church" and "theater" in several comments by several contributers on this thread implied otherwise to me.

That's ok, I try to take your background and training into consideration, but sometimes I don't lower the bar far enough.

If I suspected a significant number of other readers were having the same difficulties you are having, I would probably put more of my posts on training wheels for them as well.

You must understand I am working at a slight disadvantage here: many of my readers have been to seminary or they've studied church history and have actually read the fathers on this and many other issues.

In passing...

I just got back from choir practice and found this URL passed on to me. [link]http://www.rtjournal.org/vol_3/no_1/bruch.html[/link]

The graduates of various unnamed Christian colleges and universities appear to be shocked, SHOCKED! to learn that the church held such a strong and enduring antipathy toward the theater. The suggestion has even been made that we are unnecessarily selective in our reading.

That’s rich.

Anyhoooo,

Here is a paper written by a Debra Bruch who seems to think she’s found a shortcut to her thumbs via her elbow. This is not serious writing, of course, but you should read it for a cheap giggle. Notice the lengths she must go to avoid confronting the clear implications of what the church plainly said.

I liked this grasp of early Christianity: During this time [27 B.C. to c. 576 A.D], Christianity grew from a strong but small and illegal group to a strong and unified people possessing a religious doctrine.

Ms. Bruch ain’t no Philip Schaff.

Look at the names in there, guys: Augustine, Tertullian, (I half regret that de profundis leaked this information to you fellas; if Debra could find it, I’ll bet you could too) Ambrose, Northbrooke. Notice her points about the Roman Catholic use of the drama for didactic purposes.

Read her section entitled “Lingering Prejudice Today” where I found this:

Under this philosophy, objections thrive against theatre. The content of drama portrays a false world; it is not real. Morally, the theatre is objectionable in both content and in practice. It serves to arouse emotions that in turn hurt the spiritual life of the spectator. Furthermore, the theatre has no use. It does not function to help people behave morally, thereby does not help them become a righteous people.

How come you guys never learned this in your fine Christian liberal arts colleges? If such a bad historian as Debra Bruch could find it, how come you never did?

I enjoy reading your assumptions about my background and education.

Regarding Augustine's comments about the emotional response that theater evoked, do you believe that this criterion should instruct Christians to avoid genres other than just theater and fiction?

(3.2.4) "But in my wretchedness at that time I loved to feel sorrow, and I sought out opportunities for sorrow. In the false misery of another man as it was mimicked on the stage, that actor’s playing pleased me most and had the strongest attraction for me which struck tears from my eyes."

If this argument is valid and applied consistently, then the sorrow and pity that I felt for Teddy Roosevelt when I recently read Mornings on Horseback should have an impact on whether non-fiction and biographies are appropriate forms for Christians to use and enjoy. In your opinion, is there any reason that it should not be applied to literary forms other than theater and fiction that evoke the kinds of response that Augustine finds inappropriate? If it should be applied, what else do you believe falls to the cutting floor under Augustine's knife?

Thanks for the discussion.

BMP,

First of all, allow me to say that I have really enjoyed your contribution to this site. I appreciate your efforts to keep everyone honest. With that said, you really didn't think your argument in #23 would be allowed to stand, did you? One could just as well say the historic church has never been united on the Trinity, the deity and/or humanity of Christ, the nature of Scripture...

Sure there have been (and are still) exceptions. But presenting thisgs that are is not quite the same thing as presenting things as they should be (or at least arguments for things as they should be). There have been and are charlatans in pulpits, but that does certainly not represent things as they should be.

Certainly drama/theatre/circuses have "always" existed and attracted the attention of Christians. The claim being made here (I think) is that there have always been voices calling said Christians away from the amusements of the world.

With apologies to Dissidens...

Among us nothing is ever said, or seen, or heard, which has anything in common with the madness of the circus, the immodesty of the theatre, the atrocities of the arena, the useless exercises of the wrestling-ground. Why do you take offence at us because we differ from you in regard to your pleasures? If we will not partake of your enjoyments, the loss is ours, if there be loss in the case, not yours. We reject what pleases you. You, on the other hand, have no taste for what is our delight. The Epicureans were allowed by you to decide for themselves one true source of pleasure—I mean equanimity; the Christian, on his part, has many such enjoyments—what harm in that?
---Tertullian, Apology Ch. 38.

Is there nothing better to enjoy than that which is meant to pleasure the heathen?