Part 1 (1/2)
Amus.e.m.e.nt: A Force in Christian Training.
by Rev. Marvin R. Vincent.
PREFACE.
These discourses are not presented as a series. With the exception of the last, which was prepared merely for publication, they were delivered at considerable intervals, and to meet certain aspects of the subject as they presented themselves. As they all develop substantially the same principles, they will probably contain some repet.i.tions. The interest awakened by the publication of the essay before the Albany Convention, and the very general desire expressed to see the second and third of these discourses in print, have decided the author against remoulding the whole into one treatise which he at one time contemplated. He therefore sends them forth in their original shape, with earnest prayer that the great Head of the church may use them, with all their imperfections, to awaken Christian thought and friendly discussion on a subject of vital importance to the welfare of our youth.
Marvin R. Vincent.
Troy, _Jan. 9th, 1867_.
RELIGION AND AMUs.e.m.e.nT.
An Essay, Delivered at the International Convention of Young Men's Christian a.s.sociations,
Held In Albany, June 1, 1866.
The religious thought of the age must soon face this subject more fairly than it has yet done; and seek for some more satisfactory adjustment of it. At present its status is very indefinite. The church is by no means at one concerning it. The pulpit too often evades it. Private Christians waver between the results of independent thought and of early education, undecided whether to approve or condemn; while extremists take advantage of this hesitation to lay down the sternest dogmas, and to thunder denunciations at every head that will not bow to their _ipse dixit_. The questions at issue are not to be dismissed with a sneer at fanaticism and over-scrupulousness on the one hand, and with a protest against unwarrantable liberality on the other. The whole subject must be reexamined with reference to fundamental gospel principles by both parties, in a spirit of Christian moderation, and with the desire of ascertaining not only what is _safe_, but what is _right_.
To prosecute thoroughly such an examination within the limits a.s.signed me, is, of course, impossible. I can only deal with a few of the great principles underlying the case, and urge their application to a single practical question which has arisen in the experience of our own, and it may be, of other Christian a.s.sociations.
The idea of _development_, which is perhaps the fundamental one of Christianity, has been to a very great extent swallowed up in the idea of _safety_. It is not an uncommon error to regard Christianity almost exclusively in a defensive aspect; the Christian merely as a _safe_ man, protected by Divine safe-guards from temptation, rescued by Divine mercy from the terrors of death and judgment. Correspondingly with this mistake, the tendency has grown to strengthen the defenses of character, rather than to foster its growth. To keep it from temptation, rather than to teach it to overcome temptation. To teach it its danger from the world, rather than its duty to the world. Consequently we have heard more about keeping unspotted from the world, than of going into _all_ the world, and preaching the gospel to every creature. More about coming out and being separate, than of knowing the truth which shall make free. More of separating wheat from tares, than of leavening lumps.
The false instinct of self-preservation, which sent the Romanist into cloisters and convents, and tore him from the sweet sanct.i.ties of domestic life, has perpetuated itself more than some of us think in Protestant thought and church legislation. And in nothing has this tendency revealed itself more distinctly than in the matter of amus.e.m.e.nts. For amus.e.m.e.nt, having the effect to make men feel kindly toward the world, and, more readily than duty, falling in with human inclination, has been regarded as unsafe, and therefore as a thing to be kept at arm's length by the church, and admitted to her folds only under the strictest surveillance, and in gyves and handcuffs.
The developments of this spirit are so familiar that I need not stop to enumerate them. The important thing now is to discover the right stand-point for discussion. And here let me say what, until recently, I had supposed there was no need of saying: that amus.e.m.e.nt is a necessity of man's nature as truly as food, or drink, or sleep. Physiology, common sense, experience, philosophy, are all at one on this point. Man needs something besides change of employment. He needs something pursued with a view solely to _enjoyment_. Those who deny this are ignorant of the simplest fundamental laws of mind and matter. Men who a.s.sert publicly that they need no amus.e.m.e.nts, and ”want to die in the harness,” will have the opportunity of dying in the harness some years earlier than would be demanded in the ordinary course of nature. Nature will not suffer even zealous Christian men to violate this law with impunity. She forbids man to labor continuously, and if he persists in disregarding her prohibition, she will revenge herself by imbecility, uselessness, or death.
This must be a.s.sumed in all discussions of the subject; and it being a religious, no less than a physical truth, it throws into new prominence the question, how, as Christians, we are to discharge this duty without being led away by the temptation which adjoins it so closely.
Let it be borne in mind that we are not now dealing with individual cases of conscience, but with general laws. While then there is obviously a distinction between amus.e.m.e.nts-while it is granted that some develop greater capabilities of abuse than others, the attempt to adjust this question on the basis of _discriminating between amus.e.m.e.nts_ must result in failure. It always has, and it always will. This basis is secure only in a question between an innocent amus.e.m.e.nt, and one involving a palpable violation of the law of G.o.d. The advocate of any particular amus.e.m.e.nt is, on this ground, shut up to the necessity of proving that what he approves and practices is _absolutely pure, and incapable of perversion_. The moment it is admitted that it can, by any possibility, be turned to base uses, the lists are thrown open to all corners, and the utterly insoluble question arises, _just what degree of capacity for perversion ent.i.tles an amus.e.m.e.nt to approval or rejection?_ Insoluble, I say, because, not to speak of any other difficulty, one is obliged to confront the fact that no one amus.e.m.e.nt presents a similar temptation to abuse to all alike. That in which the slightest indulgence might tend to lead one man to ruinous excess, excites no interest in another. It might possibly be dangerous for one man to play at backgammon, while to another it would prove no amus.e.m.e.nt, but only a tedious method of killing time. On this ground, in short, it is utterly impossible to adjust this matter satisfactorily or consistently. The only consistent or safe rule in this view of the case, is _rigorously to exclude all_, because all are partakers of the universal taint of sin.
”The trail of the serpent is over them all.”
It is innocent for boys to play marbles, but sinful to play dominoes.
Wherein, pray? They can learn to gamble with one as well as with the other. It is sinful to play billiards, but highly graceful and innocent to play croquet. But why? Really, when it comes to a comparison, the first is infinitely the more beautiful and intellectual game. The ethical distinctions are positively bewildering between b.a.l.l.s of ivory and b.a.l.l.s of wood; between mallets and cues; between green baize and green gra.s.s. A Christian household must not sit down and play at whist, but they are engaged in a Christian and laudable manner if they spend an evening over Dr. Busby, or Master Rodbury cards. Really, it is hard to draw the moral line between cards bearing aces and spades, and cards with the likenesses of Dr. Busby's son and servant, Doll the dairymaid, and the like. When it comes to a question of profit, one is an amus.e.m.e.nt involving a good deal of healthy, mental exertion, while the other is about as silly and profitless a way of spending an evening as can well be imagined. Youth must not dance, but they may march to music in company, and go through calisthenic exercises, involving a good deal more motion than dancing. But if people may march to music and be guiltless, it is very hard to see how skipping to music converts the exercise into sin. It is said that the _a.s.sociations_ make the difference; but the advocate of this theory is shut up to proving that the a.s.sociations are inseparable from the amus.e.m.e.nts. And here is the place to remark that the best amus.e.m.e.nts are the ones most likely to be abused-the ones which experience shows _are_ most abused, and about which cl.u.s.ter the most evil a.s.sociations. The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. Men do not care to counterfeit a coin of inferior value; and the world is very clear-sighted to discern the best and richest sources of worldly pleasure, and utterly unscrupulous in appropriating them entirely to itself. The amus.e.m.e.nts which are most abused, are commonly those which, from their intrinsic value, call most loudly upon virtue to rescue them from their abuses.
The above method of reasoning, in short, will not stand the test of plain common sense. It is trifling, ignoring all distinctions which rest on principles, and subst.i.tuting fact.i.tious ones; and Christians who a.s.sume this ground, lay themselves open without defense to the logic and ridicule of any intelligent man of the world who may be disposed to test the reasons for their scrupulousness. They condemn themselves in those things which they allow. The amus.e.m.e.nts they approve cannot, in many cases, be compared with those which they deprecate, either in elegance, profit, or the amount of intelligence they require.
What point then shall we take for the consideration of this subject? We are confined to one-the stand-point of the Bible. As Christian a.s.sociations we have but one question to ask: ”_What saith the Word_.”
In the New Testament we find little said about the _degrees_ of sin. The thought which it throughout tries to impress is, that sin is everywhere; and under any form, or in any degree, is a horrible and fatal thing. The tares are gathered _in bundles_ and burned; no matter if one grows a little shorter, and another a little longer. The l.u.s.tful glance is placed in the same category with the licentious act. The angry thought is of the same piece with the act of murder. The gospel contemplates the sins of the race very much as a man looks at an orange: the rind is full of little protuberances, and a close scrutiny will show that some of these rise higher than others. But n.o.body pretends to notice these variations; they all spring from one spherical surface, and their variation is not such as to destroy the general effect of roundness. So all these fearful developments of sin spring from one plane, and G.o.d hath concluded the whole sinful world in unbelief.
The gospel, therefore, wastes no time in making distinctions between sins, but aims straight at remedying the great fact of _sin_ as it exists everywhere. Nor does it leave us in doubt as to its method. It a.s.sumes its own power to purify anything, and therefore lays down as its great law of operation, _the law of contact_.
This law it sets forth under a parable: The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened. The great truth here ill.u.s.trated, is the innate power of the gospel to pervade and a.s.similate to its own nature the whole worldly order of things, just as leaven thus pervades and a.s.similates the lifeless lumps of dough. This then, is its simple lesson: Put the gospel into contact with everything sinful-the heart of man, the life of man, the employments of man, the amus.e.m.e.nts of man-into society, its customs, laws, inst.i.tutions, and it will purge them of evil, and bring them into harmony with the Divine order.
But be sure and note, that the entire success of this action depends upon the contact-upon _the putting the leaven into the lump_. Fail in this, and the lump remains heavy. It matters very little whether the salt have lost his savor or not, if the meat remain in one dish and the salt in the other.
How thoroughly and beautifully this truth was carried out in the life and teachings of Christ, will appear to us more clearly, if we shall recognize the uniform policy of the gospel _to work for the destruction of evil, chiefly through the lodgment and development of good_. Both Christ and his apostles are exhibited in the gospel story as engaged chiefly in a.s.serting and ill.u.s.trating the truth, and not in combating error. Christ comes into a world lying in wickedness-besotted by it, plagued and tormented by it; full of abominations starting boldly out without pretense of concealment, from every phase of private, social and civil life. But he does not approach these as a mechanic would an old building, saying, ”this beam is rotten and must come down; this roof is decayed and must be stripped off; this floor is unsafe and must be pulled up.” He does not propose to his disciples to enter upon a wholesale denunciation of profanity and licentiousness. He points out and condemns many of these things it is true; but the main lever of his teaching is the a.s.sertion of the great gospel principles. For these he seeks a place of lodgment everywhere. The old tables of the law contained but one commandment that was not prohibitory. Every line portrayed a crime, with a law standing on guard beside it, and warning men away with its ”Thou shalt not!” Christ a.s.serts the authority of the law; but in the new table it is seen beckoning toward the commandment, ”Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart.”
His instructions to his disciples do not so much concern the things which they are to avoid, as they tend to fix upon their minds right conceptions of his character and mission. So, I repeat, Christ's work is less a crusade against evil, than an a.s.sertion of good by precept and example as the surest means in the end of removing evil. Look, too, at Paul at Athens, surrounded by heathen temples, statues and altars. He does not proceed to demonstrate to the curious mult.i.tude that the philosophies of Zeno or Epicurus are wrong; or that the wors.h.i.+p of Hermes or Athene is absurd. He throws out at once, bold and stern as a mountain headland, the a.s.sertion of the Divine unity, and follows it up with the doctrines of salvation through Christ, the resurrection, and the final judgment. In a few bold strokes he delineates to the astonished skeptics some salient points of natural and revealed religion, and then leaves the truth to germinate and crowd out the evil in its own way and time.