The particular epiphany [about “theatre of the Good”] occurred during a lunch time discussion session with special guest Joy Coghill, celebrated actress, director and theatre pioneer. ... She began by describing how she got started in theatre, mentioning the fact that her father was a clergyman, and that her family had a strong missionary background. She had even considered missionary work herself when she was young. She was asked how and why, with such a church tradition behind her, she had decided to pursue a career in theatre. Her answer—not word for word but as close as I can remember it—was. “Well they're very similar, aren't they? I never really saw much difference between working as a missionary and working in the theatre.” ...This was written almost 20 years ago. If Theatre of the Good had been instituted as a standard and benchmark for even half of our influential theatre companies, would the world be a different place, today?
Ms. Coghill went on to describe [her introduction to] the powerful concept of “theatre of the Good.”
... [A]s I began to understand it fully, it involves the conviction that theatre can, and must, do good for people and the world, that it must strive to make both better. Theatre can be used for trivial, frivolous, or even harmful purposes. It should be used to promote the good in all its forms. That purpose comprises its link to the divine, and comes, somehow from the same spiritual sources that drive the best of “religious” impulses. Theatre people are missionaries because they are doing the same essential work as those who spread “the word.”
What does “theatre of the Good” mean to ... [Douglas Abel] ... ? [I]t does not mean that theatre becomes a dry sermon with dialogue, or a “Back to the Bible”—any bible—with intermission. It does not demand the joyless, prescriptive, pedantic or “preachy.” Theatre of the Good does not eliminate comedy, entertainment, enjoyment, mischief, wonder or plain fun. It does give all these things a purpose, as well as a standard against which both day-to-day and long-term work can be judged. It provides a benchmark for deciding which work should be chosen for performance, and how it should be performed.
Sometime ago, I wrote this observation:
When we glorify the anti-hero—that "natural man" who strides so boldly and pervasively through our modern drama, cinema, and literature—we miscalculate the measure of our creation. But when "all things are done unto edifying," then our gifts redound to the glory of God, and His light expands a little more into the darkness.-------------------/
1. Theatre Alberta News, Winter 2000:1, p. 3
