The Church and Dancing by G. B. T.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 20, 1916

The Church and Dancing

By G. B. T.

THAT there is a marked tendency in the churches everywhere to depart from the high standard of Christian living enjoined in the Word of God and to step down to a worldly level, is plainly apparent to the careful observer. While “the form of godliness” is maintained, the power which should be seen in saving sinners is wanting. Some cite the fact that the church and the world are nearer together than formerly, as evidence that the world is getting better. This is not true. The world is not making any moral change for the better. Evil men and seducers are waxing worse and worse. The days of Sodom and Gomorrah are upon us. If the gulf between the world and the church has been bridged, the church has changed and become like the world.

The question as to whether or not Christians should attend dances is being considered by some of the religious bodies at the present time. Under the above heading the Outlook of June 28, 1916, in an editorial, says:—

“What ought to be the attitude of parents and guardians toward dancing?

“The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has issued a decree, with the approval of the Pope, forbidding all dancing in church entertainments.

“The Methodist Church has gone farther. Its discipline forbids all dancing, theatergoing, and card playing; and the late quadrennial conference rejected an amendment abolishing this prohibition.

“The tendency in most Protestant churches is in the other direction. Protestants in increasing number are directly providing for, as well as encouraging, dancing in connection with social settlement work, under wise guidance and direction, in the belief that when so guided and directed it is an exercise mentally and socially, and physically beneficial. In at least some cases encouragement is directly given to dancing under supervision by the church in parish houses or other buildings belonging to the church. For while it must be remembered that dancing in our time is quite different from dancing in the time of Jesus, it must also not be forgotten that Jesus never forbade dancing, and his occasional references to it imply approval. There is certainly nothing in the teaching of Jesus inconsistent with such approval by a Christian church as has just been described.

“Thus three methods are suggested, not only to the churches, but to teachers, parents, and guardians: they may prohibit dancing altogether; they may banish it from church gatherings and dissociate it from the church, so that the church will no longer be in any sense sponsor for it; or they may recognize it, identify themselves with it, to that extent encourage it, and by their presence and encouragement supervise and regulate it.

“We have no hesitation in saying that, in our judgment, the last of these methods is the best method.

“We recognize the very serious evils in certain forms of modern dancing. These evils are probably seen at their worst in public balls and dance halls. On the other hand, little children take to dancing as naturally as a duck takes to water. There is nothing essentially evil in rhythmic motion to the accompaniment of music. To banish dancing from assemblies under the control of Christian people is dangerous. To prohibit dancing altogether is to run counter to nature, and is generally futile. To regulate dancing under proper guidance is both safer and more practicable.

“Regulation of dancing is better than prohibition, and it is more in accordance with the liberty which belongs to the disciples of Jesus.”

For the Catholic Church to forbid

dancing “in church entertainments” with the approval of His Holiness, and permit it elsewhere, as we know it does, is about as consistent as to forbid lying or swearing in a church building, but permit it elsewhere!

The statement that “Jesus never forbade dancing, and his occasional references to it imply approval,” sadly misrepresents the character of the Son of God. Where is the text that intimates such a thing? That Jesus wishes his people to be happy and to overflow with joy, we freely admit. That he did not discredit social gatherings of a pure and refined nature, seems clear. He honored with his presence the wedding at Cana of Galilee; but he never in any way gave sanction to the modern dance, in which pure girls are embraced in the arms of libertines, and to the strains of voluptuous music dance into the small hours of the morning.

We read of Miriam when the Lord had wrought the great deliverance from Egypt: “Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.” Ex. 15:20. This is a very different dance from the kind that the editor of the Outlook recommends that the church “regulate.” All who were with Miriam were women. It was a dance of maidens only. She was not waltzing to sensuous music in the embrace of a man. We read that “David danced before the Lord.” 2 Sam. 6:14. But he danced alone. It was in the daytime and in an open field. He leaped for joy, as children do when the joy and happiness of childhood is bubbling forth in their lives. To leap with joy now is not wrong. But this is not satisfying to the natural heart, and has no connection, even remotely, with the modern dance.

We believe that the statement from the Outlook, that “to banish dancing from assemblies under the control of Christian people is dangerous,” is the reverse of the truth. Christian people do not control dancing. They have nothing whatever to do with it. The case of professed Christians who do is well illustrated by the following:—

“A party of young people were about to explore a coal mine. One of the young ladies appeared dressed in white. A friend remonstrated with her. Not liking the interference, she turned to the old miner who was to conduct them, and said, ‘Can’t I wear a white dress down into the mine?’ ‘Yes, mum,’ was his reply, ‘there is nothing to hinder you from wearing a white frock down there, but there’ll be considerable to keep you from wearing one back.’ There is nothing to hinder a Christian from conforming to the world’s standard of living, but there is a good deal to keep him from being unspotted if he does.”

The degrading influence of the dance is well known. It is the means by which the feet of many are led from the path of rectitude, and ruined for time and for eternity. At the National Society of Dancing Masters a few years ago this was stated:—

“Dancing today is the most degrading thing on earth. It is demoralizing our young people. If it is allowed to go on, it will bring the country to ruin. The man who conducts the dance hall today is no better than a saloon keeper.”—Quoted in “Across the Dead Line of Amusements,” p. 128.

Bishop Gore, of the Episcopal Church of New York State, said:—

“The gross, debasing waltz would not be tolerated another year if Christian mothers in our communion would only set their faces against it, and remove their daughters from its contamination, and their sons from that contempt of womanhood and womanly modesty which it begets.”—Id., pp. 134, 135.

Prof. Amos R. Wells, editor of the Christian Endeavor World, is reported as bearing the following strong testimony against the evils of the dance:—

“Dancing, like all Gaul, is divided into three parts: one third is esthetic, one third is physical exercise, one third is sensual. As to the first, the enjoyment of the fine music, of beautiful dresses, of forms and motion,—these may all be had under better auspices than in the dance. A woodland ramble, a tennis tournament, an archery club, bicycle or horseback riding, the concert-room,—these furnish in God’s own way tenfold more beauty to the eye and ear than is furnished by the finest ball given. As for the second third, the physical exercise, it is ill-timed, ill-environed. Hot air, gaslight, excitement, midnight crowds, loaded supper tables, noise,—these make a poor outfit for a gymnasium. Every investigator of the dance as now practiced in America, will agree that the third part into which this heathen Gaul is divided, is the stronghold of the province. The sensuality of the dance makes bold-eyed women of soft-eyed maidens; it makes swaggering rakes of pure lads; it changes love to flirtation and a game of flippant shrewdness; it makes applicable to manly America, Tolstoi’s terrific strictures on ignoble Russia. It never re-creates a Christian; it dis-creates a Christian, and creates a sensualist.”—Id., p. 125.

Dancing is one means the enemy is using to decoy the souls of the young into hell. Our own young people are not free from the temptation which the dance presents. It may be polished and carried on under the garb of being “regulated” by Christians, and be held in connection with “social settlement work” or in “parish houses,” and look better than if held in some low dance hall. But the “regulated” dance is the first step; the low dance hall, with all its evils, is the last on the highway to perdition. Let none be deceived by the suggestion of the Outlook editorial into seeking to purify the dance, and to make it the proper place for Christians to enjoy social recreation. The poison of asps is there. That such suggestions are seriously made shows all too well the tendency of the times. G. B. T.