In the past dancing was primarily an activity in which the world engaged. It was an activity upon which the church frowned and against which officebearers and parents warned their young people. Those who did dance had not the courage to do it openly, but for the most part did it “on the sneek.”

Recently, however, the dance has begun to receive official approval as an acceptable activity for the Christian, especially the Christian young person. Now church synods approve of the dance, and call upon the members of the church to redeem the dance. Dancing is approved at Christian colleges “. . . as an acceptable and wholesome, on-campus, recreational activity . . . .” More and more there is dancing at the receptions of Christian weddings. Even the parties that the young people of high school age attend are likely to include dancing. And there is even a movement to introduce dancing into the worship services of the church, liturgical dancing.

This movement to approve the dance is a threat to us and to our young people. The churches that have given official approval to the dance are churches that are close to us. The Christian colleges that allow and sponsor dances are Christian colleges which many of our own young people attend. The weddings and parties that include dancing in their festivities are the weddings and parties of our own Christian friends and relatives. What are we going to say to them? Are we going to approve of their dancing? Are we ourselves going to begin dancing? How are we going to defend our traditional disapproval of the dance?

By the dance we have in mind social dancing. We are referring to the mixed dancing of men with women for the purposes of entertainment and recreation. Usually this dancing goes on to the accompaniment of fitting music, the loud, raucous, and sensual rock music. And usually it is done in the context of a party, often a wild party, where there is a great deal of frivolity and boisterous merriment.

One thing that cannot be denied, even by those who are promoting the dance in the churches today, is that their approval of the dance runs counter to the traditional position of the church with regard to dancing. One thing that cannot be gainsaid is that, for the most part, the church in the past has always condemned dancing. One thing that cannot be refuted is that at least the Reformed churches have always in the past reprobated dancing.

This all by itself ought to cause us to sit up and take notice. This had better cause us to stop and make careful evaluation. Were our fathers before us really such simpletons and so naive when it came to their judgment of the dance? Was their life such a sheltered life that they really did not stand in any position to condemn the dance? Any young person who has a healthy respect for the work of the Holy Spirit in the past, and who has his eyes open to the worldliness that inundates the churches today, ought to be leery of this sudden reversal of position that now gives approval to the dance.

The attitude of the church of the past against dancing is overwhelming. Already the ancient church fathers spoke out against the dance, especially as it was practiced in pagan society. Already in the fourth century Ambrose, an early champion of Christianity against paganism and the heresy of Arianism, a man who exercised a great influence over Augustine, condemned the dance. In one place he wrote, “Dancing belongs to the adulterous, not to the chaste.” In another place, commenting on the words of Jesus inLuke 7:32, “We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced,” Ambrose says, “And so one must be on one’s guard, lest, deceived by any common interpretation of this saying, one should suppose that the movements of wanton dances and the madness of the stage were commended; for these are full of evil in youthful age.”

The great preacher John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Ambrose, maintained the same position against the dance as acceptable Christian behavior. More than once he condemned the dance as devilish and promiscuous. In a passage that has a great application to those who promote dancing today he writes:

“He who admires a dancer . . . uses every exertion and contrivance not to come off worst in any disputes concerning him, and they string together long panegyrics (arguments), as they compose their defense against those who find fault with them, and cast sneers without number at their opponents: but when arguments for Christianity are proposed, they all hang their heads, and scratch themselves, and gape, and retire at length the objects of contempt.”

John Calvin’s opposition to the dance is well known. Calvin not only wrote against the promiscuous dancing that was all too common among the citizens of Geneva, but publicly preached against dancing. In sermons on Deuteronomy 5:18, Deuteronomy 22:5-8, I Corinthians 10:25-30, and Ephesians 4:29, 30, for example, he condemned the dance and warned against the lusts and fornication which the dance incites. The influence of Calvin’s opposition to the dance is reflected in the following decision which the Consistory of the Reformed Church of Geneva took: “Anyone who sings indecent, dissolute, or outrageous songs or dances the fling or some similar dance shall be imprisoned for three days and shall then be sent before the Consistory.”

The Puritans, both in England and those who fled religious persecution in England by coming to the American colonies, condemned the dance. In 1684 a group of Puritan ministers in Boston issued a tract against the dance entitled An Arrow Against Profane and Promiscuous Dancing, drawn out of the quiver of the Scriptures.

This same condemnation of the dance has historically been the position of the Dutch Reformed churches, both in the Netherlands and in our own country. Dr. H. Bouwman, in a book which in English would be titledEcclesiastical Discipline, speaks of this historical opposition of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands to the dance.

Some sins have been repeatedly mentioned by name as censurable sins by the ecclesiastical assemblies. So too dancing. Already the national Synod of Dordtrecht in 1578 had declared that “the dance is commonly a frivolity, which is not becoming to a Christian, and is an enticing of the fleshly lusts, and thereby sanctified persons are the more threatened especially in times of the common (sexual) need,” and it was judged that those persons “who clung to it, must be punished, and should they stubbornly persist, after several different warnings, be suspended from the fellowship of the Lords Supper.” Later Synods, as for example the Synod of Gorinchem, 1622, article 35, expressly decided to hold to the same position. The Fresian Synod of 1602 decided that the Lord’s Supper should be denied to those parents who continued to send their children to dance schools. Also the theologians expressed themselves against the dance (p. 129).

Dr. Abraham Kuyper, whose theory of “Common Grace” is often appealed to in support of dancing, was himself a staunch opponent of the dance. In hisLectures on Calvinism he declares that Calvinism has placed a distinct veto upon dancing. He goes on to say concerning the dance that it is “. . . the Rubicon which no true Calvinist could cross without sacrificing his earnestness to dangerous mirth, and the fear of the Lord to often far from spotless pleasures.”

The Presbyterian churches in our country have traditionally condemned the dance. In a Manual ofPresbyterian Law for Church Officers and Members, issued by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1937, the dance is roundly condemned and the churches are called upon to make those who participate in the dance objects of discipline.

This has also been the position, until recently, of the various Reformed churches in our country. In the past, this has been the position of the Christian Reformed Churches who, in 1928 and 1951, through the Synods spoke out against the dance, forbade the members to dance, called the preachers to preach occasional sermons against dancing, and exhorted consistories to exercise discipline against those who partook of this worldly amusement.

Even the world recognizes the traditional opposition of Christianity, and particularly of Calvinism, to dancing. A certain Richard Kraus in his book, History of the Dance in Art and Education, states:

Although it is commonplace today to say that the centuries-old Puritan disapproval of dance has now died out, it would be false to assume that it has disappeared completely. A number of schools and colleges, particularly those in rural areas of the country or those which are affiliated with fundamentalist Protestant sects, still prohibit any form of dancing—as instruction, entertainment, or recreation. To a degree, these attitudes are a throwback to the old Calvinist teachings, or the fire-and-brimstone religious revivalism of the 19th century.

There can be absolutely no doubt as to the historic position of the church on the issue of dancing. With one voice, and from generation to generation, Christians have recognized the evils of dancing and have condemned the dance as immoral behavior. This entire heritage and tradition is now being set aside. Today, despite the clear testimony of the past, the churches are opening their doors to the dance. Now the dance, which for so long was to be shunned and rejected by believers, is to be embraced and redeemed.

One wonders. Is it really the case that the fathers in the past did not know what they were talking about when they warned of the wrong of dancing and the evils associated with the dance? Is it really the case that the church today, in contrast to the church of the past, has reached such a degree of spiritual maturity that now she is at long last ready to redeem the dance? Or is it not rather the case that those who are promoting dancing in the churches today are the same heretics who are busy overthrowing every doctrine and every practice that has come down to us from the church of the past? One wonders.

One of the apparently strongest arguments of those who are bringing the dance into the church today is the reference to dancing in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the approval which the Bible gives to this dancing. Several passages of Scripture can be cited in which the people of God dance, and their dancing is approved of by the Lord. But do these passages really support and condone social dancing? Next time we’ll look at these passages and face this question.