The question of what constitutes appropriate worship in church gatherings is a long-standing discussion. Recently, a debate sparked about the place of dancing in such settings. This article delves into that discussion, contrasting two viewpoints on whether dancing is a fitting expression of worship within church meetings. The core of the disagreement lies in how we interpret biblical authorization for worship practices, and ultimately, whether “we can dance if we want to” in our churches.
To understand the crux of the matter, let’s outline the initial opposing arguments. Jonathan’s perspective can be summarized as follows: for any practice to be deemed suitable for corporate church worship, it must be explicitly authorized by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. Since dancing isn’t directly commanded or endorsed for church worship by them, it’s considered unsuitable. This viewpoint emphasizes a need for explicit New Testament warrant for worship practices in gathered church meetings.
On the other hand, the counter-argument, advocating for the inclusion of dance, posits a different hermeneutical approach. It suggests that for a practice to be appropriate for church worship, it needs to be authorized in Scripture, broadly considered. Crucially, it argues that practices authorized in the Old Testament for corporate worship should be assumed to continue into the New Testament era unless specifically revoked by Jesus or the apostles. Given that dancing is indeed authorized in the Old Testament and not explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, this perspective concludes that dancing is, therefore, suitable for church gatherings.
The fundamental difference between these positions boils down to a question of continuity versus discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments regarding worship practices. If a practice was valid in Old Testament worship and isn’t addressed in the New Testament, should we assume it no longer applies (discontinuity), or should we presume it continues to be permissible and potentially valuable (continuity)?
There are compelling reasons to lean towards assuming continuity in worship practices, especially when considering elements like dance, which are expressions of joy and celebration found throughout the Old Testament. Let’s explore three key arguments supporting this perspective.
Firstly, there’s an ecclesiological argument. Viewing worship through a lens of discontinuity can inadvertently create a sense of separation between the people of God in the Old Testament and the Church in the New Testament. The New Testament often portrays the Church as being grafted into the “olive tree” of Israel (Romans 11), highlighting continuity and shared heritage. Assuming discontinuity in worship practices risks portraying Israel as something superseded and entirely replaced, rather than a foundational part of God’s ongoing story. Concepts like being “grafted in,” the inclusion of “all Israel,” being “a Jew inwardly,” and being “Abraham’s seed” all become richer and more coherent when we acknowledge a greater degree of continuity.
Secondly, a theological argument for continuity emerges from the unchanging nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is the same God in the New Testament. His Word, expressed in the Old Testament scriptures, remains relevant and is intended to be read and understood within Christian gatherings. Therefore, commands and practices He authorized for His people in the Old Testament should not be disregarded unless Jesus or the apostles explicitly indicate otherwise. Indeed, the New Testament does explicitly set aside certain Old Testament practices, such as animal sacrifices and specific aspects of the temple system, recognizing the fulfillment of these in Christ. However, these are specific abrogations, not a blanket dismissal of all Old Testament worship principles. Practices like Nazirite vows, for instance, were not universally commanded in the Old Testament, demonstrating that discernment and context were always important.
Thirdly, there’s a strong historical argument supporting continuity. Early Christian congregations didn’t invent entirely new forms of worship from scratch. Instead, they appear to have adapted and modified existing Jewish worship patterns, particularly those of the synagogue. The apostles themselves were deeply familiar with Temple worship and its practices. If we consider the apostles, accustomed to Temple worship, including celebratory dance, being filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and continuing to meet both publicly and in homes, it becomes difficult to pinpoint a moment where practices like dancing would have abruptly ceased or been prohibited. Especially considering that dancing, as a form of expressive worship, lacks the specific ethnic or ceremonial ties associated with practices like food laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision, or animal sacrifices, which were altered or fulfilled in the New Covenant.
Therefore, the case for assuming continuity in worship practices, particularly for expressions like dance, appears robust. While some might argue for a sharp distinction between Old and New Testament worship, the analogy of a “high school and a university” misses the deeper connection. A more fitting comparison might be the continuity within a family home before and after children leave the nest – core values and expressions of joy remain, even as life stages change. For ecclesiological, theological, and historical reasons, embracing a degree of continuity in worship practices, including the joyful expression of dance, enriches our understanding and experience of worship.
Beyond these core arguments, there are also numerous practical benefits to considering dance in worship. It’s undeniably fun, fostering joy and genuine expression. Dance encourages diversity in worship styles, moving beyond purely auditory or verbal forms of expression. It can challenge rigidity and excessive seriousness in worship, cultivating a spirit of joyful freedom. Dance is a natural expression of worship and celebration found across cultures and throughout history. It can involve and engage children in worship in a meaningful way. And importantly, expressive worship, including dance, can communicate genuine joy and welcome to visitors, making church a place of vibrant life and authentic celebration.
So, perhaps the question isn’t “can we dance if we want to?” but rather, “why wouldn’t we dance, if we truly want to express the fullness of our joy and worship?”. Embracing a broader understanding of biblical worship, rooted in continuity and expressive freedom, opens up richer possibilities for engaging with God and with one another in our church gatherings.
