ONE of the most regrettable features in connection with the Dornoch case is the attempt made by a few Free Presbyterians in the press to condone promiscuous dancing, as practised now-a-days, as an innocent and harmless amusement. The writer has never danced in his life, either at a private or public dance, and is not in a position to say from experience what are the sensations felt in the dance but he has read the testimonies of men and women whose words are worthy of respect from the position occupied by them in the Church or in Society and it has occurred to him that these should be sent to the Magazine for reproduction in its pages. Some of the quotations refer, it is true, to public dances as distinguished from private or parlour dances (as they are called). But they all refer to “promiscuous dancing”—a term evidently very much misunderstood in quarters where ignorance is inexcusable. Here are some of the opinions that have been gleaned in the above connection:—
“The Word of God does not give a single instance in which the two sexes were united (promiscuous dancing) together in this exercise, whether it were for their own amusement or they were taking part in celebrating an act of religious worship. Again: the Bible contains no other instances of dances performed for pleasure’s sake than that of the ‘vain’ fellows shamelessly acting, spoken of by Michal; that of ungodly families described by Job, as making continual advance in impiety till their destruction; and that of the daughter of Herodias, whose vain conduct was recompensed with the rash vow of Herod and the murder of John the Baptist. Thus far the teaching of God’s Word. What does experience teach us? This:—It shows us how powerfully the passions hurry away those who yield themselves up to their unhappy influence; and especially in this very exercise of dancing, as it is carried on among the great body of our people. In this pursuit, young females, who ought to be clad with humility, manifest frequently in their carriage, their looks, their voice, and even in their gestures, the most unbridled desires after notice, show, and wealth, and the very boldest and most reckless pursuit of these objects. A young female soon forgets herself in the whirl of the dance, and her doing this easily draws on the young man to forget himself in his turn. Then follow jealousy, the triumph or the disappointment of rivalry: the one a fiery pride the other a black enmity. Men heated with wine, and now having thrown off all restraint, carry on conversations with one another far from seemly, to say nothing further, and to avoid appearance of any exaggeration. I am well aware (and were it not so, many would remind me, were there need of it), that in balls and dances of the ranks raised above that of the people, there is more of discretion, more decorum, and a far better exterior. But to the eyes of God, is the heart really in a better state? Does God prefer the varnish of exterior to the reality of nature? In my opinion He does not. In this case, also, there is mental intoxication, and hence persons are no longer masters of themselves: there is an entire giving up of their whole selves to the idolatry of the creature, and when the human heart is given up to the creature, the door is thrown wide open to all kinds of evil desires. Persons become quite intoxicated with the dancing, the amusement, and with all that there is to attract; and the fumes which thus affect the mind are sufficient to explain many things that happen. But, in good faith can a young man or a young woman go to a ball, and have the heart all the while set on God? Can he, can she, pray either before, during, or after the ball?”—Christian Treasury.
“I have no hesitation in adding to these (theatre-going, etc.) the modern dance, as a prolific source of immorality. Whatever may have been the case with the simple folk-dances of earlier times, before the invention of the waltz, and the non-sex dance of Scripture, the popular dance of to-day can hardly be other than provocative of evil. And how largely the craze is on the increase!”—H. E. Govan’s Imperishable Words.
“Moreover, those places where there are mixed dancings, masquerades, stage plays, etc., which tend to corrupt the principles and practices, and seldom fail of defiling the consciences and manners of those who attend on them, are nurseries of vice, and give occasion to the sins in question, and many others.”—Ridgeley’s Body of Divinity; Exposition of the Larger Catechism.
Sins Forbidden in the Seventh Commandment: “Promiscuous dancing, or dancing of men and women together. This entertainment, however reckoned innocent among many, is evidently an incentive to lust, Is. xxiii. 15, 16, 17. It is supposed, that it was to a dancing match among the daughters of the land that Dinah went forth, when she was dealt with as an harlot. This practice seems to be struck at by these Scriptures, Roms. xiii. 13; ‘Let us walk—not in chambering and wantonness;’ I. Pet. iv. 3, where mention is made of walking in revelling. It is offensive to the grave and pious, is condemned by our Church (Church of Scotland), yea, and has been condemned by some sober heathens” (Thomas Boston’s Of the Duty God Requireth of Man).
In 1805 the Reformed Presbyterian Presbytery issued A Testimony and Warning against Prevailing Sins and Immoralities — among these “prevailing sins” are included “promiscuous dancing.” “The kind of dancing,” says the Testimony, “which we have chiefly in view to expose, is that which is practised in the promiscuous assemblies of the two sexes, is a plain indication of carnal mirth, levity, and wantonness, and has been condemned by the best Reformed Churches, as well as by the most eminent evangelical ministers, of various denominations.” In a footnote is added “The Westminster Assembly in their Larger Catechism, Question 139; the Reformed Church of Scotland in their Act 19 July, 1649, session 18. Messrs. Perkins, Durham, Watson, Boston, Willison, Ralph Erskine, John Brown, with many others, have all given their testimony against promiscuous dancing.”
Bunyan’s estimate of dancing may be gathered from the following extract from The Pilgrim’s Progress: “Then Mrs. Light-mind added as followeth—Come, put this kind of talk away. I was yesterday at Madame Wanton’s, where we were as merry as the maids. For who do you think should be there, but I and Mrs. Love-the-flesh, and three or four more, with Mrs. Lechery, Mrs. Filth, and some others; so there we had music and dancing, and what else was meet to fill up the pleasure.” Bunyan was not speaking of a thing he knew nothing about for he tells us in his Grace Abounding that one of the things he gave up when under conviction was dancing. He was not the first neither will he be the last to do so. That he acknowledged that there may be religious dancing as expressive of great joy is seen in what he says when Mr. Great-heart and his companions destroyed Doubting Castle. But are there any such dances in our day? If there are they are few and far between.
“What right has any Christian Church to touch a thing so un wholesome, so immodest, and even worse, as the modern dance? For so it is, if the secular press is to be believed. Quite apart from the general question of dancing, which we can leave for others to discuss, the present-day craze for it is admittedly the expression of unrestrained and unregulated sex passion. It is not necessary for us to dwell on its sordid side, nor on the crop of mischievous ills which flourish under its influence . . . . The modern dance, which is in its most popular form is simply an adaptation of the wild orgies of semi-intoxicated negroes, is, for members of heedless young folk to-day, the high road to Hell.“—Rev. J. Stuart Holden, D.D., when Editor of The Christian.
In a protest by Bands of Hope against the inclusion of dancing in the Lincoln Temperance Society’s fête and gala the protestors say: “We consider the innovation entirely contrary to the principles of Christian teaching and in no way a credit to the temperance organization. Our work among children is done with the object of keeping them from all evils, and we can see no consistency in striving to save them from the evils of strong drink and help them to participate in the evils of dancing, which has done so much to damn the lives of young people and draw them away from the highest and noblest things in life.” Quoted in Rev. H. Lockyer’s Dancing: Ancient and Modern.
“Moreover, those places where there are mixed dancings, masquerades, stage plays, etc., which tend to corrupt the principles and practices, and seldom fail of defiling the consciences and manners of those who attend on them, are nurseries of vice, and give occasion to the sins in question, and many others.”—Ridgeley’s Body of Divinity; Exposition of the Larger Catechism.
“While this picture is before them (Herodias’s daughter dancing), young girls should learn that they cannot be too careful of their behaviour and bearing in public. A young woman’s reputation is a precious jewel, which she should prize above all wealth or pleasure . . . It may very fairly be questioned whether young ladies can take part in certain fashionable dances of to-day, and not pass beyond the bounds of pure womanly delicacy and propriety.”—Rev. J. R. Miller, D.D., in Come Ye Apart.
“Another close perusal of the Dance-passages in the Bible will show us how Ancient Dancing differed from that of the present mode. There is absolutely no trace of dancing in couples. Possibly the people joined hands, or formed a ring as we see in many rites to-day; but even then it was not mixed (promiscuous) dancing. In fact, the Bible is clear and emphatic upon this vexed problem of Mixed Dancing. Dancing, where men embrace women, is not to be found within its covers.”—Rev. H. Lockyer’s Dancing: Ancient and Modern.
“When Professor Harry Striber, the renowned dancer of California, was asked, ‘What is the best move to crush this ball-room curse?’ he replied: ‘It all lies with the Church and the parents. If reform workers would start where the vice germinates and crush it, then they would soon wipe it out. But as long as the Public Schoolrooms are used to teach the first rudiments of prostitution by having Dancing taught, there will be prostitutes.” Quoted in the above.
“As might have been guessed or prophesied before hand, the waltz was born of the licentious stage, and is twin sister of the ballet. This amorous and gyratory hugging was first seen in a Vienna theatre, December 20, 1787, and for a time was thought to be too indecent to be tolerated anywhere else . . . . The waltzing church member (and we may add the church member who approves of it is accessory to the deed) who does not see the sneer, not only at religion, but at chastity as well, is dull indeed.”—Rev. A. T. Pierson, D.D., in Seed Thoughts.
Dr. Charles Inwood at one of the Keswick Conferences made the following reference to dancing:—“Take for instance dancing. Twenty-five or thirty years ago things that are now tolerated in our homes would not have been allowed to go on; now dancing is dragged into every festal occasion. My heart burns, not only with pity but with indignation, when I see all this. I say dancing carries with it a perilous and an inevitable excitement of sensual passion, and that is enough to damn it in my eyes if there was no other reason.”
“Alcohol is the spirit of beverages. So sex is the spirit of the dance; take it away and let the sexes dance separately and dancing would go out of fashion very soon. Parlour dancing is dangerous. Tippling leads to drunkenness, and parlour dancing leads to ungodly balls. Tippling and parlour dancing sow to the wind and both reap the whirlwind.”—New York Journal of Education.
Professor T. A. Faulkner, an ex-dancing master, says:—”Of 200 abandoned women with whom I talked personally, 163 of them ascribed their fall to the dancing school and to the ballroom.” Quoted in Questionable Amusements.
“A noted judge in Ireland recently stated that most of the social evils which came before him originated with private dances, and that if he had his way he would have them prohibited . . .” This being so, have Christians any right to indulge in this, the crowning form of modern amusement, which has to its credit the spiritual and physical ruin of multitudes, and which more than any other single agency, has opened the sluice-gates to the flood of shameless conduct so apparent on every hand.” The Maréchale in Christians and Amusements.
The Countess of Limerick wrote recently about dancing:—”Dancing in England to-day might well be described as a whirl of tragedy. What once was a beautiful and delightful pastime has developed into a means of arousing passion. It fosters and inflames the call of sex. Delicacy and reserve are outraged. Young girls not out of their teens frequent the ball-rooms of London night after night, dancing with men whom they hardly know, and in such a manner that in the streets they would be arrested for improper behaviour. The very steps of the dance are suggestive. If the women and girls who indulge in the modern riot—for such it is—could only see the origin of these dances!” Quoted in F. R. Wood’s Questionable Amusements.
The late Prof. W. M. Clow, Glasgow, says in an article in a religious magazine: “The line of decision on dancing must be drawn in relation to the knowledge of the effect dancing has on the thoughts and feelings. Some, among them the most stainless and sensitive of souls, cannot dance without being moved to an excitement which soils and sensualises. On the whole a young Christian should watch this pleasure, if it may be occasionally shared, most jealously. It is my opinion that dancing holds more danger for most young hearts than the theatre, unless one goes to witness spectacles and to hear plays and songs which are corrupt in themselves, and to which the most hardened theatre-goer dare not give approval.”
Last month [August] an article appeared in a popular weekly from the pen of Mr. Henry Cooper, principal of a fashionable school of dancing. He is said to have taught many distinguished pupils, among them the Prince of Wales. Naturally he thinks dancing can be a wonderful pastime and a splendid exercise but if it is to be judged by its fruits it is anything but that. Here are his words: “Unfortunately modern dancing has been the ruin of more men and women than any other method of going to the devil. . . . Serious as it may sound, there is hardly any form of crime possible to the most hardened criminal that does not pass through the vista of my memory as a direct result of dancing. . . . . The atmosphere of some of the so-called ‘dancing academies’ which have sprung up in recent years is a background for all the sins imaginable.”
Dr. Moody-Stuart in his Recollections of the late John Duncan, LL.D., that noted saint and scholar, tells of an incident in his life when, under pressure of friends at a marriage of a relative Mr. Duncan went into the barn where a dance was in full swing. After the first reel was over he put his back to the door so that none could escape and then delivered “a severe sermon on the evils attaching to promiscuous dancing.” Dr. David Brown in his Life of Dr. John Duncan tells of another incident during his ministry at Persie. A dancing-school had been started in the place. Mr. Duncan (as he then was) “feeling this would be the undoing of his own labours among the young, endeavoured to persuade the parents to restrain their sons and daughters but found the young folks too strong for him. Appeals from the pulpit and Sabbath School were unavailing.” He offered the dancing master to pay all the fees if he would go away but he would not accept the offer. Mr. Duncan then took another method. He visited the dancing room and placing his back to the door as he had done on the above occasion he said: “Let us pray.” He “prayed such a prayer—his back still to the door—that the narrator said ‘She felt as if the floor were opening and she sinking through.’ All was still, save the one voice. As soon as he closed, he stepped forward, when a rush was made for the door and the room was left to the master and the minister; they never returned.”
Now though the above statements were only half as strong as they are they would justify the statement that “promiscuous dancing is notoriously a means of fostering the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” This is very tame in comparison with what is said above in some of the extracts given and let it be noted none of them is from Free Presbyterian sources. The smug sanctimoniousness of those who express a horror when sex is said to enter into the pleasure of the dance either in the parlour or in the dance hall and who unhesitatingly attribute unclean minds to the critics of the dance reminds one of Hazael’s words “Is thy servant a dog that he should do this great thing?” But their strong denial in words that are pure hypocritical cant will not alter the foregoing damaging statements from people who are honest enough to tell the naked truth.—A. W. M.