Mixed Dancing and the Seventh Commandment?

Coram Deo · #1 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 05:18 PM

I was just handed a booklet by Puritan Father Increase Mather called "An Arrow Against Mixt Dancing"

Which can be read here An Arrow Against Mixt Dancing

He tries to make the case against ANY form of dancing that entails mixt company as Sinful and violation of the seventh commandment...

Now I am against Promiscuous Dancing, but not all mixed dancing... I believe Promiscuous is interpret as sexual or mimicking a sexual act...

But Increase Mather is condemning ALL mixed dancing as Promiscuous and Profane, he also tries to show that most learned men that we esteem in church history side with him on ALL mixed dancing.

As anybody read this? What are your thoughts and critique of the work? Any rebuttals?

greenbaggins · #2 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 05:21 PM

Ooh, boy, that could be a real

Personally, I have difficulty in imagining how a waltz is problematic. But then, maybe I'm naive.

Coram Deo · #3 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 05:27 PM

I agree, I do not see the waltz as problematic... Now on the other hand I have trouble with the nightclub form of dancing...

But this has real time scenario because I was handed this paper by my father in law today because he REFUSES to go to his OWN sons wedding because there will be ballroom dancing at the reception. This wedding/Reception takes place tomorrow.....

Please see this thread on more details on this how would you handle this

This paper was given to ALL married siblings who will be attending the wedding tomorrow..

So Papa, Mama, and three underage siblings living at home will not be going to said wedding..

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Ooh, boy, that could be a real

Personally, I have difficulty in imagining how a waltz is problematic. But then, maybe I'm naive.

Davidius · #4 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 05:30 PM

Sounds like ol' Increase needs to decrease the influx of man's laws a little bit!

I slay me.

Coram Deo · #5 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 05:43 PM

Historical Information from "AN Arrow Against Mixt Dancing by Increase Mather.

Quote:

Originally Posted by An Arrow against Mixt Dancing

The Ancient Doctors, (Fathers as they are called) have thundred against this Sin. Chrysostom in his Sermons on Genesis, treating on Jacob’s Marriage; Here (saith he) We read of a Wedding, but not a word of Dancing there. Yea, he sticks not to call Dancing a Diabolical Practice. And in another of his Sermons; He saith, that Wherever this is a Petulant Dance, the Devil is one of the Company. And Arnobius does vehemently reprehend the Gentiles, because of their lascivious Dances. Austin [Augustine] doth severely tax this vice. Ambrose doth advise all Godly Parents, that would not have the Souls of their Children corrupted and ruined, not to send them to the Dancing-School.

...

Moreover, the Ministers of the Reformed Churches in France, did above an hundred years ago, (viz. Anno 1581) concur in writing, and publishing a Book, against the vice we are impleading. Also Venerable Calvin; Marlorat, Lavater, Danaeus, Tilenus,Polanus, Zepperus; all condemn it as utterly unlawful. Peter Martyr and Aretius in their common places, do elaborately discourse about mixed Dancing, and prove it to be an unlawful Recreation.

...

[I]Dr. Rainold, Dr. Ames, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Dod, Mr. Elton, Mr. Bolton, Mr.Brinsley, Mr. Durham[/i], and others have abundantly proved it to be unlawful.

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Sounds like ol' Increase ends to decrease a little bit on the influx of man's laws!

I slay me.

Nice.

Joshua · #7 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 06:06 PM

I posted this before, but I think it can have application here:

Hypocrites Concerning Matters of Liberty

Matthew 15:1-9

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Hypocrites. Everyone’s a hypocrite. To some degree, also, all Christians are hypocrites. In fact, sometimes, especially Christians are hypocrites. Sometimes this hypocrisy is due to ignorance of what the Scriptures teach. Sometimes it’s due to secret sinful indulgences in which people want to continue, unfettered. Then, at other times, it’s simply due to an extra-Biblical “piety” that has caused even the most well-meaning of people to make commandments out of the traditions of men. Jesus asked a scathing rhetorical question to the Pharisees: Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? He was pointing out their blatant hypocrisy of claiming to be the spiritual authorities of their day, but antithetically nullifyng (in their minds, anyway) the commandments of God by their spiritual “insights”. Now, as noted earlier, some do this out of spiritual ignorance. There are instances in which both ignorance and an extra-Biblical “piety” play a part. Consider, for example, the subject of Christians drinking alcoholic beverages.

Most professing Christians in America, because of the prohibition and temporance movements of times past, ignorantly and automatically assume that the mere intake of alcohol for the Christian is sinful. They think this not for Biblical reasons, but for pragmatic reasons. They also believe this to be an honorable and noble cause because of the past abuse which has been rendered due to sinful men’s over-indulgence of alcohol. To the serious-minded Christian, no doubt, it can be very tempting to jump on this throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater bandwagon, believing it will somehow accomplish a declension in the abuse of alcohol. In fact, though, the opposite is true and can be attested to by the fact that since the time of prohibition, many have seen alcohol as inherently evil. Thus, it’s considered rebellious to partake. Thus, those wanting to rebel will usually abuse this gift of God, in order to show their rebellion, get back at, or irritate those whom they will.

The drinking of alcohol is just one example and is not intended to be the focus of this entry. what I am trying to expose here is the sin and hypocrisy of professing Christians who seek to bind the conscience of other believers concerning things considered as indifferent by Scripture. Sadly, their attempt to legitimate such an idea cannot be adequately substantiated by Scripture, and most appeals then are pragmatic, not according to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Scripture speaks clearly concerning the Christian’s treatment of things indifferent. Involved herein is the principle of Christian Liberty. Two instances which immediately come to mind are Romans 14, and a portion of 1 Corinthians 10. You see, Christian Liberty of things indifferent works, at least it should work, both ways. The 14th chapter of Romans can almost be divided perfectly in half. The first section discusses the subject of passing judgment on other Christians for their personal convicions on things which are scripturally indifferent. The second portion examines the ultimate crux of the matter: Not being a stumbling block to the “weaker” Christian.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. - Romans 14:1-4

Here, Paul makes clear that the stronger Christian ought to welcome the “weaker” Christian, but never for the purpose of arguing over opinions (of things indifferent). By “weak” Paul means immature. Now, this doesn’t mean anything negative, necessarily. It simply means, more than likely, a new convert who is not yet mature or educated enough to understand that, for example, meat which has been previously sacrificed to idols insn’t unclean, in and of itself. Therefore, a Christian may freely eat such meat since, to him, it is just meat and is something that can be enjoyed to the glory of God. Paul issues a two-fold admonition here. He says to these two “types” of Christians, “Do not think less or sinful of the other for either his indulgence or his abstinence of the food, because such a matter is indifferent.” Basically, Paul thinks a man should go with his own conscience, but not try to bind the conscience of another, since it cannot be proven Biblically that one must or must not partake. Each one should be convinced in his own mind.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. - Romans 14:13-23

Next, Paul speaks to the matter of not causing a weaker brother to stumble. Now, when it comes to the subject of alcohol, I believe this is a much misused passage by those who proclaim it sinful to partake thereof. Their thoughts would affirm this kind of statement:

Look, drinking alcohol, in and of itself, is not sinful. But, I believe, because of the abuse that alcohol indulgence has caused over the years, that we ought not partake, because it will cause people to stumble.

These mostly sincere, but nonetheless wrong people will appeal to Romans 14:21, but apparently have overlooked, discarded, or altogether ignored verse 16. There is a balance when it comes to Christian Liberty:

Firstly, we’re not to use our Christian Liberty as license to sin. Secondly, we should not indulge in Christian Liberty by rubbing it in the face of the weaker brother who may be caused to stumble. However, this does not mean that a Christian can cry out, “You’re making me stumble!” every time they see a brother engaging in something that is scripturally indifferent. This is precisely Paul’s point in verse 16. The stronger brother needs to patiently, lovingly, but firmly educate the weaker, so as to show him how things scripturally indifferent are not, in and of themselves, sinful to every individual in all circumstances or situations. This education, mind you, ought not be done for the purpose of merely justifying the stronger Christians partaking, but should be done with the intent of edifying and maturing the weaker brother, in Christian love and charity.

The goal for Paul’s admonition here is not simply so the stronger brother can glory in being “smarter” or further along than the weaker. Nor does he have in mind the stronger being justified in all he does. Rather, the goal is the unity of the brethren and the avoidance of one passing judgment on the other for either their parktaking of, or abstaining from, things which are not really addressed by Scripture, and this is the building up of Christian love.

Now we consider 1 Corinthians 10:23-33

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Here, the context is not merely believers, but also unbelievers. Look, we, being Reformed, need to be honest. We’ve all, I’m sure, been guilty of doing something that we shouldn’t have done in a certain situation, and then attempted to justify it under the guise of Christian Liberty. If you haven’t, that’s great! However, I know that I’m certainly guilty of having done so. This being said, we would do well to remember this statement.

“All things are lawful”, but not all things are helpful

That is, all things which are not contrary to God’s Law, nor unlawful by demand of the State are OK. But just because such is the case, doesn’t mean they’re helpful or, for that matter, necessary. What we must guard against, as Christians, is the over-indulgence of things indifferent and the flaunting thereof. This is the thrust of Paul’s words in the first portion of the passage at hand.

Paul then says that sometimes we abstain from things scripturally indifferent for the sake of not our own conscience, but the conscience of the unbeliever. This is where the indulgence of Christian Liberty can prove detrimental. For example, it is not wise, in the presence of unbelievers, to talk about, say, alcoholic beverages in the same manner they do. Why? Because typically, in the life of the unbeliever, drunkenness is heavily associated with such discussion and is usually the aim of his drinking in the first place (I’m not saying this is always the case, just typically). Now, engaging in such discussion, unless one is showing the utter foolishness of the said behavior, might give the unbeliever the impression that such practice is somehow acceptable. In turn, this could mislead them. Instead, just as it may be with the weaker brother, with time and opportunity, you could make your case Biblically with much patience, so there’s no excuse for anyone’s misunderstanding.

The fact is, brothers and sisters, there is no rigid instruction in this matter, because each situation for each Christian is unique and distinct from another’s. However, there are Biblical principles to guide us in the way we should go, as can be shown by the aforementioned passages. What we must avoid is trying to make commandments out of our personal convictions of things which are scripturally indifferent, lest we be hypocrites like the Pharisees. Now, may we be faithful to Scripture, sensitive to our consciences as guided by the Holy Spirit, and seek not our own good, but the good of our neighbors. Grace and Peace.

larryjf · #8 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 06:06 PM

I would think that it would only be a sin if it provokes lust in the heart of the dancer(s).

We live in a society where sensuality is on every magazine cover, movie, t.v. show, etc. etc. As such we are a bit calloused regarding the intimacy of men and women.

To tell you the truth, i am so attracted to my wife that even touching her hand can arouse my feelings toward her.

I also must wonder how the 7th commandment would even begin to stop husbands and wives from dancing.

BlackCalvinist · #9 (**permalink**) 01-11-2008, 10:45 PM

You nailed it, Josh.

By the way, I'm linking to your post on another site where some non-Calvinistic folk have just had some of the same discussion (on liquor).

AV1611 · #10 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

As anybody read this? What are your thoughts and critique of the work? Any rebuttals?

I would say that mixed dancing is sinful and is an indication of a person's heart.

Christians and Dancing Homepage.

Nse007 · #11 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I was just handed a booklet by Puritan Father Increase Mather called "An Arrow Against Mixt Dancing"

Which can be read here An Arrow Against Mixt Dancing

He tries to make the case against ANY form of dancing that entails mixt company as Sinful and violation of the seventh commandment...

Now I am against Promiscuous Dancing, but not all mixed dancing... I believe Promiscuous is interpret as sexual or mimicking a sexual act...

But Increase Mather is condemning ALL mixed dancing as Promiscuous and Profane, he also tries to show that most learned men that we esteem in church history side with him on ALL mixed dancing.

As anybody read this? What are your thoughts and critique of the work? Any rebuttals?

Two questions:
#1 Mike how is Increase doing these days seeing that he handed you a booklet

and

#2 Do the fathers reject dancing between husband and wife?

Neogillist · #12 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I agree, I do not see the waltz as problematic... Now on the other hand I have trouble with the nightclub form of dancing...

But this has real time scenario because I was handed this paper by my father in law today because he REFUSES to go to his OWN sons wedding because there will be ballroom dancing at the reception. This wedding/Reception takes place tomorrow.....

Please see this thread on more details on this how would you handle this

This paper was given to ALL married siblings who will be attending the wedding tomorrow..

So Papa, Mama, and three underage siblings living at home will not be going to said wedding..

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Ooh, boy, that could be a real

Personally, I have difficulty in imagining how a waltz is problematic. But then, maybe I'm naive.

I agree with your father in law, not because waltz dancing is sinful, but because it is inconsiderate for singles. Unless of course, people end up dancing with partners other than their wives, in which case I think is even worse. But your father in law should not be so exclusivistic. If I were in his shoes, I would still go to the wedding, but leave before the dancing starts. I can assure you that if I ever get married, as a Reformed Christian, there will not be any bit of dancing at my wedding.

Also, Increase Mather was a notorious figure in the Salem Witch Hunt. He wrote a book on witchcraft that influenced the magistrates to use spectral evidence in court. Mather's book was basically a whole load of Old English mythology that was unscriptural and superstitious. He was also quite of a legalist and pharisee, so you father in law should not have used Mather's article. Look it up on Wikipedia.

Davidius · #13 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

I agree with your father in law, not because waltz dancing is sinful, but because it is inconsiderate for singles. Unless of course, people end up dancing with partners other than their wives, in which case I think is even worse. But your father in law should not be so exclusivistic. If I were in his shoes, I would still go to the wedding, but leave before the dancing starts. I can assure you that if I ever get married, as a Reformed Christian, there will not be any bit of dancing at my wedding.

So now not having dancing at one's wedding is what it means to be a Reformed Christian.

VirginiaHuguenot · #14 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

Also, Increase Mather was a notorious figure in the Salem Witch Hunt. He wrote a book on witchcraft that influenced the magistrates to use spectral evidence in court. Mather's book was basically a whole load of Old English mythology that was unscriptural and superstitious. He was also quite of a legalist and pharisee, so you father in law should not have used Mather's article. Look it up on Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Rev. Cotton Mather argued strenuously that it was appropriate to admit spectral evidence into legal proceedings. Robert Calef published More Wonders of the Invisible World to criticize Mather for this position. (Mather sued him for libel, and had the book burned in Harvard Yard).[6] Cotton Mather remained unrepentant for his role in the trials and the admission of spectral evidence till his death.

Rev. Increase Mather, Cotton's father, however, became an opponent of spectral evidence - though not until after the Salem hangings had taken place, and not on the basis that it was false testimony by witnesses, but that it might be a deception by demons. He published Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men, Witchcrafts, infallible Proofs of Guilt in such as are accused with that Crime.,[7] in which he argued that "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned".

jaybird0827 · #15 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

... I agree with your father in law, not because waltz dancing is sinful, but because it is inconsiderate for singles. Unless of course, people end up dancing with partners other than their wives, in which case I think is even worse. ...

As far as you're concerned then, is folk-dancing completely out? Let's take, for example, the Virginia Reel. In the Virginia Reel, you dance with every partner of the opposite gender.

I never had a problem with it in the past, because it seemed like the figures were defined in such a way that it would be obvious if anyone "crossed the line", and that it was all handled with dignity and respect.

On the other hand, one thing that encouraged us strongly to leave square-dancing was certain "bells and whistles" that are not part of the standard definition of calls and figures. 7th commandment issues became unavoidable.

Neogillist · #16 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

Also, Increase Mather was a notorious figure in the Salem Witch Hunt. He wrote a book on witchcraft that influenced the magistrates to use spectral evidence in court. Mather's book was basically a whole load of Old English mythology that was unscriptural and superstitious. He was also quite of a legalist and pharisee, so you father in law should not have used Mather's article. Look it up on Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Rev. Cotton Mather argued strenuously that it was appropriate to admit spectral evidence into legal proceedings. Robert Calef published More Wonders of the Invisible World to criticize Mather for this position. (Mather sued him for libel, and had the book burned in Harvard Yard).[6] Cotton Mather remained unrepentant for his role in the trials and the admission of spectral evidence till his death.

Rev. Increase Mather, Cotton's father, however, became an opponent of spectral evidence - though not until after the Salem hangings had taken place, and not on the basis that it was false testimony by witnesses, but that it might be a deception by demons. He published Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men, Witchcrafts, infallible Proofs of Guilt in such as are accused with that Crime.,[7] in which he argued that "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned".

I guess I got son and father mixed up, but nevertheless, this is still a case of puritanism gone bad.

Neogillist · #17 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaybird0827

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogillist

... I agree with your father in law, not because waltz dancing is sinful, but because it is inconsiderate for singles. Unless of course, people end up dancing with partners other than their wives, in which case I think is even worse. ...

As far as you're concerned then, is folk-dancing completely out? Let's take, for example, the Virginia Reel. In the Virginia Reel, you dance with every partner of the opposite gender.

I never had a problem with it in the past, because it seemed like the figures were defined in such a way that it would be obvious if anyone "crossed the line", and that it was all handled with dignity and respect.

On the other hand, one thing that encouraged us strongly to leave square-dancing was certain "bells and whistles" that are not part of the standard definition of calls and figures. 7th commandment issues became unavoidable.

I am totally pro-Christian liberty. I don't think any church should take a stance for or against dancing. I do not consider myself 'more Reformed' for not engaging in mixed dancing. The thing is that I just don't know which types of mixed dancing are ok for me, and which are not; so I just avoid them all. However, I am totally for a married couple dancing in their private living room!