Shall We Dance, by Brian Edwards, is an excellent book dealing with the subject of dance and drama in worship settings. This is a subject that elicits strong emotions from those within the Christian church, both for and against dance and drama in the church. I must admit that I began reading this book with a bias against dance and worship that I was not able to defend from a Biblical perspective.  I realize that as a pastor I may be faced with a request to utilize dance or drama in a worship setting. In order to avoid the appearance of being liberal and irreverent, or close-minded and out of touch, I must be able to give a reasoned defense for my support of dance or drama or lack thereof. This book has done the work for me. I will review Edwards’ arguments, evaluating them in light of scripture, and then give my response to Edwards’ arguments.

            In discussing any subject that strongly polarizes individuals, it is always good to begin by defining terms. Edwards does this in the very beginning by reviewing the polarization of the church due to the Charismatic movement. Change is always difficult for people to accept and change within the church is no exception. The Charismatic movement has resulted in many claims, some true and some not, regarding what are perceived as excesses of emotionalism within that movement. Edwards points out that even though religious dance and drama were associated with Churches “who had largely lost the true message of salvation,” it is also “expressed in worship by those who love Christ and his Word.”[i]  In fact, some groups who had previously condemned dance, mandated that their church communities “learn how to dance redemptively.”[ii]  Some began asking what sin will next be redeemable. Because of the wide varieties of opinion regarding dance and the polarization that it is causing, Edwards wisely moves to define dance and drama before going any further.

            On the surface, it may appear to be easy to define dance and drama, but Edwards points out that very specific definitions of each are going to be required if any reasoned discussion about dance and drama are going to occur. Otherwise, simply clapping your hands and swaying your body during a praise chorus might be considered dance. After discussing various dictionary definitions, Edwards comes up with the following working definitions of dance and drama. Dance is ‘The art of moving the body in a rhythmical way, to express an emotion or idea, to narrate a story, or simply to take delight in the movement itself.’ Drama is ‘A play in verse, prose, or mime of a story which develops a theme. It is performed by actors who represent other people, real or imagined.’[iii]  I agree with Edwards working definitions of dance and drama. They are neither too narrow to limit the discussion to all but the most extravagant performances, nor are they so broad as to categorize any movement of a worshipper or preacher’s hyperbole as either dance or drama.

            Edwards next moves into six common claims made by those defending the use of dance and drama in Christian worship. He does not critique each claim, his purpose is to simply put forth the claims of those defending dance and drama in Christian worship. First, some feel dance and drama are essential to worship and evangelism. These people feel that “the inclination of the heart always expresses itself in the movement of the body”[iv] which s the source of dance. Second, dance and drama are valuable for Christian education. Since Americans live in the television age, church congregations are conditioned to learn visually. Third, dance and drama are effective for evangelism because they invite personal involvement and glorify God. Fourth, dance and drama are stimulating for worship. This is based upon the claim that Christian worship today is cold, formal, and unemotional. dance and drama helps the mind and body to concentrate upon God. Fifth, dance and drama are valuable for Christian fellowship. This appears to be for Christians to meet informally to just dance and talk. Finally, dance and drama are legitimate expressions of cultural roots. Dance and drama are ways in which cultural roots are expressed. Once the definitions have been established and the claims of those promoting dance and drama are put forth, Edwards moves into the historical aspect of dance and drama.

            No one will probably ever know the precise roots of dance and drama, but Edwards was able to point out that dance and drama were well established by 500 B.C. By 354 B.C., Rome had established at least 101 festival days to be used for plays.[v] Dance and drama tended to be either erotic or coarse and brutal. Sometimes they were both. In Romans plays, to satisfy the audience’s lust for blood and violence, people were actually killed during the plays.

Although dance and drama were common to ancient societies, in the Orient actors were considered the lowest order and outcasts. Buddhism commanded its Monks to avoid even watching dancing, singing, and music. With the background of eroticism and brutality, the early church fathers took a stance on dance and drama.

Tertullian did not deal with the issue that dance and drama in and of themselves are an offense to God. Rather, his concern was “by whom they have been perverted.”[vi] Since masks were often used in plays, Tertullian said that ‘The Author of truth hates all that is false,’ and that, ‘He will never approve pretended loves, and wraths, and groans, and tears.’[vii] Other church fathers such as Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Augustine all spoke against dance and drama, as did several early church councils.

Edwards’ discussion of the Middle Ages revealed a reversal of the church’s opinion regarding dance and drama. The church “lost its way” by the tenth century and was corrupt. Because the church was unable to give anything to the people, they began to be drawn to secular entertainments that the nobility put on. In response to this, the church began introducing plays and brought processions to the people in attempts to compete with trade guilds and nobility. By the fourteenth century the church was using plays for religious instruction which actually included classical mythology and evil jesting. Others in the church had little time for plays. Edwards points out that men such Geert Groot, Jan Hus, and John Wycliffe all realized that more plays meant less preaching.

In chapter three, Edwards moves into the reformers and Puritans. Some reformers felt the need to include the play but not the mystery play, a loosely depicted Bible story. For example, Martin Luther, considered drama, singing, and plays as ‘matters of indifference,’ it all depends on how they are used. Eventually plays began to be used by Catholics and the Reformers against one another so that the Crown intervened and eventually banned plays.

By the time of the Puritans and Evangelicals, plays had become vulgar. For the rest of this chapter, Edwards’ discussion revolves around secular dance which was devoid of religions connections. Edwards quotes men such as John Newton who claimed that the man and woman “converted during the Evangelical Awakening had no interest in idling his time with plays,”[viii]   William Law, who felt that the very nature of the stage was ‘grossly sinful’[ix], and C.H. Spurgeon, who equated the stage with a ‘great sewer.”[x] Edwards best typified the Evangelical Victorian by saying that he “may have had his faults, but he was serious and concerned for morality and spiritual life; for him, drama and dance hindered both.”[xi]

After giving a fairly comprehensive look at how history regards dance and drama, Edwards looks at the claims that dance is supported by the Bible. He shows that David’s dance was one of celebration, not in a worship setting. For those who may consider David’s dance an act of worship, Edwards points out that it was the first and last recorded used of dance in worship, either by David or any later kings, priests, or prophets. Of all the possible words for dance in the Old Testament, only mahol can be stated to mean dance and it is only used three times; once when Miriam danced after the Red Sea crossing, when Jepthah’s daughter met him with dancing, and when the men of Bethlehem chose their wives from the girls of Shiloh. There are several cases in the Old Testament where dancing is referenced, but in each case it is associated with the practice of pagan priests, idol worship, or drunken orgies. For those who insist on pointing to the Old Testament in support of dance, Edwards points out that it is always women dancing with women. Men are never mentioned dancing. In addition, dancing was not a choreographed event, it was unrehearsed and spontaneous; an outburst of joy if you will. In contrast, the worship of God in the Old Testament was a “restrained and awesome approach towards a holy God.”[xii]  Edwards points out that the New Testament has even less support for dance. Of the three instances where dance is used in the New Testament, Herodias’ daughter, the children in the street, and the parable of the prodigal son, none should be used in support of dance as a part of Christian worship. Unless one considers a few obscure references to words that may mean dance, support is not found in either the Old or the New Testament. Edwards’ conclusion is that God’s word does not condemn dance, but neither does it command it.

Edwards’ study of the possible use of drama in the Bible shows that there is even less support for it than there is for dance. He first revisits the definition of drama so that it is not redefined so that almost anything can be considered drama. Symbols and symbolism do not constitute drama, even though they may be “dramatic.” Miracles and parables historically were never considered drama or plays nor did Jesus use play acting.  Edwards deals with whether Jeremiah’s or Ezekiel’s actions in demonstrating prophecies can be considered drama. These actions were the results of God speaking to the prophets, the prophets never represented other people, and they were certainly not popular and entertaining. Edwards’ conclusion is that the use of drama in worship is not commanded by scripture.  Because of the vulgar and coarse plays in use at the time of the penning of the New Testament, it is unlikely that New Testament writers would have approved, or made us of, drama in their gospel presentations.

Edwards makes his own claims to counter those in support of dance and drama. One, “dance and drama reflect the worst of society’s standards.” Just watch television. Two, “dance and drama are always in danger of trivializing the serious.” Edwards’ statement that “dance and drama are fundamentally entertainment” reminds me that entertainment is not worship. Third, “dance and drama avoid direct and personal confrontation.”  The New Testament example of witnessing to the lost was direct communication through one on one evangelizing and preaching. Fourth, dance and drama have to be interpreted. Anything requiring interpretation is in danger of misunderstanding. Fifth, dance and drama are neither natural nor the most effective means of communication. Sixth, dance and drama sometimes are no more than an escape from reality; Christian entertainment at best, distraction at worst. Finally, dance and drama are open to sensual responses.

I believe that Edwards’ point is not whether or not one agrees with the early church fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans or the early evangelicals. He is pointing out that the tradition of these people and groups was predominately against dance and drama in the church, although some were not opposed to discreet and restrained dancing. His Biblical reasons for not supporting dance and drama in Christian worship is the lack of direct support found in the New Testament and the, shaky at best, support in the Old Testament.

I agree with Edwards that dance and drama are not essential to worship, and will go even further by stating that they ought not be used in worship. I pull my argument from Edwards’ book itself in the seventh chapter. The first century world was much worse than what it is now. Brutal, vile plays abounded throughout the Roman Empire. Paganism was rampant throughout the empire. A small band of men came preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and turned the world upside down. The Biblical record does not indicate any plays or dancing used to get the people’s attention or interest. The message of the cross in the power of the Holy Spirit changed lives. Contrary to the thought that plays and dancing really reach people for God, I agree with Edwards’ that preaching is the pinnacle of revealing God’s message to man. From Chrysostom to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God has used men proclaiming His word to change lives. I agree with Edwards’ conclusion on page 143, “Two things only are needed in our churches today: a praying congregation and a preacher. Everything else will flow from this: pastoral care, living worship, meaningful fellowship, evangelistic zeal, earnest witness and conversions.[xiii]