To dance or not to dance?

The Church of God proudly promotes holy living, and for the bulk of our history we have had generally accepted guidelines of what that looks like. Yet, the list of sinful behaviors has changed over the years, and has included obvious vices like smoking and alcohol, and less obvious ones like wearing neckties and even visiting bowling alleys. Dancing is also an activity that has been traditionally scorned, but over time has seen less opposition by movement adherents.

Early this month a major turning point occurred at our flagship institution of higher learning, Anderson University. After years of pressure and coming to terms with its inconsistent policies, AU held its first on-campus dance, a move officially endorsed by the school's board of trustees. Has dancing now joined the list of other practices once shunned, but now accepted, or at minimum tolerated?

The Anderson Herald-Bulletin newspaper has an article detailing this development.

The truth is, despite that a significant contingent of Church of God people think dancing is one of the great sins that leads to all sorts of debauchery, this is no longer the general view held by our membership. While there are forms and presentations of dancing that raise concern, most people recognize that a blanket rejection of it as an activity or art form is not reasonable, and certainly not biblical. We even have congregations across the country who occasionally have dances or offer dancing lessons.

Obviously, the news out of AU is highly disturbing for those Church of God stalwarts who cling to a view of holiness that is all about externalism.

For me the shift in our dancing policies and practices is not the real issue, and not just because I have two left feet and can't dance even if I wanted. The issue is: How are we understanding and practicing what it means to be holy?

Sadly, a thoroughgoing engagement with holiness is not something we do, despite our assertions. Throughout our history we have missed the boat when we have reduced holiness to rigid adherence to individualistic legalism. This misapplication of Scripture flies in the face of the
Spirit-directed life which should mark our lives. The result has been self-righteousness, judgmentalism, and the extinguishing of the Spirit's work. And, hypocrisy abounds especially as it has resulted in a lop-sided holiness that virtually ignores other expressions of a holy life, including our social involvements.

The reaction to this wooden holiness has also not been always helpful. As the Herald-Bulletin article reveals, some of the responses to our restrictions can be reactionary. It is easy for the pendulum to swing too far or for the wrong reasons.

What am I saying in all of this?

I believe that the Church of God must be committed to re-engage in an exploration of what holiness is all about. In doing this we must be prepared to move beyond our constricted views from the past and toward a much fuller understanding as demonstrated by Jesus and expressed in Scripture. This will be one of the topics of my upcoming book.

In the end we may acknowledge that we are a dancing people after all.

Congregationalism

Last week I was in Saint Augustine, Florida for the annual Area Administrator's retreat. It was a good time to connect with colleagues from across the continent and to exchange ideas and experiences.

General Director Ronald Duncan was with us for the week, and shared a paper he wrote entitled "Congregationalism and the Church of God Reformation Movement: A Needed Conversation". It was still a draft edition, but the intent is to have a final version ready for distribution in the not too distant future.

Certainly this is a needed conversation. As Duncan says, our "understanding of congregationalism has functioned largely as an unquestioned assumption in the life of the church", and that many have seen it "as synonymous with independence or unlimited autonomy".

In the paper Duncan traces the development of congregational polity from Scripture through to its implementation in our movement. He argues that things started to unravel for us around the late 60s or early 70s. Rampant individualism in society, carried over into the local church and into the Church of God at a larger level. "Unlimited autonomy within an increasingly loosely connected congregational system" has become the accepted norm, but Duncan correctly points out that this is "totally alien to a biblical understanding of the body of Christ". Nevertheless, the result of all this is disconnection, isolation, and loss of trust. He even goes on to call this "an insidious cancer in the life of the church".

The remedy, according to Duncan, is covenantal relationships, both within and among congregations. Responsibility of all involved is critical, and leads to interdependence that is centered on mission. This should radically shape the way we function as a movement.

I affirm what Dr. Duncan is writing. If we are going to have any impact as a movement we must address what it means to belong to "Church of God" and the implications of this belonging. Sadly, the Church of God has sold itself out to the prevailing attitudes of society and Evangelicalism, even when it deeply conflicts with what we understand as truth. Even more tragically, we have failed to acknowledge these influences.

Hopefully Duncan's paper will lead us to confront these issues. Be sure to read it when it is officially released.