To Dance or Not to Dance

[John317]

**BUMP**

[Richard Holbrook]

Right now it's 50/50 John. That's amazing. Who really wants to see dancing in the SDA church? Might as well bring in the golden calf. Better yet, let's get Aerosmith to play.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not anymore...

[Woody]

Praise God we have NEW light.

(Present Truth)

[Parade Orange]

As long its not that nasty liturgical dance or that infernal sign language prancing all about it will be ok!

And I didnt vote here either but I did 'bump' it.

[Gerr]

I wonder how David "danced before the LORD?"

[Tom Wetmore]

The description in 2 Samuel 6 gives us a fairly good idea. (Also read the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 15-16.) The description of the event indicates excitement and celebration. There was shouting and singing and the the music of brass wind instruments, stringed instruments and percussion instruments. This all suggests a considerable volume of sound from the voices and instruments and the percussion instruments suggests use for rhythm and tempo for dance.

David himself is described as dancing "with all his might" and "leaping". The Hebrew word translated as "dance" suggests whirling and twirling around, perhaps moving in a circle and spinning with each step or leap around the ark. The word translated as "leaping" suggests bounding and jumping like a gazelle. (Not little hop steps, but running and getting some serious height and hang time...) And the word translated as "with all his might" means powerful and strong, suggesting that David's movement were very vigorous and demonstrating his considerable physical strength.

The reaction of his wife, Michal, and his response to her gives a perspective of the intensity and vigor of the display as observed from afar by Michal. She speaks of how shameful and undignified it was before the other women gathered there indicating that his leaping and jumping was so vigorous that his robe flew up and flapped about such that it must have exposed his manhood to them. And David responded that he would gladly humiliate himself even more than that in expressing his excitement and joy before God. It suggests a very spontaneous exciting dance without any inhibitions, childlike even. (It definitely doesn't suggest a slow, solemn, dignified and well choreographed processional march, as some have suggested.)

But the final sentence strongly suggests the final and most important reaction of the One for whom this great display of physical praise was intended. Was God pleased with David? Or did God think perhaps Michal had a point about David getting too carried away and perhaps being too base and irreverent? The final sentence in conclusion says that Michal died without children. Why is this important to point out in the context and as a concluding statement of this exchange about David's dancing before the Lord? Fertility was viewed as a blessing and for a woman to not be able to have children was understood as a curse from God. While it does not explicitly say God was pleased with David's dance, the very strong implication is that God must have been very displeased with Michal's judgmental criticism and displeasure with it. It suggests that God accepted David's offering of physical praise and that he was more offended by criticism of it than by what David did.

Tom

[Woody]

[guibox]

Good post, Tom.

I would venture to say that if God were displeased with David's dancing, it would be in the way he exposed himself while getting too carried away, not because he was dancing to begin with.

This is the problem with our church. They lump all dancing together instead of sifting and sorting and realizing that physical movement is part of human expression. Dance, choreography are musical expressions of physical activity just as running, jumping and chasing after a ball are athletic expressions of physical movement.

I'm not advocating dancing in the church but to eliminate this ridiculous notion that all dancing is evil and should be avoided by Christians. Especially to the point where choreography, raising of hands, tapping our feet or snapping/clapping to a beat, are frowned upon.

[phkrause]

Tom I was just thinking that same thing about his wife, Michael, complaining about his dancing. At first I almost thought that he was dancing naked. Pretty intense dancing I would have to say. But at the same time he wasn't grinding up and down anyone's leg, or from behind as is often the case with the dancing that goes on today. I know of a few people that go for line dancing they say that they have a really good time. Its still pretty much single dancing as David did.

pk

[Gerr]

I don't know how you voted, but the general tone of your response leads me to believe you would be ok with dancing in church. Would you you allow/be dancing alone? or with someone of the opposite gender?

[Parade Orange]

in the jewish ancient tradition of celebration thru dance the men danced together!

as it should be if started back up today in our churches.

I thought Davids wife didnt have children was because David never uhhh.. made love with her there after.

[monica]

in the jewish ancient tradition of celebration thru dance the men danced together!

as it should be if started back up today in our churches.

In February we spent a weekend with a group of Christians that keep the Sabbath

and some of the Jewish tradition: they sing and dance as Jews did. It was impressive.

Here is a children's dance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kEQZwy8dIQ - starting with minute 2

I can't find a grown-up's dance.

Have you ever heard of the twelve tribes?

Take a look here:

http://www.twelvetribes.org/

[Woody]

Quote:

And I didnt vote here either but I did 'bump' it.

Which is worse ... 'bumping' or dancing?

[phkrause]

I'd say dancing, I think bumping is good.

pk

[Woody]

Shame on you pk.

[Woody]

Quote:

Ecc.3:4 "A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance"

[John317]

The description in 2 Samuel 6 gives us a fairly good idea. (Also read the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 15-16.) The description of the event indicates excitement and celebration. There was shouting and singing and the the music of brass wind instruments, stringed instruments and percussion instruments. This all suggests a considerable volume of sound from the voices and instruments and the percussion instruments suggests use for rhythm and tempo for dance.

David himself is described as dancing "with all his might" and "leaping". The Hebrew word translated as "dance" suggests whirling and twirling around, perhaps moving in a circle and spinning with each step or leap around the ark. ....

The reaction of his wife, Michal, and his response to her gives a perspective of the intensity and vigor of the display as observed from afar by Michal. She speaks of how shameful and undignified it was before the other women gathered there indicating that his leaping and jumping was so vigorous that his robe flew up and flapped about such that it must have exposed his manhood to them.

Then there is this description by Ellen White. People have to decide which description to believe. Let each person be persuaded in his own mind:

At the end of three months he resolved to make another attempt to remove the ark, and he now gave earnest heed to carry out in every particular the directions of the Lord. Again the chief men of the nation were summoned, and a vast assemblage gathered about the dwelling place of the Gittite. With reverent care the ark was now placed upon the shoulders of men of divine appointment, the multitude fell into line, and with trembling hearts the vast procession again set forth. After advancing six paces the trumpet sounded a halt. By David's direction sacrifices of "oxen and fatlings" were to be offered. Rejoicing now took the place of trembling and terror. The king had laid aside his royal robes and had attired himself in a plain linen ephod, such as was worn by the priests. He did not by this act signify that he assumed priestly functions, for the ephod was sometimes worn by others besides the priests. But in this holy service he would take his place as, before God, on an equality with his subjects. Upon that day Jehovah was to be adored. He was to be the sole object of reverence.

Again the long train was in motion, and the music of harp and cornet, trumpet and cymbal, floated heavenward, blended with the melody of many voices. "And David danced before the Lord," in his gladness keeping time to the measure of the song.

David's dancing in reverent joy before God has been cited by pleasure lovers in justification of the fashionable modern dance, but there is no ground for such an argument. In our day dancing is associated with folly and midnight reveling. Health and morals are sacrificed to pleasure. By the frequenters of the ballroom God is not an object of thought and reverence; prayer or the song of praise would be felt to be out of place in their assemblies. This test should be decisive. Amusements that have a tendency to weaken the love for sacred things and lessen our joy in the service of God are not to be sought by Christians. The music and dancing in joyful praise to God at the removal of the ark had not the faintest resemblance to the dissipation of modern dancing. The one tended to the remembrance of God and exalted His holy name. The other is a device of Satan to cause men to forget God and to dishonor Him.

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890), page 707, paragraph 2

Explaining Michal's reaction:

God would teach his people that, while his ark was a terror and death to those who transgressed his commandments contained in it, it was also a blessing and strength to those who were obedient to his commandments. When David heard that the house of Obed-edom was greatly blessed, and that all that he had prospered, because of the ark of God, he was very anxious to bring it to his own city. But before David ventured to move the sacred ark, he sanctified himself to God, and also commanded that all the men highest in authority in the kingdom should keep themselves from all worldly business, and everything which would distract their minds from sacred devotion. Thus should they sanctify themselves for the purpose of conducting the sacred ark to the city of David. "So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into the city of David with gladness. And it was so, that when they that bare the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings."

David laid off his kingly attire, and clothed himself with garments similar to the priests', which had never been worn before, that not the least impurity might be upon his clothing. Every six paces, they erected an altar and solemnly sacrificed to God. The special blessing of the Lord rested upon king David, who thus manifested before his people his exalted reverence for the ark of God. "And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal, Saul's daughter, looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart."

The dignity and pride of king Saul's daughter were shocked that king David should lay aside his garments of royalty, and his royal scepter, and be clothed with the simple linen garments worn by the priests. She thought that he was greatly dishonoring himself before the people of Israel. But God honored David in the sight of all Israel by letting his Spirit abide upon him. David humbled himself, but God exalted him. He sung in an inspired manner, playing upon the harp, producing the most enchanting music. He felt, in a small degree, that holy joy that all the saints will experience at the voice of God when their captivity is turned, and God makes a covenant of peace with all who have kept his commandments.

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One (1870), page 412, paragraph 1

NOTE:

Are we to believe that David first sanctified himself to God and then that when he danced he exposed his "manhood" to the women and men-- something that God's law forbids-- yet this was not a sin but an honor to God? See Lev. 18.

Notice that Ellen White doesn't give the slightest indication that David exposed his private parts to the onlookers.

[Tom Wetmore]

I wouldn't expect that EGW, steeped in Victorian sensibilities would have been so bold as to focus on that particular explicit detail of Michal's rebuke to David. The Biblical writer was apparently not so inhibited to avoid quite explicit language in quoting Michal.

It is quite clear that from Michal's perspective that she saw David's conduct as shameful, that he "uncovered himself in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! ". The Hebrew word translated here clearly means to expose shame, expose oneself, to uncover ones nakedness, and implies exposing something otherwise hidden or forbidden. If not something of this sort why would Michal have compared him to "vain fellows" or as in other translations "vulgar fellows"? The Hebrew word means "empty" or "worthless" or even "wicked". And why is it significant that his exposed shame was pointed out as only from the perspective of the women? I can envision the young female servants running back to the palace, giggling in embarrassment, reporting this eventually to Michal before David came back. How else would she have known what the girls saw? And why, as his wife, would she have been so upset just because he had not acted kingly enough? And what of David's response that he would debase himself more so if it pleased God? And what more fitting curse to the wrongful accusation akin to unfaithfulness to her than to strike her as an unfit and unfruitful wife!

And it also appears that EGW didn't include the perspective of the account written in 1 Chronicles 15, specifically with regard to what David wore on that day. Specifically read 15:27 which indicates he was wearing his kingly robes of the finest Egyptian linen and that he wore the "ephod" over that robe. The "ephod" was either a special tunic or mantel worn as an outermost garment. It was not simply about setting aside his kingliness that Michal found shameful.

Yes, you may "believe" the explicit language of Scripture and the Biblical writers of the OT not too embarrassed to to tell it like it was. Or you can stick with the incomplete commentary of a somewhat more prudish prophet with good New England Victorian era sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with her restrained perspective, but it simply does not include all of what Scripture says or quite so explicitly. Just because EGW avoided the scandalous part does not mean we should ignore what Scripture plainly says or pretend that it couldn't possible have happened just because EGW didn't speak of it.

Tom

[John317]

It is quite clear that from Michal's perspective that she saw David's conduct as shameful, that he "uncovered himself in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! ". The Hebrew word translated here clearly means to expose shame, expose oneself, to uncover ones nakedness, and implies exposing something otherwise hidden or forbidden. If not something of this sort why would Michal have compared him to "vain fellows" or as in other translations "vulgar fellows"? The Hebrew word means "empty" or "worthless" or even "wicked".

Your analysis seems reasonable on the surface, but it allows Michal to determine too much of what we see in David's actions. Michal does not appear to be a woman who can be trusted to give us an objective view of what happened. I think you give her too much credence. We should not believe her testimony over the testimony of a modern prophet of God who received visions of the scenes she describes.

Michal puts a coloring on those events that is obviously false. David wasn't acting as one of the vain fellows. That was how Michal described it. It's significant to notice that the narrator does not use such language. It is only Michal who says that David "uncovered himself in the eyes of the handmaidens."

Neither 2 Sam 6 nor 1 Chron. 15: 29 give any indication apart from Michal's own testimony that David was actually naked in front of the women. Michal put the worst light on David's behavior. The narrator's words themselves would not lead us to believe that David did the things Michal accused him of.

What was actually happening was that David was "dancing before the Lord." Are we to believe that David confused the common with the sacred during this time? To see how God views those who do not make a difference between the holy and the unholy, see the tragic story of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10, esp. vvs. 1-2, 10.

It seems obvious that David felt that Michal was not honest about his behavior, and that she had betrayed him, because he evidently never again treated her as his wife.

Would David have committed the sin of exposing his manhood to the women of Israel, even as the text tells us that he was "afraid of the Lord" (2 Sam. 6: 9) after he saw the Lord punish one who violated the Lord's instructions?

Are we to believe that David was careless about exposing his "manhood" to the people of Israel in a way that was directly contrary to the directions of the Lord (Lev. 18), and this during a time when David was "dancing in the Lord's presence"?

I believe both questions above can be answered only in the negative. However, if we believe that David did expose himself in this way while dancing before the Lord, should we then draw the conclusion that it would be right for any of us to do the same while dancing before the Lord during worship?

[Tom Wetmore]

...Michal puts a coloring on those events that is obviously false. David wasn't acting as one of the vain fellows. That was how Michal described it. It's significant to notice that the narrator does not use such language. It is only Michal who says that David "uncovered himself in the eyes of the handmaidens." ...

What was actually happening was that David was "dancing before the Lord." It seems obvious that David felt that Michal was not honest about his behavior, and that she had betrayed him, because he evidently never again treated her as his wife...

I believe both questions above can be answered only in the negative...

Good points, all of which I have considered and have implied in this discussion and expounded on in previous discussions on this topic. Your alternative explanation is quite plausible.

However, I disagree with your conclusion that what Michal claimed absolutely must be false and that your questions can only be answered in the negative. Since we do not have a third reliable and unbiased eyewitness account specifically addressing with actual intent to resolve those supposedly conflicting accounts it remains unknown and far less certain than you have concluded. (And you have not accounted for David's response which far from disputing what Michal said, seems consistent with the possibility that she was correct, by implication agreeing with her and taking it a step further.)

EGW wasn't an eyewitness with sufficient level of detailed vision (She said her visions were like snapshots...) from all perspectives and does not appear concerned with this particular detail from her account which simply bypasses consideration of the key phrases on which we are sidetracked. I seriously doubt that EGW even had it in her mind or was even inspired to resolve this detail of the account. If God had considered it significant and important he would have inspired her to settle the matter. It simply did not seem to be on her agenda nor God's radar to even go there since it was not the point of the story.

But regardless of whether there was an unintentional bit of man flesh fleetingly exposed or not was completely beside the point, which EGW got quite right. The judgmental criticism of Michal, correct or not, was the wrong committed. And that was what God condemned. And God accepted David's sincerely offered exuberant and imperfect, even flawed, offering of praise. The more essential point is a theme frequently visited by EGW with very strong words - being on the side of the accuser of the brethren with faultfinding, criticism and judgmentalism. That was the sin of Michal. As EGW stated elsewhere:

Quote:

God will charge those who unwisely expose the mistakes of their brethren with sin of far greater magnitude than He will charge the one who makes a misstep. Criticism and condemnation of the brethren are counted as criticism and condemnation of Christ.--Letter 48, 1894. {3SM 345.2}

Whether David managed to keep well covered by his robes or had a minor wardrobe malfunction is inconsequential to the real problem that threatened to derail, distract and denigrate David's sincere praise dance (and this discussion, not to mention the larger problem in our church). Judgmentally impugning the sincere motives of those worshiping God in any way differently than ourselves is wrong, plain and simply.

Dance like David did - exuberantly with great joy before the Lord - even if it might risk being criticized and wrongly judged as being a worldly vain man.

Tom

[John317]

I hope all our Club members vote about dancing, including members who aren't SDAs. Apparently, so far nobody who is non-SDA has voted. Please do, everyone.

[Nan]

I hope all our Club members vote about dancing, including members who aren't SDAs. Apparently, so far nobody who is non-SDA has voted. Please do, everyone.

What is meant by dancing in this poll?

A little rhythmic movement as part of a drama or fullblown

dancing in the aisles?

I have no problem with the first and would be troubled by

the second.

[John317]

Good question. In the poll, "dancing" is left up to each reader to define. How it is defined, of course, could be very critical, and that would be a great excuse for another poll on the same topic.

I think we can assume that once we accept "dancing" per se in the church, today's view of appropriate dancing will not be tomorrow's view of dancing. It will change, and not necessarily in ways that many people want.

[John317]

(And you have not accounted for David's response which far from disputing what Michal said, seems consistent with the possibility that she was correct, by implication agreeing with her and taking it a step further.)

This is turning out to be an interesting discussion about David's dancing.

Let's read several translations of the verses in question:

1) Contemporary English Version:

20 David went home so he could ask the LORD to bless his family. But Saul's daughter Michal went out and started yelling at him. "You were really great today!" she said. "You acted like a dirty old man, dancing around half-naked in front of your servants' slave-girls."

21David told her, "The LORD didn't choose your father or anyone else in your family to be the leader of his people. The LORD chose me, and I was celebrating in honor of him. 22I'll show you just how great I can be! I'll even be disgusting to myself. But those slave-girls you talked about will still honor me!" 23 Michal never had any children.

NOTE: Observe the disconnect between Michal's words and the actual event. Is David agreeing that he's been acting like a dirty old man and dancing around half-naked?

2) Holman Christian Standard Bible--

20 When David returned [home] to bless his household, Saul's daughter Michal came out to meet him. "How the king of Israel honored himself today!" she said. "He exposed himself today in the sight of the slave girls of his subjects like a vulgar person would expose himself."

21 David replied to Michal, "I was dancing before the LORD who chose me over your father and his whole family to appoint me ruler over the LORD's people Israel. I will celebrate before the LORD, 22 and I will humble myself even more and humiliate myself. I will be honored by the slave girls you spoke about." 23 And Saul's daughter Michal had no child to the day of her death.

3) New Century Version--

20 David went back to bless the people in his home, but Saul's daughter Michal came out to meet him. She said, "With what honor the king of Israel acted today! You took off your clothes in front of the servant girls of your officers like one who takes off his clothes without shame!"

21 Then David said to Michal, "I did it in the presence of the Lord. The Lord chose me, not your father or anyone from Saul's family. The Lord appointed me to be over Israel. So I will celebrate in the presence of the Lord. 22 Maybe I will lose even more honor, and maybe I will be brought down in my own opinion, but the girls you talk about will honor me!"

23 And Saul's daughter Michal had no children to the day she died.

NOTE: Michal is being sarcastic: "How great the king was today!" she says.

David replies with sarcasm: "I'll even be disgusting to myself. If you think that was bad, just wait." But we would be wrong to suppose that David is confessing that he's exposed himself shamelessly like Michal claims.

In fact, David denies Michal's accusation that he disgraced himself in front of the women. David says God chose to honor him above everyone in her family, and he says the women will also honor him; and by saying this, David clearly is not suggesting that God and the women honor a man who has shamefully exposed himself. Quite the contrary.

David is denying the truth of Michal's estimate of David. He is saying that her idea of him is completely wrong. He is NOT agreeing with her. He's surely not bragging that he will expose his manhood even more than he did already.

David did not take his clothes off without shame, and David was never naked before the women of Israel, although that's evidently how Michal viewed David's actions. Instead, he wore the clothes of the priests, a linen ephod, the whole time he was "dancing before the Lord."

A description of the linen ephod:

Quote:

The Ephod is the apron-like garment worn by the high priest. It was made in four colours: blue, purple, scarlet and the white of the fine linen. These are the same colours that can be seen at the Door to the Outer Court, the Door to the Sanctuary and in the Veil; they refer to Christ as He is revealed in the four gospels. There is an important additional feature of the Ephod, though: gold thread (cut from gold plate) was interwoven with the other colours (Exodus 39:3). Gold is not only precious, it implies 'of God, divine and heavenly'.

OK, whatcha think, Tom-- or anyone?