1. Introduction
Up until relatively recently, when missionaries brought Christianity to cultures which practiced dancing, they discouraged, or even forbade, Christian converts to dance. Even someone like Bishop William Vincent Lucas, who earned fame in the early 1900s as a proponent of "nativizing" Christian rites in what is now Tanzania, recognized dancing as part of "normal African life" but only discussed dancing as something allowed (with restrictions) outside the church without seeming to consider the possibility of dancing within the church as part of worship.[1] Nevertheless, with the rise of Pentecostalism as well as a greater openness to enculturation, in many locations in the world dancing has become more central in church life and worship. While the practice of dancing among Christians has risen, a carefully constructed and robust theological basis for dancing has been slow to develop among evangelical Protestants.
Considering the role which dancing plays in many cultures, even global theologians can have a surprising reluctance to discuss it. For example, Kunhiyop states that "an examination of worship in the Bible reveals that the components of worship include . . . dance" but does not give any scriptural or theological justification for that claim, and indeed does not mention dancing in worship again in his book.[2] This contributes to a division between academic theology[3] and a "lay" theology which represents the theology of the people.
On one level, every person is a theologian because they implicitly or explicitly hold beliefs about God. However, there is a strong Christian tradition that goes beyond this simple claim to connecting every Christian as a theologian due to their worship. Evagrius of Ponticus reflects this tradition when he states that "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian."[4] Similarly, C.S. Lewis describes Christian trinitarian theology as starting when "an ordinary simple Christian kneels down to say his prayers."[5] Worship is one way the theology of the people both expresses itself and disciples those who worship. Since the earliest days of Christianity, worship functioned both as a source of the people's theology as well as an action of the people shaped by theology.[6] People's theology is thus being shaped by their worship in both churches where dancing occurs and where it does not occur, often with little biblical or theological reflection on how it is or should be shaped.
Because of the importance of worship in theology, this article seeks to provide a theology of dancing operating as a subset of a theology of worship, which itself is grounded in a biblical theology of God and humanity. First, it will briefly explore a framework for contextualization as well as competing theologies of worship (§1) followed by a sample of ways dance has been grounded in anthropology (§2). Then it will begin to construct its own framework of dance grounded in an anthropology of worship by establishing worship as part of a gift-giving economy of God (§3). Drawing on biblical data, it will then situate dance as part of worship within that divine gift-giving economy (§4). The article will close with a few suggestions of when and how dance may be incorporated into worship in the global church (§5).
2. Dance and Contextualization
One approach to constructing a theology of dance is to approach it missiologically. This approach focuses on the appropriateness and limits of cultural contextualization. Christians within a culture which has a tradition of dancing, either missionary "outsiders" or native "insiders," work through a process of contextualization in order to determine whether and how a church should appropriate local cultural forms of dance. One common framework is Hiebert's critical contextualization model which has four steps: (1) exegesis of the culture, (2) exegesis of Scripture, (3) critical evaluation and response, and (4) creating new contextualized practices.[7]
As part of the step "exegesis of Scripture," contextualizing worship has to contend with two distinct Protestant approaches to worship: (1) the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) commonly seen among Reformed and some Anabaptist groups[8] and (2) the Normative Principle of Worship (NPW) commonly seen among Lutheran, Anglican, and some other Protestant groups.[9] Both approaches seek to biblically answer the question of how one is supposed to worship God in a corpo-ate ecclesiastical context. Both agree on two basic principles: (1) if God explicitly commands that something happen within corporate ecclesiastical worship, then do it; (2) if God forbids something, then do not do it. The two approaches disagree on practices that do not fit into those two categories. The NPW (3) allows practices determined by godly wisdom if it supports the peace and unity of the church; the RPW (3) forbids the practice unless it can be supported through NT examples or theological inference drawn from Scripture.[10] While each group might be, broadly speaking, following Hiebert's four steps, the interpretation and extent of what happens in those steps might differ between the groups. However, whether one takes a Regulative approach or a Normative approach (and this article will primarily argue from a Normative approach, though one need not necessarily agree with that approach to benefit from the arguments below), a robust contextualization cannot rest on a naïve or shallow reading of biblical texts which simply use the word "dance." A fuller exploration of how dance and worship is needed, particularly one that functions based on a theological anthropology situated within God's gift-giving economy throughout the biblical story.
3. Worship, Dance, and Theological Anthropology
A theological anthropology both shapes and is shaped by how missiologists commonly view dancing. Ferch's examination of evangelical efforts to contextualize dancing in Yupik culture illustrates the underlying anthropology of many missiologists.[11] Ferch mentions the work of two evangelical Yupiks, Cynthia Pete and Dale Smith. At the risk of oversimplifying their arguments, both represent evangelical Yupik attempts to justify dance in Christian worship by grounding it in an anthropology which sees human creativity and culture as corruptible but foundationally good.
Cynthia Pete argues that dancing is grounded in human creativity, which comes from having been created in the image of God.[12] This bases dancing in worship on a theological anthropology that sees human creativity as ipso facto good. The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) would deny that creativity in worship is always good and that creativity alone justifies a practice.[13] The Normative Principle of Worship (NPW) can also be sensitive to the complexities of creativity within a church's worship service. For example, Christians from both a RPW and NPW background criticized a church which, in 2024, kicked a Bible off the stage into the audience as part of a "Super Bowl of Preaching" series which used various visuals and skits to creatively use "middle school humor, really great music and some good old-fashioned smack talk . . . [to draw out] spiritual truths and realities . . . from sports."[14]
Dale Smith starts from a slightly different anthropology, "We Cup'ig must harness our traditions and culture . . . we must keep our identity as God had intended . . . we must continue to praise him through our culture . . . through our traditional dancing!"[15] Here Smith justifies dancing in worship on a theological anthropology which sees cultural distinctives as ipso facto good. Praise occurs through culture. Not only does God divinely intend that humanity be expressed in various cultures, but, Smith argues, even specific cultures and cultural practices are divinely intended. Smith assumes that culture created by humans is an inherent justification to use that culture in worshipping God. Based on Smith's logic, a culture with a tradition of dancing refusing to worship God in dance is to go against God's intention for what it means to be human. However, as noted by the Nairobi Statement on Worship and Culture, which represents NPW, "some components of every culture are sinful, dehumanizing, and contradictory to the values of the Gospel" and "need critique and transformation."[16]
Such missiological reflections are helpful in that they recognize the goodness of human diversity in both creativity and culture. However, such arguments also seem ripe for slippery slope arguments. If dancing is a valid ecclesiastical worship due to creativity or culture, should Brazilian church services involve a football match or American church services a shopping experience? One can accept that you can do "all for the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31) while still admitting that that alone does not justify accepting a practice into the congregational worship of the gathered church.
But missiologists have also already provided tools that can provide a firmer foundation for dancing. In Hiebert's explanation of his second step, "Exegesis of Scripture," he argues for the necessity of "metacultural"[17] and "metatheological"[18] frameworks. This article represents one attempt at establishing a metacultural, metatheological framework for dancing from which cultural applications can be made that (1) are faithful to a theological anthropology and (2) provide a unifying theme which could potentially unite the biblical "proof-texts" in a way that is respectful of the historical, cultural, and biblical context of the passages. As an attempt to construct a metacultural, metatheological framework for dancing, what I present below could provide a basis for discussion across cultures and theologies of worship. To do so, instead of grounding dancing in an anthropology of humans as cultural creatures as in previous attempts, this article will ground dancing in an anthropology of humans as worshipping creatures.
4. Worship and the Gift-Giving Economy of God
A more fruitful avenue for grounding dance in theology is to situate it within an anthropology which sees humanity as worshipping creatures. This focuses dancing within a theology of worship grounded in both a theology of God as well as a theology of humanity. Dancing is thus situated within the Trinity's relationship with creation, and especially with humanity.[19] The focus of a theology of dance within worship becomes a relational anthropology focusing on humanity's relationship with God in creation and recreation.
James Torrance famously defined worship as:
[O]ur participation through the Spirit in the Son's communion with the Father, in his vicarious life of worship and intercession. It is our response to our Father for all that he has done for us in Christ. It is our self-offering in body, mind, and spirit in response to the one true offering made for us in Christ, our response of gratitude to God's grace, our sharing by grace in the heavenly intercession of Christ.[20]
Throughout that quote, Torrance emphasizes worship as response: it is a response to our Father, a response to the offering made by Christ, a response of gratitude to God's grace. Other definitions of worship also highlight humanity's response to God's gifts.[21] For example, the Nairobi Statement on Worship and Culture, which is considered one of the foundational texts of ethnodoxology, begins by defining worship as when "we celebrate together God's gracious gifts of creation and salvation and are strengthened to live in response to God's grace."[22] This response causes the other main theme of Torrance's definition of worship: participation or sharing in the inner-trinitarian communion.
In this theology of worship, God starts the relationship as a gift-giver. The relationship is strengthened by the worshipper responding to the given gifts with worship. Flipping the formula around and starting with the worshipper would carry the threat of unconscious liturgical Pelagianism: worship becomes a human action divorced from grace.[23] To keep worship from being Pelagian, one must start not with the worshipper, but with God and his gracious acts through Christ. It is important that worship takes its place within God's gift-giving economy as humanity's "response of gratitude" to who God is and what he has done.[24]
Worship as a response follows a pattern for worship established in the OT and carried through the NT. This pattern includes various expressions: worship explicitly commanded by God, worship not explicitly commanded by God but accepted by God, individuals worshipping, corporate worshipping outside the context of the temple or church, and corporate worshipping within the context of the temple or church. The pattern of worship as response to God as gift-giver undergirds all of these. The pattern also includes pre-Mosaic worship, Mosaic worship, and post-resurrection worship, demonstrating a continuity of the pattern throughout the canon.
For example, Noah built an altar and offered sacrifices as a response to God's gracious act of saving him and his family through the flood (Gen 8:20). Abram built an altar as a response to the promises God made to him (Gen 12:7). While journeying from Egypt to the Promised Land, the people would worship whenever they saw God graciously bestowing his presence on them (Exod 33:9–11). God specifically commanded the people, once in the land, to praise God for his gracious act of bringing them into the land (Deut 8).[25] Post-exile, the assembled people of Israel responded to a recounting of God's actions throughout Israel's history in worship with prayers, vows, confession of sin, and other actions (Neh 9–10). In addition, when individuals praise God or told others to praise God, it was almost always a result of specific actions God had done. For example, Abraham's servant bows his head and worships God for God's specific action of answering his prayer and leading him to Abraham's relatives (Gen 24:26–27, 48). In Ruth, the women praise God for God's specific action of enabling Ruth to have a son who redeemed Naomi (Ruth 4:13–15).[26] Major festivals such as Passover (Exod 12:17) and Firstfruits (Lev 23:10) were annual, communal worship events commanded by God and grounded in God's past and current actions.
This OT pattern of a worshipful response to God and his work is kept in the NT. Like worship in the OT, worship in the NT occurs in many different contexts: individual, corporate, with and without an explicit command by God. The shepherds corporately "glorify and praise God because of what they had heard and seen" in direct response to God's actions in the incarnation (Luke 2:18). When John's baptism is first introduced in the Gospels, it is seen as a worshipful response to God placed in the context of God's promises to end the exile of his people (Matt 3:1–3; Mark 1:1–4; Luke 3:4–6; John 1:23; cf. Isa 40).[27] It was a response by humans to God's eschatological promise of the end of the exile caused by sin and the corresponding arrival of the eternal kingdom of God. The blind man worships Jesus after he is healed and Jesus proclaims his identity (John 9:35–38). The disciples worship Jesus after the proclamation of the gospel and the promise of the coming Spirit (Luke 24:44–52). Paul exhorts the Athenians to worship God based on God's actions in creation (Acts 17:23–29). In both the OT and NT, individuals pray to ask God to fulfill his promises and thus depend upon God's gift of making promises as well as his gift in fulfilling his promises.[28]
Later, in the epistles, this pattern of worshipful response that was introduced in the narratives of the Gospels and Acts is explicitly taught. Rom 12:1 connects the gospel from Rom 1–11 to the demanded response of worship: "worship" that is a "logical" or "reasonable" response (logizomai) to God's manifold mercies.[29] The eschatological worship of Jesus in Phil 2:10–11 is based on Jesus giving himself in the incarnation and cross in Phil 2:6–9. Finally, the heavenly visions of creation's communal worship in Revelation fit this pattern: in Rev 4, creation's worship of the Father is a direct response to his gift of creation (Rev 4:9–11) while in Rev 5, creation's worship of the Son is a direct response to his gift of new creation (Rev 5:8–10).
Viewed in this way, worship is God's created and proper means for humanity to relate to God. Irenaeus argued that in creation, God made humanity "not as if He stood in need of man but that He might have [someone] upon whom to confer his benefits."[30] However, at the same time, "now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created."[31] This unequal gift-giving where God gives humanity needed gifts and humanity responds with its own unneeded gift of worship forms the basis for God's relationship with humanity and is a consistent pattern of worship throughout both the OT and NT.
5. Dancing and the Gift-Giving Economy of God
Given the general framework of worship as a gift exchange between God and humanity, does dance fit within this framework? Three elements of dancing both situate it within a larger framework of worship as well as indicate possible contributions to Christian worship: (1) dancing is a God-pleasing expression of thankfulness by God's people for what he has done; relatedly, (2) dancing both affirms and intensifies the response of joy by God's people for what he has done; (3) dancing as a gift to God pleases God because it is a gift to God which uses the creational gifts God has bestowed.[32] These three elements comprise both the descending and ascending nature of dance. The descending nature is what is given by God, the ascending nature is what humanity gives to God. Below are three observations regarding dancing within the divine gift-giving economy as Scripture reveals it, the first two about its ascending nature and the third about its descending nature.
First, dancing is an expression of thankfulness by God's people for what he has done. This is the overwhelming rationale for dancing in the biblical text. After God saved the Israelites from Pharoah's pursuing army at the Red Sea, all the women responded with thankfulness by corporately dancing (Exod 15:20). Dancing to welcome returning armies, such as in Judg 11:34 or 1 Sam 18:6–7, demonstrate thankfulness to God's victory in holy war.[33]
Perhaps the most famous dance in the Bible also occurred in the context of thanksgiving. In 2 Sam 6, David began to bring the ark to its final resting place in Jerusalem. This action is accompanied by the "dancing" not only of David but corporately of "all the house of Israel" (2 Sam 6:5).[34] After Uzzah's death (2 Sam 6:6–7), the ark had remained outside of Jerusalem. When David finally became convinced that it was safe to bring the ark into Jerusalem, he went "joyfully" (2 Sam 6:12) and brought the ark to the City of David "dancing with all his strength" in a linen ephod. When asked to justify his dancing, David connected it to a celebratory response to God's actions, the Lord "chose me . . . and appointed me as leader over the Lord's people Israel" (2 Sam 6:21). While not conclusive, this passage has several important elements: e.g., David leading others in worship (2 Sam 6:12–19), sacrificing (2 Sam 6:18), and wearing priestly garments (2 Sam 6:14), which suggest that David's dancing should be seen within the context of a priest-led corporate worship service that was acceptable to God.[35]
Second, dancing is not just connected to thanksgiving but also to joy. Already this connection is seen in the story of David dancing. Elsewhere in the Bible, the connection between dancing and joy is made even more explicit. Joy is closely related to thanksgiving, both of which are appropriate when faced with the acts and person of God, and both of which often occur in tandem. In Ps 30:11–12, God's help to the psalmist "turned my mourning into dancing; you have taken off my sackcloth and clothed me with joy . . . O Lord my God, I will give thanks to you forever." Just as sackcloth was the physical manifestation of mourning, dancing was the physical manifestation of joy. Dancing in verse 11 is further connected to "praise" and giving "thanks forever" in verse 12. Dancing expresses and intensifies joy which leads to the psalmist offering God the gift of thanksgiving forever. Similarly, in Eccl 3:4, Qohelet parallels weeping and mourning with laughing and dancing. Just as weeping and mourning are physical manifestations of sorrow, laughing and dancing are physical manifestations of joy.[36]
Dancing is so closely connected with joy that Jesus uses dancing in the parable of the prodigal son to illustrate the joy of the father in the return of the son: the celebration of his return included "music and dancing" (Luke 15:25). The appearance of dancing in a parable about salvation is especially fitting considering the role of dancing in Jer 31. Best known for containing the promise of a new covenant, Jer 31 also contains two future promises involving dancing, in verse 4, "again I will build you and you shall be built o virgin Israel! Again you shall take your tambourines, go forth in the dance of the merrymakers"; and in verse 13, "Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance . . . I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow." Throughout the entire passage, God makes promise after promise of a future end to Israel's exile. The appearance of dancing in the midst of the eschatological promise of the end of the exile and the inauguration of the new covenant strengthens the enduring appropriateness of dance for the church as a fitting response within God's gift-giving economy. Together, Luke 15 and Jer 31 provide two pieces of evidence, through parable and prophecy, of God's expectation that his people would respond to his gift of salvation with joy and thanksgiving expressed through dance. In both of these passages, the plural—the guests in Luke 15 and all of Israel and specifically the young women in Jer 31—hint at the appropriateness of dance as a corporate response, as opposed to an individualistic one, to the new covenant and even the salvation of the individual.
Regarding the ascending nature of dancing as a worshipful response to God, dancing is not just a natural expression of joy and thanksgiving, it is also a divinely approved expression of joy and thanksgiving. Several psalms suggest divine approval to dancing in worship outside the temple. Psalm 149:2–3 commands "Let Israel be glad in its Maker; let the children of Zion rejoice in their King. Let them praise his name with dancing." This joy manifesting in dance springs from the prior actions of God, especially in God's victory over his enemies (Ps 149:4, 7–9), forming a poetic example of the dancing after victories in battle elsewhere in the OT. Likewise, the book of Psalms ends with Ps 150, which gives a list of ways the psalmist commands the people to praise God "for his mighty deeds." In verses 3–5, all the ways the psalmist commands the people to praise God are via musical instrument except for verse 4, "Praise him with tambourine and dance." The psalmist expects "everything that has breath" (Ps 150:6) to dance.[37] Dancing is seen as an appropriate and divinely pleasing way of expressing thankfulness and joy for the gifts of God.[38] While there is an "already-not-yet" aspect to joy in the new covenant, the NT contains multiple examples of the appropriateness of communal joy in the churches (Acts 13:48–51; Rom 14:7; 15:13, 32; 2 Cor 2:3, 8:2; Col 1:11; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 1:8). If dancing is an appropriate physical expression of joy in the new covenant and churches are expected to live in joy, dancing within a church would be a fitting reflection of that joy.[39]
Third, now related to the descending nature of dancing, one of the reasons dancing is pleasing and appropriate to God is that it is a gift to God which uses the creational gifts God has bestowed. Early Christian writers, especially those focused on combating the negative view of the body and physical nature in Docetism and Gnosticism, emphasized the necessary physicalness of proper worship to God, usually using the example of the Eucharist.[40] For example, in Ep. Smyr. 7:1, Ignatius criticizes the Docetists for abstaining from the Eucharist due to its physicalness, drawing a connection to their rejection of the physicality of the incarnation. Irenaeus likewise in Adv. Haer. 4.18.5 criticizes Gnostics by explaining his Eucharistic theology, "For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit." Due to the incarnation, matter is eternally united to the Godhead, having "deified our flesh forever" and thereby elevating it.[41] Just as in the Eucharist humanity offers to God the gifts that God first gave—the wheat and grapes given additional meaning through the incarnation—so too in dance humanity offers God the gifts that God first gave, the human body, given additional meaning through the incarnation. Dancing "announc[es] consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit."[42] In order to properly announce this union, dance cannot be divorced from the results of the union of flesh and Spirit, such as the body being a temple (1 Cor 3:16) or the growth of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22); a theology of flesh and Spirit united must inform decisions about the specific forms of dancing appropriate to worship.[43] While a specific dance can demonstrate joy and thankfulness for all kinds of specific gifts that God has given, above all it demonstrates joy and thankfulness for the incarnation, the cross, and Jesus's resurrection, while looking forward to the future resurrection of the body.[44]
6. Incorporating Dance into Worship in the Global Church: Some Suggestions
If dance fits into a biblical-theological understanding of worship and functions as an appropriate way for all God's people express their joy and thankfulness in response to who he is and what he has done, what might some appropriate expressions of dancing in the life of a local church be?[45] While not intending to be an exhaustive list nor a list of necessary times for dancing, depending upon a church's tradition several natural points arise during a normal worship service where dancing might be especially appropriate. The points below focus on worship in the church, following the biblical data of dancing as primarily a corporate event (Exod 15:20; Judg 21:21; 1 Sam 18:6–7; 2 Sam 6:5; Pss 149:2–3; 150:4; Jer 31:4; Luke 15:25).[46]
1. After the confession of sin and upon the proclamation of God's faithfulness to forgive confessed sins as an expression of joy and thankfulness for God's work in forgiving sins in Christ.
2. After the preaching of God's word as an applicational response of thanksgiving for God's revelation.
3. Accompanying the congregation's proclamation of God's word and the gospel through congregational singing in response to who God is and what he has done as expressed in the words of the song.
4. After the receiving of the eucharistic elements as a response of joy and thanksgiving for the work of Christ.
For some, identifying a specific portion of the service where dancing might be appropriate might seem to go against the spontaneity of dance and a worshipper's response to God.[47] However, this creates too much of an unnecessary chasm between planning and spontaneity. Take, for example, applause. In an American context, applause can occur after a good speech or performance. No one necessarily goes into a performance intending to give applause, but once the necessary criteria are fulfilled (a good performance), applause by the audience naturally occurs. In a similar way, once the necessary criteria are fulfilled in worship (God acting in a way that provokes thanksgiving and joy), dancing by the congregation naturally occurs.[48]
The above suggestions attempt to connect dance with specific expressions of joy and thankfulness by the congregation in order that it might be clear to the dancers the specific content of the person and actions of God to which they are expressing joy or giving thanks. This might help guard against some potential abuses of dancing in churches whereby dancing becomes an end to itself or becomes divorced from its place within the framework of a theology of worship which leads to syncretism or mere entertainment.
7. Conclusion
Frame, in explaining the allowance of dancing from a modified Regulative Principle framework, argues that dance is an extension of communication, that people communicate not just with words but with body language.[49] Building off that argument, in various contexts dance often communicates lust, lack of self-control, or belief in human ability to manipulate or control creation. But dance being used to communicate unbiblical content does not invalidate it as a mode of communication. The fact that out of a tongue comes both blessing and cursing does not mean that one should never speak so as to guard against cursing; rather, let the tongue be properly used. In similar fashion, sinful uses of dance do not provide an argument against dancing but an argument against the improper use of dance. In this article, I have positioned dance as being grounded in an anthropology which sees humanity as dependent upon the gifts of God. Humanity then uses these gifts that it has received to give gifts back to God in worship, nurturing an ongoing relationship with God—a gift-giving economy. Dance, as part of this gift-giving economy, depends on the gift of physical creation and uses that gift to physicality return to God a gift of thanksgiving and joy. Dance is not merely a cultural expression but a creational expression, grounded on humans' creation as worshipping creatures in relation to God and the gospel.
[1] William Vincent Lucas, Christianity and Native Rites (London: Central Africa House, 1950), 18–19.
[2] Samuel Waje Kunhiyop, African Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 162; cf. Conrad Mbewe, God's Design for the Church: A Guide for African Pastors and Ministry Leaders (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 125–28, 130, 132.
[3] In academic theology, dancing most often comes up as a metaphor for the Trinity, especially making the connection with the doctrine of perichoresis. See, for example, Paul Fiddes, "Relational Trinity: Radical Perspective," in Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, ed. Jason Sexton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 175; Catherine LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 271–74; Karen Baker-Fletcher, Dancing with God: The Trinity from a Womanist Perspective (St. Louis: Chalice, 2006). As noted by Riyako Cecilia Hikota, none of these theologians attempts to connect their use of dance as a theological metaphor to the actual concrete dancing of humans in worship ("Beyond Metaphor: The Trinitarian Perichōrēsis and Dance," Open Theology 8 (2022): 50–51.
[4] Evagrius of Ponticus, On Prayer 61. Often expressed in the Latin phrase lex orandi, lex credenda which is commonly seen as a reformulation of "Ecclesia uniformiter celebrantur, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" (they are celebrated uniformly throughout the church so that the law of belief is the law of supplication). Prosper of Aquitaine, De gratia Dei et libero arbitrio voluntatis 8.
[5] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2002; original publication 1952), 163.
[6] From its earliest days, Christian worship has provided a ground for theological reflection and argumentation: e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Ep. Smyr. 7; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.2; Basil, On the Holy Spirit 10, 29. For a brief overview of the history of the interplay between theology and worship see Kevin Irwin, "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi—Origins and Meaning: State of the Question," Liturgical Ministry 11 (2002): 57–69. The ambiguity of the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi ("the law of prayer [is] the law of belief") allows both (1) that the law of worship forms the law of belief but also (2) that the law of belief forms the law of worship. This multidirectional interplay between worship and belief is seen in Basil, On the Holy Spirit 1.
[7] Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 88–91. For Hiebert's influence on the ethnodoxology movement see Scott Aniol, et al., "'Worship from the Nations': A Survey and Preliminary Analysis of the Ethnodoxology Movement," Artistic Theologian 3 (2015): 8.
[8] Westminster Confession of Faith 21.1; Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 22.
[9] Book of Concord 10.2, 7; 39 Articles of Religion 20.
[10] Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6.
[11] John Ferch, "Towards an Indigenous Theology of Worship in Alaska: A Study of Recent Efforts to Contextualize the Art of Yupik Eskimo Dancing," in Majority World Theologies: Theologizing from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Ends of the Earth, ed. Allen Yeh and Tite Tiénou (Pasadena: William Carey, 2018), 184–200.
[12] Ferch, "Towards an Indigenous Theology of Worship in Alaska," 194. Roch Ntankeh goes even further by arguing that culture's music, instruments, and methods are all pleasing to God because "all that the Lord created is good and nothing must be rejected (1 Tim. 4:4)" ("Culturally Appropriate Worship: My Story as a Cameroonian Pastor," in Worship and Mission for the Global Church, ed. James Krabill [Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2013], 94).
[13] John Calvin, Institutes 4.10.24.
[14] Ian Giatti, "Ohio megachurch pastor kicks Bible off stage during Super Bowl Sunday service," Christian Post, February 13, 2024, accessed April 10, 2024, https://www.christianpost.com/news/ohio-megachurch-kicks-bible-off-stage-during-super-bowl-sunday-se.html.
[15] Dale Smith quoted in Ferch, "Indigenous Theology," 198.
[16] Nairobi Statement on Worship and Culture 4.1. Aniol gives a similar critique when he writes, "Ethnodoxologists appear to assume that the fact that a particular people group has created and cultivated musical forms is inherent justification of those forms in worship once people in that group come to faith in Christ . . . These biblical realities at least raise the possibility that what cultural and musical expressions are most natural to a newly converted people may not necessarily be good and right for Christian worship. Behavior in worship, like any other kind of Christian behavior, is something that must be taught and learned (1 Tim 3:15)" ("Worship from the Nations," 20).
[17] A metacultural framework arises out of cultures but also stands above cultures, providing the necessary common ground between cultures so that there can be real communication between different cultures. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 87–92.
[18] Similar to a metacultural framework, a metatheological framework arises out of theology but also stands above theology, providing the necessary common ground so that there can be real communication between different theological positions such as, in this case, RPW and NPW. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 93–103.
[19] Roberta King states that for Africans "to sing is to theologize (talk about God) [and] to dance is to witness to his goodness and testify to one's relationship with him" ("Beginnings: Music in the African Church," in Roberta King, ed., Music in the Life of the African Church [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008], 7).
[20] James B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 15 (emphasis added).
[21] See D.A. Carson, ed., Worship by the Book (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 26; Allen Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2006), 50; Daniel Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 6; Ron Man, Let Us Draw Near: Biblical Foundations of Worship (Eugene: Cascade, 2023), 23.
[22] Nairobi Statement on Worship and Culture 1.1.
[23] Or, to mix Augustinian metaphors, a kind of liturgical Donatism would result whereby the value and efficacy of human worship is based on the worshiper.
[24] There is the potential for fruitful interchange between Torrance's view of worship and more recent NT scholarship on grace. John Barclay's treatment of "offerings" in 2 Cor 8–9 lays some potential groundwork for such interchange. See Paul and the Power of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 132–36.
[25] Andrew Hill argues that God's actions in the exodus formed the basis for all of Israel's worship of God (Deut 4:32-40): see "The Biblical Foundations of Christian Worship," in Worship and Mission for the Global Church, ed. James Krabill (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2013), 3.
[26] See also Exod 18:10; Judg 5; 1 Sam 25:32, 39; 1 Kgs 8:15, 56; Ezra 3:10–11.
[27] For the early church's identification of Jesus's baptism as the basis of Christian baptism see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 115–16; Maxwell Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2007), 51–66.
[28] Cf. Luke 22:39–46; John 12:27–28; Acts 4:29–30; 8:14–17; Eph 3:14–21. Gary Millar, Calling on the Name of the Lord: A Biblical Theology of Prayer (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2016), 18.
[29] Douglas Moo, The Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 766–68.
[30] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.14.1.
[31] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18.6. For a more detailed look at how Irenaeus understands worship within the gift-giving economy of God see Ryan Scruggs, "Giving Gifts to the One Who Needs Nothing: Irenaeus on the Ends of Eucharistic Oblations," Studia Patristica 109 (2021): 119–29.
[32] In a survey of dancing in the OT, John Eaton only identifies three biblical passages (Job 21:11–12; Eccl 3:4; Song 6:13) as being unclear enough not to be able to identify the circumstances of the dancing: see "Dancing in the OT," The Expository Times 86 (1975): 136. In my own review of those passages, I identify only Job 21:11–12 and Song 6:13 as too unclear to clearly fit into the pattern of dancing in worship that is being argued here.
[33] For dancing after victory as worship, see Eaton, "Dancing," 136. Judith 15:12–14 represents an intertestamental example of Israelite armies thanking God for victory via dance.
[34] For translating as "dance" see HALOT, s.v. "קחש."
[35] Nicholas Majors, The King-Priest in Samuel: A Messianic Motif (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2023), 158–60; Daniel Diffey, "David and the fulfilment of 1 Samuel 2:35: faithful priest, sure house, and a man after God's own heart," The Evangelical Quarterly 85 (2013): 101–2.
[36] A similar parallel occurs in Lam 5:15, Matt 11:17, and Luke 7:32.
[37] Psalm 87:7 might suggest the presence of dancers as a regular part of approved temple worship (Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 260). Some commentators suggest the dancers are not part of the temple worship but are part of the procession either into Jerusalem (Marvin Tate, Psalms 51–100 [Dallas: Word, 1990], 392) or into the temple (Daniel Estes, Psalms 73–150: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [Nashville: B&H, 2019], 67). Nancy deClaissé-Walford et al. thinks the text is too corrupt to determine its meaning: see Nancy deClaissé-Walford, Rolf Jacobson, and Beth Tanner, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 666.
[38] For seeing more continuity between OT and NT worship and thus the appropriateness of the Psalm's exhortation for NT worship, see Block, For the Glory of God, 3–8.
[39] While there is not an abundance of evidence for dancing in the early church, there potentially are enough strands to argue for a continuation of dancing in the post-apostolic church. E.g., Andrew McGowan suggests "an intellectually serious group engaged in a ritual [dance] that reflects or creates a coherence between the body and the inner self responding to the God encountered in Christ" (Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical, and Theological Perspective [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014], 129). McGowan notes several elements in early Christian dancing that correspond to suggestions in the present article: (1) dance as a response to God's actions; (2) dance as part of a communal (eucharistic?) meal; and (3) dance associated with the resurrection of the body (131–32).
[40] For a more modern understanding of the physical in worship, see W. David O. Taylor, A Body of Praise: Understanding the Role of Our Physical Bodies in Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023).
[41] John of Damascus, Against Those Who Decry Holy Images 1.
[42] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4.18.5.
[43] After all, God rejected approved forms of worship in both the OT (Isa 66:2–4) and NT (1 Cor 11:27–32) due to the people's sin.
[44] Setting aside Ratzinger's historical reconstruction, his argument that dancing in Christian worship originated from "Gnostic-Docetic circles" represents the exact opposite of what I understand as a proper Christian understanding of the relationship between the body, dancing, and worship. It does not replace the cross (as Razinger argues the Gnostic-Docetics tried to do) but is a human response to the reality of the cross. Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000), 198.
[45] If a person holding to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) remains unconvinced by previous arguments about the biblical warrant to allow dancing, perhaps viewing dancing as a "circumstance" of other accepted "elements" of public worship might be helpful in what follows. Uzukwu argues that all cultures use bodily gestures to accompany music, and in Africa those bodily gestures are dance. Perhaps Uzukwu's insight could provide the beginning of an argument for seeing dance as a "circumstance" for all sorts of public worship which people committed to a RPW acknowledge as having a component of bodily gestures attached to them: e.g., prayer, singing, preaching, receiving the Eucharist. See Elochukwu Uzukwu, Worship as Body Language: Introduction to Christian Worship: An African Orientation (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1989), 6; cf. Calvin, Institutes 4.10.30. The biblical evidence offered above would then be seen as demonstrating that dancing is a biblically allowed "circumstance" in public worship.
[46] An individual's joy and thanksgiving due, e.g., to an individualized work of God in the life of a Christian may start as an individual dance within a testimony before the congregation. It is entirely appropriate for the community to reflect and enhance that joy by joining in the dance, thereby showing the congregation's judgment that this is indeed a work of God that deserves to be received with thanksgiving and joy.
[47] Taylor approvingly cites a congregant who danced during the church service as "'of the moment' and 'for the moment' . . . purposeful but never coordinated to a precise point in the liturgy" (Body of Praise, 141).
[48] This does not imply that training isn't needed. A child might not understand that applause is an appropriate reaction to the performance, but through observing the crowd and desiring to participate in the crowd's actions, they are discipled into learning to applaud. Similarly, while people might not feel a natural impulse towards dancing—it might feel "forced"—through observing the congregation they can be discipled into learning to appropriately respond to God's gracious actions throughout the church service.
[49] John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth: A Refreshing Study of the Principles and Practice of Biblical Worship (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1996), 130. Cf. Frank Smith and David Lachman, "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R.J. Gore," The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005): 128–29, 132–33.
