Motion and meaning.

Rich Leonardi handily predicts that a bishop's pastoral visit to Africa will result in commentary praising liturgical dancing.  Then he posts a picture of silly American liturgical dancers.

Just because liturgical dance is silly here doesn't mean it isn't good in other places.  Conversely, the existence of truly worshipful liturgical dance in other countries, if it indeed exists, does not make it a good idea in American parishes (except maybe those composed largely of immigrants from places of the former type).

Liturgical dance done here doesn't spring from the heart of our culture as a genuine act of worship. It's imposed on us.

That's a big difference.

Nor do we recognize any kind of body motions that we could call "dance" as signifying any sacredness.

And it's not because "the church recognize[s]" that "people were going to move their body and that was going to lead them into sin," as someone said once, and as Rich quotes them in another post.

We do have body motions that we recognize as sacred or that we invest with meaning. You can tell their authenticity in our cultural context by seeing where they are copied, outside of church, by people wanting to import an air of the sacred.

Think of the solemn procession (much used in civil ceremonies, graduations, etc). Think of the sign of the cross and its resemblance to, say, placing your hand over your heart to honor the flag. Think of the ringing of bells. Or rising from your seat in the presence of a respected person.

These aren't cultural signifiers of the sacred because they are used in church.  They are used in church because they signify the sacred.

Comments

[maivey3]

This is all so true. At my former church, there was a dance team made up of teenage girls who would dance along to CCM. While the music was OK at best, it made many in the congregation uncomfortable, especially the older men. It made me uneasy, as the only image it brought to my mind was the belly dancing scene in the movie Salome. With a tortured smile on my face, I would grin and bear it, but I felt a general sense of embarassment for the girls and the congregation. What's really ironic is that Southern Baptists 30 years ago were anti-dance, even ballroom dancing. I wonder what those old buzzards would think of the cheer-type moves being danced on the altar nowadays. It's definately not sacred, but a gimmick to involve the "young people". I'm not a legalist opposed to all movement - I've been known to bounce a bit while "happy", usually while singing hymns at home, though.

The sacred should evoke movement; a dance routine should not be forced into a sacred situation, such as a worship service. Similarly, just because you put Jesus' name on a pencil doesn't make it a sacred pencil.

[Amber]

I've been thinking about liturgical dance recently because of the reappearance of our liturgical dance troupe. They "perform" (for lack of a better term) during the Easter and Advent seasons and I can't figure them out. They don't do a particularly impressive job, but it seems very heart-felt. I think that they get something out of the experience, but I know I don't... other than an occasional case of stiffled giggles. I try to approach it seriously, but I just don't get it, and I don't find that it improves the Mass or the Liturgy. I do sometimes wonder what it is that they get out of it - they don't seem like people who are particularly interested in making a spectacle of themselves... they are just a nice group of middle aged women who enjoy getting up each week and waving scarves around in the same scripted motions.