Source: Verum Serum
Comments: Scott notes that Slice has decided to take a break from all-Rick-Warren-all-the-time coverage briefly to criticize a church that uses dance in its worship. He then proceeds to agree that modesty is important, but that there IS Biblical precedent in using dance to worship the Lord.
OK, Ingrid, we get the point. Anything that isnâ€™t like your church is bad, and anything that doesnâ€™t match up to your expectations is bad, and anyone who does things differently than you do is bad. And certainly, any church that is using dance in some way CANâ€™T be worshipping Biblically and CANâ€™T be using Scripture and the preaching of the Word properly. And it goes without saying that nobody who dances in church or who supports the use of dance would be prayerful in their Christian life.
Now obviously, we donâ€™t know what Davidâ€™s dancing looked like, nor do we know what kind of dancing Solomon had in mind in Ecclesiastes or what the Psalmist(s) had in mind when mentioning praising God with dance. BUTâ€¦we do know that dance is mentioned in a positive light and as one of the useful â€œtoolsâ€ for worship, praise and celebration.
But I guess, since dance isnâ€™t practiced in Ingridâ€™s â€œstodgyâ€ church, it shouldnâ€™t be practised in any form in any church.
[Scott replying in comments] She rails against contemporary worship and longs for the good olâ€™ hymns of her youth, but ignores that those hymns were railed against by the establishment and authorities of the day. When her favorite hymns were penned, those songs were called â€œhymns of worldly composureâ€ and were deemed man-centered because of the introduction of the human experience and first person perspective.
She freaks out about churches meeting in movie theaters, but ignores the fact that Charles Wesleyâ€™s church was called The Foundry because it met in an old, converted foundryâ€¦which again really bothered the establishment and authorities of the time who felt like such a building wasnâ€™t appropriate for the proper and respectful worship of God.
She and Ken spend the bulk of their time discussing the evils of Rick Warren, Rob Bell et al, but spend very little ink discussing how the fruit of Warrenâ€™s Saddleback church carries far more weight with it than does her feeble attempts at trying to point to something that is wrong with his theology. For the most part, they ignore the fruit (1000â€™s of baptisms, hundredâ€™s of home studies, 1000â€™s of church members going out and ministering to the needy, etc) and just try to cover it all with a lame characterization of the fruits as â€œsuspect conversions.â€