Folk Dance in Worship

Folk dances express the ethos of a culture in much the same way that music and poetry do. Shared cultural sentiments and beliefs take shape in folk dance patterns that can be learned with little difficulty. These dance styles can be used in worship with many members of the congregation participating.

Before examining the role of folk dance in worship, one must investigate the subject of folk dance, defining it, discovering its origins, and identifying its purposes. Most simply defined, folk dance is the dance of the folk or the common people. Dancers and scholars disagree as to what can actually be labeled folk dance.

Discussions dwell upon the confusion between such terms and concepts as “folk dance,” “primitive dance,” “ethnic dance,” and “stage dance” and on the distinction between folk dance and modern recreational forms of ballroom dancing. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Book 7 [1976 ed.], s.v. “Folk Dance,” 449)

Whereas some authorities do not differentiate between the terms ethnic dance and folk dance, the famous American dancer Ted Shawn does. Mr. Shawn believes: … ethnic dance subsumes folk dance as a subspecies. He considers pure, authentic and traditional racial, national, and folk dance to be “ethnic”; he calls the theatrical handling of them “ethnologic,” and he refers to the free use of these sources of creative raw material as “ethnological.” (Ibid.)

Folk dance, therefore, is the root out of which ethnic dancing grows and is the treasure that comprises the dance culture of a country. Walter Sorell agrees with this sentiment, reporting: … it may be difficult to draw an exact line between folk and ethnological dance, but the latter have developed a distinct traditional style, a technical terminology, and a clearly defined school of instruction. No longer done as a communal experience, they have become art dances executed for the enjoyment and edification of spectators. The ethnological dance was a folk dance first before it became the artistic expression of a race. (Walter Sorell, The Dance through the Ages [New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1967], 76)

Perhaps we could conclude that folk dance is the dance from which the art dance of a nation grows, both in technique and in spirit. Whether dance is professional or folk, John Martin proposes that both are outgrowths of “basic dance.”

To understand it is simplicity itself. Nature has so constituted us that movement is the medium in which we live our lives, not only in our internal physiological mechanisms but in our outward conduct as well.… For example, when we are worried we do not skip about the room hugging ourselves, and when we are startled by a sudden noise we do not walk the floor. The movements themselves actually have in them the essential nature of the emotional experience, even though we have not rationally directed them and they do not specifically “mean” anything.

It follows, then, that any emotional state tends to express itself in movements that may not be practically useful or in any way representational, but nevertheless reflect the specific character and quality of that emotional state. Working on this principle, consciously or unconsciously, dancers have evolved all kinds of emotional dances.… Thus, at the root of all these varied manifestations of dancing (and of countless other manifestations, as well) lies the common impulse to resort to movement to externalize states which we cannot externalize by rational means. This is basic dance. (John Martin, Book of the Dance [New York: Tudor Publishing, 1962], 7-8)

Although the basic dance may be a universal urge, it does not manifest itself in a universal form. Geography, climate, religion, and labor help to define a people’s dance. The occasions which inspire it, the traditions which define it, and the very passage of time itself, affect the ways in which people translate their lives into dance.

Let’s examine an important principle that transforms basic dance, the need to express oneself through movement, into folk dance, the specific dance common to a given group of people. God created humans to be receptively recreative. That is, to receive information from their environment and then to recreate or reform their environment in response to their perception of the data which they had received. This principle governs a human’s activities in all areas of life. A mother may hear the cry of the child in need of food, utilize the raw material in the refrigerator or pantry, and recreate the groceries into a meal. An entrepreneur perceives the need in the marketplace, gathers materials existing in one form, and reforms or recreates a new product to meet the demand. An artist, inspired by a sunset, takes the materials of oils and canvas to recreate and fashion a painting. Humans create things to bear the image they possess or the impressions that are impressed upon them. Richard Ritter defines this to be the process of the formation of art.

There are three great elements in every work of art: an object outside of the artist which is sensed or perceived; a relationship of some sort between that object and the artist; and an outward response to his perception on the part of the artist.… The third element—the response of the artist to his object, or to his perception of the object—produces the work of art itself. Art, then, is perception, relationship, and reaction. (Richard H. Ritter, The Arts of the Church [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1947], 3)

Culture is built as humans refashion the world around them. The word culture is derived from the Latin word colo and can be translated cultivate or inhabit. For example, people cultivate the soil, tilling and preparing the earth to recreate food for their need or to produce flora for beauty. This is called agriculture, the culture of the soil. Webster’s dictionary defines culture as the improvement, refinement, or development of study, training, and so on. Humankind continuously cultivates and inhabits the world around it, taking the raw materials of the world and building civilization.

The Bible tells us that humans are God’s image and workers: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:26, KJV)

God is creative and has made humans, his image, to be creative. God’s manner of construction is creating all things to bear His image. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1, KJV). Romans 1:20 affirms this truth by stating, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” James Jordan comments: Everything in creation, and the creation as a whole, points to God. Everything is a sign or symbol of God.… Man is the only symbol that is also a symbol-maker. He is inevitably so. He cannot help being so. He generates good symbols or bad ones, but he is never symbol-free. Man’s calling is to imitate God, on the creativity level. (James Jordan, Through New Eyes [Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988], 30-32)

This brings us to one closing comment along this line of thought. We have stated that humans perceive the environment and then build culture or art as a response to that perception. In other words, culture is developed based upon human beliefs. An affirmation of this can be found in the Latin word colo, the root word for our English word culture, which is also the root word for cult, or worship. The Bible affirms that the object which humans worship creates an imprint or image in them, which they in turn imprint upon their culture. Listen to Romans 1:21–25 from the perspective of this principle:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

As commented earlier, humans are receptively recreative. They are not originally creative. Only based upon that which they receive, do they create. If humans do not worship and serve God, thus stamping God’s image on their recreative activities, then the image of that which he does worship and serve will be reflected in their creations, their culture, their art, and their dance.

With the understanding of this principle, we return to the subject of folk dance. In the early beginnings of the dance of a nation or people, the dances reflect their worship and their beliefs about common areas of life. In his book The Dance Through the Ages, Walter Sorell comments on the early dance of humans:

With a primitive man on the level of primeval tribes, dance is synonymous with life in all its major aspects: love, work, and ritual. But in his mind, these three aspects are closely interrelated. For instance, the members of the Mexican Indian tribe Tarahumara knew only one word for dance and work. Almost everywhere dance and growth, i.e., fertility, were part of one and the same magic. And how inseparable the religious aspect from dancing is could not be better proved than through the natives along the Swan River in Africa who, when first introduced to the sacrament of communion, called it a dance. In the mind of primitive man, the borderline between the concrete and the symbolic is blurred. This is why in putting on a mask he tries to implant in himself another being or the spirit and magic of the god image. He sees the supernatural as a living force and needs to identify with it. Since early man had no other means with which to express himself and, above all, to communicate his “within-ness” than through movement, the concept of the dancing god has been in the foreground in many cultures.

No dancer in primitive society is a performing artist in our sense of the word, although in time many tribes began to have their professional dancers, too. For all ceremonies and feasts, they were as important as the priests are for our churches. They were held in great esteem and their tribes cared for them. They had nothing to do but to dance. (Walter Sorell, Dance Through the Ages, 14–15)

Whereas Eastern dance is basically focused on contemplation and idolization of god, Western dances, from the Renaissance period, moved away from their religious roots. Because the church during the Middle Ages embraced the gnostic belief that everything connected with the flesh was evil, people did not use the body and the dance to express the beliefs of the church. They did, nonetheless, dance; and their dance-focused upon “the causes of man’s [sic] inner conflicts in their relation to the world, but mainly as they reflect his being” (Ibid., 50).

Western dances became dramatic, conquering space, much in contrast to Eastern dancing. It is impossible for us to say one style of folk dance is right and another wrong or even to evaluate better or worse. All styles arose out of the inner need to express the nation’s beliefs or feelings in dance.

Because culture, art, and the dance of the folk reflect the beliefs of humans, these are subject to change as their beliefs change. For example, as human knowledge grew in the area of agriculture, people relied proportionately less upon harvest dance rituals. As their understanding of principles that ensured success increased, some aspects of the basic drive that created the folk dances faded into the background. In most areas of the world folk dances have undergone extensive changes as history has developed around them.

As the English scholar Douglas Kennedy pointed out, when primitive religion weakens, some of the mystery and the magic departs from the dances that express it. The dancer becomes less a medicine maker than a performing artist as ritual changes imperceptibly into art. In short, man’s social adjustment to the environment, for purposes of survival, created both the original dance rituals and their subsequent functional or formal changes. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Book 7 [1976 ed.], 499)

No form of dance is permanent; only the basic principle of dance is enduring. Dancing falls into two major categories. John Martin describes these categories as that which is done for the emotional release of the individual dancers, without regard to the possible interest of a spectator; and that, on the other hand, which is done for the enjoyment of the spectator either as an exhibition of skill, the telling of a story, the presentation of pleasurable designs, or the communication of emotional experience. The second category is largely an outgrowth of the first, but both play important parts in the picture as a whole. (Martin, Book of the Dance, 18)

As folk dance evolves to become an art or theater dance, the life spring from which the dance originated begins to dry up. Unless the choreographer or the dance participants research the roots and experiences which precipitated the dances, the steps begin to communicate the dancer’s skills more than the folklore. Artistic dancing also departs from folk dancing because the pleasure or entertainment of the spectator demands theatrical and choreographic enhancements. Repetitious and simplistic folk steps must be augmented and aggrandized to avoid boring the audience as well as to challenge the dancer. The dress of the common folk lacks the embellishments and visual stimulation to evoke an emotional response from the viewer; therefore, color and sparkles are added to ameliorate the original.

It could be maintained that when folklore leaves its immediate environment or place of origin, it must of necessity lose its character. Through breathing the air of a world of make-believe, it is tempted by the artificial and spectacular. How to preserve its basic characteristics, its rudimentary powers, its emotional impact while shifting from the healthy joy of participation in a folk dance to the pleasurable edification of viewing it as a spectator may depend on the innate theatricality of the material. Also of importance is the skill of the choreographer in finding a happy balance between being inspired by a source he uses without imitating it and keeping intact that source that inspires imagination. However useful the theater dance may be in serving and preserving the folk dance—theater always claims victims and crowns its victors—folk dance will remain a life-giving force. (Sorell, Dance Through the Ages, 87)

Losing the origin and inspiration of folk dance is problematic for the common folk as well as for the professionals. Distanced by time and environment, dancers look backward at tradition instead of inward at creation. Steps that were once spontaneous and alive can become mechanical and stagnant because of superficial repetition. When this happens, the dance of the folk renews itself.

In every barren period, accordingly, rebels arise who break through the entrenched traditionalism and set up fresh currents to replace it. No form is permanent, definitive, ultimate; only the basic principle of dance is enduring, and out of it, like the cycle of nature itself, rises an endless succession of new springs out of old winters. (Martin, Book of the Dance, 16)

Note the insight of John Martin: It is a cycle that must inevitably continue, for recreational dancing, done solely for the sake of providing the dancer with a release for his inner compulsions, no longer serves its purpose when that release is denied. No matter how pretty a dance may be to watch, unless it gives something to the dancer it is doomed. (Ibid., p. 24)

The Encyclopedia Britannica well summarizes this evolution of folk dance: If a dance does not die of old age, of having totally outworn its function and of having a form or spirit out of tune with a new age, it will continue to gain new life from improvised variations on basic steps or ground plans or from conscious elaborations of its forms by professional directors of ethnic dance groups and programs. Such kinds of creativity, individual and group, contribute to that constant cycle of orderly change within traditional parameters which accounts for the rich variety of the dances of the people.

Although the origins of many traditional dances are lost in a nebulous past, the folk arts are represented in the social organizations of people throughout the world. Numerous troupes exist, from professionals like Ballet Folklorico de Mexico under the direction of Amalia Hernandez to local groups who gather for good fellowship, healthful exercise, and, to some measure, ethnic unity. An outstanding example of the revitalization of traditional dance structures by present-day choreographers can be seen in modern Israeli dance. Today’s folk dance movement in Israel began its unified growth in 1944, when, with the backing of the Inter-kibbutzim Music Committee, the first folk dance meeting was held at Kibbutz Dalia. Under the direction of Gurit Kadman, founder of the Folk Dance Movement, 200 dancers gathered at Kiryat Machon, also known as Dance Village. On the second night, 3,500 people gathered to watch the first Israeli folk dance performance. The dances were a potpourri of styles, many without any Israeli quality. That first event began a new creative process that was felt in every village, settlement, kibbutz, and city group. The various cultural patterns of the races, who were now the essence of Israel’s population, were to meld into a pleasing and unique style.

Israeli folk dance has gained wide acceptance and popularity throughout the nation of Israel, in Jewish cultural centers across the world, and in dance clubs in many major cities. Folk dances are being choreographed by leaders such as Yankele Levy, Ruth Goodman Burger, Shlomo Bachar, Dani Dassa, Shmulik Gov-ari, Shlomo Maman, Rivkah Sturman, Gurit Kadman, and many others.

Israeli folk dances are being incorporated in many of the Christian churches, which are actively restoring the arts in their worship patterns. There are several predominant reasons why Israeli folk dance is receiving more popular acceptance than the folk dances of other countries. Some Christians seek to establish a natural link with Israel through such things as tours to the Holy Land, celebrating Hebraic holidays, and dancing Israeli folk dances. The proliferation of dances and the accessibility of training has made Israeli folk dance a ready source of material. Also, the styles of dances (i.e., the Yemenite with its soft undulating movement of the whole body) are easily adapted to praise dancing. However, there is no biblical reason to utilize Israeli folk dance over other ethnic dances, especially since popular Israeli dances are of recent origin and not authentically ancient Davidic-style dance.

Because folk dance is the dance of the people of a given region and because folk dance degenerates when removed from its place of origin, Christian churches which embrace Israeli folk dance or the style of any other nation will find difficulty in maintaining the deep roots or heart of the dance. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the learned steps and patterns of any style of folk dance will become a vehicle of expression of the heart of the new ethnic, the holy nation of the church (1 Peter 2:9). Whether the style of dance utilized in Christian worship is classic ballet, modern dance, Israeli folk, or a combination of many styles, the life spring must be the dancers’ encounter with God.

There are many benefits to incorporating folk dance into the repertoire of a church dance program. Because folk dance is designed to be danced by the common people, the basic steps can often be executed without years of intense training. Hence, more people can become participants. The more people who can share in the corporate worship expressions, whether they be singing, recitation, giving, or dancing, the greater the unity and sense of community.

One example of a church that has effectively adopted the use of folk dance is Son-Life Church in Collinsville, Illinois. They have incorporated approximately 50 Israeli folk dances into the training program of their dance troupe and their Christian school. These dances serve several functions. Learning the combination of steps and perfecting the styles becomes an excellent training tool for developing the skills of both children and adults who desire to function in the dance ministry. The dances themselves are easily adaptable to many modern-day praise choruses. Therefore, the dance team can dance to a large number of songs throughout the worship services by making small modifications and adjustments to the set menu of dances. This eliminates the enormous workload of choreographing and remembering a new dance for each new song assimilated into the treasury of an assembly’s psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Folk dancing can enhance the spirit of rejoicing during congregational worship. Simple dances or even single steps, such as the Israeli hora or grapevine, can be easily taught to all members of the congregation who wish to participate. Children and senior citizens can praise God together in the dance. Especially in this form does the spirit of folk dance, the emotional release of the dancer in response to his or her environment, remain alive.

Because it is composed of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation, the church is an ideal environment to incorporate folk dances from many nations. It is important to note that each particular style helps to define the application and extent of utility the folk dance affords the church. For example, the vigorous hip movements of the island dances or the gymnastic exploits of some Russian folk movements may be inappropriate for application into praise or worship. However, the lovely hand motions of Hawaiian dance or the vigorous foot-stomping and kicks of the Russian style could be utilized to reflect the mood of a song, especially one arranged to represent a particular style or ethnic sound. The more education the dancers and the whole church assembly can receive concerning the use of any style of folk dance, the greater will be the appreciation for and sense of common heritage with that ethnic group.

Caution arises when embracing dances whose origins are temple worship. Although, as we have seen, the primitive beginnings of most folk dances were of a religious function, the dances of the Eastern world have a more current cult tie than do the folk dances of the Western hemisphere. Prudence and discrimination are advisable.

Transported into Christian worship, folk dance is placed into a new environment. Executed by Christian participants, the various folk dance patterns and movements are now expressing new inspirations, not the beliefs of their ritual origins. The dances will, of necessity, lose their ethnic heritage or folklore and reflect a new ethnic group, the church. As the church worships and receives inspiration from the heavenly realm, she will recreate her art, including dance, to reflect God’s glory. Whether the style is Israeli, Russian, German, or Latin-American, the folk are Christians and their lore is redemption. That must be the life spring of the church as she dances.