In the comments on this post, carl asked why I can't dance. I almost wrote a comment in return, but then the post will fall off the page and I'm not sure if carl would ever see it again.
The first reason I can't dance is an utter lack of coordination and skills. This lack is in part related to reason two, but I think some of it is genetic as well.
The second reason is more complicated. Wesleyans tend to be somewhat more situational in their ethics, which I'm defining as 'more situational than some Baptists I've met.' John Wesley's support of temperance, for instance, was grounded in the social problems caused by drunkenness and the diversion of grain from the bakeries to creat gin. Another argument I've heard in favor of temperance, only from Baptists, is that the books of Proverbs clearly prohibits alcohol consumption, and when Jesus made and drank wine it was really 'new wine,' which is grape juice.* My heritage is with the Wesleyan holiness movement, and so the model of temperance that I've (not entirely) inherited is more similar to a boycott than a rejection of drinking alcohol as evil.**
Anyway, the beginning of the 1900's was a heyday of progressive social activism among evangelical Americans. One of the biggest goals of the temperance movement, aside from getting everyone to stop boozing, was to close down bars. (My favorite temperance activist, Carrie Nation, would attack saloons with her hatchet.) Generally, temperance advocates would boycott everything associated with bars, including dancing, pool playing, secular music, and dartboards.
Fast foward a generation, after Prohibition has been repealed, the millenalist hopes of the evangelicals have been frustrated, and the once progessively methodist churches have turned inward for a period of introspection known as the Holiness Movement. Everyone knows that dancing, pool playing, secular music, dartboards and drinking are wrong, but noone exactly remembers why. Instead of revitalizing our social witness or letting go of these "ought nots," we codified them as evils of the outside world, markers of those who were less holy than us.
Dancing, in particular, was seen as a pleasure of the body, seductive in form and impossible to conduct in a public arena without arousing lust. Toss in the distain for the body that runs through almost all pietist religion, and an extra measure of fear directed towards women's bodies, and you can build in a child a rather strong sense of guilt about dancing that persists to this day... all because someone's great-grandma was all excited about Prohibition.
At least, that's how I understand it. Better Methodists than me are invited to leave comments explaining why I'm wrong.
*Clarification: saying that I've only heard this from Baptists is not the same as saying that all Baptists argue this way, so you millitant Baptist image protectors can head on home.
**Practically speaking, I don't drink alcohol often or make a regular habit of socializing around it because I have a ridiculously high tolerance level, and that's not a path I want to pursue. But I can dress it up morally by talking about social justice issues, and there is truth to the idea that neither Budweiser nor Smiley's Pub need my money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great post, Julie!
I share much of your terpsichorean inability, but more due to the first set of reasons. Quakers certainly were big supporters of the temperance movement, but by the time I was a kid, there was really none of that legacy left in the liberal meeting I grew up in. Historically, many Friends approached the alcohol question with the same kind of situational ethics you describe-- e.g., Woolman, whose scruples were based on his observations of the effect rum had on sailors, as well as the involvement of slaves in the production of its ingredients.
Here's one thing I'm unclear on, though-- you situate the Wesleyan holiness movement post-Prohibition, which would make it an early-to-mid-twentieth century thing (Prohibition was repealed 1933, IIRC). Wasn't there a holiness movement in the nineteenth century? Obviously, I haven't taken Church History III yet...
Also, FWIW, Pizza King Watch is back.
Hm, I think I used my terms loosely. There was a holiness movement in the nineteenth century, the more socially oriented aspects of which became abolitionism, temperance, women's suffarage advocacy, labor and grange movements, and so forth. My reference to the Holiness Movement would be better stated as a reference to the particular strain of the holiness movement that arose in the late nineteenth century as a response to the devestation of the Civil War (quite a shock to the abolitionists) and was solidified after the repeal of Prohibition. They retained their optimism about the ability of the individual to attain perfection, but dropped it with regard to society at large.
Does that make more sense?
Yes, thanks!
I just found this post.
I am pentecostal (which grew out of the 19th century Holiness Movement). Assembly of God ministers have to completely abstain from alcohol as a condition of their being credentialed. I also think this is more a carry over than a current moral abstention. I would venture to bet that far more ministers battle with lust than alcoholism. They should prohibit the internet.
That being said . . . I shun overt worldliness but I dance with my wife if we happen to be at a wedding or something of that nature. If you find yourself in a nightclub you have greater sanctification issues than dancing. You know what I mean?
My point is that lust is bad. Prohibiting dancing will not prevent lust. (nor induce it) Guess this is a ramble now.
I also think that it is funny that people who say they believe the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God say that wine does not mean wine. That is kind of funny.
Post a Comment