The Lord of the Dance
I love to dance! I know the thought is horrifying to many more conservative Christians who firmly believe that “a dancing foot and a praying knee will not be found on the same leg”. But there it is. I learned to “ballroom” dance when I was in high school—you know, back when the “proms” actually had dance bands, not head-banger’s mosh pit heavy- metal sounds, post-modern electronic trance music, or the popular “bump and grind, dirty dance” styling so popular now. And I have never lost my love of ballroom dancing.
One of the most intriguing things I find about ballroom dancing (waltz, foxtrot, tango, etc.) is what a nearly perfect allegory of a Christian marriage it provides. The beauty of two people who each know “the steps”, moving as one to music, gliding across the floor, where the man sets the general direction, but the dance itself is shared through a mutual consent and cooperation of partners, is a something to behold. In fact, there are few things I would recommend that are as therapeutic to a marriage as learning how to dance together. Sometimes I believe every couple should begin by learning to dance together. If they can’t accomplish this, they probably shouldn’t even consider anything more complex, like marriage. Now lest you think I have slipped my final cog, let me explain: relationships are difficult in the best of conditions. Given the nature of the “fall” in Genesis 2 and our relative neediness as human beings, engaging in a relational “dance” is challenging at best. And in a world where we are prone to change partners at the first misstep, successful partnerships are rarely given the chance to develop. I used to love ballroom dancing. When watching a successful dance pairing, the result seems almost effortless. But to those engaged in the dance itself, such a result has required long hours, weeks, months...maybe years of work. Toes are stepped on, feelings are hurt, tension is sometimes high, emotions are vented. And the partnership either survives, or it does not. But those who survive are committed to more than the process. It is not enough to enjoy the music or “the steps”. It is not even enough to enjoy the concept...the theory, if you will...of dancing. If the partnership is not there, if the two cannot move as one on the dance floor, then the results will be tenuous and strained at best. And such results can hardly be called “dancing”.
You will note that I haven’t mentioned sex. I believe that those who engage in “recreational” sex as though it were a natural part of “relating” to another person are like people who would consider entering a world class dance competition having only the “quickie” introduction to dancing given by most dance schools to sell the unwary overpriced dance packages. In the act of sex, the true joy of mutual surrender occurs, in which each person, seeking first the pleasure of their lover, gives that most precious of gifts. Such an event should be reserved to those whose commitment to one another is solid and unassailable. To approach such a thing casually, selfishly, with a view primarily to personal pleasure and the satisfaction of some vaguely perceived “need” has far too much potential for harm, humiliation, and emotional devastation. It makes a truly beautiful and tender gift seem tawdry and vulgar. No...there is a reason that the sexual expression of love has traditionally been reserved for the married—it is an emotional binding wrapped in a physical caress. And it is not to be given lightly.
Yet I am getting ahead of myself. In dancing, individual preparation is required to provide the proper foundation for a successful partnership. While one can learn the mechanics of dancing as a couple without each individual developing a broader knowledge of dancing, the best dancers are those who are individually skilled, and who understand the mechanics of both leading and following—who learn both their own and their partner’s dance steps. If one has no familiarity with their partner’s steps, then one is far more susceptible to miscues and stumbles. The more that one is familiar with dance as an individual, the more one can offer to their partner. The same is true of marriage. You see, to a great extent, even within a marriage, each partner must learn his or her own steps, and be aware of their partner’s. They may learn to move together, but the steps are the responsibility of each individual. If both are not working equally hard apart as well as together, the result will be inadequate. In our marriages, common courtesies and generous attitudes are never truly common. They are learned over time and are practiced intently. When individual character is either not developed, or laid aside in a rush of emotion, the basis for the relationship is non-exsitent. And if such character is not evident in the relationship before the marriage, it is unlikely that it will simply spring into bloom after each says, “I do”. One cannot enter into a marriage relationship as a “cure” to loneliness, or to “find” love, or because someone “needs” a [wife, husband...take your pick; given what some believe a “wife” is, I know many women who believe that they need one]. One cannot come to marriage as though the act of commitment will somehow magically make them a “whole” person. In fact, to do so generally assures disappointment and heartache. The uniqueness of marriage occurs when two “whole” persons commit themselves in self-sacrificial love to one another, giving freely all that they are to the one another. One should seek their completeness first in God, not in a mate. The Bible says, “...the two shall become one...”, not “two halves shall become a whole.”
Nevertheless, in dancing there is role differentiation. Even two partners who each know one another’s dance steps and are skilled in leading and following ascribe to the convention that the man leads and the woman follows. The woman does not “back lead”. “Back leading” occurs when the woman, sometimes more experienced than her male partner, becomes impatient and begins to determine the direction on her own. Several things occur at this point: the man becomes even more unsure of his ability, and begins to rely on his partner’s cues...but there are simply some steps that cannot be as effectively “back led”; also, the learning and progress of the male partner often become stunted, as his own ability is never challenged and encouraged to grow. Now if for some reason her partner loses step, or miscues, she can skillfully assist him until he regains his direction. But neither partner can dance effectively for the other. When a man attempts to dance “for” his partner, the result is often heavy and strained, and it appears to all as though the man is simply “dragging” his partner around the floor. And the woman, never learning to truly express herself, is unable to display the joy of dancing as a full partner. In marriage, the Bible ascribes role differentiation. The husband is the “head”, who gives is willing to put the good of his wife before his own, in self-sacrificial love. The wife “submits” to her husband’s role, in love surrendering her direction to his so that the two can walk together in agreement and unity. Yet each person brings their “wholeness” to this relationship, for the Bible speaks of the woman not as “completing” the man, but as a helper “corresponding” to the man. The husband and wife are in that sense, “fit” for one another.
Another interesting aspect of skillful ballroom dancing is that while the man may provide the direction, he also provides the “frame” by which the beauty of his female partner and her skills are displayed. If a frame is appropriate to the masterpiece, it will hardly intrude on one’s consciousness. Its only purpose is to call attention to the painting. On the floor, the purpose of the male lead in the dance partnership is to display the beauty and talent of his female partner. When this is done skillfully, the man is scarcely noticed. But those who see the partnership share in the joy of the couple as they watch them glide in unison across the dance floor, and perceive the beauty of the woman’s face. If, however, the man becomes too absorbed in his own appearance, or he leads steps meant primarily to display his own virtuosity, the pairing falters and looks clumsy. If you watch dancers who are truly talented, the man generally appears absorbed by the skill and beauty of his female partner...she essentially becomes the glory of their mutual hard work. When Paul says that “the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man” (I Corinthians 11:7), the point is essentially the same. This is the essence of the self-sacrificial love a man must demonstrate in a marriage. In the great dance, the married relationship between a man and a woman, the beauty of the relationship will always be displayed by the woman. And she will reflect the selfless love and care of the man. If the partnership falters, it will be seen first in the face of the woman.
But the final, and most important, point is that ultimately the dance is about two people whose concern for one another is displayed in the finesse of their cooperation. Skilled dancers rarely think about steps or the phrasing of the music or the mechanics of the dance when they are dancing. Once they are on the floor for all to see, these things, although essential to the dance itself, recede to the merely contextual, as each partner concentrates on the other. If either partner begins to “count to the music”, or becomes insecure and “step” conscious, the dance itself will come to a halt, because the partnership will be lost in self-absorption. When concentration shifts from the substance of the dance to its context, while both partners may be skilled, the steps ultimately look wooden and mechanical. The couple doesn’t flow across the floor, and often appear to be going in the same general direction by accident, rather than intent. In the dance, the substance of the dance is one’s partner, and the multitude of cues that each partner shares with the other, nearly subliminal after much practice. This is also true of any relationship...especially marriage. Many a marriage is lost when the husband and wife are no longer truly concerned for one another—just for the “marriage”. Insecurity takes root, as both husband and wife become preoccupied for what each can do “for the marriage”, not for each other. Yet what is important is not the process, but the person. In the same manner, being a Christian is not a matter of religion—what one can do to impress others or God with their piety. The Pharisees were adept at such mechanics, but had never learned to “dance”. Being a Christian begins with having been made whole by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection to new life. But living Christianly consists in our preoccupation with the person of Jesus Christ, not the practice of religion. And our relationship with Jesus Christ finds its perfect expression in the dance that is marriage.
One of the most intriguing things I find about ballroom dancing (waltz, foxtrot, tango, etc.) is what a nearly perfect allegory of a Christian marriage it provides. The beauty of two people who each know “the steps”, moving as one to music, gliding across the floor, where the man sets the general direction, but the dance itself is shared through a mutual consent and cooperation of partners, is a something to behold. In fact, there are few things I would recommend that are as therapeutic to a marriage as learning how to dance together. Sometimes I believe every couple should begin by learning to dance together. If they can’t accomplish this, they probably shouldn’t even consider anything more complex, like marriage. Now lest you think I have slipped my final cog, let me explain: relationships are difficult in the best of conditions. Given the nature of the “fall” in Genesis 2 and our relative neediness as human beings, engaging in a relational “dance” is challenging at best. And in a world where we are prone to change partners at the first misstep, successful partnerships are rarely given the chance to develop. I used to love ballroom dancing. When watching a successful dance pairing, the result seems almost effortless. But to those engaged in the dance itself, such a result has required long hours, weeks, months...maybe years of work. Toes are stepped on, feelings are hurt, tension is sometimes high, emotions are vented. And the partnership either survives, or it does not. But those who survive are committed to more than the process. It is not enough to enjoy the music or “the steps”. It is not even enough to enjoy the concept...the theory, if you will...of dancing. If the partnership is not there, if the two cannot move as one on the dance floor, then the results will be tenuous and strained at best. And such results can hardly be called “dancing”.
You will note that I haven’t mentioned sex. I believe that those who engage in “recreational” sex as though it were a natural part of “relating” to another person are like people who would consider entering a world class dance competition having only the “quickie” introduction to dancing given by most dance schools to sell the unwary overpriced dance packages. In the act of sex, the true joy of mutual surrender occurs, in which each person, seeking first the pleasure of their lover, gives that most precious of gifts. Such an event should be reserved to those whose commitment to one another is solid and unassailable. To approach such a thing casually, selfishly, with a view primarily to personal pleasure and the satisfaction of some vaguely perceived “need” has far too much potential for harm, humiliation, and emotional devastation. It makes a truly beautiful and tender gift seem tawdry and vulgar. No...there is a reason that the sexual expression of love has traditionally been reserved for the married—it is an emotional binding wrapped in a physical caress. And it is not to be given lightly.
Yet I am getting ahead of myself. In dancing, individual preparation is required to provide the proper foundation for a successful partnership. While one can learn the mechanics of dancing as a couple without each individual developing a broader knowledge of dancing, the best dancers are those who are individually skilled, and who understand the mechanics of both leading and following—who learn both their own and their partner’s dance steps. If one has no familiarity with their partner’s steps, then one is far more susceptible to miscues and stumbles. The more that one is familiar with dance as an individual, the more one can offer to their partner. The same is true of marriage. You see, to a great extent, even within a marriage, each partner must learn his or her own steps, and be aware of their partner’s. They may learn to move together, but the steps are the responsibility of each individual. If both are not working equally hard apart as well as together, the result will be inadequate. In our marriages, common courtesies and generous attitudes are never truly common. They are learned over time and are practiced intently. When individual character is either not developed, or laid aside in a rush of emotion, the basis for the relationship is non-exsitent. And if such character is not evident in the relationship before the marriage, it is unlikely that it will simply spring into bloom after each says, “I do”. One cannot enter into a marriage relationship as a “cure” to loneliness, or to “find” love, or because someone “needs” a [wife, husband...take your pick; given what some believe a “wife” is, I know many women who believe that they need one]. One cannot come to marriage as though the act of commitment will somehow magically make them a “whole” person. In fact, to do so generally assures disappointment and heartache. The uniqueness of marriage occurs when two “whole” persons commit themselves in self-sacrificial love to one another, giving freely all that they are to the one another. One should seek their completeness first in God, not in a mate. The Bible says, “...the two shall become one...”, not “two halves shall become a whole.”
Nevertheless, in dancing there is role differentiation. Even two partners who each know one another’s dance steps and are skilled in leading and following ascribe to the convention that the man leads and the woman follows. The woman does not “back lead”. “Back leading” occurs when the woman, sometimes more experienced than her male partner, becomes impatient and begins to determine the direction on her own. Several things occur at this point: the man becomes even more unsure of his ability, and begins to rely on his partner’s cues...but there are simply some steps that cannot be as effectively “back led”; also, the learning and progress of the male partner often become stunted, as his own ability is never challenged and encouraged to grow. Now if for some reason her partner loses step, or miscues, she can skillfully assist him until he regains his direction. But neither partner can dance effectively for the other. When a man attempts to dance “for” his partner, the result is often heavy and strained, and it appears to all as though the man is simply “dragging” his partner around the floor. And the woman, never learning to truly express herself, is unable to display the joy of dancing as a full partner. In marriage, the Bible ascribes role differentiation. The husband is the “head”, who gives is willing to put the good of his wife before his own, in self-sacrificial love. The wife “submits” to her husband’s role, in love surrendering her direction to his so that the two can walk together in agreement and unity. Yet each person brings their “wholeness” to this relationship, for the Bible speaks of the woman not as “completing” the man, but as a helper “corresponding” to the man. The husband and wife are in that sense, “fit” for one another.
Another interesting aspect of skillful ballroom dancing is that while the man may provide the direction, he also provides the “frame” by which the beauty of his female partner and her skills are displayed. If a frame is appropriate to the masterpiece, it will hardly intrude on one’s consciousness. Its only purpose is to call attention to the painting. On the floor, the purpose of the male lead in the dance partnership is to display the beauty and talent of his female partner. When this is done skillfully, the man is scarcely noticed. But those who see the partnership share in the joy of the couple as they watch them glide in unison across the dance floor, and perceive the beauty of the woman’s face. If, however, the man becomes too absorbed in his own appearance, or he leads steps meant primarily to display his own virtuosity, the pairing falters and looks clumsy. If you watch dancers who are truly talented, the man generally appears absorbed by the skill and beauty of his female partner...she essentially becomes the glory of their mutual hard work. When Paul says that “the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man” (I Corinthians 11:7), the point is essentially the same. This is the essence of the self-sacrificial love a man must demonstrate in a marriage. In the great dance, the married relationship between a man and a woman, the beauty of the relationship will always be displayed by the woman. And she will reflect the selfless love and care of the man. If the partnership falters, it will be seen first in the face of the woman.
But the final, and most important, point is that ultimately the dance is about two people whose concern for one another is displayed in the finesse of their cooperation. Skilled dancers rarely think about steps or the phrasing of the music or the mechanics of the dance when they are dancing. Once they are on the floor for all to see, these things, although essential to the dance itself, recede to the merely contextual, as each partner concentrates on the other. If either partner begins to “count to the music”, or becomes insecure and “step” conscious, the dance itself will come to a halt, because the partnership will be lost in self-absorption. When concentration shifts from the substance of the dance to its context, while both partners may be skilled, the steps ultimately look wooden and mechanical. The couple doesn’t flow across the floor, and often appear to be going in the same general direction by accident, rather than intent. In the dance, the substance of the dance is one’s partner, and the multitude of cues that each partner shares with the other, nearly subliminal after much practice. This is also true of any relationship...especially marriage. Many a marriage is lost when the husband and wife are no longer truly concerned for one another—just for the “marriage”. Insecurity takes root, as both husband and wife become preoccupied for what each can do “for the marriage”, not for each other. Yet what is important is not the process, but the person. In the same manner, being a Christian is not a matter of religion—what one can do to impress others or God with their piety. The Pharisees were adept at such mechanics, but had never learned to “dance”. Being a Christian begins with having been made whole by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection to new life. But living Christianly consists in our preoccupation with the person of Jesus Christ, not the practice of religion. And our relationship with Jesus Christ finds its perfect expression in the dance that is marriage.
posted by Soulfyre | 2:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home