Queries And Answers
Bro. Turner:
Dancing is "a series of movements executed by the body, or limbs, or both, in rhythm" (Webster). Can you honestly say that this is wrong?
Reply:
Drinking is "to swallow (a liquid) to receive, as a fluid, into the stomach" (Webster). Now get yourself a glass of milk, and pat your feet as you swallow. You may spend the night "drinking and dancing" and I won't raise a line of type.
If you can read while "drinking and dancing" you might consider two scriptures that couple "drinking" and "reveling": ROM.13:13 and GAL.5:21. The "drinking" under consideration is something more than "swallowing"; and the "dancing" (which dear Mr. Webster uses in defining "reveling") is a shade stronger than foot-patting, or even a stately minuet; but by now you may have gathered that I am writing about what is actually done today under these headings.
A free translation of "komos" (KJ, "reveling") is "let yourself go" or "celebration without restraint". The wild excesses of the dance -- the abandon with which opposite sexes mix -- the exhibition of bodily movements designed to excite passions -- these are the ingredients of "reveling" and are clearly designated as "works of the flesh" (GAL.5:19-21). Paul says, "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God". The necessity for specific prohibitions relative to dancing has always seemed out of place -- especially when applied to supposed Christians. If a man is taught to love his brother, must we have specific lessons insisting that he refrain from sticking a knife in his brother's back? Then how can one who is properly taught the meaning of modesty, chastity, and pureness of heart be so needful of proof that the modern dance is wrong?
To name or define our subject is to place it in a realm shunned by all who love the Lord and His ways.
Bro. Turner:
If GAL.6:6 teaches the individual who is taught to support his teacher, would not a local preacher have to receive double-pay -- from the church, (PHI.4:15) and from individuals?
Reply:
The obligation to supply the needs of preachers is placed upon saints, acting collectively, individually, or both ways (The apostle Paul received from churches (2CO.11:8) and from individuals (1CO.16:17). The obligation is determined by the need.
The F.F. editor (in Reader's Opinion, 6-1-65) is hard put to get out of his senseless exegesis of GAL.6:6 as a couplet with JAM.1:27. Instead of frankly acknowledging his error, he backs deeper into the mire -- and comes close to saying he set a trap for the brethren he loves so much. If he did, the trap backfired.