Oasis Chorale dancing

[barnhart]

We are sticklers about quite a few NT things, but praying on the street corner isn't one of them.

How about "forsake not the public reading of scripture..."

[R7ehr]

We are sticklers about quite a few NT things, but praying on the street corner isn't one of them.

How about "forsake not the public reading of scripture..."

I guess my understanding of 1 Tim 4 is that specifically referes to the reading aloud of the scripture in and to the congregation. Although I wouldn’t relegate it to that setting alone.

My comment that you quoted, probably was not written well enough to convey my thought.
My thought quite simply, is that the Bible not only teaches in priciple that we shouldn’t pray in an attention getting way - it goes ahead and give a specific example of praying on the street corner (to be seen of men) as what not to do. And yet, intermediate and ultra conservative Mennonite groups think it is an effective evengelistic effort to sing and literally pray on street corners, and so long as they are doing it together in a group. I have done it as well. We seem to think that this is witnessing to the world, and perhaps it is. God knows the heart. But what to do with the verse that says not to? It’s clear that the motive is important, but we don’t typically like to ignore the specific (wearing of gold, swearing, head covering) and just say that its only the heart that matters.

[ken_sylvania]

We are sticklers about quite a few NT things, but praying on the street corner isn't one of them.

How about "forsake not the public reading of scripture..."

Not sure where that is a quote from, but I would say public reading of Scripture is frequently done in CM churches.

[JohnH]

Public prayer and public readings of scripture also seem to be done by some politicians. I often question the motives for doing so, although I try to just take it at face value and not get offended by it.

[barnhart]

We are sticklers about quite a few NT things, but praying on the street corner isn't one of them.

How about "forsake not the public reading of scripture..."

Not sure where that is a quote from, but I would say public reading of Scripture is frequently done in CM churches.

I guess my memory is not as reliable as I thought, it was an attempt at quoting 1Tim 4 "...devote yourself to the public reading of scripture..." Which we do several times a week if you think of church gatherings as public events.

[ken_sylvania]

How about "forsake not the public reading of scripture..."

Not sure where that is a quote from, but I would say public reading of Scripture is frequently done in CM churches.

I guess my memory is not as reliable as I thought, it was an attempt at quoting 1Tim 4 "...devote yourself to the public reading of scripture..." Which we do several times a week if you think of church gatherings as public events.

Since I normally use the KJV I had to do a bit of looking to figure out why you were saying "public" reading. From context as well as the context of "anagnōsei" in 2 Corinthians 3:14 (the reading of the Mosaic law) it seems most likely that Paul was referring to the reading of scripture in the assembly, which is what our church gatherings are.

[Jared]

I am dreadfully late to this thread. Oh well, nevertheless.

It might be worth mentioning that Oasis Chorale advertises their events as concerts, not church services. It is true that they often use churches as venues for their concerts, as do many choral ensembles, whether religious or secular. Western choral music as we know it was formed in the church, so church buildings are still seen as natural “homes” for choral music concerts today.

That distinction aside, this whole dispute seems to derive from a rather narrow and compartmentalized conception of what worship is and ought to be. Oasis Chorale outlines their philosophy of worship and art in some detail on their website: https://www.oasischorale.org/mission/

Central to their entire ethos is the foundational premise that artistic performance and worship are not mutually exclusive. Oasis Chorale believes, as do I, that worship doesn’t simply happen when we pray and sing hymns and listen to sermons on Sunday morning, but when we encounter and participate in the good, the true, and the beautiful in all manner of ways throughout daily life. I will quote directly from Oasis Chorale’s mission statement: “God is the source and essence of beauty; music is an expression of his beauty. It is our intent that our music be a powerful reflection of God’s excellent beauty. Yet we maintain that musical excellence is not an end in itself, but is a lens through which we perceive, understand, and relate to God.”

I actually see the question of their inclusion of choreography to be somewhat tangential to the central issues here. Folks may disagree about whether it was helpful or appropriate or properly classified as “dancing,” based on their own personal taste, background, and experiences. At the end of the day, it was a choice that they made, presumably because it fulfilled some messaging or artistic goal that they were pursuing. I imagine many folks that take great umbrage at the rather mild choreography that they programmed in their 2026 season (I attended two concerts and saw it firsthand) might be rather uneasy with the core of Oasis Chorale’s mission to begin with. If one finds Oasis Chorale concerts compelling and uplifting in every other way, but finds the movement they incorporate to be an insurmountable impediment to their worship or general enjoyment, closing one’s eyes and simply enjoying the audio component of the concert is an easy enough solution.

While I find these sorts of accusations and complaints bewildering and exasperating, I think they also serve a useful purpose, in some grim sense. If a young Anabaptist with artistic inclinations and aspirations finds themselves wondering whether their gifts and interests might be welcomed, encouraged, and cared for in their church community, encountering sentiments such as these from leaders and trusted members of the community provides a great deal of clarity in answering those questions. Perhaps at some point in the distant utopian future, messaging like this will gain enough momentum to successfully push most of the poets, painters, and musicians out of the church. Only then can we attain an environment that is sufficiently drab and bleak to allow us to get down to the serious business of worship, without all the extraneous nonsense that the pesky artists insist on foisting upon us.

(A side note: the example video “Down by the Riverside” that someone linked upthread is a video of the choir in a recording session, a setting in which the choir members are encouraged to move in ways that help them to sing in a relaxed and expressive way. The movements in that video are not coordinated or choreographed, and they look odd because there is no visual purpose to them.)

[mike]

While I find these sorts of accusations and complaints bewildering and exasperating, I think they also serve a useful purpose, in some grim sense. If a young Anabaptist with artistic inclinations and aspirations finds themselves wondering whether their gifts and interests might be welcomed, encouraged, and cared for in their church community, encountering sentiments such as these from leaders and trusted members of the community provides a great deal of clarity in answering those questions. Perhaps at some point in the distant utopian future, messaging like this will gain enough momentum to successfully push most of the poets, painters, and musicians out of the church. Only then can we attain an environment that is sufficiently drab and bleak to allow us to get down to the serious business of worship, without all the extraneous nonsense that the pesky artists insist on foisting upon us.

Conservative Anabaptists have traditionally, I believe, opposed dancing; there are, of course, plenty of examples of unconverted youth engaging in it along with other unsactioned behavior. I don't know why it would be so surprising that when 'choreography' that approaches dancing happens in conservative Mennonite choirs, it would be a matter of discussion. Doesn't it seem a little strange that a person would insist on bringing an entirely new practice, behavior, theological position, etc. into a group and then accuse the group of being obtuse when it is not immediately accepted and adopted? Or be frustrated when the innovations are talked about or challenged in some way? I say this without actually claiming that Oasis is doing something terribly bad. My point is just that some sort of reaction is to be expected.

I know people who appear frustrated and disappointed for example that the Anabaptist church they are a part of is not open to adopting ancient-church worship practices. If that is one's goal, why would one not go over to one of the ancient church congregations to worship? If it's so important to dance or whatever while singing, there are plenty of places where this is just fine. I don't see the point of getting all frustrated that an established group resists or at least challenges changes. I think this is fairly typical in many places, not just Mennonites.

[ken_sylvania]

I am dreadfully late to this thread. Oh well, nevertheless.

It might be worth mentioning that Oasis Chorale advertises their events as concerts, not church services. It is true that they often use churches as venues for their concerts, as do many choral ensembles, whether religious or secular. Western choral music as we know it was formed in the church, so church buildings are still seen as natural “homes” for choral music concerts today.

That distinction aside, this whole dispute seems to derive from a rather narrow and compartmentalized conception of what worship is and ought to be. Oasis Chorale outlines their philosophy of worship and art in some detail on their website: https://www.oasischorale.org/mission/

Perhaps so. Should there be any bounds at all in our conception of what worship is and ought to be? Or is any and every type of worship acceptable.

Central to their entire ethos is the foundational premise that artistic performance and worship are not mutually exclusive. Oasis Chorale believes, as do I, that worship doesn’t simply happen when we pray and sing hymns and listen to sermons on Sunday morning, but when we encounter and participate in the good, the true, and the beautiful in all manner of ways throughout daily life. I will quote directly from Oasis Chorale’s mission statement: “God is the source and essence of beauty; music is an expression of his beauty. It is our intent that our music be a powerful reflection of God’s excellent beauty. Yet we maintain that musical excellence is not an end in itself, but is a lens through which we perceive, understand, and relate to God.”

I actually see the question of their inclusion of choreography to be somewhat tangential to the central issues here. Folks may disagree about whether it was helpful or appropriate or properly classified as “dancing,” based on their own personal taste, background, and experiences. At the end of the day, it was a choice that they made, presumably because it fulfilled some messaging or artistic goal that they were pursuing.

Is there a limit of some sort on what should be considered acceptable ways to express a message or artistic goal? I'm not arguing that Oasis Chorale is out of line, just asking if, in your opinion, there is such a thing as unacceptable ways to express an artistic goal.

I imagine many folks that take great umbrage at the rather mild choreography that they programmed in their 2026 season (I attended two concerts and saw it firsthand) might be rather uneasy with the core of Oasis Chorale’s mission to begin with. If one finds Oasis Chorale concerts compelling and uplifting in every other way, but finds the movement they incorporate to be an insurmountable impediment to their worship or general enjoyment, closing one’s eyes and simply enjoying the audio component of the concert is an easy enough solution.

Certainly that is one option. And of course, simply closing the internet browser is an easy enough solution if one reads things on MennoNet that they do not appreciate. That doesn't mean it's the only option. Closing one's eyes to things that one is concerned about is rarely the right solution.

While I find these sorts of accusations and complaints bewildering and exasperating, I think they also serve a useful purpose, in some grim sense. If a young Anabaptist with artistic inclinations and aspirations finds themselves wondering whether their gifts and interests might be welcomed, encouraged, and cared for in their church community, encountering sentiments such as these from leaders and trusted members of the community provides a great deal of clarity in answering those questions. Perhaps at some point in the distant utopian future, messaging like this will gain enough momentum to successfully push most of the poets, painters, and musicians out of the church. Only then can we attain an environment that is sufficiently drab and bleak to allow us to get down to the serious business of worship, without all the extraneous nonsense that the pesky artists insist on foisting upon us.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But I would suggest that if you allow yourself to freely express your exasperation and bewilderment by mocking those who express concern about certain types of artistic expression, you are unlikely to build the type of communication that could benefit both you and them. In my opinion, it's a bit presumptuous to say that the church community should encourage and care for those with artistic inclinations while denigrating those who see worship as serious business. Why not welcome both in the church and temper one's natural inclinations (in either direction) to the benefit of all?

[Ernie]

Expressing exasperation and bewilderment and mocking Plain Anabaptists for wanting to stay Plain has been going on now for just over 500 years.
We have enough cycles of history now to know what the fruit of such sentiments will produce in those engaging in these sorts of fruitbearing.