Square Dancing (as opposed to other forms of the dance)

To give a bit of a preface to these remarks, I will briefly explain my own thoughts on dancing generally, namely, that most of it is intrinsically sinful. Be it the tango so strongly condemned in the early to mid 20th century or the dancing found in modern-day clubs and bars (and even wedding receptions!), the vast majority of 20th-21st century dancing is unabashedly sexualized and therefore sinful (not that sex is sinful, but extramarital sexual/sensual relations are, and for married couples, there are limits to what decency allows in public places. It is of course also possible to lust sinfully after one's own spouse, but that is a topic for another time). I do agree with the following passage regarding the square dance, however, and I think certain other forms of dance could very well be added to the list. Note that some earlier editions of this book were not as careful to distinguish between sinful and non-sinful dancing. Now, Graebner:

"All this is not identical with saying that in every dance the Christian boy, girl, man, or woman commits carnal sin. We have never endorsed the wholesale condemnation of this form of social amusement. Not to mention the square dance here, there are modern fancy dances which do not classify with the type to which the Christian should take exception. There are forms of  the ballet which are merely exhibitions of the grace of motion and of grouping. There are forms of tap dancing that are superb examples of rhythm and suggest nothing more. It would be folly to object to such entertainment in the proper place and on the right occasion. There are also forms in which couples take part promiscuously, occasionally seen in eating places, which are not of the tango type [previously strongly condemned], do not depend upon the embrace and upon other sensuous features for their attractiveness, but are properly done only when the partners remain separate. It would be absurd to place a general condemnation upon everything that is called a dance. But where do you see the kind of dancing that can be called unobjectionable? Where is anything to be seen that does not show its relation to the tango [or indeed, today, to dances which are just as bad if not worse], with the shuffles and glides that characterize the different popular steps?

"The old square dance is mentioned. This is not today, and never has been, in the mind of those who oppose dancing. The writer will say for himself that the Virginia reel and similar square "dances" were not objected to by him or his congregation at school picnics and young people's gathering. These dances are still in vogue in the Ozarks, in the Tennessee Mountains, and in other parts of the South. . . . And they have in more recent years taken a great hold upon the popular imagination, bringing, as they do, the atmosphere of the backwoods and of pioneer life into the modern ballroom. Today throughout the length and breadth of the land thousands of local groups have been organized for the cultivation of the square dance, and at the annual folk festival in St. Louis groups compete with each other, coming from every part of the United States. It would be an extreme pietism indeed that would fault young people – and also old – who find enjoyment in these old schottisches and quadrilles."

Theodore Graebner, The Borderland of Right and Wrong, 8th ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), 114-115.