"THE DANCING CRAZE."

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18236, 21 November 1924, Page 8

"THE DANCING CRAZE."

VIEWS OF THE CHURCHES. The charge against the Presbyterian minister, who actually led the grand march at a dance, evidently shocked the Presbyterian General Assembly. The Rev. F. Rule, who returned from the Palmerston North session yesterday, was outright in his denunciation of the minister's action, which, however, he was careful to say, had not been committed, as far as he knew. "If it was done," he declared, "it was a most reprehensible act, and the minister committed a grave indiscretion." The reporter questioned Mr Eule about Dr. Gibb's statement that some of the Bible class social games entailed more body handling than some dancing, but he refused to discuss the subject. However, the Rev. N. L. D. Webster told the reporter that he had turned the matter over in his mind and had completely failed to find one social game played by the young Presbyterians that entailed "body handling." That expression, he considered, was most unfortunate.

The uncompromising attitude of the Presbyterian Assembly towards dancing prompted the reporter to find out what the Church of England, thought of the pastime. Archbishop Julius, Primate of New Zealand, put his views in a nutshell by saying, "I don't condemn a good thing because it may be used wrongly." He stated that the Church of England had made no pronouncement about dancing, and personally he considered that when properly controlled, it was healthful and invigorating, that it encouraged social intercourse between the sexes, and it need not be associated with evil tendencies. The clergy of the Church were at liberty to allow dancing, and they had no authority to condemn it, in itself. "In my own parish," he said, speaking, as a parish priest, "I not only allowed but encouraged dancing under careful control and reasonable restrictions, and I think with advantage to tho younger people of the church. On the other hand, dancing without restraint or restriction, is liable to serious misuse and danger. Public rooms, late hours, intercourse between people unknown to each other, and without restraint by older friends, unquestionably lends itself to evil purposes. In particular, I object to tho use of any buildings connected with the Church for dancing not subject to the direct control of members. >J The Archbishop added that in Ballarat the communicant members of his church had held a weekly dance, under his sanction.

Still pursuing his enquiries the interviewer spoke to the Eev. H. J. Huffadine, pastor of the Trinity Congregational Church. Mr Huffadine had no comment to make on the General Assembly's discussion, but he said that dancing had been allowed at his church socials, in the church schoolroom. "I'm no dancer myself," he said, "but of course dancing in itself is all right; though—l'm not so sure of some of these modern ones. The trouble is, I fear, that the craze for dancing is undermining interest in the deeper and more serious things of life. However, I think it is only a passing phaso."

Tho views of the Methodist Church must remain unstated. The Eev. W. A. Hay, chairman of the North Canterbury Methodist Synod, that has just finished, refused to say anything about dancing, as his church had not discussed it at the Synod.