To Yoga?
I have written before that the emerging church movement (ECM) presents a very dangerous challenge to the orthodox church. I realize that emerging and emergent can be confused and that not all in the ECM are un-orthodox. My suggestion, by the way, is for the orthodox few to lose the term emerging or emergent anyway. They may never be able to separate themselves from the un-orthodox garbage coming from some out there.
Anyway, this past week I heard about an interview on CNN involving Doug Pagitt (ECM proponent) and John MacArthur. The topic was Yoga. More particularly, it was whether a Christian should be involved in Yoga? I have put the text of the interview below with my comments in bold. I would be interested in how others see this. Thoughts?
The following is an unofficial transcript of that discussion (which we are posting here because CNN does not publish transcripts for Prime News with Erica Hill). A link to the video feed can be found here.
* * * * *
Mike Galanos (host): [directed to Erica Hill] Let me ask you that question? When you do yoga do you feel the spirituality? Would it compromise a faith with you?
Erica Hill (host): No to me it’s very, to me it’s relaxing. It relaxes me. Now to some people maybe that would be relaxation in the form of spirituality. But to me, it’s sort of “oh,” it’s clearing my head, it’s giving me a break.
Mike Galanos (host):Okay. And that, you hear a lot of that, you read a lot of that on the internet. Me personally, I haven’t done it. I work out, maybe I’m doing a few curls and I’m getting out of the gym, so I come at this with a purely inquisitive mind. What do we have here? Alright let’s find out.
Erica mentioned it’s big — seventeen million of you out there practice yoga. But again, Erica mentioned it, some Christians, one in particular says a Christian should not do yoga. He’s Pastor John MacArthur; he is pastor of Grace Community Church also host of the radio show Grace to You. He joins us now. Bottom line, basically you can’t get the physical benefits without incorporating the spiritual roots of yoga. We’ll talk with John MacArthur in just a minute.
Also joining us, a pastor who fully disagrees and says “Hey, doing yoga is okay,” Doug Pagitt. His church in Minneapolis actually offers a class in yoga.
But let’s start with you, John MacArthur. Alright, let’s say I do decide to try yoga, head to the local gym, give it a shot. What am I opening myself up to spiritually that could go against my Christian faith?
John MacArthur: Well that would depend on how the yoga is conducted. If it’s just purely exercise, and you’re a strong Christian, it probably wouldn’t have any impact on your faith. But in the big picture, why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion, from pantheism (god is everything, you’re god, everything is god), when we believe there’s only one true God (the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ). Why would we need to import that? If you want to exercise, exercise. But why borrow a term that has been part of a false religion for centuries?
Mike Galanos (host):Doug Pagitt, let’s get you in on this. And as we do, I want to read the definition from Webster’s on “yoga.” It says it’s “a Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that the self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation.” Kind of tough one to cipher but, on a spiritual front for a Christian, that does not sound like Christ-centered faith to me. On the surface of that definition, what’s going on here? Help us out.
Doug Pagitt: Well, for people who perform yoga, what they’re normally trying to do is to find a whole and complete and healed life. So when people participate in yoga, most of them aren’t on some kind of a yoga agenda. What they’re trying to do is use whatever practices they can find that would help them have a whole and complete life. And for a Christian, that’s certainly what we’re after. The Jesus agenda is a whole life, is a complete life, is a healed life. So when people use it to relieve stress, to be healthy in their relationships, to feel good in their body, that’s a really good thing.
In fact, there’s a great little verse in the New Testament where it says, “Whatever is good, whatever is right, whatever is noble, whatever is praiseworthy, think upon such things.” And for so many of us, yoga has been one of those ‘whatevers’ that’s such a positive thing in our life. [Does anything go? The key here in the verse is "good" and "right." Hinduism and its Yoga qualify as neither.]
Mike Galanos (host): So you say, Jesus is alright with yoga?
Doug Pagitt: Yeah, are you asking if I think Jesus was alright with yoga?
Mike Galanos (host): Yeah.
Doug Pagitt: Yeah, I’m not sure exactly how to answer a question like that. My assumption is that Christianity and yoga are not in competition with one another and are not enemies of one another. So to suggest that I could speak clearly for everything that Jesus would have been okay with – if Jesus was familiar with yoga when he was alive, and yoga has certainly around from before the time of Jesus, I don’t think Jesus ever spoke out against yoga and said, don’t perform yoga. But that kind of question that you’re going to ask somebody – “If Jesus was okay with it, then I wouldn’t do it” – that’s the kind of thing that says, would Jesus be okay with pastors wearing suits? Would Jesus be okay with having Christmas trees? These are the kinds of questions that just don’t move forward. [Jesus, through Paul has spoken about this. See Col. 2:8]
Mike Galanos (host): Let’s get back to the yoga — Doug, let’s get back to yoga real quick – as you do the postures, and this again, again I have not done yoga, but you do the postures, and they’re, one of the concerns is that it’s an offering to some of the millions of Hindu gods. Is there a part of you in the spirit that’s tweaked at all by this? Are you bothered at all. You practice yoga yourself. How do you go through with it?
Doug Pagitt: Hey, I have to confess that I’m not very good at it? Yoga, it’s really hard to hold these postures, to hold these positions. And I’ll tell you that from my own experience, and the many, many people that I know who participate in yoga, none of them have ever found themselves to be opened up to something negative or something demonic or something evil. In fact, many of us find the high benefit that comes from body mind connection, and from knowing that we are pushing, that we are stretching, that we are sending our body into an exercise. And that exercise is not wholly disconnected from our will or from our mind or from our spirit; it’s a complete practice. And I’ve never known anybody who has had anything detrimental come into their spirit because of their practice of yoga.
Mike Galanos (host): John MacArthur, real quick, want to get you in on this as well, is all yoga bad yoga for the Christian?
John MacArthur: Well, let me just respond to what I’ve been hearing. That doesn’t sound anything like Christianity. If you want a whole life, if you want your life to be what it should be, you don’t put yourself in some weird physical position, empty your mind, center on yourself and try to relieve your stress. You go to the word of God, to the gospel of Jesus Christ, you embrace in faith the sacrifice of Christ in his death and resurrection as your savior and redeemer. God comes, regenerates you, transforms your life, makes you a new creation, and you’re saved and you’re on your way to heaven, and you can live a life of peace and joy. That’s the promise of the gospel. There is no contribution made to that by any physical position or any kind of meditation.
The idea of Christianity is to fill your mind with biblical truth and focus on the God who is above you. That’s Christian worship. The idea of yoga is to fill your mind with nothing except to focus on yourself and try to find the god that is inside of you. From a Christian viewpoint, that’s a false religion. Exercise is a different issue.
Mike Galanos (host):Gentlemen, we’re going to have to leave it there. Pastor Doug Pagitt and John MacArthur we appreciate your time, both of you. Thank you very much.
JM responded better than I can. I will reiterate that so much of the ECM is teetering on the edge of orthodoxy that we must be ever on guard against the unbiblical practices coming out of the movement. Why these guys don’t just go back to preaching Christ is beyond my imagination!
September 24, 2007 at 12:35 pm
So can we as Christians do Yoga as exercise without getting mixed up in the religious aspects of it, as MacArthur said? Can we use exercises like Yoga to help us focus on the spiritual realities of our faith in Christ?
What do you think?
September 24, 2007 at 1:34 pm
My question is why use Yoga? Which branch of Yoga would one use?
Karma Yoga? (Karma Yoga is the path of service for in this path, it is believed that your present situation is based on your past actions. So by doing selfless service now, you are choosing a future that is free from negativity and selfishness. Karma Yogis change their attitude towards the good and in the process, change their souls, which leads to a change in their destiny.)
Or, perhaps
Tantra Yoga or Yoga of Rituals
(Perhaps the most misunderstood of all the paths, Tantra Yoga is about using rituals to experience what is sacred. Although sex is a part of it, sex is not the whole of it since this path aims to find what is sacred in everything we do. Tantra Yogis must possess certain qualities like purity, humility, devotion, dedication to his Guru, cosmic love, and truthfulness among other things.)
Maybe…
Hatha Yoga (It is perhaps the path of Yoga you are most familiar with since this is the most popular branch of Yoga in the West. This branch of Yoga uses physical poses or Asana, Breathing Techniques or Pranayama, and Meditation to achieve better health, as well as spirituality. There are many styles within this path - Iyengar, Integral, Astanga, Kripalu, and Jiva Mukti to name a few.)
Which one should Christians participate in? Why link up with an Eastern religion to get exercise?
I do not know that this is true always, but one researcher says, “…”teacher and students” in yoga classes commonly greet each other with the Sanskrit “Namaste,” meaning, “I honor the Divine within you.”" Is this Christian? No way. Compatible with Christianity? Hardly!
This same researcher attributes the following to a proponent of integrating Yoga into Western Christianity…
“He speaks of a “true cross-fertilization” taking place as yoga becomes entwined as part of the new spirituality of “progressive” religious elements in the Western faiths.”
I could go on, but it seems clear to me that Yoga is in no way compatible with Christianity.
Les
September 24, 2007 at 1:52 pm
One other thing. Syncretism is defined as the union (or attempted fusion) of different systems of thought or belief (especially in religion or philosophy). Infusing Eastern religious practices with Christianity amounts to syncretism. The Bible clearly abhors this (witness Israelites entering Canaan and their being warned).
Now the Bible asserts that the so-called gods are not real (Ps. 115:4-7). However, the enemy uses these practices to enslave people (Is. 44:20; 1 Cor. 8; 10).
Not for Christians.
Les
September 24, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Les,
I would suggest that the best way to know if Doug Pagitt has lost his mind is for you to really get to know him. That would take time and effort and may not be realistic. I saw that interview on CNN and it really wasn’t helpful in my mind. MacArthur in California (I presume) Pagitt in Minneapolis, the CNN guy in “who knows where?” and you and I in St. Louis. There was a lot of “missing” that went on during that interview. I really find these hodge-podge interactions to be so artificial. It really promotes a “soap-opera” environment. But, I confess, I got drawn into it because I know Pagitt fairly well and I found it entertaining. The whole thing was a bit of a circus. I commend MacArhtur for succinctly sharing the gospel, but he had to skirt a question to do it. Good for him, he seized the opportunity to share the gospel with millions of viewers. Bad for Pagitt to miss the opportunity. I wish Doug had simply said, as a last word, “I agree with what MacArhtur just said” (about the gospel). I know at one time he did agree with it. I’m not sure if he does any more and that would be tragic. I would agree with MacArthur’s first statement: essentially if yoga is done as exercise, it can be as harmless as me playing squash. But actually, my squash playing does have a spiritual dimension in many ways. The body is a temple of the Holy Spirit after all. Just a few rambling thoughts.
Bill
September 24, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Bill,
Though it may not be obvious, the question in the title is a play on words having to do with the so-called emptying of one’s mind in Yoga. I have no idea whether Pagitt has truly lost his mind and am not suggesting that.
You are probably right that I will most likely not have an opportunity to get to know him personally. I can only interact with what he says and writes.
I do wonder, though, about taking a religious practice which is part of a false religion into one’s Christian practice. Yoga is not a religion. It is a religious practice. So, I still do not understand why a church would encourage such. Yes YOU may be able to divorce the religious connotations from the exercise technically. But does that fact mitigate the danger of the fusing of the undeniable religious practice of a false religion with Christianity?
September 24, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Les,
Actually, I will tell you why I did in fact attend a yoga class once. I wanted to be able to speak with first-hand experience about what happens in a yoga class. Maybe it is the missionary in me or the anthropologist wanting to engage in participant-observation. In addition to being able to speak with some experience, I now can also engage intelligently and with credibility people who do yoga regularly. I know what “namaste” means and can use it as an entry into spiritual conversations with yoga practitioners.
I understand the asyncretism concern. But we can’t hide behind that when we are exhorted to engage the culture in Scripture. Otherwise there were lots of things I did and places I went that I shouldn’t have done when in Africa. And they make yoga look very mild.
I wouldn’t advise any-old-body to engage in yoga. And I wouldn’t want yoga classes in “the church.” But I think it could be OK to be educated and engage in a yoga class as exercise and also to have a ministry mentality of desiring to engage in gospel conversations with those you meet who likely participate with little spiritual discernment.
By the way, I didn’t like yoga. Not enough action for me.
Bill
September 24, 2007 at 8:14 pm
This is a really interesting question! Here are some of my musings… Christmas and Easter as festivals have utterly pagan roots. They were pagan celebrations that were observed long before Jesus. In fact, the traditions of Yule logs and evergreen (Christmas) trees are originally pagan traditions. The Christian church adopted these occasions to celebrate the birth and resurrection of Christ. Is this a problem? I’m not so sure. Aren’t Christians to be in the business of redeeming culture? Perhaps there IS value in adopting pagan practices in order to redeem them for Christ. We can affirm the importance of exercise, relaxation, wholeness, and the connection between the body and the mind. Couldn’t there be such a thing as Christian yoga? And like you said, Dad, perhaps it can open doors to talk to people, build some bridges. Thoughts?
September 24, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Stephanie, and Bill before:
The Christmas and Easter topic would be good for further discussion. For now, If I hear you correctly Stephanie, it might be culturally redeeming to adopt pagan practices. Is that to mean “Christianize” them?
Are there limits on what religious pagan practices we might adopt? Smoke Peyote?
September 25, 2007 at 6:39 am
I think our focus should be on being ambassadors and ministers of reconciliation to PEOPLE. Christianize them. And as people grow in grace and knowledge of Christ, and are conformed to His image (sanctification), these other cultural matters will come under the Lordship of Christ and will themselves become Christianized. Getting back to yoga. My observation is that the vast majority of the participants that I know (granted a small sampling of the estimated 17 million in the USA who practice), have little understanding of the historical and spiritual connections to it. They are ripe for the gospel though. How do we reach them? Or anybody? It takes time, and inconvenience, and maybe even dipping out toe into something that is uncomfortable for the sake of Christ. All things to all people. I like the sign at the Kirk when you leave the building “you are now entering the mission field.”
Bill
September 25, 2007 at 9:37 am
Dad, I agree!
September 25, 2007 at 9:49 am
Could this be where “Duke” Pagitt is coming from?
September 25, 2007 at 10:16 am
I could venture a guess as to where Duke is coming from but my guess would be based on my relationship with him that was forged primarily when he was 17-19 years old and then short touches with him over the past 20 years. But I think the best way to know where Doug (I don’t think he goes by Duke anymore) is coming from is to ask him. So, we’ve come full circle, at least to where I entered the discussion. Getting to know someone takes time and effort and may not be realistic. What Les says is true (he only knows Pagitt by what he writes or says), and in the world of blogs, even more so…when someone puts themselves “out there” for people to read or listen to, they open themselves up to all kinds of “critiques.” Google “pagitt blog” and see his top entry. He is on the firing line and knows it and even predicted it.
Until I am persuaded otherwise, I prefer to treat Doug as a brother who happens to have some “out there” things in which he’s involved. But the only way we would know if he is “orthodox” is if we spend time with him or read his responses to some very direct questions.
Name calling is not helpful. Putting someone in a box is not helpful. Building a straw man is not helpful. And I am not saying that anybody has done these specific things. But I see the danger of the “virtual” world of blogging to devolve into that. And I think we need to be on guard against it.
September 25, 2007 at 10:26 am
Duke? Did someone refer to him as Duke?
September 25, 2007 at 10:43 am
That’s a nickname he used to go by, right, Dad? Apparently, not anymore. : )
September 25, 2007 at 10:50 am
Oh.
Well, he is making more news lately. Over at Phil Johnson’s blog, Pyromaniacs, there is quite a stir. Apparently Doug is alleged to have said that John MacArthur preaches a perverted gospel.
The link is
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/09/different-gospels.html#links
I am interested in anyone’s thoughts who might have read a book called Listening to the Emerging Church (I think that is the title). One reviewer said,
“Doug Pagitt’s chapter focuses on “embodied theology” and epitomizes the current movement towards an “everchanging” theology that is never permanent. Within a few pages of space, he criticizes the Reformation, Augustine and the idea of Scripture as ultimate authority. He also leaves as an open-ended question the issue of sexual behaviors expressly condemned in Scripture.”
Phil Johnson says of Paggit’s theology,
“To be specific: I’ve read Church Re-imagined, Preaching Re-Imagined, and Pagitt’s chaper in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, and as far as I can tell, Doug Pagitt nowhere says “what [he] believes in detail about the gospel.” His aim seems to be a studied and purposeful ambiguity, framed in the context of his repeated critiques of historic Protestant and evangelical opinions.
That’s true even in Listening . . . where one might expect a little more clarity. Instead, in the section of Pagitt’s chapter where he mentions “the gospel” most, he starts that section with a defense of Pelagianism. He claims Augustine’s opposition to Pelagius was rooted in political and personal motives rather than honest doctrinal concerns.
Beyond that (and throughout his chapter) he attempts no clear definition (or description) of gospel truth, but instead passionately argues for the fluidity, universality, uncertainty, “holism,” and progressive/evolutionary nature of theology–which (of course) adds up, again, to deliberate, hopeless ambiguity all around.
So when he accidentally has a moment of lucid clarity, such as acknowledging that he despises the gospel proclaimed by “the likes of John MacArthur” and believes something different, I do think that in and of itself is a significant statement, and worthy of being highlighted.”
Has anyone else read theologically clarifying statements by Doug himself?
The above characterizations seem very unorthodox.
Les
September 25, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Very unfortunate positions taken by Pagitt regarding MacArthur and what he believes. But, the story is not over on him or any of us until we meet our maker.
September 25, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Bill I agree. Unfortunate and not the end of the story. We all have our errors and blindspots. The real tradegy here is the position Pagitt has as a pastor and widely read author. We should offer prayer on behalf of this man that he see the truth.
September 26, 2007 at 11:47 am
The thought has run through my mind in this discussion: To whom is Pagitt accountable. I’m not sure. Only he could answer that. But we should ask it of ourselves as well. To whom am I accountable. Prone to wander Lord I feel it! Brothers, hold me accountable please.
September 26, 2007 at 2:07 pm
To all–
I have been following this discussion from afar and so many thoughts rush into my mind–which obviously makes me a bad candidate for all things eastern…
Before I try to offer any of those thoughts, read this brief quote from Phil Ryken. He originally posted it on a reformation21 blog regarding the Federal Vision controversy. Even if you are not up on the details of that issue, one of the things that is often said in that debate is what is being said here of Paggit and those in the ECM: “we may disagree, but we have to have charity.” Here’s Ryken’s quote:
“…what are the public implications of this call to charity? The very framing of the discussion in this way would seem to imply that those who disagree with the FV, and wish to defend the PCA (for example) from its doctrines are not so charitable. Is this framing of the debate itself charitable?
I also suspect that a category mistake may be at work. Is charity a virtue that properly may be exercised toward a theological position with which we disagree? I wonder. Certainly charity is an obligation we have to persons, especially brothers and sisters in Christ. But is it something we owe to a constellation of theological ideas, especially if we consider them doctrinally unsound and pastorally unwise? In that case, would not the truly charitable thing be to oppose those ideas, for the good of the church? In this context, a call to charity gives the impression of being an emotivist attempt to claim ground in a theological dispute.” (Reformation21, May 9, 2006)
Brethren, I humbly submit that the primary error of the ECM is that they have made people their god, against whom the greatest sin is providing offense. It is no surprise, then, that Christ and has Gospel have to be ‘re-imagined,” because by definition both are offensive.
As for Paggit’s orthodoxy, I am never in need of having met him to make the judgment that his words are, Biblically speaking, indefensible. That is NOT a judgment on his character. It IS a judgment on his teaching. I may be wrong in my assesment of his teaching, or I may be right. But my “getting to know him” is irrelevant. I might as well propose that I must withhold judgment on Osama bin Laden until I “get to know him.” It is very, very dangerous to ever fall to the fallacy that you have to “know someone’s heart” before you can make a judgment of their words. Only God knows the heart, and he has nowhere commanded us to make our assesments of truth based upon what we can’t know. THe Scripture is filled, rather, with the command that we assess teaching by the absoulte standards of the Word.
Yes, we are called to be ambassadors, but note that Paul says we are ambassadors of CHRIST, which means we are representing him, not people. He prefaces his remarks by saying, “Therefore, knowing the FEAR of the Lord, we persuade others.” Could you imagine any American ambassador to a foreign country preferring the interests of that country over America’s interest? He certainly ought not be obnoxious, but he isn’t their for them, but for us! As ambassadors of Christ we represent him and his Gospel. It is one thing to respect people, who are made in the image of God–but it is another thing altogether to suggest in any way that their thinking is beyond reproach. That is precisely what repentance is all about.
The tragic reality is that, while the vast majority of evangelicals are busy withholding judgment on ECM theology under the wrongheaded notion that they are being ambassadors, the church is being devoured. And for that we will have to give an account.
I appeal back to Ryken’s quote, and I pray that more men will find the fortitude to recognize the difference between the insipid, sentimental insecurity that is being passed off as “charity” and the true call to “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13).
If we want to truly love people and reach out, then we must make the defense of God’s glory and truth in the Gospel our battleground; the message we have to bring is nothing is not a “mind body connection.” It’s “attain[ing] to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).
September 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Sorry–that last paragraph should read:
If we want to truly love people and reach out, then we must make the defense of God’s glory and truth in the Gospel our battleground; the message we have to bring is not a “mind body connection” but rather “attain[ing] to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). And only the Gospel has power to do that.
Next time I’ll try to put some more emotion in what I say.
September 26, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Bill, I just discovered your 11:47am comment being held hostage in a “spam” catcher. Don’t know why, but it is up now.
Not sure what the fuss is about spam anyway. I rather like it, especially fried!
September 28, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I’ve enjoyed reading through all this and (virtually) seeing all of you.
But Rob, at the risk of hijacking this theologically intelligent thread, I was amused by this –
“Could you imagine any American ambassador to a foreign country preferring the interests of that country over America’s interest?”
Actually, yes, I could. The U.S. foreign service is shot through with diplomats who don’t support the policies of the United States.
October 1, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Well, you know me–I’m all about providing amusement! Too bad you’re right…
But had this been the Confederacy….