The Truth about Yoga

[~Anastasia~]

It's not about entertainment. If it were, a lot more people would want to come.

Precisely my point - that it's not about entertainment.

Funny, you are probably right. I left "entertainment" churches. And you're right, they were packed.

But if it were about "entertainment" I wouldn't want to come anymore. I prefer it just as it is.

 

[Kristos]

True, yet it is a performance nonetheless. It is a religious rebinding ("from religio, to reunite") of heaven and earth, through the performance of a sacred ceremony. All members of the community are participants in the ceremony, playing specific roles (as roles in a play). It is a play: the reenactment of a sacred drama, that of our salvation by God in Christ. We are all performers in this drama with specific roles. That is why we strive to do it well. There's nothing wrong with this.

No, it's not a drama and it's not a play and it's not a reenactment. I didn't like the word show because it would tend toward these other words which are not correct. There are many good books out there on the Liturgy - I would recommend: "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemann. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom: Alexander Schmemann, Paul Kachur: 9780881410181: Amazon.com: Books

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, it's not a drama and it's not a play and it's not a reenactment. I didn't like the word show because it would tend toward these other words which are not correct. There are many good books out there on the Liturgy - I would recommend: "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemann. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom: Alexander Schmemann, Paul Kachur: 9780881410181: Amazon.com: Books

actually, I think that Elder Vasilios on Mt Athos points out that it is a sacred drama. we do plug into everything from the Fall to the Second Coming.

 

[Kristos]

actually, I think that Elder Vasilios on Mt Athos points out that it is a sacred drama. we do plug into everything from the Fall to the Second Coming.

Sounds like a completely different context - so I wonder what is the point of posting it...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No, it's not a drama and it's not a play and it's not a reenactment. I didn't like the word show because it would tend toward these other words which are not correct. There are many good books out there on the Liturgy - I would recommend: "The Eucharist" by Alexander Schmemann. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom: Alexander Schmemann, Paul Kachur: 9780881410181: Amazon.com: Books

Understandably this is not language we would want to use when talking to people (Protestants, namely) who don't have a solid belief in the real presence in the Eucharist or in the truly divine soul of the liturgy. But just because the participation between heaven and earth, centered on the Eucharist but evident throughout the Divine Liturgy, is real and not merely symbolic doesn't mean it isn't also symbolic. It is a drama that dramatizes visibly what is happening invisibly; it is a play that connects the participants to the story-world of the play, and in which the director and author of the play comes out on stage himself; it is a reenactment that not only mimics but participates in the events it references. In those senses, it is unlike any other play, reenactment, or drama, and it is more than any play, reenactment, or drama; but it is not less than those for it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sounds like a completely different context - so I wonder what is the point of posting it...

well, merely commenting that it is not a drama (it is), and while not ONLY a reenactment, that element is also there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Understandably this is not language we would want to use when talking to people (Protestants, namely) who don't have a solid belief in the real presence in the Eucharist or in the truly divine soul of the liturgy. But just because the participation between heaven and earth, centered on the Eucharist but evident throughout the Divine Liturgy, is real and not merely symbolic doesn't mean it isn't also symbolic. It is a drama that dramatizes visibly what is happening invisibly; it is a play that connects the participants to the story-world of the play, and in which the director and author of the play comes out on stage himself; it is a reenactment that not only mimics but participates in the events it references. In those senses, it is unlike any other play, reenactment, or drama, and it is more than any play, reenactment, or drama; but it is not less than those for it.

You bring up a very good point, for me especially, GCC.

I was kind of weird for a low-church Protestant anyway, I think.

I believe the Eucharist is real, but you make a good point that elements of the services can also be symbolic at the same time as they are real. Your comments remind me of Holy Week, for example. I think we have to say that all of those events are symbolic, but at the same time, it drew me in to bring to mind the real, and make it very immediate.

There's more of a tie between "symbolic" and "real" in that way - than if we look at just two opposite views of the Eucharist only.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but thank you for giving me something to think about.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You bring up a very good point, for me especially, GCC.

I was kind of weird for a low-church Protestant anyway, I think.

I believe the Eucharist is real, but you make a good point that elements of the services can also be symbolic at the same time as they are real. Your comments remind me of Holy Week, for example. I think we have to say that all of those events are symbolic, but at the same time, it drew me in to bring to mind the real, and make it very immediate.

There's more of a tie between "symbolic" and "real" in that way - than if we look at just two opposite views of the Eucharist only.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but thank you for giving me something to think about.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Understandably this is not language we would want to use when talking to people (Protestants, namely) who don't have a solid belief in the real presence in the Eucharist or in the truly divine soul of the liturgy. But just because the participation between heaven and earth, centered on the Eucharist but evident throughout the Divine Liturgy, is real and not merely symbolic doesn't mean it isn't also symbolic. It is a drama that dramatizes visibly what is happening invisibly; it is a play that connects the participants to the story-world of the play, and in which the director and author of the play comes out on stage himself; it is a reenactment that not only mimics but participates in the events it references. In those senses, it is unlike any other play, reenactment, or drama, and it is more than any play, reenactment, or drama; but it is not less than those for it.

Good points.

The Divine Romance also comes to mind when it comes to descriptions.....as a good description.

 

[truefiction1]

You bring up a very good point, for me especially, GCC.

I was kind of weird for a low-church Protestant anyway, I think.

I believe the Eucharist is real, but you make a good point that elements of the services can also be symbolic at the same time as they are real. Your comments remind me of Holy Week, for example. I think we have to say that all of those events are symbolic, but at the same time, it drew me in to bring to mind the real, and make it very immediate.

There's more of a tie between "symbolic" and "real" in that way - than if we look at just two opposite views of the Eucharist only.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but thank you for giving me something to think about.

You're making perfect sense. It is both symbolic and real at the same time. I had forgotten that I had to learn that lesson at one time (very long ago), and was operating under the gross presumption that everyone here (in the Orthodox subgroup) already possesses this understanding as an underlying assumption. Hence, I didn't see any problem with talking strictly about the more material characteristics of the Liturgy, whereas some others, being more sensitive to the mindsets of those from other traditions, did. Sorry if I was confusing.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Agree. The term "Commemoration" is probably even better yet. The only reason I initially chose the world "show" is because I recall a particular sermon given by a classmate upon his ordination to the deaoconate, wherein he repeatedly stated that the Liturgy is "not a show". His intent, of course, was to supremely emphasize the prayer and spiritual ascent that must be taking place during our participation in Liturgy. He was certainly correct in this regard, but if one were to take this idea to an extreme and deny the importance of the "performance", or "show" characteristics of the Liturgy, then one may end up with the notion that how the Liturgy is done is of no importance at all, and the elimination of it altogether, so that one can worship purely in "spirit and truth". Sound familiar?

When it comes to the reality that everything we do is to be done in excellence, it's hard not to escape the fact that we're called to perform or demonstrate on some level - it is NOT to be sloppy. And yes..I am familiar with what you're noting. Of course, even within the Protestant World, this is something that not all accept as it concerns just going with it - some places were so strict that the pews had signs asking others who could not sing to refrain from singing since they wanted to make a beautiful sound before the Lord. And other musicians and singers have often spoken on the issue - one of my favorites known as Shai Linne (within the world of Spoken Word and Poetry/Rap) sharing on the matter here in Lyrical Theology: Skills or Message? and Shai Linne Speaks On ‘Christianity & The Arts’ « CGHearn.com

Because of how many within the Protestant world do things as it concerns simply performing, others may be quick to assume that all Protestants are of the same mindset. Also, because the focus of many Protestants doing things simply as if it's a performance has done damage, it tends to influence the ways that we see language and thus we don't want to use any language that has associations with the concept of performing.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Agree. The term "Commemoration" is probably even better yet. The only reason I initially chose the world "show" is because I recall a particular sermon given by a classmate upon his ordination to the deaoconate, wherein he repeatedly stated that the Liturgy is "not a show". His intent, of course, was to supremely emphasize the prayer and spiritual ascent that must be taking place during our participation in Liturgy.

Something that came to my mind in regards to the comment made by the person you made - in light of how all areas of life are spiritual and we're to operate under the mindset that all we do is meant to glorify the Lord - is it possible to do Yoga for the glory of God as if one is doing a performance before Him?

I ask that in light of an excellent read on the issue which I was thankful for - by Rev. Dr. Daniel Thomas, a former professor of Religious Studies at Vanier College in Montreal, Canada, and a priest of the Indian Orthodox Church (which evangelize in their predominantly Hindu society in a unique way). It was called MEDITATION, A Technique to Keep you Happy and Healthy - and it was interesting to consider the ways that he was willing to address the issue of Yoga. Seeing the ways that yoga was laid out, it seemed that a lot of the reactions to it seemed to be based more so in the stereotype of what it was rather than addressing the ways other believers have done it directly in worship before Christ (more shared in A Voice in the Wilderness: A Guide to Yoga from a Christian Priest ). He seemed to discuss Yoga from the same perspective as one appreciating those who invented the art of flying (even though they may have been atheists or others with partial revelation) and showing how it could be done unto Christ.

And for further clarification, I wanted to ask your thoughts on the following - to note, from the jump, the speaker is one who is an Anabaptist. But his ethos is one which I've seen other Orthodox echo and I thought he did a good job of expressing the matter. As he noted best here elsewhere (for brief excerpt):

If by Yoga, you mean blindly embrace all tenants of Hinduism, then of course that is antithetical to Christian practice. But from what I can tell those who practice "CHRISTIAN YOGA" are not trying to promote an idolatrous synergism. A Christian approach to Yoga is not Yoga "in its true form". It's also likely that your common Yoga class at the community centre is likely not Yoga in "its true form". Doireann Fristoe explains,

Most Yoga currently practiced in [Western culture] only slightly resembles the original practice. In fact, most of what we call yoga in the West is not truly yoga at all—it is only asana, the physical postures, and pranayama, the breathing exercises. There are myriad SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT in modern yoga and to sum all of them up in a few paragraphs would do them no justice. Hinduism involves yoga; all yoga is not Hinduism.​

Can we incorporate asana and pranayama into the Christian's practices of prayer, contemplation and meditation?

...."Yoga's physical positions allow for the influence of the demonic." I am told that assuming the physical poses can allow demonic influence in your life. Objectors suggest that when you participate in Yoga, even Yoga that is based in Christian prayer and worship, you are unknowing worshiping demons and idols.

I am critical of the claim that a Christians can unknowingly worship a demon (idol or 'god'). It seems like a bit of stretch too me. (excuse the pun) I don't think the Apostle Paul buys this claim either as evidenced in the first letter to the Corinthians. When asked about eating meat sacrificed to idols Paul says:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as INDEED there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." -1 Corinthians 8:4-6​

Paul does not think eating meat that has been offered to an idol somehow defiles the Christian by consuming that meat. Paul believes this to be true because through Christ all things came and through Christ we live. (v6) God is Creator of the meat, not the idol god. So it appears that by thinking the meat is defiled might be giving CREDIT where credit is not due. How is this connected to the Yoga discussion? Let me suggest that because our bodies came from God, and thereby any physical actions necessitated with having a body (i.e. eating, stretching, sitting, laying), I am in no danger of worshiping an idol. (I am of course not including actions done with the body, such as adultery or gluttony, within this category of normal human physicality.) A Christian who does a Yoga pose (like the downward facing dog) is no more in danger of worshiping an idol (demon/god) than a non-Christian is of worshiping YHWH by raising their hands upward in a yawn or of giving a gift at Christmas time.

To sum up my answer: If I can eat meat (a physical action) that is sacrificed to idols and still be faithful to Christ; cannot I not also assume a yoga position (a physical action) in prayer and worship to Jesus without worry of unknowingly worshiping an idol?
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is both symbolic and real at the same time. I had forgotten that I had to learn that lesson at one time (very long ago), and was operating under the gross presumption that everyone here (in the Orthodox subgroup) already possesses this understanding as an underlying assumption. Hence, I didn't see any problem with talking strictly about the more material characteristics of the Liturgy, whereas some others, being more sensitive to the mindsets of those from other traditions, did. S

 

[~Anastasia~]

You're making perfect sense. It is both symbolic and real at the same time. I had forgotten that I had to learn that lesson at one time (very long ago), and was operating under the gross presumption that everyone here (in the Orthodox subgroup) already possesses this understanding as an underlying assumption. Hence, I didn't see any problem with talking strictly about the more material characteristics of the Liturgy, whereas some others, being more sensitive to the mindsets of those from other traditions, did. Sorry if I was confusing.

You were fine, nothing needs forgiving. It helps me to think about these things. I have experienced it somewhat - in the Holy Week services - but not in the Eucharist.

I'm still a bit caught up in the wonder of how it can be so. So it's good for me to think through it a bit. I appreciate your point of view. Thank you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can't believe we've taken yoga 12 pages! LOL

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I can't believe we've taken yoga 12 pages! LOL

Getting off track helped.