Chopra's Jesus is Liberalism's "Gospel"

Tonight, I ran across a post over at Matthew Hall.net that reveals a quote made by Deepak Chopra regarding the ECUSA's recent decision. I decided to copy and paste the entire post, then add some comments to it:

Here’s a hypothetical situation. If I had my own radio/television show (maybe even a podcast), I just might devote an entire show each week to tracking the jibberish that comes out of Deepak Chopra’s mouth. Chopra has become an emblematic voice for 21st century American spirituality; he has an unmatched ability to speak ad nauseam without ever saying anything of actual substance.

Somehow this also translates into printed form. Take, for example, his article in Monday’s San Francisco Chronicle. Referring to the ECUSA’s recent decision, he writes:

[It] was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving. You’d think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn’t? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn’t? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love.

Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it’s hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ’s teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time.

Actually, Jesus has a lot to say that relates to judgment and wrath. And it’s not just a matter of homosexuality, but it strikes at the heart of the sin that infects and afflicts every son and daughter of Adam. And Jesus understood this - he came to “seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). Unfortunately, Chopra’s Jesus is one that is far too common in the popular mind. He leaves the matter of our guilt untouched and simply tells us to be “better people.”

But this is not Jesus and this is no Christianity. Another religion, perhaps, but not Christianity. Chopra’s Jesus brings to mind the indictment issued by H. Richard Niebuhr against liberalism’s gospel in The Kingdom of God in America (1938): "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."

*******

Chopra has made criticisms about Biblical Christianity (a.k.a. Fundamentalism to many of it's detractors) before. One of the best debates that I have ever seen on television last year was between Chopra and Christian apologist, Greg Koukl. They appeared together on on Lee Strobel's Faith Under Fire program.

In a past blogpost called Hostility Towards Christian Faith, I shared Greg's brilliant response to Chopra's obvious dislike and hostility towards the true Gospel and truth claims of Biblical Christianity:

A few months ago I watched Greg Koukl (a wonderful Christian apologist) and Deepak Chopra discuss the future of faith on Lee Strobel's Faith Under Fire. Dr. Chopra has written numerous books on New Age spirituality that have sold millions of copies.

Greg did a superb job of representing the gospel in content and character, modeling the qualities of an ambassador that he and the folks at Stand to Reason seek to instill in others. He repeatedly demonstrated the problems with religious relativism and exposed the fact that, contrary to his denial that he is dogmatic, Dr. Chopra adheres to a theological position of which he seeks to persuade others.

As a sign of respect for Jesus, Dr. Chopra said that his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is among his favorites and that he carries a copy of it with him. However, he considers Jesus only one among a number of God's messengers. Not only is this a contradiction of the biblical witness to Jesus' uniqueness, it's also unintelligible given Dr. Chopra's own concept of the nature of God. You see, Dr. Chopra emphatically denies that God is a personal being.

The concept of messenger presupposes two activities, both of which can only be performed by persons. The first is that of sending or commissioning. A messenger is one who is sent by someone not something.

The second activity presupposed by the concept of messenger is communication. A messenger is one who conveys a what? That's right - a message. The task of a messenger is to convey some kind of communication from the one who sent him or her to the recipient.

If I were to tell you that my toaster wanted me to tell you something, you'd think that I was either joking or something was seriously wrong with me. That's because we know that toasters and other impersonal entities don't communicate. So, how Dr. Chopra explains the concept of an impersonal God having messengers, I don't know.
I don't think he can. And he didn't. Dr. Chopra's position was logically impossible and spiritually unsatisfying.

It truly was absolutely fabulous! Greg Koukl pointed out the fact that people can have differing beliefs regarding faith, but that it is logically impossible for them all to be true at the same time. His trust in Jesus Christ and God's Word stood in direct contrast to Deepak Chopra who admitted "embracing his uncertainty." Koukl's view demonstrates a steadfast and true faith where Chopra's view can only lead to theological oblivion.

This is truly an important point to remember and share when confronted by someone adhering to such New Age beliefs.

Several weeks ago, I heard a Christian evangelist's radio broadcast and the one thing about his discussion that stood out in my mind was the fact that there is a liberal Christian movement today that is geared towards making The Sermon on the Mount the "new gospel" of Christianity. The evangelist pointed out the danger of doing this because even though the Sermon on the Mount is important in living our lives as Christian believers, it isn't the Gospel message that Jesus told us to "go into all the world and preach, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The message of the Cross of Christ involves the following: first, and foremost, the repentance of sins; then, forgiveness for those sins by faith in Christ and His shed blood at the cross. Only then, can reconciliation, mercy, grace, and ultimately salvation of the soul be bestowed upon the born again believer. In John 3:3, Jesus didn't say, 'you should be born again.' Jesus didn't say, 'I suggest that you be born again.' He said, "You MUST be born again."

The author at the Matthew Hall blogsite sums it up quite well:

Unfortunately, Chopra’s Jesus is one that is far too common in the popular mind. He leaves the matter of our guilt untouched and simply tells us to be “better people.”

But this is not Jesus and this is no Christianity. Another religion, perhaps, but not Christianity. Chopra’s Jesus brings to mind the indictment issued by H. Richard Niebuhr against liberalism’s gospel in The Kingdom of God in America (1938): "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."

For more about the reasons to avoid the heresy and apostasy of "Christ without a Cross," see this post that discusses Beware the Crossless Gospel.

Hat Tip: SmartChristian