Late Lenten penance: learning about Chopra's "Christ"

I've been meaning to post about a number of things, including a few thoughts on the theological vision (nightmare, really) of "Pastor" John Hagee, who has been front-and-center in the news recently. But the other three occupants in the household have been playing hot potato with the stomach flu, which means that when I snap my fingers and yell, "Iced beverage! Chips! Salsa!", nothing happens. At least nothing good. This queasy situation has, as you might surmise, caused problem with my normally streamlined and highly effective approach to work. (That last line, by the way, was actually a super-subtle testing of my boss's sense of humor. If this blog suddenly goes silent, you can figure that he didn't care for it.)

I did, however, want to let you know that I am, as a service to humanity, reading Deepak Chopra's new book, The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore (Harmony Books, 2008), which I plan to review in a careful, thorough, and largely negative fashion in the next week or so. Suffice to say, at the moment, that if you gave a hundred monkeys a typewriter, the Gospels, and eight-week course at the local New Age Center/Manicure Shop, this might be the book they produce. I'm not likening Mr. Chopra's intellect to that of a monkey; rather, I'm suggesting that if those monkeys attained "Chopra-consciousness" and got in touch with their higher selves, they could possibly write such a work. Here are just a few tid-bits to feed your inner monist monkey:

• "Yet Jesus failed to bring about God's rule on earth, and his radical vision became compromised only a generation after his death, at the same time that early Christianity was spreading with startling speed and intensity." (pp 2-3)

• "What made Jesus the Son of God was the fact that he had achieved God-consciousness." (pp 3-4)

• "Millions of people worship another Jesus, however, who never existed, who doesn't even lay claim to the fleeting substance of the first Jesus [the historical Jesus]. This is Jesus build up over thousands of years by theologians and other scholars. He is the Holy Ghost, the Three-in-One Christ, the source of sacraments and prayers that were unknown to the rabbi Jesus when he walked the earth. ... This second Jesus cannot be embraced without embracing theology first. Theology shifts with the tide of human affairs. Metaphysics itself is so complex that it contradicts the simplicity of Jesus words. Would he have argued with learned divines over the meaning of the Eucharist?" (p 9). Note to Chopra about that last question: read John 6.

• "But can any authority, however exalted, really inform us about what Jesus would have thought?" This is on page 9. The next 200+ pages are spent telling readers what Jesus would have thought about X,Y, and Z. So, yes, I guess that some self-exalted authority by the name of Deepak Chopra, does attempt to do the unthinkable. (Spoiler alert: he fails miserably.)

• On page 4, Chopra states, "I have written what I think the New Testament actually means, astonishing things stated in plain words." Then, on page 139, he writes, "Anyone can devise a new interpretation of the New Testament. Unfortunately, this great text is ambiguous and confusing enough to support almost any thesis about its meaning." Yes, indeed, as readily evidenced by your illogical but not-so-humble take on Jesus and Christianity.

• "Isn't it a direct contradiction to hold that Jesus was a unique creation—the one and only incarnation of God—while at the same time claiming to be able to read his mind on current events? Yet in his name Christianity pronounces on homosexuality, birth control, and abortion." (p 9). Get that, kids? Since Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, birth control, and abortion, it's wrong for Christians to oppose them. But, apparently, it is right for Christians to support them (and Chopra clearly thinks that's the case)—even though Jesus never said anything about them. This is what might be called an argument from sheer condescending stupidity, in part because Chopra isn't really upset that some Christians think Jesus is opposed to those things, but that those Christians are opposed to Chopra's beliefs about those things. Big difference. And I say it is condescending because Chopra doesn't engage Christian arguments (whether exegetical, philosophical, theological, etc.); he simply says, as he does in this recent "news" article, "Where did Jesus talk about stem cells, or abortion or homosexuality? There's just too much hypocrisy."

• "A Jesus who teaches us how to reach God-consciousness lays claim to being more authentic than any other, for even the most basic facts to support the existence of Jesus as he was traditionally worshipped are non-existent." (p 130) Or, put another way, since the historical Jesus of first-century Palestine is unknowable (as Chopra states elsewhere in the book), we shouldn't have faith in him. No, we should have faith in Chopra's Christ, who is not subject to skepticism and logical scrutiny because, um, well, that's not clear.

• "The Church spent most of the last two thousand years without needing to argue any facts at all." (p 131). How can I put this delicately? Chopra is not only theologically naive, he is historically illiterate. Yep, that's about it in a nutshell.

• "The Church has postponed redemption until some far-off Judgment Day." (p 143). Not at all. Redemption was established by Christ's death and resurrection, and it begins here and now, in this world, in time and history: "Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1934). Plus, the Church teaches that each person will be judged at the moment of their death, which really isn't that far off. Of course, if that's true, then Chopra's caricature of Christians as pie in the sky world-haters doesn't work very well. But if there is anything consistent about Chopra's self-contradicting, self-aggrandizing, self-centered book it is its sloppy, vague, and irresponsible misrepresentation of orthodox Christianity. Much more on that soon.

Alright, gotta run and get my own soda, chips, and salsa!

Comments

[Francis Beckwith]

""Where did Jesus talk about stem cells, or abortion or homosexuality? There's just too much hypocrisy." Ahh, but where did Jesus say that we should only believe what Jesus says in order to know the Christian understanding of things? Chopra is hoisted on his own petar, since he is assuming the correctness of a principle Jesus never uttered in order to affirm that Christians are only required to believe what Jesus uttered.

This guy gives incoherency a bad name.

[Magilla Gorilla]

As a gorilla, I am offended at the monkey comment. I know we are not monkeys, but we're close cousins, that's for sure. In fact, my second cousin's niece's husband, Simeon, is a monkey. If Chopra had a thousand Simeons typing, I'm confident he'd wind up with Veritas Spleandor and not that New Age trash. So, don't bash monkeys.

One more thing, I've shared your blog with my primate (We're Episcopalians!). He told me he thought you were the top banana.

Warmly,
Magilla Gorilla

[Jackson]

Sounds like the same tired old drivel.

[Kanakaberaka]

Third Jesus? I must have missed the second one. Unless of course Chopra is claiming that the Christian belief in Christ is a false one. So he's telling us what Christ is REALLY all about. Sure.

[Carl Olson]

This guy gives incoherency a bad name.

Yes, indeed. Watching Chopra trying to make a logical argument is like watching the Sex Pistols attempting to play one of Bach's cantatas...

[Carl Olson]

Third Jesus? I must have missed the second one.

His "argument" is that the "first Jesus" is the historical Jesus, who cannot be known very well, if at all, and that the "second Jesus" is the mythical Christ of Church dogma and worship, who isn't real or viable. The "third Jesus" is Chopra's Christ, a special Buddha-like teacher who (yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwn...) achieved "God-consciousness" and wants us to do the same.

[Carl Olson]

He told me he thought you were the top banana.

Thank you; I'm glad to hear that my posts are proving to be a-peeling.

[Colm]

"Yet Jesus failed to bring about God's rule on earth, and his radical vision became compromised only a generation after his death, at the same time that early Christianity was spreading with startling speed and intensity"

Hmmm... didn't Christianity take a long, long time to spread in the Roman Empire? They were even a minority 300 years after the Crucifixion, at the time of Constantine's conversion. Now I can see why many people will like Chopra's book, but how can anyone take this guy seriously when he makes such a glaring mistake in the first few pages?

Well, if anything, I guess he's consistently wrong.

[Paul H]

His "argument" is that the "first Jesus" is the historical Jesus, who cannot be known very well, if at all, and that the "second Jesus" is the mythical Christ of Church dogma and worship, who isn't real or viable. The "third Jesus" is Chopra's Christ, a special Buddha-like teacher who (yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwn...) achieved "God-consciousness" and wants us to do the same.

So he admits that his version of Jesus is not the historical Jesus? Why should we care about this "third Jesus" then, since apparently Chopra knows nothing more about the "historical Jesus" than anyone else does?

[Sandra Miesel]

Ah, Carl, reading Chopra is your karmic payback for not having to read Philip Pullman with Pete and me.

[Carl Olson]

So he admits that his version of Jesus is not the historical Jesus? Why should we care about this "third Jesus" then, since apparently Chopra knows nothing more about the "historical Jesus" than anyone else does?

Paul, Paul, Paul...has Deepak Chopra been with us this long and yet you still refuse to believe? His deep wisdom is very simple: trust him. Why? Because he says so. Isn't that beautiful? Isn't that better than the blind faith of right-wing, dogmatic, warmongering, homophobic Christians?

Sarcasm aside, Chopra makes the usual liberal/neo-Gnostic claims:

• We don't know who really wrote the Gospels, nor how accurate they are.
• The Gospels are full of all sorts of contradictions, exaggerations, "miracles" and statements that Jesus never really made
• The Jesus of the Gospels is "psychologically incomplete."
• Some of the Gnostic Gospels are just as historically accurate and authentic as the canonical Gospels.

Writing of the "historical Jesus," Chopra states, "This historical Jesus has been lost, however, swept away by history." Think about that for a moment. How does history "sweep away" a historical figure? Chopra's book reveals a man who has done little research and is completely oblivious to most biblical scholarship, especially of the past few decades.

[Carl Olson]

Ah, Carl, reading Chopra is your karmic payback for not having to read Philip Pullman with Pete and me.

It's like reading a book co-authored by Dan Brown and Shirley MacLaine, with a dash of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. It's complete nonsense.

[Telemachus]

LOL x infinity. This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a while. I can't wait for the full review of this inane book.

[Jackson]

"...one of Bach's cantatas."

My teacher and I studied one of those today! Wonderful.

[Jackson]

"...how can anyone take this guy seriously when he makes such a glaring mistake in the first few pages?"

Only the ignorant and/or unserious are attracted to this kind of tripe.

[Catholics Against Oprah]

Some bad humor on a Saturday afternoon, I can see Letterman at the New Age Karma Awards paralleling his Oprah-Uma shtick: Oprah, Chopra. Chopra, Oprah. Oprah, Chopra. Chopra, Oprah....Follow their New Age smorgasbord and one becomes an enlightened Dopra!

[Rick]

Writing of the "historical Jesus," Chopra states, "This historical Jesus has been lost, however, swept away by history." Think about that for a moment. How does history "sweep away" a historical figure?

Good point! The best defintion I have heard of "History" is by the French historian Marc Bloch who defined it as "the study of men in time." History does not sweep away a historical figure, only man's ignorance or bad philosophies will, in this case Chopra epouses both!

[Designslave]

"Yet Jesus failed to bring about God's rule on earth"

Stupid Jesus, what was he thinking? Now God will never get his chance to rule the earth. Oh well...

[Carl Olson]

Stupid Jesus, what was he thinking?

It is interesting, isn't it, that Chopra goes on and on about Jesus having "God-consciousness," and yet this higher plane of awareness apparently didn't keep Christ was messing up. Hmmm...what's wrong with this picture?

[MMajor Fan]

Chopra seems to be the type who likes to caste the first stone.

[clive baulch]

Chopra is just another charlatan selling something no one wants. I note that his 'biography' claims he was born in India. I thought he was actually an American, born in California and his real name is not Deepak Chopra? I'm sure I read that in the Vatican anti-New Age pamphlet "Christ, the bearer of water"

[Rick]

One of the sad consequences of the Cartesian subjective turn in Philosophy is that many of the philosophical systems flow out of the Enlightenment are gnostic and reflect heresies in one form or another, also they tend to divinize themselves. Chopra's syncretism follows this, bad scripture scholarhsip is rationalistic and leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the only one who didn't know who he is or what he said was Jesus.

[Raving Papist]

Reading Chopra's Jesus book is like re-experiencing the 60's without the benefit of pharmaceuticals or deodorant.

[cheryl]

I recently saw the sandle-clad, all-seeing and all-knowing Chopra (and his wife and kids) on one of the home and garden shows in which a potential buyer evaluates several vacation homes and chooses one for purchase.

In Chopra's case, the homes were in Hawaii and all fell in the multi-million dollar range. I don't know which one he chose because I drifted off amid Deepak's mind-numbing comments about the pros and cons of various ocean views, granite countertops etc.

I did notice that he was identified in the show as "businessman" Deepak Chopra, probably at his own request.

No mention of his "double life" as a primate theologian.

[NavajoSierra]

"Businessman" is the appropriate handle for Chopra. He is a master of packaging and marketing. I submit he has never written anything "original" and his most highly developed talent is in using a kind of Cliff Notes approach to package classic philosophy into a format that could appeal to the new age demographic market, wherein objective thought might be found too challenging, therefore terrifying. Chopra's last book - Buddha - was even too racey for the new age crowd; (the movie deal fell apart). Only Chopra would think it okay to write a romance novel, which includes graphic sex scenes, and sell it as the "true" story of Buddha. I am surprised that he doesn't spend more of his time and money defending law suits for plagiarism, among other things. If he is not on Cult Watch he should be.