Jesus Christ is outdated.
That's the gist of a column entitled "Why We Need a New Jesus" that ran in yesterday's Washington Post. The writer, a spiritual pundit named Deepak Chopra, asserted that history has essentially given us two Jesuses: first there was the flesh-and-blood man from the Middle East, and then there was the Jesus of organized religion.
"Anointed as Christ," wrote Chopra, "he became the unwitting origin of a religion." Unwitting? Are we talking about the same person? During his stay on earth, Jesus did not shy away from theological questions.
When Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" he replied, "Yes, it is as you say."
When the high priests asked him if he was the Son of God, he answered, "You are right in saying I am."
He told everyone who would listen, "No one comes to the Father except through me."
What's more, multiple records of his life agree that he fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies about the promised Messiah.
Reading Chopra's column, full of new age dogma and vaguely inclusive spiritual language, you can almost hear his self-congratulatory pats on the back. Humans have sought for millennia to attune themselves with higher truths, and suddenly somebody gets a college education and calls himself a guru.
Mr. Chopra wants what he terms "a third Jesus, a teacher of higher consciousness." According to him, Christ is only one of many legitimate teachers, showing us one of many paths to salvation.
This is all very conciliatory, and if it were true, I would gladly apologize to every Buddhist, Muslim and atheist on campus for being such a narrow-minded bigot. But as much as we want unity, it's truly an impossible goal.
The Buddha took issue with Hindu teachings. Muhammad said the Christians were deluded. Jesus came not to embrace all faiths in a group hug, but to be what the prophet Isaiah called "a stone that causes men to stumble."
It takes a profound and willing ignorance of Christian scripture to write something along the lines of Chopra's column. He mistakenly referred to Jesus as "the Holy Spirit," a distinct entity from the Son of God within the Christian Trinity. He wrote that the "first Jesus" had little historical effect, and yet Jesus whipped the religious authorities of the time into a frenzy, inspiring assassination plots as early as infancy.
I've heard the same cop-out echoed countless times: "I think Jesus was a great teacher, but I don't buy into all that 'Son of God' business." This is not an option.
If a man today gained public attention for proposing a set of moral precepts, people might accept him as a wise teacher. He might even get a book contract.
But if that man claimed to be descended from the throne room of Heaven, how would you respond to that? Either you would bow at his feet, or you would drag him to the insane asylum. It is the same way with Jesus: there is no middle ground.