I recently came across this amusing quip from George Bernard Shaw: "Chess is a foolish expedient for making idle people believe they are doing something very clever when they are only wasting their time". But to any dabbler (or more serious player for that matter) it does pose an important question - is chess anything more than a hopeless waste of precious time?
I would like to suggest that chess is not entirely a waste of time, for the following reason:
1 - It is an arena of battle. It is important for those of us who don't get caked in mud on a pitch kicking/chasing a ball with 21/29 other people on a weekly basis to find other ways to experience the mindset and emotions of battle. Why? Well, there is a universal fight going on; of good against evil, of freedom against oppression, of God against all malevolent spiritual powers. True, a militaristic or macho outlook on life is not good - the humility of Christ is our example - but in our generally peaceful lives getting some fire to fight the good fight is a healthy undertaking.
2- It encourages strategic thinking. The ability to holistically assess a situation, develop goals and plot an outline of action to succeed is a valuable skill in almost any arena of life, with obvious application in enterprise, politics and campaigning.
3- It sharpens the mind. To carry out a strategy successfully, a myriad of close calculations requiring precise thinking are necessary, providing an excellent work out for the mind. Keeping the mind consistently agile has been shown to be one of the most effective preventative steps to dementia. It is also fairly beneficial to the rest of one's existence!
4- The globality of chess. There are few games that you can set up anywhere in the world and expect a good number of people to understand and play; perhaps football is the only rival. In a globalised world (if that is not a truism) it is a great boon to have an immediate common point of contact with people from any culture or background.
So, I think I will carry on playing the Game of Kings, but if I get too obsessed give me a tap on the shoulder...
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Friday, 27 January 2012
What is the gospel?
On a recent long car journey, I listened to two thought-provoking audio interviews with Kevin de Young and Greg Gilbert, hosted by Mark Dever. They touched on a number of issues, including the question of 'what is the gospel?'.
Currently this questions is being robustly debated within evangelical Christianity. Given the movement is defined by its allegiance to the gospel, getting a right grasp of the gospel is a vital undertaking. Here is a basic summary of the two differing definitions of 'the gospel' on which the debate tends to centre:
(1) In order to define the gospel we need to look to the ministry of the disciples and the work and language of 'kingdom' used by Jesus in the gospels. Therefore the good news is essentially that Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is here for all who want to get on board.
(2) In order to define the gospel we need to look at the apostolic writings in the New Testament which focus in on the death of Jesus, describing it as a substitutionary death on our behalf. Therefore, the good news is that there is a way for us to be forgiven by God for our wrongdoing, if we repent of sin and trust in what Jesus has done for us.
The interviewees contend that the first position is not a description of the gospel while the second position is, while acknowledging that more could be said. Their rational for this position is that the apostles have a right to authoritatively interpret the work of Jesus in a way that we don't, citing John 15:26. On this point I agree. They also assert that position 1 is in fact not good news, as it makes no provision for reversing our rebellion against God, and therefore Jesus' Lordship is very bad news for us. On this point again, I agree.
However, on the broader assertion that position 2 is an adequate statement of the gospel, I disagree. Whereas position 1 speaks of Jesus' Lordship without speaking of his redemptive work, position 2 speaks of Jesus' redemptive work without speaking of his Lordship (interestingly echoed in the difference in emphases in Catholic and Reformed theology). This isolates God's work of redemption from his universal and eternal work, which makes no sense to unchristianised ears. So while I would not label position 2 as 'not the gospel', it appears to be an incomplete and perhaps even incomprehensible gospel.
So, what is the right way to define the gospel while remaining faithful both to the teaching of the gospels and the apostolic writings, and indeed to the whole sweep of scripture? I would argue that two preliminary things need to be established in answering this question; firstly, the attempt to divide the teaching of the gospels and the epistles is to create a false dichotomy - Jesus said much about his redemptive work (e.g. John 3: 14-18) and the apostles don't 'underplay' the Lordship of Jesus (e.g. Ephesians 1: 18-23).
Secondly, the best way to outline the good news of Christianity is in fact to outline the whole historical narrative from God's pre-creation existence through to his establishing of the eternal perfect kingdom(via creation, fall, the promise of restoration, the incarnation of Jesus, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the work of God's people while awaiting his return). Therefore, any attempt to summarise the gospel will inevitably not be able to say everything, but must do justice to the heart of this wonderful narrative. Such a summary is a good and useful thing to have a grasp of, as we might not always have the opportunity or clarity of thought to outline the complete narrative in a conversational setting. And as aforementioned, a clear gospel outline is essential for confessional unity amongst Christians.
Here then is my attempt to define the gospel in a way that summarises the heart of the Christian message, uniting Jesus' lordship with his redemptive work, as succinctly as possible:
The good news of Christianity is that God is real, he is good, he is loving, he is just and he wants a relationship with humankind. One day he will banish all evil from Earth and establish an eternal kingdom of joy where all people who trust in him will forever live. But the shock is that rather than trust in him, all of us have rejected God's rule over our lives through preferring to do life our way, through worshiping and treasuring things above God, and through not living as we know we ought to have done as moral beings. This rejection of God has led to all the evil and imperfection that has plagued the Earth throughout history and that plagues life today. It resulted in bringing the greatest enemy of all upon us - namely death. Having rejected God, all humans rightly face God's judgement for this rebellion. But God, out of his love, didn't want to leave humankind in this state, and sent his son Jesus to the Earth to call us to turn from our sins and live with God as our Lord. Yet Jesus came not only to call us back to God but also to make that possible, for God being a just God couldn't overlook our wrongful rejection of him without punishing it. And Jesus made that possible by dying on a cross in the place of every human, taking the wrath of God that we deserve to face. Having died, God raised Jesus from the dead, guaranteeing the achievement of the cross, the overthrow of death and the reversal of the sad decay of the Earth. But this work of Christ isn't a get out of jail free card for everyone; rather we have a choice to make - do we receive the good news of life in Christ though trusting God's promises of forgiveness and setting our hearts against wrongdoing? Or do we continue living with ourselves as lord and reject or ignore the work of Jesus? The first leads to a true knowledge of God and everlasting fulness of life, while the second leads to judgement, death and a parting from all goodness.
Thoughts?
Currently this questions is being robustly debated within evangelical Christianity. Given the movement is defined by its allegiance to the gospel, getting a right grasp of the gospel is a vital undertaking. Here is a basic summary of the two differing definitions of 'the gospel' on which the debate tends to centre:
(1) In order to define the gospel we need to look to the ministry of the disciples and the work and language of 'kingdom' used by Jesus in the gospels. Therefore the good news is essentially that Jesus is Lord and his kingdom is here for all who want to get on board.
(2) In order to define the gospel we need to look at the apostolic writings in the New Testament which focus in on the death of Jesus, describing it as a substitutionary death on our behalf. Therefore, the good news is that there is a way for us to be forgiven by God for our wrongdoing, if we repent of sin and trust in what Jesus has done for us.
The interviewees contend that the first position is not a description of the gospel while the second position is, while acknowledging that more could be said. Their rational for this position is that the apostles have a right to authoritatively interpret the work of Jesus in a way that we don't, citing John 15:26. On this point I agree. They also assert that position 1 is in fact not good news, as it makes no provision for reversing our rebellion against God, and therefore Jesus' Lordship is very bad news for us. On this point again, I agree.
However, on the broader assertion that position 2 is an adequate statement of the gospel, I disagree. Whereas position 1 speaks of Jesus' Lordship without speaking of his redemptive work, position 2 speaks of Jesus' redemptive work without speaking of his Lordship (interestingly echoed in the difference in emphases in Catholic and Reformed theology). This isolates God's work of redemption from his universal and eternal work, which makes no sense to unchristianised ears. So while I would not label position 2 as 'not the gospel', it appears to be an incomplete and perhaps even incomprehensible gospel.
So, what is the right way to define the gospel while remaining faithful both to the teaching of the gospels and the apostolic writings, and indeed to the whole sweep of scripture? I would argue that two preliminary things need to be established in answering this question; firstly, the attempt to divide the teaching of the gospels and the epistles is to create a false dichotomy - Jesus said much about his redemptive work (e.g. John 3: 14-18) and the apostles don't 'underplay' the Lordship of Jesus (e.g. Ephesians 1: 18-23).
Secondly, the best way to outline the good news of Christianity is in fact to outline the whole historical narrative from God's pre-creation existence through to his establishing of the eternal perfect kingdom(via creation, fall, the promise of restoration, the incarnation of Jesus, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the work of God's people while awaiting his return). Therefore, any attempt to summarise the gospel will inevitably not be able to say everything, but must do justice to the heart of this wonderful narrative. Such a summary is a good and useful thing to have a grasp of, as we might not always have the opportunity or clarity of thought to outline the complete narrative in a conversational setting. And as aforementioned, a clear gospel outline is essential for confessional unity amongst Christians.
Here then is my attempt to define the gospel in a way that summarises the heart of the Christian message, uniting Jesus' lordship with his redemptive work, as succinctly as possible:
The good news of Christianity is that God is real, he is good, he is loving, he is just and he wants a relationship with humankind. One day he will banish all evil from Earth and establish an eternal kingdom of joy where all people who trust in him will forever live. But the shock is that rather than trust in him, all of us have rejected God's rule over our lives through preferring to do life our way, through worshiping and treasuring things above God, and through not living as we know we ought to have done as moral beings. This rejection of God has led to all the evil and imperfection that has plagued the Earth throughout history and that plagues life today. It resulted in bringing the greatest enemy of all upon us - namely death. Having rejected God, all humans rightly face God's judgement for this rebellion. But God, out of his love, didn't want to leave humankind in this state, and sent his son Jesus to the Earth to call us to turn from our sins and live with God as our Lord. Yet Jesus came not only to call us back to God but also to make that possible, for God being a just God couldn't overlook our wrongful rejection of him without punishing it. And Jesus made that possible by dying on a cross in the place of every human, taking the wrath of God that we deserve to face. Having died, God raised Jesus from the dead, guaranteeing the achievement of the cross, the overthrow of death and the reversal of the sad decay of the Earth. But this work of Christ isn't a get out of jail free card for everyone; rather we have a choice to make - do we receive the good news of life in Christ though trusting God's promises of forgiveness and setting our hearts against wrongdoing? Or do we continue living with ourselves as lord and reject or ignore the work of Jesus? The first leads to a true knowledge of God and everlasting fulness of life, while the second leads to judgement, death and a parting from all goodness.
Thoughts?
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Welcome to Words of 50
Amos and Paul, Soul Politics, Awake Albion... all names that may be familiar to an infintessimally small strand of the blogosphere. All names now redundant. But fear not! Their vision and spirit live in on new blog 'Words of 50', an aggregation of the fragmented, a personalisation of the impersonal...enough of that.
Prompted by the Holy Spirit upon reading Matthew 25: 14-30 that I should not let my writing lay dormant, I have relaunched with the intention of regular blogging once again. As you can see from the title description, I'm not pitching this blog as a particular 'category' of blog, but as a place where I shall ponder and analyse the diversity of life in a manner that may or may not interest and help others. My good friend and mentor Chris Edwards recently reminded me that the act of thinking things through was in itself a valuable one, and my goal of wiritng publicly could be summarised as the sharing of my thought through thoughts.
As always I welcome your comments, and I will also be republishing some of my material from my previous blogs to get things going.
Blessings,
Joe
Prompted by the Holy Spirit upon reading Matthew 25: 14-30 that I should not let my writing lay dormant, I have relaunched with the intention of regular blogging once again. As you can see from the title description, I'm not pitching this blog as a particular 'category' of blog, but as a place where I shall ponder and analyse the diversity of life in a manner that may or may not interest and help others. My good friend and mentor Chris Edwards recently reminded me that the act of thinking things through was in itself a valuable one, and my goal of wiritng publicly could be summarised as the sharing of my thought through thoughts.
As always I welcome your comments, and I will also be republishing some of my material from my previous blogs to get things going.
Blessings,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)