Recently, I was engaged (as I am twice a year) in chess games. I was engrossed in game after game trying to master tactics and strategies to capture the opponent's pieces and ultimately entrap his/her king.
After a particular evening of play, I found myself obsessed with one specific game where I had misplayed a certain move - not by accident but by poor forethought. The result of my move, was that I lost a pawn, and ultimately I lost the game for this very same poor move. The loss of a pawn is what kept me up that night.
Perhaps you are thinking, "Seriously!?!, a lost pawn is what keeps you awake at night?" It certainly seems trivial as I type it out. Sleepless for pawns. Luke 15 records for us a parable of a shepherd with 100 sheep, but when 1 was lost, he left the 99 to seek the 1.
Now, I know that God does not sleep (Psalm 121:3), but if He did, what would keep Him awake at night would be the lost pawns on His chessboard.
I do not mean to imply that God would have had poor forethought, nor that He would be anxious for their safety since He is in control of all things. I am merely stating that the things that are of concern to God are far more significant than a silly game. Why is it that I am not sleepless for the lost pawns on God's chessboard rather than for the inanimate pawns on a silly gameboard? Am I moved by the things of God? Am I concerned for the eternal, or am I consumed by the ephemeral?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Worshopping
I recently finished the book Radical by David Platt, and it is a very compelling book, challenging the Christian reader to question whether we are serving the God of the Bible or the God that our American culture has created for us. One of the topics that he addresses is what I'll denote as "worshopping".
Here in the US, where Christianity costs us nothing, where persecution consists of a funny look on a bad day, and where we live under the prosperity gospel, Christians tend to "shop" for a church that is right for them - one that meets their needs. We visit around seeking a church that has just the right music program; preacher; children's service; building, building program, or lack of one; recovery ministry, education program; etc. We don't worship the Living God, we "worshop" for a church that represents the God we have created in our image.
How do we change this Christian cultural norm?
Let's get real with God. Let's seek His heart and His desires.
Here in the US, where Christianity costs us nothing, where persecution consists of a funny look on a bad day, and where we live under the prosperity gospel, Christians tend to "shop" for a church that is right for them - one that meets their needs. We visit around seeking a church that has just the right music program; preacher; children's service; building, building program, or lack of one; recovery ministry, education program; etc. We don't worship the Living God, we "worshop" for a church that represents the God we have created in our image.
How do we change this Christian cultural norm?
Let's get real with God. Let's seek His heart and His desires.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
How does Homosexual Marriage Affect the Chess Game?
1) Imagine a chess game with no queens but instead with 4 kings.
2) Imagine a chess game with no kings but instead with 4 queens.
The game of chess is based on the royal wedding relationship between a man and a woman. I have indeed played a game or two with substitute pieces in my day. If I were missing a pawn, a checker may have taken its place. I'm not saying that roles cannot be filled by others. The question is, "How well can these roles be filled by others?"
Just as I may use a checker to represent a pawn in the game of chess, someone else may fill the role of wife with a man or husband with a woman. However, as in the case of the checker in the chess game, there is noticeably something awry with the man filling the wife's role and the woman filling the husband's role.
Clearly if there are 4 kings on the chess board and no queens, the game is hardly a remnant of the traditional game of chess. The 2 major power pieces have been removed and replaced by second equally weak, needy, and prone-to-peril kings. Similarly if there are 4 queens on the chessboard and no kings, the game is just as disimilar to the traditional game of chess. With no kings to protect, with significantly more power in the addition of queens, there is no longer a point to the game in the absence of the king to be protected.
Even more complex imagine a game with 2 white queens and 2 black kings or vice-versa. Opponents would be playing one overburdened with protection and little power while the other is ladened with a powerhouse and no concern for protection. Clearly these opponents will not be playing the same game.
One would be hard pressed to even call these scenarios a chess game.
With such a round peg into the square hole scenario, it seems only too elementary to say that nature itself rejects homosexuality. The rules for traditional chess will need to be rewritten, and depending on the gender of choice, not only must strategy be redivised, a completely new purpose must be invented. Ultimately, if homosexual marriage is to be allowed, then by design and practice, it cannot be "traditional" marriage. One would be hard pressed to even call the potential scenarios marriage.
2) Imagine a chess game with no kings but instead with 4 queens.
The game of chess is based on the royal wedding relationship between a man and a woman. I have indeed played a game or two with substitute pieces in my day. If I were missing a pawn, a checker may have taken its place. I'm not saying that roles cannot be filled by others. The question is, "How well can these roles be filled by others?"
Just as I may use a checker to represent a pawn in the game of chess, someone else may fill the role of wife with a man or husband with a woman. However, as in the case of the checker in the chess game, there is noticeably something awry with the man filling the wife's role and the woman filling the husband's role.
Clearly if there are 4 kings on the chess board and no queens, the game is hardly a remnant of the traditional game of chess. The 2 major power pieces have been removed and replaced by second equally weak, needy, and prone-to-peril kings. Similarly if there are 4 queens on the chessboard and no kings, the game is just as disimilar to the traditional game of chess. With no kings to protect, with significantly more power in the addition of queens, there is no longer a point to the game in the absence of the king to be protected.
Even more complex imagine a game with 2 white queens and 2 black kings or vice-versa. Opponents would be playing one overburdened with protection and little power while the other is ladened with a powerhouse and no concern for protection. Clearly these opponents will not be playing the same game.
One would be hard pressed to even call these scenarios a chess game.
With such a round peg into the square hole scenario, it seems only too elementary to say that nature itself rejects homosexuality. The rules for traditional chess will need to be rewritten, and depending on the gender of choice, not only must strategy be redivised, a completely new purpose must be invented. Ultimately, if homosexual marriage is to be allowed, then by design and practice, it cannot be "traditional" marriage. One would be hard pressed to even call the potential scenarios marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)