As I read the March 2009 issue of Chess Life the other day, one of the articles struck me as somewhat profound. The article was about a chess training program that Garry Kasparov led recently. In the event you don't know who that is, he's one of the best (if not the best) chess players of all time. Here's an interesting excerpt:
"In general, appeals to authority don't work on Kasparov, and he constantly emphasizes the need to think for oneself. He doesn't once refer to theory, or any other authority other than his own assessment, analysis, and games. That's not to say he won't refer to other games - he does - but not to make them the final arbiter of truth."
Often in chess, people will study some opening or variation and then use it in their games, expecting everything to work out. People feel comfortable with the opening because their friends say it works out for them in their games, or some because some chess article that it's solid for black. While it's definitely useful to have some background in opening theory, relying exclusively on theory all the time might not be the best idea. Maybe the opening you decided to use is great for attacking styles of play, but you're more comfortable with positional chess. Maybe there are some holes in the opening that your opponent is very familiar with. You can follow opening theory all you want, but if it's not helping you win, what's the point? Just because some of the top chess players prefer a particular opening doesn't mean it will work well for you. Instead of using this stuff blindly, people need to look into it, see why it works, and do some analysis on their own to decide if it's good to use.
This article made me think of how ultimately I am the one who should take responsibility over my own spiritual life. It's really easy to rely on Ronnie, Brandon, Garrett, friends, core, FOCUS, etc. to keep me spiritually healthy. Yet how much time do I devote to my spiritual life apart from all these things? How often do I return to my apartment after FOCUS and do some research of my own about that night's sermon? Do I accept what others say without much question, or do I look into it to determine whether I agree with it? My answer to most of these isn't all that I'd like it to be. I think the attitude of the Bereans described in Acts 17:11 is a good example of what doing this right looks like:
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
These guys took responsibility over their spiritual lives. They listened to what Paul had to say, while realizing that he was not the "final arbiter of truth." When I have to account for myself after I die, I'd much rather have concrete reasoning behind my actions than to say "My pastor said so."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This resonates a lot with what I've been thinking about over the past couple of days regarding my birthday wisdom, actually. Taking responsibility for yourself and your actions in a way where you don't rely on anyone else to do anything for you can be good, but I think it can also be taken to an extreme...something to think about.
Another idea is trying to break God down into a bunch of principles. I think principles are good to learn as a crutch, but ultimately God doesn't want me to relate with him on the basis of learning and employing a bunch of principles. God wants me to really seek him personally and not just view him within the framework of principles. I think this is similar to what Charlie has said. I can't just rely on mastering a bunch of principles like mastering a bunch of openings. (My dad would use the French Defense all the time, and when I did it I would not be in a very good position afterwards). There is some sort of "going beyond" the principles that we learn and eventually we have to be able to integrate them with the rest of our lives.
You are definitely right that we cannot show up on judgement day before God and use the "Person X said so" excuse. We have to take what we are taught by others and make sure it lines up with scripture and God's working in our lives. Those last two are the final authority on a subject, not anyone else's word. That doesn't mean that teachers are worthless. Often there are Godly principles not specifically outlined in scripture that others have found through experience and combining things found in scripture. Having a quiet time for instance. Our teachers can give us great direction for improving our relationship with God but like you said Charlie, we are ultimately responsible for the path we take.
"When I have to account for myself after I die, I'd much rather have concrete reasoning behind my actions than to say 'My pastor said so.'"... Zing!
One thing I thought of while reading this was not only how we will account for ourselves post-mortem but also when anyone asks us for our reasons of hope. You were talking about an approach to a game of chess; I thought of this in regards to evangelism. When we just memorize answers (say apologetics) and expect to use them blindly, regardless of the situation then we are doomed to fail.
Yeah, I agree with Charlie and Josh. Too often we rely on others to think for us. In fact, most of our ministry is to try to get students that grew up in church to think for themselves instead of relying on their parents. Do we push that to the other extreme of getting them to rely on "FOCUS"?
How do you (yourself or get another disciple to) grow in this? We can't make people hungry for the truth, but does what do we do instead?
Post a Comment