The most populous municipality in the EU, London is a center of culture, finance and business. It has the sixth largest city economy (second largest in Europe after Paris), and is the world’s largest international business center. Oh, and in case you didn’t know, it’s the capital of the United Kingdom .

Historians aren’t really sure where the city’s name originates from – there are suggestions of it deriving from one of the city’s conquerors’ names (King Lud), from Welsh, British, Anglo-Saxon, or even Hebrew. Regardless, its name is widely recognized, with the mere mention of it bringing a sense of grandeur. Or maybe that’s just me.

The first major settlement was Londinium, a Roman outpost in AD 43. Over the next years, the Iceni tribe, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and others successively took control of the city, growing it and shaping it to their culture. Wars and empires scarred the city, but also prepared it for the centrepiece role it has today. It has been and remains the seat of one of the greatest colonial powers the world has seen, having had control of much of North America, South Asia, the South Pacific, and of Hong Kong at various points in its history.

In the modern day, London provides many cultural features and tourist attractions. It is renowned for its theatres, bars, cafés and shops. Its streets echo with history, yet its people are precise examples of the contemporary world. Four World Heritage Sites adorn the city: the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St. Margaret’s Church; the Tower of London; Greenwich; and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Demographically, it carries many nationalities, including the United Kingdom (obviously), India, Ireland, and Pakistan – the result of years of a colonial empire. 58.2% of its population label themselves Christian, 15.8% no religion, and 8.5% Muslim.

London has had a throne of glory for many centuries, so it is no wonder that I close in expressing my dream to travel there one day .

Take note of the River Thames running through the heart of the city

London is a center of international business

Looks a little fortress-like, don’t you think?

The London version of Times Square

Huge tourist attraction and renowned ferris wheel

The biggest international gateway in the world

The Thames at sunset

Destroyed many parts of the city in 1666

And I thought today’s TV was excessively political.

Ok, so like any good kid, I watched Captain Planet when I was little.

My sister and I used to debate over which of us he was pointing to when he said at the end, ‘The power is yours!’.

I was a bit ambiguous over which character I “idolized”, but I’m pretty sure she thought Linka, the blonde girl with the power of Wind, was the best.

Little did either of us, let alone the rest of our generation, know of the politics hidden in this spectacular cartoon series.

I strongly suspect that each of the five main characters are actual characterizations of their home nations/continents.

Here’s my justification:

On the Captain Planet website [http://www.turner.com/planet/] (ok, so I was bored), under Linka’s profile, it says:

Linka’s analytical approach to problem-solving provides the perfect foil to Wheeler’s emotional impulsiveness. Linka is drawn to her American ally, yet put off by his boisterous, aggressive nature. Nevertheless, it is evident she cares about Wheeler by her reactions when he’s in trouble.

 

 

Wheeler, mentioned above, has the power of Fire, and is from the United States. Again taken from the Captain Planet website [http://www.turner.com/planet/], here’s what’s said about Wheeler:

 

 

Wheeler is the least knowledgeable Planeteer when it comes to ecology. Although he sometimes fails to understand the issues at hand, his heart is in the right place. He fancies himself the “ladies’ man” and flirts incessantly with Linka, the Planeteer from Eastern Europe.

So Linka (the Soviet Union) counteracts Wheeler (the United States) through her analytical approach. She is drawn to her American ally, yet repulsed by his boisterousness. She evidently still cares for him, though, as she helps him when he is in need.

On the other hand, Wheeler (the United States) knows the least about ecology, and although he stuffs up, his heart’s in the right place. He flirts with Linka (the Soviet Union) a fair bit.

Sound a bit like US/Soviet relations in the extremely early 1990s?

It seems to me that Captain Planet were trying to shame the US for lack of environmental care (which they knew they could do without attack) and praise the Soviet Union as “better” (perhaps to win political points with Communists?).

On another note, here’s a bizarre section of an episode from Captain Planet. It involves Dr. Blight trying to sell an atomic bomb to Hitler by going back in time.

Also, Captain Planet says about Hitler as he enters the scene to save the day from the German Führer:

I wasn’t prepared for the level of hatred radiating from that monster. Prejudice and hate are as toxic as any other pollutant.

If anyone else spots some politics in Captain Planet, or just wants to talk about the show, feel free to comment.

PS: Here’s the end theme song if anyone wants to reminisce:

I find myself wondering why I attend a building every Sunday.

What is it about this weekly event, this institution, that is so vital to the Christian life? Why do we attend? What do we seek there?

This is one of those crucial questions that can either divide a “Church” or unite it. Let’s hope my answer heads towards the latter.

Let’s begin this search by looking at scripture:

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

- 1 Corinthians 12:27

Here’s a little background to this verse – Paul (the author of Corinthians) was an apostle of God who guided the early Church in their purpose. He wrote a lot of letters to different campuses of the Church in Rome, Thessalonica, Corinth, and other places.

In this section of 1 Corinthians, he talks about the format of the Church, how it should function. He uses the analogy of a body made up of many parts, with Christ as its head.

Within this analogy, he makes it clear that no part of the body can function without another, and that no part is useless.

So what do we draw from this? I interpreted the following:

If we are the Body of Christ, then we are not separate entities. Paul strongly speaks against divisions in the Church (1Cor3), and this seems to take shape in his description of how the Church should be. Jesus only formed one Church – under who’s authorization was it allowed to divide?

Along these lines, we as Christians are not to act as individuals with individual thoughts and individual minds. A finger does not act without orders from the mind, nor does it act without the support of arm muscles, arteries etc. Paul verifies this in 1 Corinthians 1:10, saying that the Church should be ‘perfectly united in mind and thought’. He also says, ‘Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others,’ (1Cor10:24).

This does not mean that we must agree to everything one of our brothers says, but any dispute in the Church must be resolved, lest we fall into chaos. I refer to that chapter on divisions of the Church.

If we are the Body of Christ, then we must be entirely new flesh (reborn; baptised; Christian etc.), as Jesus was sinless. Therefore, I submit that non-Christians have no place in the Church, that it is purely the collective of the followers of Christ.

Now, I am very careful about this approach, and I implore others who recognize this to be cautious also: we are still to be witness to the nations, evangelists in the world.

However, I do not believe our role was ever to bring non-Christians into the Church in order to “see our love” as some have suggested to me.

Let’s look at Jesus, our foremost rolemodel:

Firstly, we see quite a lot of Jesus going out to the people. He travelled many miles during his time on Earth, visiting many areas of the region. He stepped into their situations. He outwardly dealt with the non-Christian populace.

And secondly, he had a plan. It had been prophesized that he would proclaim justice and bring hope (Isa42:1-4). Therefore, it wasn’t some spur-of-the-moment or circumstance-based decision to go out rather than rake in. Clearly, there was some success in his approach.

As commanded by Jesus, I love my neighbours (Matt22:39).

I love non-Christians enough to realize how painful and ineffective it would be to bring them into the situation of our Church.

I love them enough to see how vital it is to invest in relationships with them, and not simply invite them into the Church as my great evangelical claim.

I love my fellow Christians enough to not dilute the deepness we have worked so hard to build within the Church.

I believe in the Great Commission (Matt28:16-20). I believe we should make disciples of all nations.

But I question the way much of the contemporary Church achieves this goal.

I have been to ”churches” that have starved from the lack of Christian fellowship, that have focussed only on the battle and have not returned to base for replenishment.

The first-century Church spread encouragement among its members daily (Heb3:13), and I see no reason why the contemporary Church should not follow suit.

And it was only brought to the building format during the rule of Constantine the Great, a label-Christian and devout pagan (he worshipped the sun). It was an act to make more legitimate the Christian Church.

In sum, I believe that the Church should be united, daily, encouraging, Christian, corporate, loving, and ultimately working to strengthen its members in their task.

And I challenge anyone who disagrees to find a Biblical mention of safety in having non-Christians in the Church.

Well, here it is.

This post is the Abraham of all my future ones. The William the Conqueror, George Washington, Edmund Barton and Christopher Columbus.

Come to think of it, I wonder what those figures would be like at a tea party together…

A few things to note before you scrutinize my thoughts:

I want to keep this blog relatively free of my personal details, so please don’t ask my name or anything: if I know you, you know me, so I shouldn’t need to identify anything. If you do ask, expect me to gently remind you of this.

Secondly, these are my thoughts, by no means representative of my race or Church. Don’t assume that because I say something about my beliefs as a Christian, that every believer also has this view. Certainly don’t generalize my actions to other Caucasians – I believe God created each of us uniquely, so there is no possible generalization to make.

Finally, if you don’t agree with what I say, please justify your arguments, and don’t simply throw insults at me. If you have to resort to that, then it’s evident you won’t listen to reason – go and yell at a cherry tree (or a facsimile thereof) if you need to vent your anger.

Ok, so that’s that for the first post… no doubt I’ll forget for months on end about this whole thing, but oh well…