London Riots

Over recent days all that’s been talked about on the news is the riots in London, and the ‘copy cat’ riots in other major cities in England. Everyone’s response seems to be to condemn the senseless violence and opportunist thievery, as is mine. I would like to take this opportunity however, rather than simply ranting at those who display such obnoxious behaviour, to ask some questions. Why are (predominantly) young people
rushing on to the street and attacking seemingly random places? And, what should our response as Christians be?

Much of the violence seems to be deliberate and have no purpose other than to release adrenalin in the perpetrators. To ask why people would go out on to the street in this kind of riot, is in fact to ask why anyone would deliberately convict an unprovoked act of violence. To ask, in fact why people do wrong, why we sin? When we reduce the question to this we realise that, there is not really any difference between them and us.

How should we respond then, with hate and superiority? That seems to be what we see in the press, I would never do something like that, therefore I am better than them and they are a legitimate place to pour out my scorn and hate. Should we really respond like that, when we to are sinners, when without Christ’s grace we would deserve the same punishment?

Serenity: A poem

The soft babble of a lock,
A spider jumping fast.
Sitting doing nothing
The afternoon did pass.

The sun upon my neck,
A view unto my eye.
What a world is this,
Such majesty to a-spy.

Softly guided by the wind,
A butterfly a-floating.
A painting just for me,
Flowers tall a-growing.

To sit, and wonder,
To stare and never bore.
To rest and ponder
What this life is for.

El is God!

In my road, there are several cars. Now due to my lack of imagination I refer to my car simply as a car. When I go out the door saying I’m getting in the car, I do not refer to a general car, I’m not going to get in to a random car, I’m not going to get in to the closest car but rather I will climb in to my specific car. Because I have labelled my car ‘car’, it does not mean that every reference to car refers to my car or that all cars are synonymous.

That seems obvious but what happens when we instead of thinking of cars we think of God? In Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou “Did God Have a Wife?” this seems to be the logic used. That if two things are referred to by the same classification then they must be the same thing. Specifically there was a Canaanite god called El and the word El is used in the Bible to refer to God.

“I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El-Shaddai), but by my name the LORD (Yĕhovah) I did not make myself fully known to them.” Exodus 6:3

The problem with this is that El means God, so the fact that there was a god called god is not entirely surprising and it doesn’t mean that every use of the word god refers to that specific god. Else in today’s language someone talking about David Beckham being a god should be interpreted as saying that David created the universe and everything in it as, after all, the word god is used to describe that as well.

Brotherly Love

This is the second post I’ve now written on characteristics that we should strive to possess, based on a series of sermons at church at the moment on 2 Peter 1. This post is about brotherly love:

“…add to your faith goodness;… and to godliness, mutual affection” 2 Peter 1:5-7a

In this translation, the word mutual affection is used, but other versions translate it as “brotherly kindness” or even ”warm friendship”. Perhaps a good way to sum up all of these various ideas is in the term ‘brotherly love’. This is also a literal translation of the Greek word that is used here: φιλαδέλφεια (philadelphia). It is in fact an amalgamation of two simpler words: philos meaning love and adelphi meaning brother.

What is perhaps interesting but not obvious is what words could have been used instead. For instance Peter didn’t write φιλανθρωπία (philanthropia) a word which was available to him (used in Acts and Titus) and from which we get the word philanthropy. This word might also translated as mutual affection but it has different subtleties. Philanthropia like philadelphia is derived from two words, the first of which is again translated as love. The second however is anthropos meaning humanity or mankind. So this word means love of humanity or humanitarianism.

In this light, the brotherly kindness that we are meant to add to godliness is not simply helping those in need but also conveys the sense of community. We need to grow closer together with our brothers and sisters in Christ. That we would resemble the family that we claim to be. This is a lot harder to do than to simply help those in need. For once you have helped someone you can remove yourself from them, but in a family you can’t remove yourself from any problems that arise. It is easier to love someone at a distance then to love your brother. Many people acknowledge this, even world renowned philosophers, such as Linus (from Charlie brown) who states:

“I love Humanity! It’s people I can’t stand.”

Election...

The elect of God: a contentious issue in many Christian circles. Who are they? Do they have a choice in the matter or are they simply ‘chosen in him before the creation of the world’?

In some views of Christianity God chooses people who will be saved and they have no real say in the matter. They are brought as a slave on a block, and have as much opportunity to choose their master as the slave does. Another view of this issue holds that each person who hears the gospel has the ability to accept or reject its message and in this decision God has no say.

I have issues with both of these view points: The first does not speak to the reason that God saved us in the first place, his desire for a relationship with the church. What kind of relationship can you have with someone who has no say in whether they are in the relationship? Consider a marriage, for instance, where the husband loves the wife but if the wife does not also love the husband then theirs is not a true relationship.

The second point of view says that there is something which God has no say in, that God’s will could in theory be thwarted. If God wants someone to be saved and they say “no” then there is nothing that God can do about it, there would be something that God had no control over.

However I believe that both of these points of view do have some merit in explaining such a complicated issue. The first sees God as in complete control, being sovereign over absolutely everything and the second views being saved as entering in to a relationship with God, giving him the rightful kingship of our lives. Trying to reconcile all of these ideas with the passages that are used to support both of them I have formed my own view on the issue of election.

I believe that God, before the creation of the world, made two groups of people, the elect and the un-elect. I think that rather than choosing individual people to put in to each group he defined what it would mean to be in each group. To be an ‘elect’ you must trust Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and to be an ‘un-elect’ you must not. That is, God choose the elect before the beginning of the world but he did not choose individual people to be elect. We have the choice as to which group we are in, and God desires us all to choose the ‘elect’ group for ‘God does not wish any to perish but all to come to repentance’ but because of his desire for a real relationship with us he will let us make this choice.

My thoughts on this are still not fully formed and I would appreciate any comments on what people think.