WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
Perhaps – if you were asked this question – you might give one of the following answers:
- I never think about Him
- I’m just not interested in Him
- He isn’t relevant to me
- I’m just too busy to think about Him
Even though you may give one of these answers, there are many people where a day does not go by without the name of Jesus Christ being used as a swear word. Maybe this reveals exactly what they think of Him, or maybe the words simply come out without them even thinking about what they’re saying.
However, how we view Jesus Christ is very important – as it affects not only our lives in the here and now, but also in the hereafter. Have a think about three things the Bible (the Word of God) says about Him:
He is a Prophet – the first part of the Bible (the Old Testament) predicted that one day Christ would come. He would give proof of who He was by performing amazing miracles, heal the broken-hearted and set free those whose lives were controlled by sin and evil. The Apostle Peter said – “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
He is a Priest – Jesus Christ lived a life that was completely pure and holy in every way. He had no sin. He could not sin. His absolute perfection qualified Him to re-unite us to God – “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). To be that Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ was willing to pay the price that our sins deserve – “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:28) and He died on the cross, rising triumphantly on the third day (Easter Sunday).
He is a King – When the Lord Jesus Christ went back to Heaven, He was crowned “King of Kings” (Revelation 19:16) and one day He will return for all of us to see that He is the rightful King.
WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST? (Matthew 22:42) was a question that Jesus asked the religious leaders of His day. If you are a sceptic, then please take time to think seriously about Him. You can come to know Him as your Prophet to teach you; as your Priest to forgive you; as your King to protect and guide you.
The Lord Jesus Christ said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father (God), but by Me” (John 14:6).
A SECULAR NATION’S INABILITY TO COPE
By: Rev Peter Simpson
(Penn Free Methodist Church, CW Committee Member)
(This article is written in the knowledge that there is a broad range of opinion amongst evangelical Christians on the coronavirus and on how society should react to it. It is therefore offered for consideration in a humble and deferential manner – and in a spirit of brotherly love).
Britain is in desperate need of spiritual direction. Liberal secularism has fashioned the national mindset in such a way that responses to national crises are now totally different in character to, say, those which prevailed during World War Two.
Let us examine the current response to the coronavirus in the light of how the nation once dealt with the affliction of war. Covid-19 has, in fact, exposed the deep spiritual void in our contemporary national life; whereas during the Second World War, although the nation’s spiritual condition was far from thriving, there was still a general acceptance of the concept of God’s providence overruling in the affairs of men.
So, faced with a powerful enemy in the form of Nazi Germany, society understood that military might and strategy were not the only answers, but that there was also a need to seek the aid of the Almighty, He who determined the outcome of wars. Even the politicians publicly acknowledged this. As a result, the war witnessed no less than 12 national days of prayer, all widely supported throughout the land – and this revealed that society still broadly appreciated the words of Psalm 20:7 – “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God”.
Britain today is doing the equivalent of trusting in horses and chariots in respect of dealing with Covid-19. We, of course, do not deny the seriousness of the coronavirus, nor of the need for sensible and at times difficult measures to combat it. What we must challenge, however, as Bible-believing Christians, is the refusal to consider the providence of God in any appraisal of the situation.
Yes, we need some necessary practical precautions in respect of virus containment, but not as the nation’s total and absolute trust. It is wrong for the majority of the population to regard scientific research and vaccinations as the only possible means of national deliverance to the exclusion of turning to the Lord. Nor, as Christians, do we deny the importance of scientific research, but what is so disturbing is the general refusal to acknowledge that it is God who is calling out to the nation through this pandemic. He is seeking that a rebellious people humble themselves before Him. What we are observing instead, however, is no such humbling, but rather an idolising of science and a trust in the precautions to solve all our problems.
The virus has also witnessed our God-ignoring nation resorting to an unwholesome trust in the State and its institutions – and the rainbow has been used as a powerful symbol to facilitate this. The rainbow, however, is meant to depict God’s covenant promise to be merciful to undeserving men; it is therefore deeply regrettable to see it being used to foster the idea that the State and its medical agencies are the nation’s only Saviour.
To say this does not of course in any way diminish our appreciation of hard-working and dedicated medical professionals who minister to the sick. Nevertheless, our God-rejecting society is putting all its trust in human endeavour and is using the rainbow to venerate – to the exclusion of God – the State-sponsored agencies. Likewise, a whole generation of young schoolchildren has been encouraged to draw pictures of rainbows, but not in remembrance of the works of God in judgement and then mercy, but rather to honour the works of man in dealing with human problems without any reference to God at all.
Secularism lacks the mental and philosophical faculties to deal with a pandemic. Its abandonment of the reality of the providence of God makes it react disproportionately to the need of the moment. When society loses an understanding of the sovereignty of the God who is over creation, it resorts to excessive fear and a misplaced trust in human ingenuity.
We have seen this with climate change alarmism, leading many, overcome with anxiety, to argue that our whole mode of economic existence must be radically changed, if ever WE are to save the planet. However, the very notion of man saving the planet or controlling the climate is in God’s sight a usurping of authority which man simply does not possess.
Similarly with the virus, it is not unreasonable to question the levels of fear and anxiety to which a society which rejects God’s providence is sadly prone. Again, we emphasise that we take this virus seriously, but care must also be taken about building up excessive fear in order to enforce a lockdown policy, the scientific basis of which is subject to much debate.
One of the major regulations being enforced in order to contain the coronavirus is that of mandatory mask-wearing. Back in April, 2020 the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan van Tam, stated – “There is no evidence that general wearing of face-masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society” . Yet in June, 2020, when for seasonal reasons the virus was at a low point in terms of its virulence, mask-wearing was introduced by the Government. Had the science suddenly changed? Then in November, 2020 the results of a major Danish study into the use of face-masks was published, following on from a large ‘randomised controlled trial’ of Danish mask-wearers . The results of the trial were that “masks do little or nothing to lower the infection rate” .
These facts are mentioned, not in order to claim that there is a Christian position on face-masks, but simply to emphasise the more general point that the science behind the Government’s precautions and lockdown measures may not be as clear-cut as is claimed. Christians seek to be good citizens and to obey the authorities, but such obligations do not require an abandonment of God-given discernment, nor of the need to “gird up the loins of our minds” (1 Peter 1:13) and “walk circumspectly” (Ephesians 5:15). It is a Biblical obligation laid upon each believer to think through his actions, using the mental faculties which are a glorious aspect of having been made in the image of God.
Regarding the scientific validity of lockdowns, how open has the Government been to the scientific viewpoint as represented by the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD)? In this document, three eminent public health specialists and epidemiologists from Oxford, Harvard and Stanford Universities argue against the suitability of existing lockdown measures. There are 44 co-signatories to their statement, all of whom are also medical and public health scientists or medical practitioners. These then are the original authors of the statement, but in addition to these, many other experts have endorsed the statement. At the time of writing 13,290 ‘medical and public health scientists’ and 40,199 ‘medical practitioners’  from all around the world have given their support to the GBD.
The GBD points out the “devastating effects on short and long-term public health” which lockdowns create, leading to higher than normal mortality rates in the years to come. The negative consequences of lockdown policies include “worsening cardio-vascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health … with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden” . The GBD advocates as an alternative to lockdowns what it calls ‘Focused Protection’ policies. Such policies will “allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk” .
Again, this writer is not in any way saying that the GBD position must represent the Christian viewpoint; but merely that there must be more openness in Government circles and in society generally to the whole range of scientific opinion. Furthermore, it is surely within the realms of Christian moral concern to question the principle that treatment of Covid-19 patients must needs be prioritised over, say, the treatment of cancer sufferers. For example, at the time of writing it has been reported that “two-thirds of cancer operations face cancellation in London and chemotherapy is being postponed”. Professor Pat Price of the ‘Catch Up with Cancer’ organisation has stated that the situation is “the biggest cancer crisis I have seen in my 30-year career” .