Joseph Hart spares no one’s feelings when he surveys the mass of humanity, men and women and boys and girls, and analyzes people in their natural condition apart from Christ. And it is not just that men are merely defective or slightly ill-adapted, or that they just need a little bit of tweaking. No, Hart paints a picture of our condition that aligns with the Holy Scripture: we are poor, wretched sinners. But right away, consider the good news in that opening stanza: “Jesus ready stands to save you, full of pity, joined with power.” And that’s a marvelous, balanced, biblical portrayal of the Savior.

This is an absolutely lovely hymn. The tune to which it is paired in the Trinity Hymnal (Selection No. 472) is called BRYN CALFARIA, which is one of those stirring, minor-key Welsh hymn tunes (of which there are so many). The tune is so full of pathos and is well-suited to the hymn text here. That Welsh tune name, by the way, in English means “Calvary’s Hill”[1]—a very apt name for the tune, especially when it is wedded to this text.
The Tune
Now, this tune is not the easiest to sing. It’s a little tricky, but I think that a determined congregation could learn and master it after singing through it just a few times. I have a Welsh pastor friend who has said that it is not uncommon for the Welsh to sing tunes like this when they come together at rugby matches. And, as he says, if 50,000 inebriated Welsh sports fans can learn a complex tune and sing it with some cogency, so can an average congregation!
The fundamental underpinning theme of this hymn is that it does not congratulate the sinner on his ability; it recognizes that all the ability belongs to Jesus Christ alone. Notice that the first refrain is, “He is able, He is able, He is willing, doubt no more.” No emphasis falls on the sinner’s power and ability; it’s all on the Savior’s power and ability.
The BRYN CALFARIA tune was originally composed by a Welshman named William Owen. Owen, born in 1813 and lived through 1893, was a publisher of several hymnals using Welsh tunes. He was born in Bethesda in Northern Wales, and he worked in a slave quarry as a young man at the age of ten. That gives us something of the historical context: both awful child labor and slave labor were alive and well at this time in early 1800s Wales.[2]
Owen lived near a church called St. Ann, and he loved to hear the organist playing there. He became a good musician himself and started composing. Some of his tunes at the time were very popular, but the style of these tunes fell out of favor years later. However, this tune has survived partly due to the efforts and interest of Ralph Vaughan Williams — the great English hymn collector, hymn publisher, and composer of symphonies. Vaughan Williams gave us that majestic tune to which we sing “For All the Saints,” for example (SINE NOMINE).[3]
Well, Vaughan Williams took Owen’s BRYN CALFARIA tune and tamed it so as to make it easier for congregations to sing it. He then published his arrangement of the tune in the English Hymnal. He also did an organ prelude on this tune.[4] If you are a classical music lover, you might have heard that organ prelude, and it is a lovely arrangement of this tune. So, it’s thanks to Vaughan Williams (at least in part) that this tune has been preserved in English hymnody.
The Text
Well, that’s a little about the tune and its composer (and popular arranger). How about a little bit about the man who wrote the stirring lyrics? Joseph Hart was born about a dozen years before John Newton. John Newton (the former slave-trader-turned-abolitionist who gave us hymns such as “Amazing Grace”) was born in 1725, and Joseph Hart was born in 1712. Hart was converted to Christ under George Whitefield’s ministry in the late 1750s, some ten years after the close of the “Great Awakening” (denominated the “Evangelical Revival” in Britain).
After his conversion, Hart went on to become a pastor and preacher for an independent chapel. He wrote a number of hymns and was later buried in Bunhill Fields in London, which is famous for being the final resting place of the likes of John Owen, John Bunyan, Daniel Defoe, Susannah Wesley (mother of John and Charles), and other notables.[5]
The hymn “Come, Ye Sinners, Poor and Wretched” was first published in 1759 in a collection of English hymns, and the original title given to this hymn was “Come, and welcome to Jesus Christ.” As an aside, that is one of my absolute favorite phrases in the English language. It’s also the title of one of John Bunyan’s little works. Read that book if you can. It expresses his delight and joy in the free and gracious welcome given to sinners by Jesus Christ. Some have suggested that that little book even helped pave the way for the modern missions movement.
Read More
Related Posts:

Actions of massive significance call for significant accountability. Self-reflection is a good spiritual discipline, also for church leaders. Did we engage in spiritual abuse when we turned away faithful worshipers? Were we condescending toward mask-wearers seeking to protect vulnerable family members? Did we demand submission to civil government on matters better left to individual conscience? I for one am still bothered by the restrictions we did place on our own congregation. Couldn’t we have simply let sincere Christians make up their own minds on timing and masks and everything else? Did we lord it over the flock? Did we succumb to fear?

I am hopeful that enough time has passed that the church can calmly and methodically evaluate her COVID-19 decisions. We took actions of historical significance with profound consequences for the spiritual health of the church. These actions call for careful review and reconsideration—any competent organization reviews major decisions in pursuit of continuous improvement. Surely the church should lead by example.
Churches across America closed their doors in the spring of 2020. Time-delayed broadcast (nothing is truly “live”) of public worship was tacitly approved or openly embraced as a “spiritual equivalent” to gathered worship. Reopening, when it happened, was often accompanied by mask mandates and assembly limits. These restrictions were variously justified by arguments for submission to governing authorities or the importance of loving our neighbor.
Some church leaders openly criticized those who in good conscience disagreed with the limits of government power regarding public worship. People who suggested that scientific arguments for masks and distancing were inconclusive were silenced. And others, convinced of a duty to care for neighbor and live quietly under government were often harshly criticized and opposed.
What Was at Stake
We touched holy things.
The public assembly is a holy gathering, commanded by the LORD, and the pattern of the church since men began to call on the name of the Lord. The church gathered in Abraham’s house, at Sinai, at the tabernacle, at the temple, in the synagogue, and in the early churches scattered in the Mediterranean basin. Assembly is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.
When we limited gatherings, we limited the ekklesia of God. We limited what the church for four millennia has understood to be basic and vital. This requires sober reflection.
The holy supper of our Lord is to be kept until Jesus Christ comes again. We skipped observances of the Supper.
And then—when we resumed public worship and the Lord’s supper, we engaged in de facto excommunication of fellow Christians on account of questions that can hardly be called primary, secondary or even tertiary. Masks come to mind.
The means of grace were severely diminished by those with the responsibility to maintain and protect the same.
We touched holy things like Uzzah touched the ark. Should we assume that we did well because we are still alive, or take some time for sober reflection and repentance?
Church and State
A common argument presented for such restrictions was the following: The state requires compliance and we are to “fear God and honor the king.” But this basic argument, especially in Western constitutional democracies, needs to be re-examined.
First, our political tradition allows for peaceful protest. The First Amendment of the American constitution (and for our friends in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) protects religious worship, peaceful protest, and the right to petition government. Such protest is not necessarily rebellion. Our Western tradition has made provision for such precisely because the same tradition recognizes that governments are prone to trample citizens by the untrammeled use of power. Paul was unashamed to appeal to his Roman rights, and Christians should wisely do the same—particularly in the face of growing hostility to Christianity. Peaceful protest (for example, the refusal to enforce mask mandates in worship services) has strong legal precedent in the Western tradition.
Second, our form of government does not give unlimited power to the executive. When Pastor John MacArthur resisted Governor Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 policies, some Christians thought him to be an embarrassment—perhaps some Anabaptist still secretly existed in the Baptist. But when Grace Community Church presented their case for non-compliance to a judge, that judge ruled that Gavin Newsom was the law-breaker. John MacArthur proved to be the one who feared God and honored the king; Gavin Newsom was the rebel.
We should thank the Lord for John MacArthur and those like him who were willing to challenge the limits of executive authority by appealing to the law. Precedents established in such cases may prove of great value to the worshiping church in coming years. If you were a public critic, it’s time for some public humble pie.
Incidentally it was no less than a Supreme Court Justice who remarked recently that “executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale…governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions, too.” Gorsuch expressed concern regarding government treatment of churches during the pandemic, noted that governments “surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social- distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct.”i
If a Supreme Court Justice is concerned about government overreach, could not a sincere Christian have shared the same concerns and acted accordingly? It seems the answer should be simple: Of course, yes.
Third, and by far most importantly: The church of the Lord Jesus Christ alone has the right to regulate her worship, and that regulation is solely by the Word of God. I heard good friends argue that since the governing powers were not touching what was preached, or the liturgy to be followed, all was well. This argument has some (limited) merits, but it is not one that I would be willing to press on the conscience of another believer in Jesus Christ. It seems wiser simply to state the following: When the state weighs in on any matter pertaining to public worship, the church will humbly listen and then make its own decisions concerning the public worship of God. This is not ground we should ever give over to the civil magistrate. To use the language of Reformed liturgy, the things beginning with the call to worship and ending with the benediction are holy things that belong to the Lord, the King and Head of the church.
It is here that I would argue for the urgency of COVID-19 reflection—to make use of sanctified hindsight. The governing authorities were wrong on almost everything; masks hardly work if at all,ii vaccinations are less useful than natural immunity,iii and despite all the restrictions and vaccinations nearly everybody I know has contracted COVID-19 at one time or another.iv And amongst my entire circle of friends and family, over forty-five years of life and service in Christ’s church in three different countries, not a single friend or relative that I know died of COVID-19. This is not what I was told to expect in the spring of 2020, and it surely is a reason to thank the Lord for his shielding mercies. (And yes, I aware many did lose loved ones in the same period, and this is also reason for humble prayer.)
But—if the governing authorities were wrong on almost everything (starting with “two weeks to slow the spread”), did their dubious use of emergency powers warrant restricting the life and worship of the church? Hindsight makes things clearer.
And if this question is answered in the negative, perhaps such reflection will lead those who preached strict compliance to think far better of those who disagreed, and even to commend their courage and constancy in the face of pressures from within and without the church. Both sides ought to listen to each other, very carefully.
Love Your Neighbor
The second and very common argument was that those in favor of restrictions, masks and vaccines were those who truly understood what it meant to love your neighbor.
Neighborly love motivated many Christians. Those who were prone to be upset with mask- wearers or a friend stayed away for a time out of concern for elderly family members ought to see love in those who took such extra care.
But the “love-your-neighbor” argument has also profound weaknesses when we attempt to apply it uniformly to the whole church.
First, those who used it often asked the church to make scientific rulings on disputed medical questions: “If we loved our neighbor, we would all wear masks.” I am a pastor, and I don’t give recommendations for vaccinations, masks, or appendectomies. To require unanimity on such questions to be part of the unity of the church or the criteria for attendance on the public worship of God or admittance to the Lord’s Supper seems to be an abuse of authority.
A second problem is perhaps the greater. The argument for restrictions on the regular life of the church was often an argument for the priority of physical health and safety over spiritual health and life. But if the whole world was indeed about to die, would not true love for our neighbor led us to throw open our doors to preach the only medicine the world had left— Jesus Christ and eternal life through Him?
Fear
We return again to Justice Gorsuch: “Many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces.”
Another category for reflection is fear. Did we acquiesce to restrictions or adopt policies out of fear (whether of governing authorities or fellow congregants)? This might be answered in the affirmative for those on both sides of various questions—masks come to mind again. Fear of man is a snare; it is sinful. Did we fear men?
Perhaps there is an ultimate question we need to ask: Was I afraid to die from COVID-19? Did this make me afraid to attend public worship? Did fear lead me to close the doors to my unbelieving neighbors? Christians are not to fear death.
When our session (elder board) decided to limit attendance at public worship on account of the early reports of the dangers of COVID-19, I received a Saturday night phone call from an elderly Presbyterian minister regarding the protocols for the following day’s services. He had a simple question: “What power granted to the elders of the church by Jesus Christ would permit you to turn me away from the public worship of God?”
I explained to him that the reports we were all receiving indicated that this virus had the capacity to rapidly spread dangerous illness. He replied that he wasn’t calling to discuss the timing of his death (which surely was coming but only the Lord knew when) but about the arrangements for the public worship of God in the morning.
This providential conversation moved me deeply, and I told him I would turn no one away.
Concluding Questions
Actions of massive significance call for significant accountability. Self-reflection is a good spiritual discipline, also for church leaders.
Did we engage in spiritual abuse when we turned away faithful worshipers? Were we condescending toward mask-wearers seeking to protect vulnerable family members? Did we demand submission to civil government on matters better left to individual conscience? I for one am still bothered by the restrictions we did place on our own congregation. Couldn’t we have simply let sincere Christians make up their own minds on timing and masks and everything else? Did we lord it over the flock? Did we succumb to fear?
We touched holy things, and this requires humble reflection. Maybe your next leadership meeting ought to include time for prayerful reflection on actions taken, followed by some honest communication with your congregation.
May God help us in this work of reflection, give us true repentance where needed, and by this renew our commitment to the public worship of His holy name.
Peter Van Doodewaard is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Covenant Community Church (OPC) in Taylors, SC.

i Peter Pinedo, “Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Blasts COVID Lockdowns, Closing of Churches”, National Catholic Register, May 23, 2023, https:// justice-gorsuch-blasts-covid-lockdowns-closing-of- churcheswww.ncregister.com/cna/supreme-court-
ii Tom Jefferson et al., “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002
/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full?s=08
iii Ralph Ellis, “COVID Infection Provides Immunity Equal to Vaccination: Study”, WebMD, February 17, 2023, https:// vaccine/news/20230217/covid-infection-provides- immunity-equal-to-vaccination-studywww.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-
iv Erika Edwards, “What people with ‘super immunity’ can teach us about Covid and other viruses”, NBC News, March 11, 2023 https:// immune-covid-science-trying-unravel-immunity- virus-rcna72885www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/are-
Related Posts:

To be justified is not only to be forgiven, but also to be accounted as righteous in God’s sight….So, how do sinners receive a righteousness with which to stand before God? In answering this question, we make a distinction between infused and imputed righteousness.

There is an important discussion taking place within the church regarding the relationship of justification to sanctification. This topic is crucial to us getting the gospel right today while avoiding the deadly extremes of antinomianism (a lawless Christianity) and legalism (a works-oriented Christianity). On many occasions, I have taught on the topics of justification and sanctification. There are few doctrinal topics that exert a more important influence on our lives as Christians than these.
Perhaps the best short definition of justification is given in Question #33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. To be justified is to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted as just in the holy presence of God. Romans 5:1 states, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
All other blessings of salvation depend on our first being justified with God. In describing justification as an “act of God’s free grace,” we are saying that it is a once-for-all act of God as a free gift. Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
To be justified is not only to be forgiven, but also to be accounted as righteous in God’s sight. As Jesus said in His parable of the wedding feast, we must have a garment of righteousness to be permitted into God’s presence (Mt. 22:11, 12). So, how do sinners receive a righteousness with which to stand before God? In answering this question, we make a distinction between infused and imputed righteousness.
To give clarity to this topic, I offer the following seven assertions regarding justification and sanctification. I briefly discuss each assertion, making Scripture references which simply point to the main line of biblical support for each assertion.

Justification and sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith. Christ is Himself the center of the gospel, and through faith we are saved in union with Him (Acts 16:31; Eph. 1:3). Justification and sanctification are distinct benefits flowing through union with Christ by faith alone. Justification is a legal benefit of our union with Christ, granting us forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through faith alone (Rom. 3:23-26; Gal. 2:16). Sanctification is a Spiritual[1] benefit of our union with Christ, involving the believer’s transformation into the holy likeness of Christ (Rom. 6:1-14; Eph. 4:20-24; Tit. 2:12).

Read More
Related Posts: