Mark 1:14-20

This passage occurs in the RCL, Year B, during the Epiphany Season (most recently Jan 2021)
 
Summary:
I am struck this time by the word repent.  What does this word really mean?  As Lutherans we often combine this word with forgiveness and dream of our Lenten sacrifices.  Yet the word in Greek literally means "new way of thinking."  While I would not want to make repentance into simply a "head" thing, I am wondering what about my worldview, my thinking, is different because I am a Christian?  Am I more hopeful?  What about my own perspective needs repenting?  What makes me hold onto the nets instead of jumping into the water?

Key words:
ευθυς  ("immediately"; 1.18,20)  The word "immediately" is used 11 times first chapter alone!  You can actually mark the tempo of Mark's Gospel by this word alone, used 40 times throughout the whole book!  It drops off quite noticeably after chapter 6, is almost non-existent in chapters 10-13 and then drops back in for the passion narrative!  As one of my profs put it:  the first eight chapters cover three years; the last eight three months, with chapter 14, 15 and 16 covering the last week!

κηρυσσω ("proclaim"; 1:14)  Mark loves this word, using it more than any other author.  This makes sense -- for Mark the disciples are a bunch of sinners who don't do much right, so at least they should proclaim what Christ has done!  This also builds off of the perfect tenses used with the verbs "arrived" and "fulfilled."  We are simply announcing what God has done.

ευαγγελιον ("good news"; 1:14)  This word is rather difficult to interpret (always, right!) in the Gospel of Mark.  It is never really defined, but Jesus refers to its importance in connection with death (8:35) and salvation (16:15).  The Gospel opens by declaring that the whole book is about the Gospel, but it is worth us considering, especially as we head into a year of preaching from Mark's Gospel, what we consider to be our own and Mark's understanding of the Gospel.  I wrote above that in Mark's Gospels, the disciples don't do a lot right.  But yet in our story this week they drop everything they have to follow Jesus.  God's Word, however hard human hearts may be, still achieves its purpose.

μετανοεω ("repent"; 1:14)  This word sort of drops out of Mark, almost suggesting that it drops out of Jesus' own ministry as he discovers the limitations of the disciples.  Another way to think about this is to consider the Greek meaning of the word, which literally means "new mind."  Stories later in the Gospel -- Bartimaues or the woman anointing Jesus -- show someone whose life is transformed by Jesus.  So it may not be explicit, but the repentance continues.  In Lidell-Scott's ancient (and secular) Greek lexicon, repent means to change one's mind or purpose.  We often put repentance together with sin, a fine thing, but perhaps we need to consider that repentance means often more than simply a struggle against temptation, but a paradigm shift, a transformation of our whole outlook, if not way of life and even being.  Jesus is one whose power and even charisma compel us to switch our worldview, our words and finally our actions.

παραδιδημι ("betray"; 1:14)  This verb will come back into Mark's Gospel when Jesus is betrayed by Judas.  We say this word each week in our communion liturgy.  This verb serves a double purpose:  It lets us know why Jesus got into ministry in the FIRST place...and the FINAL place, the real FIRST place anyway.

2020-2021 Reflection:

καταρτιζοντας (καταρτιζω, meaning "restore", 1:19)  I love this word!  It means to 'restore' in a specific sense -- like restoring nets, but also in a broader sense -- like restoring a community. 

• to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12)
• My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. (Galatians 6:1)
• Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.  (1 Corinthians 1:10)
• Then we spoke to those elders and asked them, 'Who gave you a decree to build this house and to finish this structure?'   (Ezra 5:9)
• Finally, brothers and sisters, farewell. Put things in order, listen to my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.  (2 Corinthians 13:11)

I think much of our efforts in ministry is the word of restoring the nets -- mending the broken lives, the broken community, the broken church.  Yet we can't lose right that in our efforts to be build the kingdom, we lose the KING!  We can't lose sight of Christ in our effort to make Christians.

Grammar review: Thesis number 1:  When our Lord and master Jesus Christ commanded us to repent, he willed that the whole life should be one of repentance.

Luther read the Bible in Greek and therefore discovered that Jesus' command to repent is in the present tense, suggesting an on-going nature to his command.  We are to continually repent is what Jesus said and what Luther captured in his 95 thesis.  The Latin translation did not capture this on-going nature to Jesus command and had been transformed into "do penance."  Who says Greek exegesis cannot change the world?

John 1:43-51

This passage is found in Revised Common Lectionary for Epiphany 2, Year B (Most recently, Jan 17, 2021).  It also occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4 (Most recently Jan 14, 2018).
 
Summary:   This is a great passage, as are all passages from John's Gospel.  I want to play around with the OT imagery found in John and go out on a limb, a fig limb that is.  The first time we hear of figs is in the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve adorn themselves, out of shame, with fig leaves.  The fig tree reminds us of human shame but also God's abundance.  It is fitting that Jesus finds a new disciple underneath a fig tree because this is where we find ourselves.  At the crossroads of sin and mercy.  It also reminds us of Jesus' purpose as the gardener:  To usher us into a new garden brought about by the cross of sin and mercy.

Key words:
ακολουθει  ("follow"; vs. 43)  This means follow.  Jesus here puts his invitation so gently.  Most times "follow me" texts are associated with the cross and temptation.  Here we simply have a friendly "come and stop by my house if you get a chance" kind of invitation!

ερχομαι & οραω (1:39; 1:46; 4:29; 11:34, 19:33; 20:8 "Come and see").  These two verbs come together a number of times in John's Gospel. A quite impressive list actually:
A) When Jesus begins his ministry
B) When the woman at the well returns to her hometown to invite others (different cognate for "come");
C) When they bring Jesus to Lazarus' tomb
D) When they find Jesus on the cross
E) When they come to the empty tomb.

John's Gospel invites us to come and see, even Jesus on the cross and finally the empty tomb.  The result of coming and seeing is believing.

συκη ("fig tree"; vs 1.48 and 50).  The Bible contains numerous references to fig trees.  Jesus preaches parables on them.  Metaphors about the end times allude to the both the weakness of the fig leaves but also the bounty of figs.  As the NET Bible notes:  "Many have speculated about what Nathanael was doing under the fig tree. Meditating on the Messiah who was to come? A good possibility, since the fig tree was used as shade for teaching or studying by the later rabbis (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:11). Also, the fig tree was symbolic for messianic peace and plenty (Mic 4:4, Zech 3:10; You shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree.)"

I have a more "out there" connection.  It is clear that John 1 drips with OT references.  Nathaniel calls Jesus the king of Israel.  Alone in this pericope, Jesus declares himself to the be son of Man with angels descending on him.  This calls to mind all sorts of OT passages, including Jacob's ladder.  So I venture that the fig tree here is a reference to figs in the garden of Eden.  Where do we find ourselves?  In a broken world covered by fragments of God's mercy.  God intends better than fragments; indeed, heaven's gate is reopened in Jesus Christ; the Garden's door is no longer barred by a flaming sword.

Grammar concept:  Present tense in John's Gospel.

The present tense often signifies repeated action, in contrast to the aorist tense.  The produces some very nice theological conclusions.  For example, "follow me" is in the present tense in vs 43, ακολουθω.  The idea is that we are to keep following Jesus.  It doesn't work as well in vs 43, however, with the verb "find", ευρισκω.  This is also in the present tense. Does Jesus keep finding Philipp?  It seems unlikely within the context of the story, although it makes for a very nice sermon point ;-)  Sometimes it is hard to know, when John is simply being poetic and when he is deeply theological. 

Mark 1:4-11

This passage occurs for the Baptism of Jesus, year B, most recently Jan 10, 2021.

The first chapter of Mark appears in various snippets in Scripture.  I commend on the textual and theological issues of Mark 1:1-8 here.  For this passage I will look carefully at 9-11.  This is my first cut at a commentary on these verses, so its a bit more of nuggets and ore than processed pre-sermon metal!!

Γαλιλαια (Galilee, 1:9)  Jesus is coming from the north country, not the power base in Jerusalem.  It turns out that there is some controversy regarding the exact location of Jesus baptism!!  Jesus may have needed to cross through Samaria to get to the the location of the baptism. 

εβαπτισθη (aorist form of baptize, 1:9)  The word for baptism has its own fascinating meaning, explored lots in other posts, but I want to simply offer here a reminder that it doesn't have the same ritual and theological connotations here yet.  It simply met he was washed.  More significant than any conjugation of this verb, however, is its placement within the overall story of Mark.  What happens before the Baptism doesn't matter to Mark!!  (And to Paul either, really).

present participles:  The next verse (10) has three present participles:

αναβαινων
σχιζομενους
καταβαινον

Before analyzing what each means, pay attention to the fact they are all in the present.  As participles, this means they are happening at the same time.  Jesus was coming up out of the water, the heavens were ripping and the Holy Spirit was descending into him!  It is as if Mark is drawing three harsh brushstrokes.  One up, one across and one down.  The world is changing.  The energy in Jesus cannot be contained.  A superhero is born, folks!!

The word most worth pay attention to here is the word, "σχιζομενους", literally, schism!  The heavens are being torn apart.  The next time something will get torn apart is the curtains in the temple at the end of Mark.  First, Mark posits that Jesus Baptism changes the relationship between God and humanity; second, Jesus Baptism and cross are related

εις (into, 1:10).  For the other three Gospel writers, the Spirit rests upon Jesus.  Not for Mark; the Spirit goes into Jesus! 

The next two sentences offer a jarring juxtaposition:

"My beloved son, with whom I am well pleased"

"The Spirit cast him out into the wilderness."

The love of God doesn't preclude suffering and challenge!

Luke 2:1-20

This passage occurs as the Gospel for Christmas Eve in all three lectionary cycles.

Summary:  I have no desire to summarize the meaning of the incarnation in Luke's Gospel.  This passage has layers and layers of meaning for us to draw on this year and every year.  I offer this as a way to hopefully point toward something in the passage that can help launch your reflection and preaching.

Words I found interesting:

οικουμενη(ν) ("world", 2.1)  The word for "all the world" here really means civilized world, coming from the Greek work οικος.  It is a reminder that for those in the Roman empire, this meant the ENTIRE world.

δογμα (literally dogma, meaning "decree", 2.1)  No important theological consideration.  Just that Rome has always been interested in promulgating dogma ;-)

απογραφη ("registration" 2.2)  A few directions one can go with this word. 
First, power of Rome:  Liddell Scott refers to this as "a register of persons liable to taxation."  Rome wanted a census because they wanted to tax and conscript people.  The first two sentences of Luke 2 are dripping with imperial power.

Second, challenge of history:  Luke's chronological placement of Quirinius doesn't add up in terms of a chronology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius. (Other scholars are more generous.)

Third, sin of a census:  In 2 Samuel 24:10, David confesses to sinning as he has engaged in a census.  Why is this a sin?  Because the idea was not to count your troops but to trust the Lord in battle.  In fact, it may be that the zealots (mentioned in the New Testament) arose out of anger of this census being taken. 

Can we put this altogether:  Even if you cannot accept as historical fact the coincidence of Jesus birth with the census, Jesus would have been a young child during a census, a brutal reminder of the power of Rome, a foreign and pagan power.  Quirinius' biography is a great story of the "Roman dream" where someone rose through military victory and shifting political allegiances.  In short, Luke's setting the stage is correct:  The Jews existed under an imperial power, hostile to their faith.  Jesus was born in an empire that cared not for him.  This imperial power was and remains the envy of all other empires in its military and administrative might.

To drive this point home, the angle proclaims, "who is Christ, the Lord."  In Greek, this is spelled Χριστος κυριος, which is the basic confession of faith (Christ is Lord) that ran contrary to the Roman confession of faith (Caesar Kurios).  The angle here offers a subversive confession of faith!

καταλυματι  ("inn", 2:7)  There was no room for them in the inn.  Later Jesus will make room for himself in another inn -- the upper room (22:11; same word).  One take is that Mary and Joseph were with distance family and because it was so crowded, they put the baby and pregnant woman in with the animals.  Even if you want to imagine Jesus as a middle class person with distant relatives surrounding him...Luke's poetry still maintains its force:  The world didn't have room for him and the prince of all creation was sleeping in a bed of hay.

μεγαλην (literally "great", 2:9 and 2:10).  Two things are great in this passage -- there is a great fear and then a great joy.  This sets up, in many ways, the background for the whole of Luke's Gospel:  Jesus will cause great fear, but also great joy.  It is a backdrop for any good Christmas sermon too -- there is great fear in our world, but because of Jesus, we have reason for great joy.

ημεραις  (days, 2:1; 2:6 and throughout Luke 1 and Luke 2) vs σημερον (today, 2:11)  Throughout the Gospel of Luke, but especially the early part, there are lots of things that are happening 'in those days'.  But Jesus birth happens today.  I wonder if there a sermon connection there, thinking about the pacing of life.  Women move slowly with a donkey; the shepherds are hurrying to see.  We have lots of days, but Christmas day is a different.  For me, Christmas Eve is one of the few times a year when I feel like I am not just living days, rushing from one activity to the next, but simply in the moment, dwelling in the proclamation.

To put it another way:  Christmas in America does everything is can to focus our attention on the past or the future.  The angels tell us to focus on the here and now, where God is!

ευδοκιας ("pleasure", 2:14)  I often wondered about this word -- did God intend peace for all people or just those whom he liked?  First, the Greek has a textual problem.  The manuscripts seem divided (and even in manuscripts there are edits) whether this should be read as a nominative or genitive.

If we read it as a nominative:
N) glory to God; peace on earth; good will among humans (i.e. three items distributed in three realms)
If we read it as a genitive
G)  glory to God; peace on earth among humans of (his) pleasure.
If we go with option N) it seems that good will is toward all people, unambiguously.  Unfortunately, the evidence textually, even though divided, favors option G).
So, if we go with option G) we encounter a bit more ambiguity.  If this is the case (okay, bad pun there), Luke writes "upon the earth peace among people of pleasure/desire."  The Greek leaves out the phrase, "of him."  It simply states, "among people of desire."  I am not sure if we can, on the basis of grammar, solve this case (again, bad pun).  What is unambiguous is that God intends for peace on earth!  What is ambiguous grammatically and historically is how we humans live into this peace.

ρημα (literally "herema" meaning "word", 2:15)  This word is like logos, and it can mean thing or matter or word.  That I want to point out is that the shepherds literally say, "Let us behold the word."  John's Gospel is famous for such a construction (John 1:14), Luke has the same concept embedded here.

Ιωσηφ (literally "Joseph", 2:16) Just a reminder that Joseph isn't left out of the picture!

συμβαλλουσα (literally "symballoo", meaning "ponder", 2:19)  Mary "pondered these things in her heart."  The word for ponder is symbol -- to draw meaning, to pull together or literally to throw together.  This is fascinating that Mary is gathering together the images and thoughts of the angels in her mind.

Grammar Review:  Cognate Accusative
It is considered poor English to write a sentence in which the verb and object share the same word root.  For example:  I climbed a climb or I rode a ride.  We are trained to make the object and verb different words:  "I climbed a mountain" or "I rode a bike." 
Because of Hebrew's limited vocabulary as well as the importance of simplifying stories for oral transmission, cognate accusatives are very common.  Not so much in Greek, however.  Which is strange then that Luke uses two of them in this passage:
φυλασσοντεσ φυλακας (literally "guarded their guard," or "tended their flocks," 2.8)
εφοβηθησαν φοβου (literally "feared a great fear," 2.9)
Not sure why Luke does this other than to speculate he was reading a lot of the Old Testament as he wrote the Christmas narrative!

Luke 1:26-38 (Annunication)

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary during Advent.
Summary:

Many commentaries reading this passage display a hermeneutic of suspicion.  For example, the anchor Bible commentary was lamenting that Luke put everything in an OT style.  Strangely enough, this was proof that he was making this stuff up.  (Imagine, God works in a consistent manner over time).  The virgin birth becomes highly problematic within this hermeneutic of suspicion! 

I do not think Luke wants us to read with such cynical eyes.  First, Luke goes to great lengths here to give us names and dates, indicating he intends to write history, not fiction.  He even has the angel offer Mary a sign (the pregnancy of Elizabeth), reminding us of Mary's human need for proof.  While his characters may follow patterns of other Biblical characters, they seem to me to be real people with hopes and fears.  (Because the Bible characters, as it turns out, are real people with hopes and fears)

I think Luke offers us another hermeneutic:  belief in God's word to do miracles.  I use the word hermeneutic because Luke plays on the word herma in this passage; the word for "thing" in verse in 37 is "rema", but because of the heavy breathing on the "r", this comes into English"herma"; the word for "word" in verse 38 is also "rema" (herma).  We should read the Bible, not ready to doubt, but ready to be amazed at what God has done.  This hermeneutic, I believe, is what Luke intends that we might echo the angel and Mary in declaring that “All things (hermas) are possible through God”  and “Let it be done according to your word (herma).”

Key Words:
οηομα ("name"; appears throughout the section)  It is curious that the word name appears four times in this section.  In addition, every character has a name; even people not part of the immediate story, David and Elizabeth, are named.

καλεω ("call"/"invite"; appears throughout the section)  It is also curious that the word "call" appear four times in this section.  Clearly calling things a name is a vital part of this pericope.

παρθενου ("virgin" or "young woman"; 1:27)  Let's settle this debate.  Linguistically it is possible to imagine that Mary is simply referred to hear as a young woman and not a "virgin."  However, the word for virgin is parthenos (like the Parthenon building, to the virgin Athena).  Furthermore, Mary's very objection to the pregnancy is the fact that she has never known a man.

χαρις ("grace"; 1:28; 1:30)  In 1:28 this appears as a verb in the perfect passive form:  "Having been graced." It is interesting that the grace is in the perfect, in that the graceful event occurred previous to the angel's announcement.  What was the event that already gave her this grace? Perhaps her own immaculate conception?!  Another tough thing about this idea of Mary's grace is found in the NET's translation notes.  They lament the vulgate translation, "full of grace" because it presents the idea that Mary has grace to bestow on others.  While it is true that Mary's grace comes from God, it is hard to make the argument that Mary does not bestow grace on the rest of us through her role in the birth.  Catholics go too far, but we protestants have never quite done Mary justice!

Grammar Review:  Missing words
The phrase the "The Lord be with you" is not really what the Greek says. It simply reads "The Lord with you." (ο κυριος μετα σου)  This can be read as an imperative, as in it expresses a wish, "The Lord be or will be with you." Or as an indicative: "The Lord is with you." Interestingly, most translators translate a similar construction at the end of the Gospel of John (Peace to you) with an imperative/wish "Peace be with you." Using the same translation method they use here, that phrase in John's Gospel should read there "Peace is with you."  In this case, I would probably argue for the translation, "The Lord is with you" because a) the angel is standing right there and b) the angel says she is graced.

New Wine doesn't work in Old Wine Skins

New Wine doesn't work in Old Wine Skins

A vaccine will bring healing to many and a return to much of the old normal.  However, it will not undo the changes in our churches saw in 2020.  Some key questions for church leaders to wrestle with in 2021.

I realize that most of us congregational leaders are overwhelmed by the logistics and grief of re-orienting Christmas 2020.  However, recently we heard news of vaccines being distributed in the United Kingdom ...and soon coming into the United States.  This news has me thinking and dreaming of a day when life goes back to normal!!

What will this normal look like?  My sense is that the post-COVID normal for most congregations will look very different than life "B.C".  Too much has changed in our congregations simply to go back to the way it was.  On the one hand, COVID times have been a long season of pruning.  Some things -- ministries, relationships and most poignantly, people -- have died in this time.  Painfully, we must confess it cannot go back.  On the other hand, COVID times has been filled with new growth.  Countless churches have launched new ministries during this time or renewed exciting ministry partnerships; congregations have given leaders permission to grill the most sacred of cows!  It has been reminiscent of the book of Acts, when trials and tribulation gave room for the Spirit to drive the church forward.  There is new wine flowing that will burst the old wine skin!   

It is likely worth each church leadership team pausing, reflecting on 

What is your church grieving that has been temporarily or even permanently lost during this time? 

What is old wine skin, stuff where you just can't go back to it?

What has helped people be the church, as individual disciples, or collectively as a congregation during this time?  

What is new ministry -- new wine -- that is worthy of celebrating?

To be clear, what is old is not bad and what is new is not necessarily from God.  But these above questions might begin to get at the all important and deep question -- how is God calling us forward as a congregation? 

Furthermore, many of the changes that happened during COVID times were not entirely new developments, but amplifications of existing trends.  One local church I know of moved extremely well into live-streaming. As it turns out, they had designed their new sanctuary for live streaming.  COVID may have made their 'viewership' number skyrocket, but they had laid the groundwork for broadcasting worship years ago.  The trends in our culture:  the rise of virtual community; the tendency toward political polarization; and the hunger for intimacy all existed before COVID and will only continue.  

In short, so much has changed within our churches and within our culture, that we can't do church like 2019 and expect to thrive in 2021.  Here are what I see as some movements in our culture that exploded in 2020 that will continue to impact our churches in 2021 and beyond.  For each one, I boil it down to some key leadership questions.

Netflix effect:  Netflix created a whole new market place:  on-demand TV.  You could watch watch whatever you wanted, most importantly, whenever you wanted.  You could binge watch 18 episodes of West Wing.  You could stop a show in the middle if you felt it was too boring or too raunchy.  

In many ways, we've become church on-demand, with multiple ways of worshiping available at multiple times, if not all the time.  No longer is the church open for a few hours a week on Sunday morning and a few odd hours during the week, but the Word is going forth all the time as people follow and consume content online. People can engage at any time, which is good.  But...its a much different task to build a community around an a la carte menu.  Even if one can do this, sustaining it requires very different resources, volunteers and staff than before.

So it brings up a host of questions as in-person worship will resume in full force.  Will people have the desire to sit for a 60 minute worship service anymore, with lots of parts they don't necessarily enjoy?  Will churches stop their online worship?  Will churches really stop online communion they swore was temporary?  What do you do with the people who really loved zoom worship in their jammies?  How do we not burn our staff and volunteers who will be asked to do everything they did in 2019 and 2020 all at the same time?

What should AND can we sustain of our COVID-times virtual engagement? 

The quicker a church answers this question, likely the less helpful their answer will be.  Whom is the church truly trying to serve?  Why? and How?  The more clearly a church can define their sense of mission and vision likely the easier time they will have articulating to themselves and others why they are choosing to resume or not resume certain ministries. 

Trump effect:  Trump accelerated the polarization of American society.  When COVID happened, he took a tact of championing individual liberty over public health measures.  This created a situation in which everything about COVID, including wearing a mask, was seen as a political statement.  As churches made worship and ministry decisions, often based on particulars of their building; the age and health of their staff and congregation; the professions of their council; these were interpreted by many as political.  People began to vote with the feet, with strongly conservative folks often re-aligning themselves with no-mask churches (and to some extent, vice-versa).  Many leaders also felt the necessity to take stands this summer over issues of racial injustice in our country, further inflaming divisions. 

Truthfully, churches have faced increasing strain trying to hold people of differing political opinions in one church.  Like every other facet of society, we seek to congregate with folks that look, act and vote like ourselves.  Church has become no different.

Does your church feel mobilized by a political pruning to work more clearly for societal causes?  (Lean into the prophetic tradition of decrying injustice)  Or are you committed to being a church that holds diverse political views together? (Lean into the Pauline tradition of reconciliation in a multi-cultural context)  How can you live into this decision?

American Idol effect:  While there is a strong Christian music industry with ties to mega-churches, an open secret is that most mega churches haven't had deep congregational singing for sometime.  Wonderful musicians lead generally passive or gently singing crowds.  The same is generally true for Roman Catholic churches and also in many mainline protestant churches.  Choirs used to lead the congregation; then choirs started doing the singing for the congregation; then choirs were replaced by cantors.  Its okay if you want to protest this sweeping generalization, but I think its fairly straight forward to argue that our culture doesn't do collective singing as well as we did two generations ago.  This has been translating into church culture for some time. 

Regardless, COVID times increased this trend as congregational singing has often been discouraged, done with masks or not happened at all.  Many musicians in churches are no longer leading congregations or large ensembles, but recording tracks of two or three musicians, designed for listening rather than collective singing.  

More deeply, I am getting at the way in which COVID often forced a professionalization of church.  Doing a good video takes paid staff or very committed lay people.  It often is harder to get people involved and during COVID times in worship; most churches either restricted volunteers or the volunteer base (often retirees) took a big step back out of virus concerns.  I assume that for most churches this not the long-term hope, although perhaps some are happy to become professional worship broadcasters. 

How do we make worship truly a work of the people, especially when it comes to singing?

The Bowling Alone effect:  Back in 2000, a book called Bowling Alone was written.  It spoke about the fragmentation of American society and how our individualism had undermined our ability to form community.  I've often wondered if the breakdown of church attendance has as much to do with this trend as anything the church has or has not done. It is not simply about the rises of "nones" (no religion) but "no ones" folks who are isolated and alone.

COVID created a tremendous amount of loneliness. We all learned we can't live so isolated from each other.  The church has sought to step into this gap and provide authentic virtual, hybrid and in-person connection.  Many churches have discovered they were not, after all, a building, but truly a people, animated by the Spirit who trust in Jesus Christ.  The people that have come along often will feel more bound to their church than ever before.

At the same time as pockets of intimacy were being deepened within the church, many have trailed away.  A zoom room likely doesn't work for people totally new to each other.  Some churches may have added virtual listeners, but how might they move from passive consumers to active parts of the life-giving community?  How much energy are you going to put seeking the sheep you lost in 2020?  How can you make pathways for new people to integrate into a very "dense" community in terms of relationships?

How is your church intentionally building community for both active participants but also those not currently engaged?

Some of the above questions might avail themselves to simple or quick answers.  My intention in offering them is not to provide an easy checklist for folks.  I sense that both in and outside of the church life will have profoundly changed by summer 2021, when life in church could go back to normal.  Churches will need to have a strong sense of mission.  If not, I believe they will exhaust themselves in conflict and unrealistic expectations of staff, volunteer leaders and general membership.  My hope is that the above questions might help a church get at, again, that key question -- how is God moving in our midst and how are we called forward?  How can we as a people of the cross and resurrection speak and live into a world that endured its greatest crisis in a generation, if not longer?

Mark 1:1-8

This passage occurs in the RCL during Advent (year 2, week 2; most recently Dec. 6, 2020)
 
Summary:
The Greek in this passage is not complex, but it is riddled with problems.  How do we read Mark's rough Greek and sloppy use of the Old Testament?  Perhaps the hermenuetic offered by Mark about Isaiah is the proper one for us today.  Mark rips Isaiah out of his historical context and reestablishes the passage's meaning christologically.  In the same way, let's rip John the Baptist out of his context and interpret him christologically:  You need more than confessing your sins.  You need the son of God to send out the Spirit to forgive your sins in your Baptism!  Sure, that adds a bit of theology to the whole thing, but as Mark shows, that is the job of a proclaimer :-)

->  My added insight for 2014:  Mark's Gospel begins, it seems, with the theology of the cross.  Where do we find God?  In the wilderness, on the edge, in a stinky socially unacceptable man.  Jesus will keep showing up in the wrong places in the Gospel of Mark (and all the Gospels).  Jesus will keep showing up in our lives in the wrong places too.

Here are some problems:
Citation problem:  Isaiah in verse 1:2 and v 3
Mark says "Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah" and then goes to quote Malachi.  He doesn't get to Isaiah until verse 3.  (My guess is that Malachi wouldn't be known to his audience but Isaiah perhaps would have been).  Even if you ignore this problem, Mark is clearly a bad student of the OT because he takes the verse out of context.  Clearly Isaiah was not talking about John the Baptist!  But wait a minute.  If Mark takes Isaiah out of its historical context and reinterprets the passage in light of Christ...then cannot we do the same??

Word problem:  John the Baptist/baptizing in verse 1:4
Literally the text reads "John the one who baptizes" or even "John, while baptizing."  However, I do not think calling him "John the Baptist" is an unfair translation.  In fact, Mark will call John the Baptist elsewhere, 6:25; 8:28.  Here Mark is emphasizing his activity of baptizing.  The most complex thing however is simply the word "baptism."  We have 2,000 years+ of interpretation of this word.  In this pre-theological usage it simply means, "to dip in water to wash."  It came to mean, according to the Freiberg dictionary, "of Jewish ritual washings wash, cleanse, purify by washing."  The point of all this is that John's Baptism is not necessarily what we think of as our baptisms.  This is not a baptism of grace; it is not a baptism of binding oneself to Jesus ministry, much less his death and resurrection.  John was telling people to commit themselves to God and signify their repentance with Baptism.

Textual problems:  "Of God" in verse 1:1
The phrase "of God" (tou theou) is not found in all the manuscripts. It is pretty debatable from a textual point, although I think Nestle Aland 27's double brackets are a bit strong.  Some significant manuscripts have it.  The NET Bible notes offer a really fascinating hypothesis as to why the "son of God" is dropped from various manuscripts (based on the particular letters that are used).  However, this is kind of a moot point for the Gospel of Mark.  Jesus clearly is the son of God in the book; the question is when and how do we learn this. From the first line of the book?  No.  From the cross.  From a centurion nonetheless.  Perhaps it simply adds to the great mystery novel that Mark wrote...

Punctuation problem:  "In the wilderness" in 1:3
The position of the phrase "in the wilderness" is arbitrary.  We do not have the original punctuation is either Hebrew or Greek.  Later Jewish monks added the punctuation (suggested by the original likely meaning of the verse), "A voice cries out, 'In the wilderness prepare the way'" but the writer of Mark moves the break and makes it "A voice cries out in the wilderness, prepare the way."  Admittedly, we really don't know Mark's original punctuation (this was not passed on for the first four centuries at least) but Mark definitely seems to suggest a change from the Hebrew.

Participle problem:  "confessing" in 1:5
The tenses of the Greek participles fight against an "Ordo Salutis" in this passage. Baptizing and confessing occur at the SAME time CONTINUALLY. Not one after the other (imperfect active verb with a present participle == concurrent, on-going action).  The people do not confess and then get baptized or the other-way around.  They are doing both of them.