Sermons at First Central

Luke’s story in the Acts of the Apostles about replacing Judas as one of the twelve is an interesting story. Ostensibly, it appears to be a rather straightforward story about bringing another person into the leadership of the early church.

Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James were all gathered together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers, and a crowd of about one hundred twenty people. They needed a replacement for Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, deserted the rest of them, and ended up killing himself.

The criteria for Judas’ replacement were the following: to be one of the men who had accompanied them during all the time that Jesus was with them, beginning from Jesus’ baptism by John Baptist until the day when Jesus was taken from them. This person also had to be a witness to Jesus’ resurrection.

They proposed two replacements; Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. They prayed and they cast lots. The lot fell on Matthias and he was added to the eleven apostles. Neither of the two candidates, Justus and Matthias, is ever mentioned again in the Scripture.

As the story says: there were “certain women” gathered there. That one phrase opens up the door to a whole host of questions, not the least of which is: “Why were none of the women in the running to replace Judas?” Wonder why none of the woman were put forward as candidates? May be they were and we no longer know about them. Maybe one of them got the roll of the lot, got elected.

This whole thing with the Da Vinci Code raises a number of questions about the early church, as well as the church in the middle ages, and the church now, even as we worship together. I wonder if Mary, as in Magdalene, knew what questions she is now raising, what a stir she is causing, what she would have to say to us, her brothers and sisters in the community of faith, about her fate?

From the Christian scripture we learn that Jesus related to women as being his equal. He empowered women. Women were leaders in the Jesus movement. Mary Magdalene, according to a number of sources, was a, if not, the, central figure in the Jesus movement after Jesus’ death.

The Gospel of Mary, dating from the first quarter of the 2nd century, C.E., is a Gospel written by a particular community of faith who had Mary Magdalene as their leader, preacher, and teacher. The following passage is from the Gospel of Mary. Jesus said: “Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.” When He said this He departed. But they (his followers) were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, how shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, “Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His (Jesus’) grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.”

When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of Jesus.

Peter said to Mary, “Sister we know that Jesus loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words which you remember, which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.” Mary answered and said, “What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.”

Responding to Mary’s word of instruction, Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about Jesus: “Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?”

Then Mary wept and said to Peter, “My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about Jesus?”

Levi answered and said to Peter, “Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. If Jesus made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely Jesus knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate, as He commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what Jesus said. And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.”---from The Gospel of Mary

You can get The Gospel of Mary on the internet or from Karen King’s (professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard Divinity School) book, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle. King says that Mary Magdalene was a prominent disciple of Jesus, an apostle, and a leader in the church after the resurrection.

What happened to Mary, the apostle, leader, and possible wife of Jesus? The Gospel of Philip, written in the second half of the 3rd century, says: “There were three who always walked with Jesus, Mary his mother, his sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion.----They are all called Mary.”

Why don’t we know more about our sister Mary? Why do some folks act like she is the adversary? Why is the Roman Church afraid of her? How did Mary Magdalene, a major player in Christianity's defining moment, come to be so maligned and discredited?

The answer is that at the end of the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great gave a series of sermons in which he characterized Mary Magdalene as a prostitute by identifying her with the woman in Luke’s Gospel, who bathes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair.---Luke 7: 36ff

Yet, nothing in Christian scripture says Mary was a prostitute. The Gospel of Luke says that Jesus casts seven demons from her, after which she becomes active in the Jesus movement and helped provide for the movement. She witnessed the crucifixion when all of the male followers fled. She was the first to experience the resurrection of Jesus.

Karen King says: “If one wanted to discredit Mary Magdalene, simply saying that she was a woman and her witness was unreliable was not sufficient. Saying that she hadn't been an important disciple, or hadn't been with Jesus, that was not possible, because that was in the tradition. But to see her as a prostitute, this was a way of maligning her in a way that would stick.” It did.

Basically, after Jesus’ death, the church began to back away from Jesus’ acceptance of female leadership within the movement; this is particularly the case when the movement becomes an institution, the church.

The farther the movement, and then the church, got from Jesus the more threatened it became by strong female leadership. Perhaps it began with Peter being threatened by Mary, who knows, except that it did happen.

In 1906, in a cave above the ruins of Ephesus, an archeologist uncovered two 6th century images, one of the Apostle Paul, the other of Thecla, a female companion of Paul and leader in the early church. Both figures are painted as equals on the cave wall. Thecla and Paul were equal apostolic leaders and teachers in the early church.

Yet, later in the 6th century, perhaps after Pope Gregory the Great maligned Mary, someone defaced the image of Thecla, gouging out her eyes and cutting off her fingers held in the classic teaching position.

But this misogyny began earlier. By the writing of First Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul, but not written by him, women were being maligned. The letter says that woman should be silent in the church. Paul was not a misogynist, a woman hater. It was a later revisionist of Paul’s writings that stuck that on him. A later writer, for example, inserted into Paul’s letter, First Corinthians, that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Elaine Pagels, author of the book, The Gnostic Gospels, says “in some of these other Gospels, we find women in very different positions, with very different kinds of respect as disciples, as apostles, as teachers than you find them in the Gospels of the New Testament.”

Do not ever think that the scripture is beyond reproach when it comes to remembering and writing about its memory. It is not! It is a human document and being human, it is subject to prejudice, malice, ignorance, fear, and even hatred.

Yet, as John Dominicc Crossan says of the writings of the Apostle Paul: “He only said what Christianity has never been able to follow, that within it all are equal and this is to be its witness and challenge to the world outside.” That is the most powerful statements I know concerning the Christian faith; that within it all are equal.

Yet we have never been able to pull that off within the church. But that is not were Jesus is. As Langdon Gilkey says in his book, Naming The Whirlwind, “Jesus the Christ, for us Christians, is that man in history who manifests to us who we are to be if we would be whole.”

The church has excluded a lot of folks. We have used and misused our power. We have denied the legitimacy and, therefore, the existence of a host of writings by our brothers and sister in the first three centuries of the Jesus movement, out of fear, ignorance, and control; not the least of them are the Gospels of Mary, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Nicidemous, and Peter, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Edionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. How whole we would be if we had their voices, had kept their voices?

There are upwards of 20 Gospels that the church has excluded from the canon for reasons of fear, ignorance, and control. Much of this exclusion had to do with orthodoxy of doctrine and the role of women in the leadership of the church. What if we had the Gospels of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas, of Philip and of Peter in the Christian scripture? What would it have changed? How would our perception be different? How much more aware would we be, how much more open would we be?

With the recovery of these writings, we now realize how rich and diverse the church has always been. There has never been a single, unified voice within Christendom, except when Peter and Gregory and thousands like them have tried to say who is in and who is out of the church for reasons of fear, ignorance, and control.

Dom Crossan is right; “He (Paul) only said what Christianity has never been able to follow, that within it all are equal and this is to be its witness and challenge to the world outside.” That is the most powerful statement I know about Christianity.

So, who is in and who is out?

Amen.

The Hope of Diversity
Winston Baldwin
May 14, 2006
Isaiah 11: 1-9
Romans 12: 9-18; 13: 8-10

The article in last Saturday’s Omaha World-Herald, “150 Years and Counting”, about our 150th anniversary celebration, has produced a number of responses, not the least of which was a phone call from a person I took to be the Marketing Director of KGBI radio, a “Christian Broadcasting” radio station, soliciting us to place our advertisement and announce our upcoming events on their radio station. This individual proceeded to tell me who KGBI is, that they used to be owned by Grace University, but are now owned by a corporation in California who owns a number of Christian Broadcasting radio stations.

After he finished, I asked: “Do you know who we are?” He said, “No, not really”; which indicated he had not read the article in the World-Herald. If he had, he would probably not have been calling on us. I said, “You need to know that we are part of the United Church of Christ and that we ordain openly gay and lesbians into our clergy, that we know that there are diverse voices within Christianity, that there is no one voice for Christianity, nor has there ever been. Look at Gnostic Christianity in the Gospels of John, Thomas, and Judas admit Jewish Christianity which ousted Mary Magdalene, possible wife of Jesus, because she was a threat to Luke and other male leaders of the church at Jerusalem.” I said, “We are a Liberal Christian voice and we openly claim it. Liberal Christianity is as valid a voice in Christianity as any other voice. Now, will you take our money and our voice, to stand along side of you, our brothers and sisters, as being valid voice? Will you advertise our events, even if some of those events have to do with the Nebraska AIDS Project or a discussion on same sex marriage?

We do not have any axe to grind, we do not see Christianity as being exclusive. We think there are many other ways as valid as our own, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, to name a few. We are Christian and that works for us.” His response was, in an accepting tone, I may add, “I have never had a conversation like this before.” I said “maybe we could have an open dialogue on your radio station, how would that be?” He said, “I’ll have to get back with you on that. I’ll have to talk to the others here at the station.” I said, “Give me a call”.

It was a pleasant and hopeful conversation. Maybe somewhere in it there is the hope of affirming the diversity that exists within Christendom, not to mention the hope of affirming that America is indeed a multi-cultural, multi-religious society.

On the other side of the spectrum from the hope of dialogue and the affirmation of diversity in our culture, the same day that I had this pleasant conversation with the brother at KGBI, I received in the mail a 128 page, slick, well done, upscale publication entitled, “America, Return to God” overlaid on a photograph of our nation's Capital building, with the words: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”---Psalm 33: 12. At the bottom of the cover: “Not for sale, Pass it on, More copies available.”

The booklet is endorsed by such organizations as: Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals; Focus on the Family; Institute In Basic Life Principles; Moody Publishers; Tradition Family Coalition; and, WallBuilders. Who knows who what they are about, one can only guess, WallBuilders! I thought that religion is about tearing down walls, not building them.

The introduction to the booklet says: “America is unique in her Christian origin (apparently they never read Mr. Jefferson and Ben Franklin, those founding fathers, who were American Deist) and way of life ever since the Mayflower landed in 1620. (That Mayflower reference caught my attention, needless to say.) But these early upbringings and noble traditions have been progressively eroded under the onslaught of European Enlightenment (as though Tom Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin had nothing to do with the Enlightenment. It was those foreigners, whom we must keep out, you know, who brought in the Enlightenment), Humanism, and Liberal Theology, which have found their way into this nation throughout the past two centuries, and spread their influence in all walks of life including the church.”

Those dreaded enemies, the Enlightenment, Humanism, and Liberal Theology, came over on the boat- that being the Mayflower, with our, UCC, Puritan forbearers. We know something about our heritage. These folks cannot use jingoistic, chauvinistic, jargon to rewrite, and co-opt history to fit their political agenda. But the danger is they are. Not just they, but a whole bunch of other folks are too.

They close the introduction with: “We earnestly solicit your prayer that, by the grace of God, America will come back to her Heavenly Father and her Savior Jesus Christ who gave birth to this nation in the first place. (Jesus the Christ of faith, may be more than a little surprised to learn that he gave birth to a nation when it was a nation, the Roman Empire, that executed him. Nothing I read in scripture say that Jesus was about kingdom building other than the kingdom of God. Are they identifying America with the Kingdom of God?) God will save America when America repents and comes back to Him!”

I do not find any hope of diversity in that statement. Considering the fact that there are more Muslim Americans than there are Presbyterians and Episcopalians combined, that there are 4 million Buddhist Americans, and there are as many Hindus in America as there are members of the UCC, 1.5 million.

This is to say nothing of the Native Americans and their religion. How happy do you think they would be to know that Jesus the Christ gave birth to this nation when their nations were up and running thousands of years before Christianity came to these shores? In God’s name who do we Christians think we are?!! What entitlement, and to what? This is all not that far from religious cleansing. It is not something that Jesus or Paul would embrace.

I can tell you something about the good Christian folks who inhabited the coastlands of eastern America in the 1600’s and about the birth of a “Christian” nation.

The Virginia Company, which controlled the Virginia Colony from 1607 to 1624, was a Puritan venture, controlled by the Puritan Party in the English Parliament. The earliest clergy to Virginia were members of the Puritan Wing of the Church of England as were our UCC, Puritan forbears at Plymouth in 1620.

In 1609, the Virginia Company received a new charter from the English Parliament, giving greater powers to the company and the Royal Governor, Sir Thomas Dale. The following is one of the laws from that charter: “That no man shall speak impiously or maliciously, against the holy and blessed Trinity, that is against God, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit or against the known Articles of Christian faith, upon the pain of death.” I wonder if this is what those who say “America, Return to God” have in mind? Is this the birth of the nation Jesus gave birth to? Maybe they ought to be more informed about the history of their romanticized Christian nation. How folk were whipped if they failed to attend worship, or have a bodkin thrust through their tongue if they offered curse words and if blaspheming the name of God, be brought to court and receive the censure of death. (from Dale’s Law, 1609)

These are, after all, the good Christian folks who gave the birth to the nation, or was it Jesus himself, I forget. Is this the Christian America to which we want to return?

The romanticizers of our national origins and politicians who use romantic images and buzz words want us to return to Christian exclusivism in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. It is no coincidence they know what they are doing. They know what fear they play upon in order to gain power.

In the year 1774, two years before our war of Independence from the Brits, we were still warring with the Native Americans whose land we had taken, and whose culture we were devastating by the wholesale slaughter of the great buffalo.

Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, written in 1787, tells of the wholesale slaughter of the family of Logan, a Mango chief, and records Logan’s letter to Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor of Virginia in 1774. “I appeal to any white man to say, if ever he entered Logan’s cabin hungry, and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked, and he clothed him not. During the course of this last long and bloody war, Logan remained idle in his cabin, an advocate for peace. Such was my love for the whites, that my countrymen pointed as they passed, and said, ‘Logan is the friend of white men.’ I had even thought of living with you, but for the injuries of one man. Col. Cresap, last spring, in cold blood, and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature. This called on me for revenge. I have sought it: I have killed many: I have fully glutted my vengeance. For my country, I rejoice at the beams of peace. But do not harbor a thought that mine is the joy of fear. Logan never felt fear. He will not turn on his heals to save his life. Who is there to mourn for Logan? Not one.” Jefferson, Notes On The State of Virginia, 1954, University of North Carolina Press, p.63

What is the matter with us Christians when we get these ideas of exclusivism and entitlement? Is it because of our literal interpretation of scripture, that Jesus is the only way to God? Jesus never thought or taught any such thing.

I know what my and your ancestors did to the Native Americans, and to the African Americans, and to the Asian Americans, during WW II, and to Eastern European Americans, even here in Omaha. I know what the Brits did to the Irish and what they tried to do to the Scotts.

Jingoistic politicians and Fundamentalist Christians romanticizing the past make for a dangerous partnership that is about two clicks off from religious cleansing.

“Religion,” says Karen Armstrong, “should not only transform us, it should also transform the world.”

Within Christianity there is the hope of diversity if we are willing to reclaim our diverse history and heritage as Christians.

America has never been an exclusively Christian nation. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and others were Deist; not to mention the host of Native American religions alive and well in the 17th century. Amid the challenges and fears and anxieties of being a multi- cultural, multi-religious nation is no time to romanticize and idealize a past that never was. Yet, there are many in our society who do that in order to capitalize on those anxieties and fears to gain power and position.

The belief system and religious language of our more conservative Christian brothers and sisters are being used by the political right to gain power and position in these difficult times of living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. None of this is Christian. It is a dangerous threat to the hope of diversity in our time.

Maybe we Christians should reclaim as our own the words of the Apostle Paul. “Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve God. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Romans 12: 9-18

This could lead to Isaiah’s vision of diversity in the Peaceable Kingdom. “The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the snake, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder's den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain says Yahweh; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea.” Isaiah 11: 1-9

Amen.

Where Are We Now? Who Are We Now?
January 30, 2005
Winston Baldwin
Micah 6: 1-8; Matthew 22: 34-40

Where are we now? We are a congregation who has just completed two years of planning and self-study beginning with the development of a long range plan two years ago, and this past year, engaging in a series of house meetings in which we asked ourselves questions about who we are, and how we define ourselves as a congregation.

There are not many congregations who would have undertaken such an honest evaluation of themselves. I am proud of us for the wisdom and courage to do what we are doing with this whole identity issue - beginning with the Long Range Plan, and the Evangelism on the Edge series, in which it became apparent that we, as a congregation, needed to identify who we are for ourselves in order to say who we are to the larger community of Omaha.

We are a congregation who will begin this year a year-long celebration of our 150th year of ministry in Omaha. This past year we have taken significant steps to turn toward the future with hope, excitement, and expectation about who we are as a theologically open and welcoming congregation. Therefore, as we celebrate our 150 years, we are a congregation who believes that the best years in the life of this congregation still yet lie ahead of us.

Many of you were present at the worship service and the Semi-annual Congregational meeting on October 31st , and heard and saw the results of the house meetings in which we identified our congregation as follows: We are a congregation who believes that God’s unconditional love is for all people. All people should be welcome and accepted at First Central, no matter who they are or where they are on life’s journey. We do not believe others must share our beliefs to be accepted at First Central. We honor diversity in thought and belief, seeking to be open to each other. We affirm the right and responsibility of each person to form their own faith journey. These statements reflect the core values of our congregation.

The Church Cabinet asked the Evangelism and Identity Committee to include in the house meetings a discussion of our congregation becoming an “Open and Affirming” congregation. As a result of the house meetings, the Evangelism and Identity Committee formulated a statement about our congregation’s welcoming “into our fellowship, membership, leadership, and employment, all people, regardless of abilities, race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other God-given characteristic.” This statement was approved by the Church Cabinet and will be presented for adoption at the Annual Congregational Meeting today.

As a result of defining who we are as a congregation, we are also looking at new and creative ways of doing outreach and ministry to the community. One of those ways is through the use of our building beyond our Christian Education and Music program.

We are responding to claiming who we are as a theologically open and welcoming congregation. For 2005, 80% of those of us who have made pledges to this congregation increased our pledges by an average of 13%. This past year we received 32 new members into our church family.

This is something of where we are now. But let’s turn to look at who we are. We are a congregation that is in a covenant relationship with each other. It is the nature of our covenant relationship which allows for our openness, diversity, and acceptance of one another.

In our church covenant, we say that “we covenant with God and with one another, seeking as a church and as individuals to be faithful to God’s will. We pray for hearts that open, minds that understand, and lives that serve.”

The prologue to our Congregation’s Mission Statement says that we believe God calls us to “Do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God.” Micah 6: 8. Through Jesus Christ, God calls us to “Love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves.” Mark 12: 30-31

The writer of Micah is saying to the community of faith: remember the ancient stories, for they tell you who you are as God’s child, and they are living examples of the ongoing presence and power of God in every age. Micah is saying to the faith community: God is more interested in what you do than what you believe. Therefore, “Do justice, love kindness, and walk carefully before our God.” Justice is something we do. It is working for fairness and equality for all people, particularly for the weak and the powerless. Loving kindness is something we do out of knowing that God’s love for us is unconditional. Therefore, if it is unconditional for us, it is unconditional for all people. As God relates to us in kindness and love, we, in turn, relate to our neighbors in loving kindness, loving the neighbor as ourselves. Faithfulness to God and to the neighbor is practiced as the result of God’s unconditional love for us.

Judeo-Christian religion is more relational than doctrinal. Spirit is relational; it creates and builds relationships and community among us through which God’s love, acceptance, and grace are made known to us. Relationship in which we experience love, acceptance, and grace are more important than any doctrine about God’s love, acceptance, and grace.

In our Mission Statement we say that: “We strive to be a church that is: a place where worship is spiritually nurturing and intellectually challenging; a church open to all people because we believe that differences, as well as our common affirmations, strengthen us as a caring community of faith;---We strive to be a church that is appreciative of tradition, but committed to faith that is contemporary and vital.”

Appreciative of tradition yet seeking a faith that is contemporary and vital, this explains who we are. The Preamble of the Constitution of the United Church of Christ says: “[the United Church of Christ] claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression…”

Our theological ancestors have seen the faith journey as a process, as a work in progress; so do we. The faith journey is never finished, always changing, growing, evolving. Ours is a living faith experience, changing with the challenges of our time and place in history.

This is to say, no one is going to tell you what to believe or think here. If one needs faith without questions, doubts, and without critical examination, they are not going to find that here. There are any number of churches more than willing to tell folks what they must believe, giving out certainty in the name of faith. But neither we, or our historic tradition, are one of them.

The United Church of Christ sees the faith journey as intellectual and spiritual, rational and experiential, thinking and feeling. There is a balance; we are not asked to give up the intellectual, rational, and thinking processes. Nor are we asked to abandon our emotional and spiritual experiences. The rational and the critical, as well as the emotional and spiritual, are both required for a faith that leads to healing and wholeness.

Wholeness is what the word healing means. The whole person is invited to come on the faith journey. One cannot check her mind at the door and be on the journey toward wholeness. Nor can one check his emotional responses at the door and still be on the journey toward wholeness.

Our challenge is to keep the faith relevant and meaningful and real. “Dogmas defoliate and die” says Edwin Scott Gaustad. Our challenge is give voice to that which is unchanging and eternal in a changing, evolving world. This is the process that defines our collective faith journey as a congregation and as the United Church of Christ.

We can proudly claim our heritage as a theologically open congregation, as people who question, doubt, and critically examine their faith knowing that there is not any one claim to Christianity. There is a whole history of divisions and diversity within Christianity from those of Mary Magdalene and Peter and the “silencing” of Mary Magdalene and her Gospel, to the controversy over Greek Christians coming into the church without first becoming Jews, as told in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There are the Gnostic controversies of the Second and Third Centuries. There is that long controversy beginning in the early Fourth Century that lasted 356 years, over how to explain and interpret who Jesus is, which began with the Creed of Nicaea, 325 C.E., and lasted to the Third Council of Constantinople, 681 C.E.

This is not to mention all the divisions and schisms within the church from the Armenian Church, to the Eastern Church, the Coptic Church, to the Protestant Church. There is no one claim upon Christianity; Christianity is diverse in its theology, ideology, polity, and practice. Among these divisions and diversities within Christianity, we can proudly and unapologetically say who we are. We do not have to let, as of late, the more conservative and fundamentalist Christians speak as if theirs is the only claim to Christianity. There never has been, not even from the very beginning, one claim to how the faith would be interpreted, as if any one claim were the only option.

Within the diversity and division that is the Christian faith, we can unapologetically say who we are. In fact, saying who we are, claiming our place, serves to keep the whole of Christianity healthy and strong. In those times when the government or the church sought to make Christianity speak with one voice, that is when the Church failed to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk carefully before God.

By proudly and unapologetically saying who we are here in this congregation, by claiming our place, we add to the health and well being of the whole church catholic.

Amen.

Keeping Our Hearts and Minds Open to a New City
Hebrews 11: 1-3, 8-16, 32-40
Winston Baldwin
November 26, 2006

What does it take to construct a new society and build a new city? Unless the new city establishes new patterns of relating and a new body politic, it will replicate the ones left behind.

Between 1620 and 1640, a few hundred Separating Puritans (the first 40 or so, known to us as the “Pilgrims”) and more than 20, 000 Non- Separating Puritans, relocated to New England. Although it can be reasonably argued that a large number of Non-Separating Puritans were already located in the Virginia Colony prior to 1620.

Separating and Non-Separating Puritans differed mainly in the way they understood their relation to the Church of England, whether or not to stay within it and reform it, Non-Separating Puritans; or to separate from it and reform the church from the outside, Separating Puritans.

In either case, both understood themselves as Dissenters and Puritans, reforming and purifying the Church of England. They both agreed:

In the 17th century, some of these individuals were imprisoned by the respective kings and queens of England for their radical doctrine and practice. Many of these folks migrated to Holland and then to America, seeking to create a social order in which to practice their covenantal theology.

It was out of these groups of folks that congregationalism developed in America, though the first Congregational Church was established by Henry Jacob, a Non-Separating Puritan, in 1616, at Southwark, England, becoming the first Congregational church to remain in continuous existence.

Both the Separating Puritans (Pilgrims) who settled the Plymouth Colony and the Non-Separating Puritans, of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, set out to form a new social order, a new city, if you please.

The Plymouth Colony organized themselves in 1620, according to William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth Colony, “solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another to covenant and combine our selves together into a civill body politick, and frame such just and equall lawes, for the generall good of the Colonie.”

Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation explains where the term, “Pilgrim,” in relation to the Plymouth Colony, originates. Of their parting Leyden, Holland, in 1620, Bradford said: “So they left that goodly and plesant citie, (Leyden) which had been their resting place near 12 years; but they knew they were pilgrims, and had looked not much to those things, but lift up their eyes to the heavens, their dearest cuntrie, and quieted their spirits” Knowing themselves to be “Pilgrims” on a faith journey is a reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ch 11.

John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, said aboard the Aebella in 1630, on their way to New England: “Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill” for all to see.

The Plymouth group seemed to b more open to outsiders than did the Bay Colony folks. The Bay Colony’s need to maintain a Christian society produced a rigidity that lead to the oppressive atrocities associated with New England “Puritanism.” As often happens in attempts to establish a new social order, the oppressed become the oppressors in their zeal to guarantee and insure their new way of life.

By 1631, Congregationalism was established by law as the only religious expression allowed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, though there were occasional Baptist in the colony. But not all were welcome there. “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey you are welcome here.” was not a slogan our Massachusetts, Congregational forbearers put over their church doors. Within a 5 year period, from 1656 to 1661, the Puritans hung five Quakers in the Boston Common.

By 1691, the religious establishments of the Plymouth Colony and the Massachusetts Colony had merged into one.

In religious zeal to establish a theocracy, those formerly oppressed, often become the oppressors. But by 1700, the holy experiment of establishing a bible based society had all but come to an end. A new charter was issued to the Massachusetts Colony that transferred control back to the British crown.

It is ironic that the government and church from which the Puritans sought to escape persecution and oppression had to step in and restore a just order in their “City upon a Hill.”

Yet, there is much that our Puritan forbearers gave us that is commendable and formable. Harvard and Yale Colleges, the Mayflower Compact that some say is the basis for our democratic government, even though much of their own did not work, especially the idea of establishing a bible based society in the Bay Colony, in Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill.”

My friend and church historian, Beth Nordbeck, says: Congregationalism was flexible and socially aware, adaptable, and open to change, even with the circumscribed world of the 17th century. Beth says that John Robinson’s famous words to the Leyden congregation on their leave taking for New England: “God hath more light and truth yet to break forth from his holy word.” have been quoted by Unitarian defectors, abolitionists, and present day UCC’ers, for whom new occasions and duties have provided new spiritual insights.

We here at First Central have been accused by some as being Unitarians. In some ways that is no accident. By 1825, the American Unitarian Association was formed by William Ellery Channing. Soon there after, all but one of the Congregational churches in Boston had associated with the Unitarians. We are indeed part of the same theological heritage.

The oppressed, too often, become the oppressors. What happened to the Puritans and their model “City upon a Hill”for all to see as a witness to God’s love and grace? Their society and city became intolerant in its attempt to establish a bible based, Christian society. None of those experiments have ever worked for very long. This should be a warning and a caveat to us Congregationalists, who have always been suspect of religious and civil authority whenever folks want to establish a “Christian society and family values,” particularly when these words are echoed in the mouths of politicians seeking to garner votes from the Christian right. We should be suspect of their motives knowing that their attempts will end in the oppression of folks.

Congregational, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Baptist congregations made up the majority of Christian communities of faith in 1775-1776, all of whom share similar, if not identical, Puritan theological roots and heritage in a covenantal theology.

All of these have been guilty of religious intolerance and bigotry. Maryland, the first English proprietary colony in America was chartered by Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, in 1632, as a place of refuge and freedom for Roman Catholics. Lord Baltimore established religious toleration in the Maryland Colony. Seeking toleration for themselves, Baptist, Presbyterians, and Quakers soon outnumbered the Roman Catholics and made it illegal for Roman Catholics to practice their religious expression in the Maryland Colony, so named for the Roman Catholic Queen of England.

Any new “City upon a Hill” has to be open to all folks, of every religious tradition and practice, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and to any and all others, if it is to be a free and healthy society for the common good of the body politic. We are no longer a “Christian” nation, if we ever were. Our attention now should be toward openness and acceptance of any and all religions.

By the 3rd century of the Christian era, with the increasing numbers coming into the church who were ignorant of the teaching and practice of the early Christians, clergy and bishops began to replace the authority of the laity in the churches to insure uniformity of worship, practice, and belief. This was our first mistake in forming church polity, centralizing power in the church by forming an authoritative Episcopate, therefore, the church soon became controlling and oppressive.

Why could we not let new converts bring with them their own insights and create a combination of spiritual vitality? Rather, it was and is a question of power, control, and authority, more than theology and belief. Whose beliefs, insights, interpretations will prevail in the new city? Who chooses which will prevail? The first church council at Jerusalem, remembered in the Acts of the Apostles considering the question if Gentiles Christians had to first adopt the Jewish practice of circumcision, set the church on a course of openness and acceptance by answering no to the question. Christian faith is a journey, a pilgrimage, toward truth (love and justice), not procession of the “truth”.

During the oppression of slavery in this country, from the 17 century to the 19 century, when people were captured, transported, and sold to other people who owned, controlled, used them, those who were caught and bought carried within them a vision of a better day, a day of freedom and justice, therefore, a day of peace and rest.

It is ironic, that many of those images of freedom, justice, and liberation, a better city in which to live, were enhanced by the religion given to the African slaves by their Euro-American captors and owners as a way to “civilize" them.

Civilize indeed, on the African continent, when our Anglo-Saxon, Euro-American ancestors were still living in caves, being ravaged by wolves, and practicing Celtic religion, there were already well developed Christian communities in Africa, the Coptic Church in Egypt and the Abyssinian Church in Ethiopia, both of which are still in existence.

So, the caught and bought Africans read white folk’s scripture and recognized it for what it was, a document of liberation, and trusted its message of liberation to being about a better day of justice and peace for all of God’s children and they laughed at their captors for giving them such a radical document that was in “wild opposition ”to their oppressive society.

The hymn, We Are Climbing Jacob’s Ladder, is an African-American spiritual that is metaphor for a better city, set on a higher moral plane. It is a song about a pilgrimage to a better existence, moving from what is, to what is not yet.

It expresses the hope of the not yet seen, not yet actualized, not yet accomplished, but, nevertheless is coming into being. Trust in the not yet as being real and true is one of the liberating characteristics of our faith. It keeps our minds and hearts open to a new city where all are welcome and honored.

The African American spiritual sings of a day that is coming, but not yet, though it will come, when all of God’s children will live in justice and, therefore, will know peace, for there is no peace without justice. “Rise, shine, give God glory,” bearers of suffering and pain and death, for the day is coming when we will know justice, and therefore, peace. In the meantime, do not forget, we are climbing Jacob’s ladder on the way to a new society and city in which all are welcome. Amen.

Gifts and Giving, Freely Received
Matthew 2: 1-12
December 17, 2006
Winston Baldwin

The Wise Men
In Matthew’s story, there are no shepherds or manger, no journey to Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph already live in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth. In Matthew’s story, the visitors to the newborn Jesus are foreigners, not nearby shepherds. They are astrologers and priests from anther religion whose practices are not simply foreign to first century Judaism, but unacceptable in it.

In Matthew’s story, these astrologer priests from another religion are the first to acknowledge Jesus as being, like them, mediators of the sacred.

Therefore, they bring Jesus gifts appropriate to and symbolic of his role as mediator of the sacred; gifts that open us up to the larger picture of the shared connection that all religions have with the sacred and the holy. These visitors from the east link Jesus to the hope of the world, God’s unconditional, inclusive love, freely given to all people, to all nations, to all religions.

The Gifts
In the culture of 1st century Judaism, frankincense and myrrh were sought-after spices. They were the most demanded and most expensive of all spices. Pure frankincense was the incense used in the Temple at Jerusalem in the worship of Yahweh. According to Jewish law at the time, use of frankincense other than Temple incense was considered to be a capital offense. Matthew, a Jewish member of the Jesus movement, would have known this. This raises the question of why Matthew’s story has these astrologer priests give Jesus this prohibited sacred substance. What is Matthew telling us? Is this story a revelation of the sacred in new and unexpected ways? Indeed, any new and unexpected meeting of the sacred is always a divine gift. The visit and gifts of the Magi are a radical moving of the holy and the sacred out into the ordinary.

These holy men from another religion and culture, bringing their sacred gifts, serve as symbols of how Matthew understands Jesus. The sacred incense, once reserved for the holy places, now permeates the human Jesus. This is Matthew’s metaphor for understanding Jesus’ ministry.

Look at what Matthew tells us in his story about Jesus. No sooner than Jesus begins to call his disciples, he begins healing folks. The story says: “They brought him their sick, those afflicted with various diseases, paralytics, and Jesus cured them.” Matt. 4: 24-25

Jesus said: “Do not judge, for the judgment with which you judge, you will be judged. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but not the log in your own eye?” Matt. 7: 1ff. In Matthew’s story, Jesus gives the gift of healing and invites those he heals into a new way of life. Jesus invites the mute to speak, the lame to walk, and the blind to see. The sacred gifts of the Magi allow us to claim for ourselves the gift of the sacred in us.

In the gifts of the Magi, Jesus claims his gifts. By their sacred gifts, the Magi affirm Jesus, who in turn, claims and uses his gift as mediator of the sacred. The Magi’s affirmation of Jesus allows Jesus to affirm and claim his own gifts and, in turn, Jesus’ gift of affirming us allows us to be healed and to claim who we are.

The gift of the Magi is the breaking out of the sacred from holy places into the lives of ordinary humans that we all can be and become who we are.

So, as we buy and give gifts this Advent and Christmas season, what are we giving to each other? What are we saying with our gifts? Do our gifts to each other free one another to become who we are, or do they come with strings attached, binding and controlling the other to be what we want and need them to be for us, not for them?

Basically, there are two ways of gifting, first, the unconditional gift, no strings attached, no conditions with the gift. This is to give and let go of the gift. To give is to let go, to let the other be who she is. The best gift we can give invites the other to be who she is.

Jesus’ gift of the sacred helps the other define who they are. Jesus allows the other to be who he is without judging or blaming. Jesus simply asks us to be responsible for ourselves and for the welfare of others.

When John Baptist heard in his prison cell what Jesus was doing he sent to ask of Jesus: Is the kingdom of God near? Jesus answered: Go and tell John what you see and hear: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news brought to them, what do you think John? Matt. 11: 2-6

Jesus claimed his gifts in the gifts of the Magi and in turn, he gives us healing and invites us to be who we are. That is the gift of the sacred.

Yet, there are those other gifts, the controlling gifts, guilt gifts, conditional gifts by which the giver controls us in the giving. We all recognize these gifts. They are the ones that come with a list of expectations, spoken or unspoken. This is Santa Claus’ list of “Naughty and Nice”. Here comes Santa!

These control gifts, guilt gifts, giving but not letting go of the gift, usually turn into elaborate schemes to get us to be what someone else wants us be, not what we want to be. Give the gift that keeps on giving: guilt!

On the other hand, the best gift we can give is sharing ourselves with each other in such a way as to invite each other to be and become ourselves. Therefore, the best gifts we give each other are symbols and metaphors for this sharing and inviting.

Yet, as we receive gifts, what do we expect in the giving? Have you ever been disappointed in a gift? Think about it, why would we be disappointed in a gift? It is, after all, a gift! The disappointment comes when our expectations are not met in the gift received. No matter how big or how small, how elaborate or how simple, if it is an unconditional gift, guilt free gift, a gift given without conditions, then it is an invitation to be who we are. Is this not what we need in any gift?

My grandson, Dayne, who is 8 years old, and I like to hike in the woods together. It is one of those things we do together, it is one of those ways we bond with each other. This past summer, Dayne and I went on a hike in Neale Woods on a Saturday morning before it got too hot. We stayed in the woods over long. Dayne became tired and somewhat irritable, walking on the trail only 50 yards or so before sitting down and saying: “Papa, when are we going to get out of here? I am hot and tired, I want to go home.” Finally, we came to the bottom of an open ravine covered with Prairie Grass and no shade. I knew there was no way Dayne was going through there in his present attitude. So, I hung my pack in front of me, got him on my back with his pack on his back and took both of our walking sticks, hooked them through my arms and made a seat for Dayne to ride and off we went around the edge of the field and up the hill.

When we got to the top, near the road and the car, Dayne’s spirit lifted, and I let him down to walk on his own. He said, “Papa, when we get home I am going to give you 5 dollars for carrying me all the way up the hill.”

I said thank you Dayne, but that is not how it works. I carried you up here because I could do that for you. It is a gift; you don’t pay someone for a gift they give you. You give a gift in return.

That conversation, was, I hope, an invitation for Dayne to be who he is in response to gift.

The gifts of the Magi invite Jesus to be who he is. Jesus, in turn, claims his gifts and graces and invites us to be and become who we are.

The best gifts we give invite folks to live into the hopes and dreams they have for themselves.

Who is giving us frankincense and myrrh, the sacred substance that is inviting us to be who we are? Wherever that is happening for us it is, as in Matthew’s story of the Magi, a divine gift, a moving of the holy and the sacred out into our ordinary lives. The gifts of the Magi allow us to claim as our own the gift of the sacred in us.
Amen.

Random Musings
A Response to the Virginia Tech Shooting
April 16, 2007

Isaiah 25: 6-10; Matthew 6: 25-34
April 22, 2007
By Winston Baldwin

Random musings. I have been accused of random musing in sermons on occasion; perhaps there is some truth to that. But this morning, the sermon is an intentional sharing of musing. To muse is to be absorbed in thought, reflection, and brooding. I, like you, have been absorbed in thought and reflection, brooding over the absurd event of the killings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, known to Virginians simply as “Tech.”

There are all kinds and levels of questions surrounding this absurdity. Many having to do with “why,” others having to do with blaming and judging, and still others having to do with meaning or the lack thereof.

As people of faith, those who seek and follow the spirit, creative, life giving, calming, sustaining spirit, what is our response? How do we answer with meaning, or can we? Is it all too absurd?

Admittedly, there is part of the whole thing that is meaningless, no meaning, and no amount of asking why or blaming can give it any meaning that matters or satisfies.

It is what it is. Death is death, no matter how it comes. Death is not random, it is constant and we all experience it, no escape, no exit. Yet, in a time like this, to say that is not enough. I, at least for myself, have to say it lest I become too glib and too smooth, and too easy in my questions.

But if death is death, not random but constant, why do some deaths stop us in our tracks,while others do not ? Why is it that these deaths grab our attention, rivet us to the screen, compel us to play the scene over and over again in the public arena?

What of those other deaths, just as absurd, that happened in Iraq everyday all the while we were preoccupied with these deaths? What of those other deaths, just as absurd, that happened in the streets and houses, apartments and back alleys of our cities this past week? Why are we desensitized to all these other absurd deaths, no convocation, no candlelight vigil, no national day of mourning. To what and to whom have we become desensitized and why?

There is no protection against death, death comes, and yet some deaths are more acceptable to us than other deaths. Which are more acceptable, those children killed in the cross fire of drive by shootings, or those on the Tech campus?

There are people living in Omaha, indeed in all of our cities, whose lives are threatened everyday by violence, much of which is domestic violence. Yet, even at that, we still live in a safe country, a safe place. So, how does our religious ritual help us answer; the spiritual and the religious, how do they answer with meaning? What is it that helps us not be anxious in all of this frenzy without going into a lock-down mood of existence, overreacting, seeking simple answers in the midst of emotional response? How can we keep this absurdity from becoming political opportunity in this year of politics?

The ritual says to grieve with those who grieve, and to rejoice with those who rejoice. Do not be desensitized but do not be anxious either.

Do not be anxious. Over and over again in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures the words: Do not be anxious, do not be afraid. Jesus says that life is more than survival. Remember, God provides for the creation. Jesus asks: “Can anyone by becoming anxious, add a single hour to your life span? “

Look at the birds, the grass, the flowers, says Jesus, become aligned with the energy of creation. Therefore, address each day's problems as they come, confident that God’s sustaining power of creation is sufficient to met the demands of the day. But be not anxious, God provides for the whole creation. Get in touch with your place in the creation.

Anxiety can be paralyzing to our daily function, therefore, we come to terms with the fact that there is no absolute security, no guarantee against, no insulation. You see, there is a proper coming to terms with our creaturely existence, knowing it is from dust that we are made and it is to dust that we return.

The creation myth story says, in Gen. 2: 7, Yahweh formed humankind out of the dust of the ground and out of the ground God made everything. By our nature we are related to everything, we are sustained by the energy of the universe. The story goes on to say, Gen. 3: 19, “you are dust and to dust shall return.” It is about being related to life itself, do not be anxious, step back, slow down, do not lose perspective on life.

Yet, there is more. In Isaiah, chapter 25, there is a psalm of praise in response to God's deliverance. This feast song sung here says that God will bring an end to sorrow and suffering. It is a metaphor for God’s justice.

The reign of God comes in with a feast, to which all are invited, at which all are included and none excluded. The diversity of an international, world community must be affirmed and celebrated. And when that happens, death is swallowed up and tears of sadness are wiped away. But by whom, how, and when?

We look for such a time, but when and how does it come? For how much of it are we responsible? What are we to bring to the table? What dish are we assigned to bring to the feast? What can we fix, for which are we responsible at the feast?

The convocation on the Tech campus the day after the deaths was led by an African American woman, one of the vice presidents of the university. There were prayers lead by a Muslim man, who read from the Koran in Arabic, a Buddhist woman, two Jewish women, one who read in Hebrew, and a Christian Lutheran. All spoke of the inclusiveness of God’s love. The President of the Student Government is Arabic. All of this from all male, mostly white, cadet corps in the 1960’s to an international community of 2007 set down in the midst of the Va. Highlands. From one who has known the Virginia Tech legacy, the picture of diversity and inclusion looks like the feast of God to me because I know from whence it came.

We live in a safe country. Safe, you better believe it, to have all of this transpire in a rural, backwater community in the Virginia Highlands without violence; transition from an all male, white, cadet corps to an international community in 47 years is unbelievable.

Yet, there is still more to “fix.” What peace, love, hope, diversity,and equality is still needed at the table before it is indeed an inclusive table? How we get to that is our responsibility. When the diversity of an international world community is affirmed and celebrated, death is swallowed up in victory, and tears of sadness are wiped away. It is our responsibility to make it happen. “Together we will change tomorrow.”

One Day
by Lea Farho

Yesterday I woke up to
bias, bigotry, and prejudice.
Hatred yelled out
and racism answered.
Intolerance controlled many lives,
and segregation brought injustice.

Today I woke up to
violence, genocide, and cruelty.
Death was ringing in my ears
and hope was drifting farther away.
Trust existed nowhere,
and power ruled over love.

Someday I will wake up to
peace, love, and tranquility.
Hope will blow in the wind
and diversity will live among friends.
Equality will rule over hate
and unity will bring respect.

Together we can move past yesterday.
Together we will change tomorrow.