At cross purposes

A letter to the editor written by Karla Kraynak Bruno was published in the Virginia Gazette. It is included here at the link,
At cross purposes, and also below with Karla's permission.

At cross purposes
Published January 3, 2007

"Regarding David Hindman's Dec. 30 essay on the Wren Cross: First, saying the cross is in a sacristy and not a closet misses the salient point: that the cross has been removed from permanent display. A holy closet is still a closet, out of sight.

Second, Hindman cites the multiple uses of the chapel in support of the cross removal. We all agree that the chapel has been and should be used for a variety of respectful circumstances. What we disagree on is the context of the chapel. It is and has been for 300 years a place of Christian worship. That others use it too is ideal and speaks to tolerance in the broadest terms, but the fact is the Wren Chapel is a 300-year-old chapel, not a temple, mosque or vacant room. That it can be used for other religions is a testament to the openness of the college community, but it is still a Christian chapel at the end of the day.

Third, Hindman states that ?non-Christian students are using the chapel for prayer in unprecedented numbers. For the first time in memory, the Jewish Campus Ministry has reserved the chapel for worship and Muslim students are praying there as they experience the Wren Chapel as a place of welcome and hospitality.?

?Unprecedented numbers? and ?Muslim students? can mean one or two. Since he does not specify, we do not know what he means. Truly unprecedented numbers 7,000 and counting are appalled at the removal of the cross. ?For the first time in memory? could mean in the last two years. Hindman hopes to sway the readers with vague terms and undocumented incidents.

Ultimately he claims the sight of a cross is unwelcoming. This strikes me as odd, especially coming from a clergyman. As a Catholic, I find the cross wholly welcoming and wish to help others see it as so. This attitude in no way disrespects others' religious beliefs, but it does not offer an apology for the faith itself.

Apologizing for being Christian, which seems to be the basis of Hindman's thinking, does no one any service. The cross is a sign of humility, sacrifice, and love. There is nothing more symbolically welcoming than open arms, and that is what the cross is: open arms, the open arms of a man who died for the salvation of all, not just Christians.

Yet this is not a debate about theology. It's a debate about a political agenda based in socialist ideals, about unilateral decision-making on the part of a liberal arts college administration. I see in W&M president Gene Nichol, Hindman and others the need to break down traditions and take down the establishment for its arrogance, its sense of superiority, its need to put others ?in their place.?

This view is limited and smacks of being radical for radicalism's sake, ignoring the unique tradition and history of the Wren Chapel. There are no documented cases of unjust treatment by groups requesting the removal of the cross for an event, no documented cases of intolerance, no one has ever been turned away from the chapel because they were not Christian.

We who support the reinstatement of the cross and the old, perfectly workable policy of requesting removal come from all faiths and backgrounds, from all ages and stages in life, and do not think of this issue in terms of superiority or intolerance. It is an issue of heritage, tradition, and keeping public the unique place the chapel has in the college's history. Welcome to the Wren Chapel."

Karla Kraynak Bruno
Class of '81 and '92
James City