Wren Cross Rebuttal Letter to the Editor by Mike Ruff

From: Mike Ruff
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Jan 3rd Gazette

I decided to rebut Pryor's letter. My understanding is most papers don't print responses to letters to the Editor, but I sent it anyway. Here it is:

To the Editor,

In the Jan 3 edition, B. J. Pryor submitted several reasons why the Wren Cross is better left in a closet than on the Wren Altar. Though noting his 26 years in history, 10 at the Wren Building, I must still correct argument that cross supporters have "fallen into several errors."

The first "error" mentioned is, "The cross has not been removed. It has been moved five yards to the sacristy..." Surely you see how ridiculous that "error" is? It's in a closet with a fancy name. That Christians must ask to have the cross displayed in a Christian chapel is like football teams having to ask for a football at a game. And just out of curiosity, Mr. Pryor, if the cross only moved five yards, then why is it such a big deal to move it back to where it was for decades -- just five yards away?

"Moving the cross is not breaking an ancient tradition. There was no cross in the Wren Chapel for more than 200 years." Another "error" we cross supporters have made. As noted, the cross was a gift from Bruton Parish Church. Since we did not have the cross until 1907, as Pryor noted, we cannot display something we do not possess. It has been on display ever since.

Clearly a central theme to those who would remove the cross is that it did not originally come with the chapel. Apparently nearly 100 years is not long enough for these people to consider a tradition. The question I submit to them is, at what point does something become a tradition? If it becomes offensive, should we take down the Statue of Liberty, which was a gift from France? Following Pryor and Nichol's logic we would, since the Statue did not originally come with the country. We have only displayed it since 1886.

Pryor believes another "error" made is, "There would never have been a cross in the chapel if Bruton Church had not thought this one no longer good enough for the church, and replaced it with a better one." Well, if that isn't looking a gift horse in the mouth? Something Pryor, a self-proclaimed historian, would find if he investigated Christian practices, is that you would struggle to find a Christian who can identify a cross that is "not good enough." The cross is a powerful symbol to Christians and to call one "not good enough" is to offend Christians almost to the degree of putting the cross in a closet.

Yet another "error" we error-prone supporters have made is believing that removing the cross is an insult to the College's Christian origin. Pryor says, "Placing the cross on the altar is an insult to the college's Protestant origins." I have attended services with almost every sect of Christianity in existence today and have yet to find one offended by a cross on an altar. Perhaps Protestants have changed with the times? However, if it is offensive to Rev. Blair or Bishop Madison, as Pryor suggests, then I humbly apologize.

More "errors" come to light as we learn that, "Moving the cross does not put Christians at a disadvantage at the college." I have not heard anyone make that argument, but I believe Pryor has misunderstood an argument made repeatedly. That argument is: Think of the message you send to Christian students when you lock away one of their most sacred religious symbols that has been displayed for nearly 100 years. You are telling them that their cross is not fit to be displayed because it is offensive to some students based on Nichol's conjecture. Clearly not a Christian-supporting statement to be sure -- removing the cross so make-believe intolerant students feel more comfortable in an already welcoming environment.

"Moving the cross was not bowing to pressure from the 'politically correct.'" In fact, Pryor says, "It was an act of simple hospitality." My Catholic church had a Jewish congregation conduct services in its worship space for over a year. We did not take anything down. They did not request anything be removed. No one complained. When I enter a synagogue or if I entered a mosque, or even the homes of people who claim these faiths, I do not expect them to remove any religious objects they display. I fail to see how hospitality means secularism, Mr. Pryor.

Pryor moves to his most offensive statement, by saying returning the cross now "would be to abandon principle to placate the perpetually offended." Seems 180 degrees off to me. The cross was removed to make the "perpetually offended" crowd feel more comfortable. Remember the "Airport Imams?" The Ten Commandments in Arkansas? "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? And now the Wren Cross. No, Mr. Pryor, we cross-supporters are not the "perpetually offended."

Thankfully, Pryor explains why he is so mistaken by mischaracterizing the entire debate as being "about whether the chapel exists equally for the benefit for all members of the college community, or only for some." The Wren Chapel can be used by any member of the College. The old, perfectly workable policy held that if someone did not want the cross displayed for their event, they could request its removal and the cross would be returned after their event.

We who support the cross feel there was no reason to change the century-old policy because Nichol cited eight unsubstantiated, intolerant students who were supposedly offended by the cross. He admittedly did not take time to consider his decision or consult with the College community. We ask that he weigh the eight fragile students with the over 7,000 supporters of the cross and perhaps involve them in the decision of whether or not to lock up the cross.
_________________

To add one comment to Mr. Ruff's Letter to the Editor, please all keep in mind that the struggle goes beyond the halls of The College of William and Mary. Mr. Nichol's act was an attack on Christianity, plain and simple. There is no wiggle room out of that. If the Board of Visitors allow this fractuous policy to continue and the arrogance of one man to dominate the many, things will not bode well for other Christian Chapels throughout the nation. The Secularists only need to get away with this once, only once. At President Bush says about the terrorists, they only have to be right once; we have to be right all of the time. The Wren Cross is one time when the Secularists have to win, then many crosses will come down and be locked away for the "offense" they convey.

Stand on this one, my fellow graduates of The College of William and Mary. If the Board of Visitors allow Mr. Nichol's policy and arrogance to stand, they and they alone will have driven a nail into the very freedoms they purport to uphold and the name of a find institution will be tarnished for some time to come.