Remove a cross from a chapel? Now I've heard it all! Our consititution states freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Do not the majority of those frequenting a chapel seek the symbol of the cross? Those seeking other symbols usually attend a temple or a mosque. Atheists or non-religious people usually do not go to chapels at all. Suggestion: poll those who use the chapel and ask what do they seek.
Kara Haueter
Note to Kara: Good points. (They would seem to be common sense points, but apparently they need to be stated!)
I find the opinion and justification for removing something that is a 300 year old symbol of your college chapel quite interesting. Does the College catalog deny the heritage in which William & Mary has represented for all these centuries?
The ramification of removing a single cross from a chapel that was undoubtedly CONSECRATED to be a house of worship, inspiration and a sanctuary from the the cares of daily life is a huge mistake.
Can it be imagined that churches across the nation will be one day sanctioned to remove their crosses on their steeples, in their courtyards, and emblazoned on their walls because a several or a single church does not reflect the values of the community it resides in? Such actions I see today constitute a quiet expression of hostility.
Furthermore, highlighting the words of a young Jewish man about his "discomfort" over going into the chapel scarcely makes it appropriate to warrant the cross's removal. Such an attitude is akin to protesting that a football field is not being used for baseball, considering the reality that the field's design was specific to the purpose for which it was created.
I would also like to express a friendly reminder that Christianity at its core beliefs stems from a Jewish heritage, and Y'shua (the Jewish way to say Jesus, which is a Greek rendering of His Name), and that the early church and the belief system thereof carried on many aspects of Jewish life.
As for me from a Biblical perspective, it seems to be lost upon the understanding of many that a genuinely Christ-centered Church will warmly welcome ANYONE of any faith, creed, national, ethnic, gender or social orientation.
Jesus would not be offended if a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, B'hai, etc. entered a church to pray. It is the openness of such ecclesiastical arms that dialogue can be opened. The overwhelming statement of the Gospel is that of God's UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, whether you embrace or oppose vigorously all that Christianity represents.
As the ultimate and supreme representation of that unconditional Love, the Cross represents for all humanity the redemptive work that was wrought on our behalf 2000 years ago. The culmination of that redemptive work will be realized when these two verses come to pass in Eternity:
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne,and to the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9-10)
No one is left out. The Gospel is all-inclusive, not exclusive of anyone. So why would anyone believe that a cross represents anything less for anyone? I submit the conclusion that ignorance is to blame in the form of prejudice.
As a Christian, I can take my faith and my personal expressions of worship anywhere. I can be in a car, an office building, a park, or in someone's home. I can even have intimate communion with my Creator, Lord and King in a Jewish synagogue, or any other "house of worship", irregardless of the name over the door.
It is my prayer that in the same Spirit of God's Love, that someone of another religious expression can receive me in the same unconditional manner that I would receive them. Therefore, let us not shrink back from fully expressing our faith, either from our heart and lips, or with the emblems that place in tangible form the expression of it.
In closing, The cross is not the problem, but again, the ignorance expressed towards the Love it represents to the person offended by it. It then becomes incumbent upon the offended soul to search their heart to reconcile the matter, not removing every vestige of something that does not agree squarely with their worldview.
If such obstacles can be overcome, it will show how big their heart is, rather than how small their prejudice makes them.
Anyone ready to go play baseball at the gridiron?
David Castelli
More good points. As folks have stated here before, and David points out in this letter, the place where the cross used to be is not empty. It is now very loudly the place where the cross used to be. How could any religion see that as anything other than a show of hostility? How could the message be anything other than "your religion is offensive, and humans are now highly evolved enough to remove its offensive symbols from our public places."
David's point may seem to be an exaggeration, but consider all the hoopla over the confederate flag. Once the cross has been declared an officially offensive symbol, what is to stop the ACLU from suing all Christian churches who are displaying crosses where they can be viewed by the public? We could very easily be sent back to the catacombs, where we won't offend anyone by our existence, and be made to keep our cross out of sightt.
Unless we are wearing little yellow ones on our lapels to identify us as "the problem."
Why the connecting of these dots does not horrify all Americans is a mystery to me.
Why would the simple image of a cross be a deterrent to anyone that is looking for a quiet place to meditate, and pray to whomever, and however he chose?
I cannot imagine that the statue of Buddha, or the menorrah would make any difference to me, should I desire to pray wherever I might be.
There is no concerted effort being made to encourage the joining of the Christian faith, just by the placement of the cross.
There are so many issues to be addressed in society today. Nichols should have known better.
Roseann Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment