Posted on 11/21/2006 7:15:21 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
There's a passion for history at William and Mary-- and pride.
King William III and Queen Mary II chartered the school in 1693. Their purpose: to train ministers in the Gospel and spread the faith among the Indians.
Now, critics say the public school has turned its back on its Christian heritage.
"What is convenient and comfortable has now taken precedence over what has been the core values and the core heritage of the institution," said Dr. Dave Gyertson, former Christian college president.
"The logic of the decision means you can't have a sacred space at William and Mary," said Vince Haley, from savethewrencross.org.
The two-foot high cross now resides in a small closet behind the chapel. President Gene Nichol's recent decision allows its display only upon request. Until now, it was removed only upon request for special events.
"The truth is, not everyone will ask that it be removed--they just won't go," said Vice President of Student Affairs Sam Sadler. "That's sort of access by exception. What we were trying to do by this is to make access equal for everyone."
Surprisingly, the cross in the chapel is not a part of the founding tradition at William and Mary. In fact, it was only given to the college 60 years ago.
And that's why its removal is a "non-issue" says campus Professor and church historian David Holmes.
Holmes loves the Protestant chapel, which closely resembles revolutionary-era Anglican churches with its clear windows, pews that face each other, and plaques honoring Anglican clergy. But Holmes says, when William and Mary was founded, Anglicans considered crosses to be idolatrous objects.
Holmes said, "There's no mistaking it for a Christian church, and Christianity does not revolve around the presence or absence of a cross in a chapel."
Alumnus Vince Haley is not convinced. He's leading a protest that's collected 3,800 signatures from students, alumni, and friends of the college.
Some students CBN News spoke with are clearly upset about the decision.
"To me it's offensive to say that my religious symbol is offensive," said Joe Luppino-Esposito, who opposes the cross removal.
Rory Easton, also opposed its removal said, "I think it's unfortunate that we seem to be succumbing to a politically correct society."
But others support the college, like Virginia Burk. She said, "People should understand that not everyone believes in that kind of stuff, and it can be very offensive."
For now, college administrators say they have no plans to even consider removing other Christian symbols on campus.
But it's a promise that brings little comfort to those who love not only William and Mary, but also the reminders of its remarkable Christian history.
Of course removing the Cross is ridiculous.
ther can be no reason that makes sense,except cowardice.
Your alma mater? Thought you would be interested.
It was only a matter of time. As I recall, W&M has been the most "diverse" campus in the country for at least a decade and a half.
Brilliant.
Yes, but not everyone believes in "that kind of stuff." That kind of stuff. Wonder if this woman has even looked at the New Testament.
that kind of stuff, (and it) can be very offensive."
GET OVER IT, the world does not revolve around those who perceive offense.
But others support the college, like Virginia Burk. She said, "People should understand that not everyone believes in that kind of stuff, and it can be very offensive."
___________________________
What is so offensive about a Christian college having a cross. This person knew that it was a Christian college when she went there...too bad.
I am a junior at William and Mary. Although I signed the petition because I hate the president and the anti-Christians, I also do not think it is a serious problem. I would prefer that the cross be present at all times in recognition of the fact that Christianity is the one true faith.
The cross was not historically present in anglican chapels, though. Though I would prefer the cross be present at all times in the chapel, if it was not historically placed in front, I see no reason to place it there so late in the chapel's history.
With that said, I wouldn't mind seeing the savior's cross at the front of the chapel. If it remains down, that too is a justifiable argument.
Either way, Christianity wins by revealing a loving God to humanity, who cares more for the private devotion of his followers than for the public display of a single golden cross.
I am guilty of this as much as anyone else, but if we devoted as much time to thoughts of Christ as we do to fighting political struggles for Christianity, I think we'd be much better off. Politically and religiously, we win when we pray to God for guidance. This is why little battles over crosses can sometimes be less important than major wars over the importance of our beliefs in today's society.
We should begin to build new ones.
Since it's now a public university, I am sure they were simply figuring that sooner or later they would be sued by the Anti-Christian Liberals Union, and decided to give up early.
Someone did make the point on another forum that the chapel is a historical building, and theoretically the cross could not have been removed without getting permission to do so from the local historic preservation agency (presumably not done). Interesting clash of governmental goals there.
Vampires consider the cross to be very offensive (or so they say in the movies), but I do not understand why anyone else would.
Sounds like it's back to the catacombs. Nah.... even that wouldn't be accepted by the PC gang.
"Now, critics say the public school has turned its back on its Christian heritage"
- - - as have the Ivy League schools, founded to train ministers of the Gospel. Imagine that.
I am MUCH more concerned about the neglect of the gospel, namely that Jesus died for our sins, and was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25) than a symbol... (and one in which in the 17th Century many Christians, especially in America, due to their iconoclastic Calvinism, would have rejected in a church).
I suspect the gospel has been absent the William and Mary chapel for several decades now....no surprise the symbol would follow.
While I think Harvard and Yale Divinity Schools are beyond hope (and Harvard has been that way since the early 1800s), I have heard some positive reports that Princeton Theological Seminary is moving back towards traditional Christianity. Apparently, there are an increasing number of traditional and evangelical Christians deciding to go there (perhaps PTS is seen as a mission field in itself?), and even if these students are not in the liberal protestant mainstream, PTS has at least felt their position should be given respect.
"I am guilty of this as much as anyone else, but if we devoted as much time to thoughts of Christ as we do to fighting political struggles for Christianity, I think we'd be much better off. Politically and religiously, we win when we pray to God for guidance. This is why little battles over crosses can sometimes be less important than major wars over the importance of our beliefs in today's society."
Amen. You are very wise for a college junior. Hope you are active in a church. Churches need young people with your discernment.
Maybe I missed something...
but do "The Wren Chapel" and/or "The Wren Cross" have anything to do
with architect Christopher Wren?
Just curious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.