Sunday, March 11, 2007

Wren Cross: The Solution's Problems

The battle was hard fought on both sides of the line, but March 6 brought an armistice in the War of the Cross.

President Gene Nichol’s Committee on Religion in a Public University unanimously agreed on a compromise that will deliver the cross from the closet of darkness and return it permanently to the light of the chapel. It seems that the 18,000 plus who signed the Save The Wren Cross petition and withheld funds can now move on, satisfied in the victory.

But something about the proffered treaty is a bit odoriferous—something about the proposed display and placement of the cross in the Chapel smells like a pair of old gym shoes.

The first smelly concern is the proposal to display the cross sealed in a glass box. Even with an accompanying sign to explain the College’s Anglican roots, such a display has the psychological effect of erecting a wall between the cross’s meaning today in the life of the chapel and its historical identity of the past. Caging the cross diminishes its significance as a piece of living history and reduces it to a meaningless, dusty old museum relic—like old bones. Yet other potential religious displays in the historically Christian chapel will have no such restraint. This is a nonsensical dichotomy.

The second concern is the nebulous placement of the cross “in a prominent, readily visible place…,” obviously not on the altar. According to Webster’s Dictionary, prominence means “conspicuous, noticeable at once”—in other words, where one’s attention is drawn. I suppose compared to where the cross has been displayed the last few months—in a closet smothered in blinding darkness—anywhere in the Chapel can be defined as prominent and that is the problem. If the committee means “prominent” according to the universally accepted definition of the word, then we must place the cross at the location where attention is drawn: the altar.

Add these two issues together and the committee’s compromise sends the clear message that the cross is neither equal to other symbols nor particularly welcome anymore in its own historical house. To the perpetually offended few this is a good thing and apparently a goal achieved.

But the goal, my goal, hasn’t just been to return an object to permanent residence in the chapel. It has been to return all that the cross stands for: a staunch reminder of the heritage that has driven the values of the “alma mater of a nation” and the message of welcome to all that enter the Chapel. This compromise does not meet this goal.

Many on all sides of the conflict have sincerely held beliefs. The Committee has worked hard to accommodate the diverse views. However, the lion’s share of the compromise burden stands on the shoulders of the supporters of the cross’s return. The recommendations are only a first step toward a complete solution. I recommend the next step be the permanent placement of the glass encased cross on the altar.