Privileged access to the truth?
Reading the September issue last week, one particular sentence in Andrew McThenia's editorial brought me up short: "Academic freedom in a real sense means that religion can be a part of the university so long as it renounces its claim to have a privileged claim on the truth, which is, of course, what religion is all about -- knowing the truth."
What exactly do we mean when we claim that Christianity has a "privileged claim on the truth"? This issue has arisen in a number of contexts for me recently -- including a discussion on "truth" in a lay course I am revising -- and I am increasingly concerned about the way in which the claim to have privileged access to truth can be used to manipulate and oppress others.
We all know only too well how such truth claims are used to manipulate and oppress in cults and in the religious right. Yet the same can happen in "mainstream" churches too. Just this week Rome has stated that other Christian communions should not be referred to as "sister churches," indeed not even as "churches." The reason? Roman Catholicism has a privileged access to truth. Last summer American Episcopalians and Lutherans came into full communion, with the proviso that the ELCA accept an Episcopalian definition of the historic episcopate (a condition not acceptable to all Lutherans, see for example dialog/Spring 2000). The reason? Episcopalianism has a privileged access to the truth.
It seems that claims that one's church or tradition has a privileged access to truth are manifestations of the Powers just as much as anything else. I can understand that the context of McThenia's article referred to religion (in general) in the context of the university, and would not wish to argue with his statement. What I am concerned about, however, are the implications of such a claim. For once such a privileged access (or claim) is acknowledged or allowed, Pandora's box is open and the lid is off for good.
My thanks for a thoughtful and stimulating journal.
Peter C. King
East Sussex, England

The Witness at its best
Marianne Arbogast's thoughtful essay on "The pro-life, pro-choice debate" in the April issue represented to me The Witness at its very best. The "anti-stereotype" examples that she cited surely encourage all of us to strive to manifest a deep human respect toward those whose approaches to abortion are difficult for us to countenance.
Richard J. Cassidy
East Aurora, NY

Depleted uranium
Depleted uranium (DU) is not used as a coating on armor-piercing shells [as Jeff Nelson claims, see Letters, TW 9/00], but in what is called a long rod penetrator which pierces breached armor because of kinetic energy and on account of its density. E-mail <armymag@ausa.com> and they will be happy to refer you to valid sources.
Oh yes, even the Army is concerned about DU, as they are about many things which impact their troops' welfare -- for example, they would dearly love to get Congress to buy effective chemical agent suits, low-tech life savers that Congress ignores in favor of fancy technology that makes money for big contributors.
War is stupid, occasionally unavoidable, and generally benefits no one. But for this guy who went nowhere special and only got medals for showing up, my brief time as a soldier is something I am justified in being proud of.
James Moher
Nashua, NH

Not renewing
At least for this year, I won't be renewing my Witness subscription. I've become disturbed by the insularity of the Christian social-justice movement, by the perspective embodied by William Willimon in the September 2000 issue. He shows great hostility for the "flaccid secularists" of the university, the "godless" place that "just doesn't yet know" that it belongs to God. Although he qualifies this by saying that he's had "wonderful moments where I have been embarrassed to find out that people are asking tough, searching questions," I was still appalled. The consciousness of our Christian identity can so easily become a fetish, become a way of doing our good deeds in public for all to see and admire. Acting "from a Christian perspective" implicitly denies secular or ex-Christian people a moral basis for the things that they do. If "we're" out here picketing sweatshops "for Christ," than why are "they" doing it? Do their efforts somehow not count? Do they not love their neighbor as much as we do because they don't consciously love him "for Christ"? Is love not love? Is virtue not virtue? Last time I checked, God makes the sun shine and the rain fall on everyone.
Having said all that, I want to belatedly add that all that fire-breathing should be placed in context of my wild and total admiration for your magazine and its undaunted courage in "living humanly in the midst of death." Thank you so much, and I'm sure that when I've calmed down and have somewhat more money, I'll subscribe again.
Savannah Jahrling
(via the Internet)

We need a new rite
The 2000 General Convention's decision not to approve drafting of a rite to support faithful relationships other than marriages [see Louie Crew's post-GC comments at www.thewitness.org and Julie Wortman's editorial, TW 10/00] was a very unwise decision. There should be a rite for gay and/or lesbian persons and also for other persons who are either widowed or divorced but who would like to live with one another as human individuals. I have believed for a long time that gays and lesbians should be able to live with one another. But now that I am 83 years of age (I retired as Bishop of Central New York in 1983) I know many persons who are in my age bracket who would like to be able to live openly and honestly with a person of the opposite sex so they would not have to live alone. I am not one of these, but living in a retirement home, persons who know I am a retired member of the clergy often talk about such things to me.
Several days ago a friend said he and his female friend (the three of us had recently had dinner at his apartment) wished that there was some way they could live together. He said another clergy person had told him that "if you two live together, you would not be welcome at our altar."
To me, when Scripture says, "God's Son, Jesus Christ, so loved the world that He gave His life for all persons," that means to me EVERY HUMAN BEING.
Ned Cole
Liverpool, NY

Witness praise
I share my copies of The Witness with church friends. They appreciate your caring, thoughtful writing (as do I). We need the help and inspiration your subjects discuss and hope you continue.
Mary Kiefer
Cleveland, OH l