2 Letters to the Editor

"The wise man speaks because he has something to say. The fool speaks because he has to say something." —Plato

I was eating lunch at the University Student Center today and was graced by the presence of a silent procession of self-righteousness—a group of four students stalked through the dining area wearing poster-sized signs. These signs proclaimed the angst of various minority groups through single-sentence statements about their troubles. I tend to feel a negative gut-reaction toward these types of people; given the opportunities they're afforded at a university, you would think they could find better ways to spend their time than carrying around signs—particularly signs stating ideologies that most of their student audience already receives in class, anyway. What was most striking about these people, though—far more than the usual protest's lack of effectiveness—was their lack of a purpose. What exactly were they protesting against? I soon began formulating a letter I could write to the student paper pointing this out. It was going to go something like this:

"I encountered the epitome of self-righteous self-centeredness today at the University Center. Protesters silently walked the dining rooms, proclaiming messages that no one asked to hear, with no clear purpose. The question they evidently needed to hear was 'Why are you saying all this?' How sad it is that such people are devoting their vast capabilities as human beings toward such vain and useless endeavors; they are rebels without a cause, whose deepest allegiance is not to any cause, but the projections of their own image."

Yes. Then I thought for a few more minutes, and another mental letter formulated in my mind, this letter not addressed to the student newspaper, but to myself:

"You encountered the epitome of self-righteous self-centeredness today at the University Center. You started writing a letter about those protesters—a letter proclaiming a message that no one asked to hear, and with no clear purpose. The question you need to hear is not 'Why are you saying all this,' but 'What makes you think people care?' How sad it would be if a person like you devoted his vast capabilities as a human being toward such a vain and useless endeavor; you would be a rebel without a cause, whose deepest allegiance is not to any cause, but the projections of his own image."

I knew it was either one letter or the other. And seeing the choice of what kind of person I could be laid out before me so neatly, I promptly chose the latter letter. Thank God!

Courage to Disagree Grants Ability to See

I recently heard the argument put forth that the early Church permitted female priests, but that this changed at the Council of Nicea. A corollary premise to this theory (which is becoming more absurd and outlandish even as I restate it here) is that Scripture recounts a lack of female leadership in the Church because the writings were gathered by men who wished to preserve their own religious authority.

This view makes a fundamental logical error. It assumes that Church leadership was dominated by males who “rewrote history” in order to exclude the female leaders. But the whole point of the argument was to expose the fiction of the male-dominated Church leadership! Either the Church was dominated by males, who rewrote history, or it was not--in which case the males wouldn’t have been powerful enough to rewrite history. Think about it for a moment; if such a deception were to take place, would there not be a single shred of evidence testifying to such a fact? There is nothing; no ancient traditions, no textual testimonies, nothing.

Furthermore, are we to believe that, in this imaginary situation, not one man stood with these oppressed female priests? Such unanimity of opinion is rather striking…and rather unbelievable.

The only possible impetus for pursuing this as a hypothesis is wishful thinking. And the fact that logic, history, and common sense mount a screaming testimony against it is a rather strong justification for rejecting it as absurd.