Likewise, in the particularly contentious ranks of theologically minded Catholics, or perhaps in the polemic-weary ranks of mainline Protestantism, there are those who have surrendered the label of orthodoxy to conservatives, either because they no longer have the energy to protest or because they have concluded that the whole idea of orthodoxy ”” correct doctrine or right belief ”” is too encrusted with questionable notions to be worth defending.
But the existence of such minorities hardly justifies the automatic assignment of patriotism or orthodoxy to whoever is first and loudest in claiming it.
Instead of simply describing Joe Churchman as an orthodox believer, journalism would do well to follow its established forms and describe Joe Churchman as a man who calls himself an orthodox believer.
When it comes to nomenclature, writing about religion is of course a minefield. Terms like “conservative” and “liberal,” “traditionalist” and “progressive” are almost unavoidable shorthand, though they suffer from their origins in political categories and almost inevitably oversimplify and dichotomize religious realities that are multifaceted.
It’s a good piece, as far as it goes. Its purported intention is to say something like:
Journalists should try to report religion news accurately. To that end they should carefully avoid using words that bias or slant that reportage — words which reveal an unconscious solidarity with a particular side but which is presented as objective news.
Great. I agree. The problem, if you read the article, is that there is only one word they give as an example (orthodox); and it becomes clear that the kinds of people who might self-describe in that fashion are the bad conservatives.
No similar scrutiny in the article, for example, is given to the regular use of the word INCLUSIVE in recent journalistic reportage on the controversy over TEC changing its teaching on sexual ethics. People who wish to alter church teaching are said to be INCLUSIVE — implying that Kendall and and Bob Duncan and so on are people who want to exclude gay people from the church.
The NYT piece, ironically, is a case study in how a journalist can subtly use language to create an unconscious atmosphere of bias — against of course those awful noninclusive traditionalists — while ostensibly decrying the terrible journalistic sin of using words to create bias!
As one who worked a a free lance in the 40’s my editors would not have hired the current collection of journalism grads, they wanted reporters another type entirely. The current journalists are the result of ultra-liberal schools and professors, when one is aked why they wanted to work in journalism the answer is usually, “To make the world better.” For old time reporters it was to get a scoop or earn a living or report history as it happened or they liked the excitment of the news.
I’m just glad he didn’t repeat that the “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” which has proven to be a popular liberal bumper sticker but proven to be erroneously attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who said no such thing. Complaining or demonstrating about an issue is not the act of a patriot, service to a cause is.
What a pathetic article. The subject is one that could have produced something really interesting and enlightening. Instead what we got was more liberal drivel about how unfair it is that one side thinks that they are right and the other is wrong and are making use of certain terms for self description that the other side objects to.
Let me translate this for people who’s eyes tend to glaze over when theology is discussed.
1+1=2 and 2+2=4
That is mathematical orthodoxy.
Now if there are people out there who want to argue that it is consistent with Christian orthodoxy for two men to be married or for women to be ordained to the clergy (the consistent teaching of the Church and the Fathers to the contrary notwithstanding), that’s fine . They are free to formulate their own opinions. But the laws of logic are not suspended. The implication of this belief is that those who do not agree with them are heterodox or heretics.
You can not posit that 1+1=2 and 1+1 does not = 2 as both being true. Two mutually exclusive affirmations can not both be true. That is a basic law of logic.
When confronted with the above scenario one is left with two logical possibilities.
a) 1+1=2 is true and 1+1 does not equal 2 is false
or…
b) 1+1 does not equal 2 is true and proposition ‘a’ above is false.
The word orthodox is a perfectly fair term because it implies that there is Right Belief and Right Worship (a more accurate translation than the more common and limited “right beliefâ€). Those who are uncomfortable with orthodoxy as a concept are typically either universalists or atheists. And even then one could make a logical argument for their own form of “orthodoxy.â€
As an Orthodox Christian I absolutely and unapologetically confess and affirm the faith of the Apostles and the undivided Church as revealed through…
1. Holy Scripture
2. The Symbol of Faith which is the Nicean Constantinopolitan Creed (which is NOT the same creed recited by Roman Catholics and most confessional Western Christians).
3. The teachings of the nine ecumenical councils (the first seven of which are also generally received by the Latin Church).
4. The Consensus Partum
5. Holy Tradition
6. The canons of the Church and the teachings of her saints.
Those who reject this faith are IMO heterodox to one degree or another. Just as logically they should believe the same of me.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
Ad Orientem, well said. There are several points where hetrodoxy in the Wester church is seen i.e. the filoque and the Papacy, two obvious examples. Had the Western church not strayed, perhaps Luther would not posted his Ninety-Five Theses and the church catholic would have prevailed as Orthodox.
Might I ask where you worship?
Peace,
Barry
Barry,
Thank you for your kind words. I belong to St. Mary Magdalene, an OCA mission parish the Central Valley of CA.
Yours in ICXC
John
More often however, people use the word orthodox in the way Steinfels argues: “orthodoxy is what I believe.”
As Jesus said, “blessed are the orthodox, for they are more right than anybody else.”
Re # 7
JW,
I do not disagree with her assertion that people use orthodoxy as a self descriptive term. I disagree with her taking offense at it. To reject the use of the term is to implicitly reject the idea of orthodoxy.
Yes there are situations where some misuse the term and use it to contrast with persons who express contrary opinions on a matter where legitimate divergence is possible. Church discipline for instance (as opposed to doctrine). But I think that’s rather the odd exception to its use.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
#7 I am pleased that you got the quote from Christ in. An excellent quote. He is right, of course. I assume you are in agreement or you wouldn’t have posted it? Well done. Very useful in the present context. LM
Contra 4. Ad Orientem, just to make things interesting:
1 + 1 = 2 AND 1 + 1 = 10.
Both are mathematically correct; it’s just that “1 + 1 = 2” is correct only in a base 10 number system and “1 + 1 = 10” is correct only in a base 2 number system.
In general, though, mathematical and logical “proofs” do not work particularly well when the subject matter is theology; otherwise, theological questions would have been solved centuries ago.
There was a time when newspapers more or less treated religion with a measure of respect out of fear of upsetting readers. There were exceptions, of course, most notably Papal positions on birth control and abortion. But, by and large, religion was not treated as being “open season” for ridicule. And why? Such coverage upset readers and decreased circulation.
Re #10
Ken,
For some of us the really important theological questions were settled centuries ago.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
#9 he also said, blessed are the poor in spirit….
There is nothing wrong with orthodoxy. I consider myself orthodox. I do have views about adiaphora – say sexual complementarity – that run counter to most self-described orthodox believers.
If “orthodoxy” were merely a matter of one’s own self-conceit or disposition, we would have a church built on the same principles as Noah’s Ark. Well, now that I think of it …