In his September 13th column, Peter Steinfels of the New York Times takes on what it means to be orthodox:

In many religious groups, the word, from the Greek for “correct doctrine” or “right belief,” designates not one side in theological controversies but precisely what is at issue: What constitutes correct or true teaching within that particular tradition?

…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.

But “orthodox” is a special case, because it suggests a sharp boundary between those who properly belong and those who are properly excluded, the way that “patriotic” can suggest a boundary between loyal citizens and something verging on traitors. Religious leaders have a hard enough time wrestling with such matters. Journalists should not get in their way.

Read the full article here.