A Writer's Covenant and Mere Orthodoxy's New Contributors

Successful magazines are never about one person. They're a chorus of voices together, enjoying the world, asking questions of it, endlessly arguing with one another about it, and together trying to imagine and bring forth a different sort of world. Ideally this would all happen in-person over drinks (or at least strong black coffee), though that is harder to come by these days.

There's a wonderful little moment near the end of Orwell's Roses where Rebecca Solnit talks about the particular way George Orwell sought to impart a beauty and elegance to his essay writing. While discussing his essay, "Politics and the English Language,"she writes,

Nineteen Eighty-Four depicts language when it is too tight, too restrictive in vocabulary and connotation, when some words have been murdered and others severed from too many of their associations. Somewhere in between is the possibility of a language that is clear but evocative, in which the speaker or writer's explorations invite those of the listener or reader, in which there is something a little wild in language, and the wild and the free overlap. That integrity, those honored contracts, those endeavors to reach out and make whole through the use of words that connect, empower, liberate, illuminate are the beauty to which he is most committed and the one he most celebrates, in the writing of others and in his own efforts as a writer.

She then goes on to quote a long passage from Orwell which she says as served as a credo for her since she first read it,

But I could not do the work of writing a book, or even a long magazine article, if it were not also an aesthetic experience.... So long as I remain alive and well I shall continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take pleasure in solid objects and scraps of useless information.

One way of describing what we are up to here at Mere Orthodoxy is that we are trying to create a Christian magazine that George Orwell could respect.

There must be an aesthetic component to the writing; it is not merely to convey ideas, or even merely to convey true ideas. There must be beauty. Truth must be adorned with words fit for it, that bring honor to it. That is the project we have set ourselves. And I say "we" because it really is a "we" these days: None of what you're seeing would be possible without the organizational vision and stewardship of Mark Kremer, the general marketing and tech prowess of Ian Harber, and the extensive editorial work done by Nadya Williams.

What's more, we now have an editorial board, as we have advertised for some time: This is a joint venture that includes not only my own work, but also the work and thought and judgments of Susannah Roberts, Matthew Loftus, Samuel James, Tessa Carman, and Kirsten Sanders as well as myself and Nadya. We have also long benefitted from the diligent written and podcasting work of Matthew Lee Anderson, who also founded Mere O in 2005, Derek Rishmawy, Alastair Roberts, Andrew Wilson, James Wood, Brad East, and Joseph Minich on "Mere Fidelity" as well as the work Nadya has done on "Christians Reading Classics."

Today we come to a new announcement, something I am immensely excited about. We now have contributing writers as well. What this new role essentially means is merely this: We enjoy the work of these writers. We want them to write for us when they have something to say. And we want them to feel some measure of ownership of what happens here at Mere O and some ability to speak into it as a friend and co-conspirator.

Toward that end, we are publishing today both the list of contributing writers and the writer's covenant which now serves as a summary statement of what we editors and contributing writers think we are doing here at Mere Orthodoxy and the standard we hold ourselves to as we seek to serve you, our readers.

First, the new batch of contributing writers:

• Haley Byrd Wilt
• Katelyn Walls Shelton
• Hayden Nesbit
• Elizabeth Stice
• Amy Mantravadi
• Myles Werntz
• Brewer Eberly
• Daniel K. Williams
• Haley Baumeister
• Sarah Reardon
• Joshua Heavin
• Eddie LaRow
• Cameron Shaffer
• Wyatt Graham
• Rachel Aldhizer
• John Ehrett
• Jeff Bilbro
• John Shelton

The Mere Orthodoxy Writer's Covenant

Mere Orthodoxy is a Christian media project. We exist in order to put the riches of Christian thought into conversation with the challenges, questions, and problems of life in the contemporary world.

Our name is derived from the books Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis and Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, both of whom in their own ways modeled how Christian thought might be utilized in fresh, creative, and original ways to challenge, correct, and form modern people toward Christ.

As a media project, we occupy a unique space relative to both the church and the public square. 

First, we are explicitly a media organization, not a church or denominational body. This means that our concerns are broader than any one church body and that our work is done in service of broadly ecumenical, Christian ends rather than the specific desires of a specific congregation or denomination. This also means that our responsibilities are not to a given ecclesial institution, but to our readers and, ultimately, to God.

Second, as a media organization we fill a particular role in the imagined workings of a democratic society. This is particularly the case in the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids the government from abridging the rights of a free press–which suggests that America’s founders felt the press had a unique role to play which was distinct from the role of government or church or market.

This creates certain pressures for us as an organization. We embrace those and accept them as a part of our magazine’s unique calling, but this also means that anyone publicly associated with us in a more formal way needs to understand that and recognize what they are joining.

Toward that end, we have created this writer’s covenant to provide concrete, specific guidance for our editors and regular contributors.

1. All of our work as writers, thinkers, and readers is done before the face of God. It therefore must be done honestly and with a desire to honor God and serve our neighbors. We do our utmost to avoid any public speech or method of work that would bring dishonor to God or fail to serve our readers, who are our closest neighbors as a magazine.
2. For that reason, we have a different relationship to social media platforms than most magazines. While we do not ask our contributors to stay off social media, we do ask that they be closely attentive to the ways that online social networks tend to encourage behaviors and attitudes that are corrosive to the formation of Christian character and defy the law of God. So we ask our people to be cautious about what they say on social networks. If you cannot imagine yourself saying something to the face of the person you’re thinking about or referencing, do not say it. Even if you can imagine saying it to their face, you should still prayerfully consider whether it is speech that would meet with Christ’s approval.
3. We have strict policies about AI usage. Because of the way search technology has evolved, we accept that a strict ban on all AI usage is not feasible–it would require our people to abstain from using any online research tools since even search engines are today powered largely by LLM models. We, therefore, have no policy against using AI tools to aid in research. However, you should never submit text that has been generated by an LLM, nor should you ask an LLM to help you strengthen your argument in a text you have written, or to make suggestions for other structural or argumentative changes to your essay or review. The work of using one’s mind to understand and communicate truth is human work. To outsource any part of that to AI is to deprive yourself of the chance to grow and is to attack your own personal abilities in those areas by using a machine to do the work you actually need to be doing yourself. Relatedly, we encourage writers to be cautious about accepting proposed edits to their work from friends who may not be aware of our policies on AI or who are less reflective in their own use of AI.
4. The success of a vocation in writing is not judged by traffic, follower counts, notoriety, or one’s ability to provoke strong reactions. A vocation to writing is fulfilled when someone has thought deeply about something, has sought to penetrate to the heart of the matter, and has found a way to express the truth that is pleasing, elegant, and internally coherent. When you find yourself thinking in terms of attention, clicks, or reaction, you are thinking as a marketer rather than a writer. Think like a writer.
5. Writing is not a utilitarian project. It’s a craft. Mere O is not interested in writing that has a predictable or industrial quality to it, as if it was written by a committee or churned out in order to solve a problem, like an instruction manual or how-to guide. Our writing should have life. Indeed, one of the saddest parts of the LLM revolution in the writing world is that many people seem to believe that machines are capable of producing good writing since we have for too long treated writing like a mechanical process. It is not. Good writing is driven by attentiveness, by patience, by prayer, and by joy. These are not things that can be turned into formulas or produced in a rote, methodical way. What Charlotte Mason said of education is true also of writing: it is, in some sense, a life rather than a task. Commit to practices in your life that allow for sustained attention, delight, prayer, and patient reflection. This will look different from person to person depending on your phase of life. But the desire to pursue those things is essential.
6. Healthy magazines are collections of friends in which editors befriend writers, help to cultivate them, and introduce them to each other. You may not know all or even most of the people you see on our editorial board or our published list of contributing writers. But generally it is good to imagine those people as being friends and to engage their work accordingly. It also follows, of course, that when we disagree or critique one another’s work, we receive that not as an attack on our person, but as an effort from a friend to help us grow and mature in our calling. We assume trust and good will between each other.
7. Finally, we assume that persuasion, reason, and disagreement are normal parts of our common life. If we are to have a common life that is not marked by domination, coercion, and aggression, then we must all have a commitment to love the world as it is (in some sense), to engage with our neighbors as neighbors rather than as threats, and to engage with our neighbors where they are rather than where we would like them to be. God, in his love and providential care, has placed each of us where we are in this moment in redemptive history and in the places where he has called us. We should not resent that or live in a way that rebels against it. Receive your moment as a gift from God. Receive your neighbors as gifts from God. Treat them in your speech and your writing as you would like to be treated.