He struggled to employ nonconventional terminology, forcing himself to say, "anti-Arian" instead of the usual "catholic" common in the literature. He even corrected himself once or twice when he misspoke.

At first I dismissed it as petty revisionism. It was the dominant belief so tell the story from that perspective. He wasn't trying to validate Arianism for the present? He knows John's Gospel too well to think Athanasius wrong. Right? Hence, the actual significance was obscured for a time.

I could be mistaken but, in using the term "anti-Arian," he demonstrates how, in countering Arianism, some went too far in the opposite direction. In other words, standing against Arianism did not necessarily translate into an orthodox christology.

Sounds obvious but I tend to simplify the controversy to just two sides.

And, the application would be: (1) in which other controversies from church history were positions perhaps overstated? And (2) does that tendency extend to today's secular controversies?

---

Ritter: You are such a Boy Scout! You see everything in black and white!
Jack Ryan: No, no, no! Not black and white, Ritter. Right and wrong!
(Clear and Present Danger)