The Doctrine of Liberal Fundamentalism: A Parody of George Orwell’s “1984”

orwellBy Let Freedom Ring!

As we of the elite class of America consider ourselves to be the best educated group in the nation, and as we have grown tired of having to tolerate our intellectual inferiors, we believe the time has come for those of us of the liberal persuasion to at long last do away with all competition in political, economic, and social and moral philosophies, and simply take over the United States. We know what is best for everyone.

From this moment on, unless you agree with us, you will have no right to speak; you will have no right to think, question, or challenge our worldviews in any way. From here on, you are to accept the understanding that we are correct on all issues, and that all opposition is wrong. That settles it!

Henceforth, the following will become the law of the land:

  • As all children are considered to be the possession of the State, we will indoctrinate them on all philosophies, and you as their parents will in no way attempt to contradict our teachings either at the schools or in your homes.
  • When we preach Global Warming lessons, you as their parents will accept them; when we preach abortion, you will not view it as murder; when we preach toleration for homosexuality, transgenderism, etc., you will embrace it. Equating pedophilia with perversion, and especially with homosexuality, is hereby outlawed; the utilization of certain drugs will no longer be illegal.
  • When you go to the polls on Election Day, you will vote for left-wing candidates and causes, or you will not vote at all. On economic matters, socialism is in, capitalism is completely out. When we tax you to support all entitlement programs, you will pay without complaint.
  • As for your so-called religious liberties, you may keep your religions for now, this being a major concession on our part, but all faith matters must be kept private with no public preaching. All sermons must be pre-approved by the State before being delivered at your churches. As for your children, however, they will learn a new and different religion, one that is secular. Their curriculum will include sex education and evolution, as well as others including those stated above. We will supply your children with contraceptives, and should any of your daughters become pregnant, we will see to their abortions, with or without your permission, and with or without even your knowledge. Should they have inclinations toward homosexuality, we will provide them the ability to have a sex-change. Again, your permission and knowledge will be considered unwarranted.
  • As for the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, all of your freedoms stated in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, they are all hereby declared abrogated and replaced with Political Correctness (PC), the new authority. Gun control will rule the day; the U.S. Constitution be damned! So you are to turn in those AR-15’s immediately at your local police stations!
  • Deviating from any of our worldviews will result in lawsuits and/or be considered crimes against the State leading to fines, imprisonment, and loss of jobs. Henceforth, we can arrest you, freeze your assets and confiscate your properties all without warrants, and there will be nothing you can do about it. At trials, the State will no longer be burdened with having to prove the guilt of the defendant; rather the defendant will be burdened with having to prove his or her innocence. But remember, if you are arrested, chances are that you are indeed guilty; so you may wish to immediately plea bargain to get the lowest fine and/or prison sentence. This will save us both a lot of trouble, but should you wish to argue the case, we will throw the book at you!
  • Resistance is futile; we can hear every word you say, read every word you write, and we have the technological firepower to back-up every law we create. Yes, indeed, Big Brother is watching!


  1. Pretty well sums it up, George.

    The really jolting part has to do with religion and culture. Secular progressives have nothing of value with which to replace traditional Christian culture – nothing other than a set of self-destructive and socially-destructive behaviors. Therein lies the ray of sunshine: It is a totalitarian ideology, but a suicidal one as well. It is too weak to survive in the wilds of history.

    But another ideology has proven somewhat resilient and constitutes our other enemy: Islam. You see, the virus of progressive secularism is just making us weak for the greater virus of Islam to afflict us.

    Secularism cannot be its own cure. Protestantism cannot cure anything. Roman Catholicism asks, “who am I to judge?”. It is left to Holy Orthodoxy to cure these illnesses. So naturally the evil one wants to water down the medicine.

    And the time is short. God is watching. I like to think that God is merciful in the very end, but He once flooded the world and has revealed a breathtaking carnage to be unleashed in the last days.

    • Peter Millman says

      Hi Misha,
      You state that it is left to Holy Orthodoxy to cure our society’s illnesses. With all due respect, Holy Orthodoxy has zero influence in our culture. Most people in America have never heard of our Orthodox faith. In fact, many Orthodox say that Holy Orthodoxy is America’s greatest secret. When you have the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarch giving an award to the pro abortionist and liberal icon, Joe Biden, I’d say that they are cowards. In the Orthodox Church in America, many of the muckety mucks embrace ‘gay marriage.’ Instead of changing our culture, they have become enculturated.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        I wholeheartedly agree.

      • All true. But Orthodoxy is still the only cure, though.

      • M. Stankovich says

        Mr. Millman,

        What you present is an extraordinarily cynical, empty excuse for a very deadly and soul destroying form of passivity and futility. What, then, would you make of the numerous examples given to us by the Lord in the week of His Passion? Re-read the First Gospel of the Matins of Great and Holy Friday. What is the Lord saying to His Disciples? The world will not listen to you, the will hate you because they first hated me, but but rejoice, for I have overcome the world! He entrusted us with the Truth: Antiphon 12, after the reading of the Fourth Gospel, the Lord says:

        Thus Says The Lord To The Jews:
        My People, What Have I Done To You,
        Or How Have I Offended You?
        To Your Blind, I Gave Sight, Your Lepers I Cleansed,
        The Paralytic I Raised From His Bed.
        My People, What Have I Done To You,
        And How Have You Repaid Me?
        Instead Of Manna, Gall; Instead Of Water, Vinegar;
        Instead Of Loving Me, You Nail Me To The Cross.
        I Can Bear No More.
        I Shall Call The Gentiles Mine.
        They Will Glorify Me With The Father And The Spirit,//
        And I Shall Give Them Life Eternal.

        How much more poignant and direct can the message be? What was the message of the manager of the marriage feast by saying, “Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but you have kept the good wine until now.” (Jn 2:10) Some try to “trick” you after an initial “surge,” but you have saved the best for last! To put this into perspective, Mr. Millman, after us – the last defenders, bearers, and guardians of the Truth – there is only darkness & chaos. And without us, all is lost. The Church has always had outright corruption, defilement, heresy, and delusion from its highest ranks to its lowest; it is always the case when sinners and fallen humans gathers to fight against the powers of darkness. If, however, we were to allow this to discourage us, we can blame no one but ourselves. We stand can only be saved together, but we fall alone.

        • Peter Millman says

          Greetings Dr. Stankovich,
          I don’t think I like the triumphalist attitude of many Orthodox. In fact, I think the Orthodox Church is flat out wrong about some things. For example, it bothers me that the Orthodox Church in America prays for the military. Why not pray for peace? The Orthodox Church does not support a just war theory, but she says that sometimes war is the lesser of two evils. From my understanding of peace activists, Jesus was completely and totally nonviolent. He practiced non violent resistance. I think it is a sin to build nuclear weapons or to ever use them. I believe that God raised up “Peace Churches” like the Quakers to compensate for the Churches incorrect teachings about war being necessary at times. I fail to see how we Orthodox Christians act like salt and light in today’s world. Why is it that in many Orthodox Churches the parishioners are downright unfriendly toward strangers? If we possess the truth, shouldn’t we be shouting it from the rooftops? When Christ taught about the last judgement in Matthew 25, I fail to see how the Orthodox Church is considered the sheep. The Orthodox Church’s engagement in works of mercy is unimpressive at best. However, I appreciate your comments and criticism. Many thanks.

          • For example, it bothers me that the Orthodox Church in America prays for the military.

            Because members of the military put their lives on the line to protect other people, and as they serve, they are entitled to our common prayers. Just like our loathsome, abortionist, unjustly bellicose president, whom we also pray for.

            Praying for someone does not mean we endorse everything they do. Perhaps the “mercy” that we ask the “Lord” to “have” is that wars would cease and the military would not need to fight. Ever consider that possibility?

            He practiced non violent resistance.

            And that is noble for individuals to do. But he did not call upon governments to do so on behalf of their citizens, and put their lives at risk without their consent. Governments have a duty to protect their people.

            In many Orthodox churches parishioners are downright unfriendly to strangers

            I have been to a lot of parishes, and I have never found this to be the case.

            • Michael Kinsey says

              It is meet to pray for our enemies as well as thier victims, and also each fact a command. A christian who loves of his fellow man does not wish any to perish, as this is a win for the devil. I could not heartfeltly condem any who have sinned to perish. And Thank the Holy One, it’s not my call. Divine Justice Rules. I do expereince relief from being sinned against, when a hurtful enemy of God and men dies. There is no joy in this ,just sadness.

          • Peter Millman says

            I would also like to add that the Orthodox Church is full of many good, kind, Christ loving, dedicated Orthodox Christians. Basically, I just wish the Orthodox Church was more socially engaged. Of course, we have many great Saints who are truly an inspiration to us. St Symeon the New Theologian, Saint John Climacus, and Saint Gregory Palamas are magnificent. Some of the most sublime writings are contained in the Philokalia. I was much too overly critical and negative in my previous post. In fact, I wish I had deleted it. My sincerest apologies to anyone I have offended. Many thanks for your kind indulgence.

          • M. Stankovich says

            And greetings to you, as well.

            I have no dispute with your conclusion, “If we have the Truth, then why aren’t we shouting it from the rooftops?” My comments in this regard – as they have been for the past five years here – are not intended to be “triumphal,” but, in fact, indictment. And while you are wasting your time pursuing the answer (which I will suggest may be summed up in one word: indifference), pray that the Bridegroom does not arrive while you are typing and pass you by (cf. Matt. 25:3). And as these things are fresh in my mind – “these things” referring to the Exapostilarion of the Matins of Great & Holy Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday – this is what I conclude regarding myself: more advice I do not need, but a constant reminder, “Rouse yourself.” We have only begun to see how difficult it is to be people of Faith, let alone martyrs. And as Vladyka Tikhon reminds us, the days are short.

          • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

            Mr. Millman, I cannot let two of your comments pass without gentle correction:

            (1) “The Orthodox Church does not support a just war theory, but she says that sometimes war is the lesser of two evils.”
            (2) ” I believe that God raised up ‘Peace Churches’ like the Quakers to compensate for the Churches incorrect teachings about war being necessary at times.”

            Like numerous other Orthodox Christians, including, alas, theologians and historians who ought to know better but rely uncritically on popular misrepresentations of our moral tradition, you repeat absurd, oxymoronic clichés such as “sometimes war is the lesser of two evils”—as if our Lord, who was sinless in His human life, would encourage and bless an Orthodox Christian to commit an “evil” act as the means to attaining a supposedly “good” end. That is sheer nonsense from an authentic moral (i.e., “good” or “right”) standpoint.

            Combine that fatal moral error with your dismissal of the Orthodox moral tradition of some “necessary” wars as “incorrect” and inferior to the moral witness of the pacifist Protestant denominations and what you have is, I submit, not Orthodox Christianity as the fullness of divine revelation but rather a do-it-yourself contradictory, moral heresy.

            For almost forty years, my primary scholarly project has explored and attempted to explain how the venerable Orthodox moral tradition as revealed in the Old (Septuagint) and New Testaments of the Bible, the patristic writings, lives of the saints, decrees and canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, iconography, liturgical and hymnography, and devotional and literary texts presents two conflicting but nonetheless true moral positions on war and human violence—namely, justifiable war and absolute pacifism—held tenaciously in antinomical tension for more than two millennia.

            Two of my books, in particular, present the case, respectively, for each Orthodox moral approach to war:

            The Pacifist Option: The Moral Argument Against War in Eastern Orthodox Theology. Lanham, MD: International Scholars Publications (an imprint of University Press of America, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group), 1998 (1999 pb) [351 pp.]

            The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East & West [co-authored with Dr. Darrell Cole]. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2004. [252 pp.]

            Both volumes are still in print and readily available (usually discounted) via

            • Peter Millman says

              Greetings Father Webster,
              I appreciate your kind response to my post. Unfortunately, as of this time, I have not yet read your two books that you recommended. As a consequence, I feel that I am unqualified to engage in a discussion of your books. Obviously, you are a brilliant, erudite scholar, but I must remind you that there are other scholars that have different views than you.
              For example, the esteemed New Testament scholar, the Catholic Father John L. McKenzie has written, ” if we know anything about the Lord Jesus, we know that he was totally nonviolent.”I have never believed that the solution to violence is more violence. Thank you again for responding to my post. May the Lord keep you safe.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Fr. Alexander, having read both of your books with my son I can certainly testify to the antinomical vision of the Church. It is so much easier to take one side or the other. Yet such a stance does indeed leave one in a moral quagmire.

              What my so gleaned is the essential Orthodox witness for peace requires an active engagement in making peace. Sometimes, although not as often as we think, that requires force of arms.

              Those who wish to make moral pacifism a doctrine are wrong. Those who seek a militarist stance are also wrong.

              Nevertheless there are many concerns concerning modern warfare that call for a great deal of discretion in making policy that our political climate vitiates against.

          • “Jesus was completely and totally nonviolent. He practiced non violent resistance.”

            Well, how about at the Temple when He overturned the tables of the money changers and vendors? Then you have the great saints of military history such as St. Alexander Nevsky of Novgorod, St. George the dragon slayer, also Archangel Michael with the sword. It’s the “God fearing” authorities and military forces we pray for.

            • It’s even worse than that, Cy. In order to turn Christ into a pacifist, you have to reject the God of the Old Testament entirely and reject a considerable part of the New as well. Just doesn’t work. It’s not that there isn’t stuff in the NT which could be construed as pacifistic. It’s that there is so much in both testaments that would not be there were pacifism the teaching. It’s not. At least Marcion was honest about it.

      • Peter,

        I never said that the Orthodox were good at delivering the cure or that most of humanity would receive it. In fact, I assume God will settle all accounts during the eschaton which I pray is coming quite soon – I assume that some things have already begun and we’re talking years or decades rather than centuries.

        Nonetheless, the cure is available, and it is the only one. As to your other musings about non-violence, Fr. Alexander Webster co-authored a book about this called The Virtue of War. I don’t agree with everything he stated – he’s actually a bit timid, I think, about how aggressive we Orthodox can justly be – however, one thing to remember is that a number of post-Nicene Fathers were not pacifists and that Christians were making war before Augustine’s Just War theory arose. I.e., Augustine was attempting to regulate what was already a reality in the Church, not enable what was previously prohibited. With that in mind, that fact that we do not adhere to Just War theory merely amounts to the fact that we are in no way limited in our license to make war other than by the examples set in Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers. This is why, for example, the Church of Russia has no problem blessing the Russian nuclear arsenal for defense of the motherland.

        PS: Whoever told you that there is such a thing as a “necessary evil” does not understand that a thing can be either necessary or evil, but cannot be both. Evil has no ontological reality.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      I agree.

  2. M. Stankovich says

    I personally cannot grasp the point of this dark, cynical post in the middle of the Feast of Feasts, Mr. Michalopulos. But that’s me. There was a time when you noted on this site that someone had said to you that you need to occasionally make the effort to post something positive, something edifying, and something of goodness. It has been a long, long time. What is especially troubling to me is that you do not seem to appreciate the truly insightful and and inspiring individuals you have participating here, the individuals I from whom I always manage to take away something edifying and sustaining in this world that increasingly does not support our very Faith. And I am very sad that you have stopped nurturing them. For me, it is a great loss.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Dr S, your critique is well-taken. I feel therefore the need to explain why I published this essay which was sent to me by a well-connected Orthodox layman who wishes to remain anonymous.

      For one, it’s well-written. Secondly it’s written in the prophetic style of George Orwell, whom I consider to be the Solzhenitsyn of the mid-century. Third, it encapsulates the sexual-liberationist/cultural Marxist Zeitgeist which is overtaking even subsets of American Orthodoxy. (For example Metropolitan Savas Zembillas equating anti-gay marriage activists with segregationists.)

      Other reasons will no doubt tumble forth in due time but work awaits. That’s a good start.

      • It’s good to know where we stand. The article is for the most part talking about the present reality, not some projected Orwellian future. Nonetheless, despair is never appropriate. God knows what He is allowing to happen, and God knows how He is going to make lemonade out of the lemons which arise most prolifically during these times. We can rejoice in that, rejoice that there is still time to repent and believe, rejoice that we know “the rest of the story” beyond what we see and experience in this life. And we can give glory to God for it all.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      Michael, George has picked up some Warren habits, e.g.:
      “Third, it encapsulates the sexual-liberationist/cultural Marxist Zeitgeist which is overtaking even subsets of American Orthodoxy. (For example Metropolitan Savas Zembillas equating anti-gay marriage activists with segregationists.)”

  3. Gail Sheppard says

    RE: “. . . but all faith matters must be kept private with no public preaching.”

    Well, not exactly. – Because Bibles are now being passed out at school, Satanic and atheist literature is being distributed, as well.

    RE: “When we tax you to support all entitlement programs, you will pay without complaint.” – It will be common place for people to attack you if you disagree. THEY can say any stupid thing they want, even if it is untrue (in this example, Jimmy Carter did NOT say this), but God help you if you DARE to challenge them on it. They will become indignant and whine and tell everyone you know how out of line you were for objecting to being called a Christian hypocrite because you’re a Conservative. A former friend of mine, who is fond of virulent attacks on Conservatism, posted the following: “If you don’t want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don’t!”

  4. M. Stankovich says

    So, there is some good news, actually, that affects millions in this country, all in the form of a report published by the Centers for Disease Control, appropriately titled, Provisional cases of selected infrequently reported notifiable diseases (<1,000 cases reported during the preceding year) — United States, week ending May 14, 2016 (19th week). I thought I would share some very impressive highlights, but if you wish your own copy in the PDF format – and I personally cannot think of a good reason why you would not – the full report is available, for free (though, technically, we did pay for it in taxes), here.

    First, I will point out that there were 492 cumulative, confirmed cases of non-congenital cases of Zika virus reported. A footnote indicates, “All cases reported have occurred in travelers returning from affected areas,” and not from infections contracted in the US itself. Further, there have been no known cases of Anthrax, Cholera, Diphtheria, Hemorrhagic Fevers (e.g. Ebola/Marburg), Plague, Polio, Rabies, SARS, Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (e.g. from raw meat), and Yellow Fever. Not a single case. And to put this into perspective, these are illnesses that ravaged our civilization, some even within our lifetime. Astonishing.

    I will note, however, an odd fact that is striking for me on two fronts, and that is in regard to Trichinellosis, or what is frequently referred to as simply Trichinosis. Trichinellosis is a parasitic infection ( a larval worm, actually) contracted and most frequently associated with undercooked pork (wolf, horse, bear, fox, dog – WAT! – seal, walrus, rarely in lamb, go figure). Undercooked beef can give you E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, or Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (also referred to as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or “mad cow,” which heat will not destroy because it is an infectious protein). What are the two “fronts?” Robert Arida & I made it a practice on Sunday evenings at midnight to listen to the “Elijah Mohammad Speaks” radio broadcast from the Black Muslim Mosque in Harlem where, during the commercials where he sold fish, he made it a point – as you may now see as a wise one – that his listeners “should not eat swine as the white people tell you, because you’ll turn into the pig you eat.” To this day, I do not touch the stuff. Secondly, I would point you to the full-text article found in the National Library of Medicine entitled, Phylogenomic and biogeographic reconstruction of the Trichinella complex which can be downloaded here. These authors, perhaps unawares, have confirmed that “the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, ” (1 Cor. 1:22) and there is an ancient ban on touching what was not destroyed in the ritual sacrifices, or attempting to eat anything from the Passover meal the next day:

    Using thousands of shared single-copy orthologous gene sequences, we fully reconstruct, for the first time, a phylogeny and biogeography for the Trichinella complex, and show that encapsulated and non-encapsulated Trichinella taxa diverged from their most recent common ancestor ∼21 million years ago

    Now, try and explain to the Creationists that before Abraham was, there was Trichanella… Holy Cow!

    • Michael Bauman says

      Well, Michael S. creation did occur/is occurring and we can rest assured that the disorder of the diseases you name, no matter how ancient followed the fall.

      However there can be no doubt that the Jewish dietary and cleanlyness rules provided physical benefits. So much so that during the plague, Jews did not die as often and were accused of witchcraft.

      Also that our evolution, whatever else it maybe, is NOT what most evolutionists think it is.

      The end does not lie in the obsolescent humanity giving way to cyborgs but in the Parousia when all of creation is made whole and complete and properly ordered by God’s mercy and grace.


        You might enjoy this, Michael.

        • M. Stankovich says


          Do you happen to see small birds circling my head, or is it just Platina me?

          • Not sure what you mean, MS. I can’t see you and the only birds I know that might be circling are vultures/buzzards, not small at all.

            • M. Stankovich says


              That was my point, exactly! It was an allusion to head spinning. It’s been too tense around here…

              • Agreed. Bear in mind, Michael, when I use words like heterodox and quasi-Roman or whatever, there is no emotional negativity attached to them. I am simply trying to be accurate, not offensive. I am the worst of all sinners and there are many Catholics, Protestants and possibly even agnostics who will get into the Kingdom of Heaven before me (if that is my destiny) since they better meet the Lord’s criteria of doing good to “the least of these”.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Thanks for the link Misha, looks interesting.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          I’ve been reading Florensky’s “At the Crossroads of Science & Mysticism: On the Cultural-Historical Place and Premises of the Christian World-Understanding,” which is really unedited notes from lectures he gave. His take on evolution and change is interesting, particularly his assertion that progress occurs only in radical discontinuity.

          On gene editing. That fact the genome can be edited at all tells me that language, not physics and chemistry, may be the ground of epistemology. If correct, then the Darwinian hypothesis is the wrong creation narrative given its dependence on philosophical materialism.

          • M. Stankovich says

            You are welcome to interpret “gene editing” however you wish, but mine is a great deal more concrete, not philosophical, and perhaps I may give you a sense of my immediate concern.

            There is gene editing, and there is CRISPR gene editing, and then there is CRISPR gene editing of the germ cell line of the human genome. CRISPR is the acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, meaning within the DNA code of a given genome – and obviously we are concerned with the compilation, or entirety of what constitutes the human genome – there are natural “spacers” within the genetic script or code (and I have no intention of pursuing a course in human genetics here – pursue it for yourself), and the technique of CRISPR is to introduce additional short sequences of “palindromic repeated DNA sequences” (palindromic meaning they read the same in either direction, e.g. A(alanine)Q(glutamine)A(alanine) as “spacers” to, for example, theoretically destroy the genome of a life-threatening virus or cancer & preventing it from replication. Another attempt is to insert altered DNA from an invading virus, processed into short segments that serve as “genetic memory” of the original virus, and thus accepted into the DNA of the invading virus as if as the original; a variant is using the altered DNA in the normal process of RNA transcription (the classic axiom,”DNA instructs RNA in what it is to do,” was shockingly changed with HIV and “retroviruses,” and seems to fare no better with CRISPR). In any case, the major ethical question of the mid-1970’s was recombinant DNA, which is a great deal more complicated and involved. CRISPR is, far and away, simpler and accessible. And this fact makes it all the more dangerous and uncontrollable as well.

            So, say we start, here. Then we escalate to here where we consider a “genome-wide screen”:

            In general, the goal of a genetic screen is to generate a large population of cells with mutations in a wide variety of genes and use these mutant cells to identify the genetic perturbations that result in a desired phenotype. Before CRISPR/Cas9, genetic screens relied heavily on shRNA-based screens, which are prone to off-target effects and may result in false negatives due to incomplete knock-down of target genes. The CRISPR system, in contrast, is capable of making highly specific, permanent genetic modifications in target genes. The CRISPR system has already been used to screen for novel genes that regulate known phenotypes, including resistance to chemotherapy drugs, resistance to toxins, cell viability, and tumor metastasis.

            All of this is remarkably altruistic – though not to say with any consideration for patenting and profit – with the caveat, for all we know. And do note that this reference is from a not-for-profit company who will, for $65 (+$20 shipping) deliver to you a plasmid (“Plasmids are fragments of double-stranded DNA that can replicate independently of chromosomal DNA, and usually carry genes”) with which, “you can make an endless number of copies by growing the in bacteria,” and on their blog they even give “tips and tricks, like how to name your plasmid.”

            This leads us to speculation as to the editing of the human germ cell line, and what does this mean? In effect, a germ line is the manner by which any genome, human or otherwise, fundamentally transfers its entire genome from one generation to the next. The idea of entering our basic humanity – albeit with the noble intention of explicitly preventing certain illness or “defects” from progressing into the next generation – without more than what amounts to five years of uncontrolled, unregulated, and is always the case, a lag in ethical standards, is disconcerting is not frightening in its possibilities.

            I suggest considering the reading of the following “overview” articles & essays to get a sense of what I have only very briefly referenced: 7 Facts regarding gene editing; an editorial, “Don’t Touch the Human Germline.”; an excellent essay surveying a respected group of scientists in the field, “Germline Engineering – the Community Speaks” (which has been funded to be read by anyone, but downloaded only by subscribers); another essay, CRISPR, the Disruptor; and we would not be complete without New Life for Pig-to-Human Transplants, oorah.

            While “dependence on philosophical materialism” may well be the wrong narrative, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that we have other, more dangerous wolves to engage, particularly when scientists and universities stand to financially benefit from what we can only contend is an assault on the nature of our created humanity.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      I belive the ID (intelligence design) people would have no problem with this, but yes creationists would have a problem with this.


    • Can we come up with a different name for “seven-dayites” besides “creationists”?

      One cannot be Orthodox who does not confess that God created the universe ex nihilo. The means is up for debate but that fact is not.

      • Michael Bauman says

        To believe in creation as taught in the tradition is not to be a creationist any more than to accept the wonder of the female in creation is to be a feminist.

        Not all those who hold to a philosophy of philosophical materialism and promote evolution without God are Darwinists either.

        Unfortunately we have lost the ability to define the terms. We cannot even authoritatively declare for the world who and who is not a Christian.

        Materialists/philosophical naturalists look upon divine creation with such skepticism that any mention of it usually results in the closing of their ears, mind and heart.

        I am not a creationist, I am not a philosophical naturalist nor a materialist neither am I much of a natural law fan as to me all of these are part of the same ideology that rejects the Incarnation and the reality that God is everywhere present and fills all things. That ideology has progressed little from the ‘steady-state’ physics of long ago that was founded upon a deist idea of an absent God.

        God is still bringing ‘things’ into being and substance, His life overflows into His creation at all points and cannot be stopped despite our best efforts toward our own extinction. That reality can be readily seen if we look.

        God is, we are not. We only are because of His life and grace. A incredible gift. He animated the dust with His life and image to create us. For that reason and by God’s ineffable wisdom and love, we are the center of His visible creation.

        That gives a lot of responsibility as Genesis clearly points out. The only way in which we can fulfill that responsibility is by surrendering ourselves to His love: repenting, giving alms, prayer, fasting, worshiping and giving thanks for all things so that we, and the rest of creation following, will be transformed and transfigured by Divine Grace.

        These are simple truths but difficult to come to and even more difficult if not impossible to ‘explain’. They are known, to the extent they are known at all only by an encounter with the living God. Revealed rather than learned. Experienced rather than taught discursively.

        Nevertheless, the knowledge is innately in us, as St. Paul points out in Romans, and we are held accountable.

        We must always invite others to come and see, repent and enter into life, taste and experience the divine person of Jesus Christ for He is with us. Do not argue.

        The Creed actually says it all. If someone will not hear the Creed and respond with questions, there is no use in trying to convince for it is like throwing seed on hard ground, nothing will take root and grow.

  5. Ages,

    Creatio ex nihilo has caused many people problems. It is true but it is important to try and understand in what sense it is true. Here’s my two cents but I do not claim that the following is Orthodox doctrine since I’ve never really seen a thorough explication of it. St. Denys is the closest that I’ve come across. It may be that some of it is only understandable in the modern age due to the present state of our understanding of physics.

    You may recall that in Genesis, God creates the heavens and the earth. But there is something mentioned there that lacks an explanation for its creation:

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Genesis 1:1-3)

    So we have God (the Father), who is eternal and uncreated. There is no heaven and earth yet – only empty darkness. And we have the Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit) and we have God’s Word (the Son, “Let there be light!).

    Where did “the waters” come from? No heaven, no earth, not even light as of yet. Yet there are “waters”. One ought to ask, “What kind of waters are these?”, since H2O presumably had not been created.

    Here’s my “stab in the dark”: the waters are the Divine Energy (not Divine Essence, which is already accounted for in the narrative), out of which all things were created. Yet we believe in creatio ex nihilo at the same time as believing that God is everywhere and fills all things and that evil has no ontological reality. All this seems like it ends in a strange contradiction or paradox until you consider that there might be a form of Divine Energy which does not share the property of present existence. It is “real”, but does not manifest “existence” at the present moment. Thus, from it, all could be created “ex nihilo”. We know of such a type of energy on the human plane. We call it “potential energy”. This explanation makes sense on all fronts. It jibes with the account of creation of angels and men we have from the Fathers. It separates creation ex nihilo from its opposite, creation from pre-existing matter. And it distinguishes it from creation from God in His Essence, pantheism.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Misha, makes even more sense when one considers quantum physics. More than one non-theist has seen God acting there in “the waters”

      • Yes, Michael,

        Think of what a Big Bang would have been like. I’m not necessarily talking about 20 billion years ago either, though I’m not married to the idea of young earth creationism – only young life creationism as it pertains to living things. I could see days as eons in the creation of inanimate objects which do not experience time or death. Or the days might be literal 24 hour periods. Doubt is accumulating daily about our ability to accurately measure such things.

        A big bang would have been a burst of incredibly bright light accompanied by the emission of enormous quantities of hydrogen atoms, the first matter. Energy and matter. Light would be the new energy. Hydrogen, the new matter. What does the word “hydrogen” mean? It is Greek for “like water”. I first realized that part of it back in college but the rest of it had to await an Orthodox formation.

        As Palamas tells us, God is Essence and Energy. Thus God is fully present and accounted for at creation in the Genesis narrative if we read the waters as being the uncreated Divine Energy.

        My sense is that in the next decade and a half or so, we will undergo a revolution in our understanding of the origin of our universe and life. Science may be catching up to revelation, ever so slowly. It certainly would not be the first scientific revolution – Ptolemy, Copernicus, Einstein . . . and now the particulars of Einstein are being called into question.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Misha, while I could be wrong I have difficulty attributing a linear process to creation that you description seems to imply especially when one considers the fact that time is mutable.

          There is simply too much going on that we cannot know. That is one reason I really like Tolkien’s analogy of the Creator singing everything into existence. It allows for extensive and subtle layering.

          • I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “linear”. God did reveal Himself to have created the universe on a linear “timeline” of sorts – 6 days or successive periods, take your pick. And I too like the idea of God singing everything into existence. Very poetic. I assume that Genesis was originally intoned as it was read.

            As to mutability and time, that, I think, will be part of the revolution we see in the coming years. There is a deep connection between time and space and in a sense they are forms of the same thing. What we see in looking across vast distances of space is the past and I think possibly, in some way depending on where and how we look, the future (or at least one possible future) as well. It seems to be coming to the attention of scientists that the speed of light may not be the universal speed limit that they have previously thought. Time and space take on a different character when the possibility of ultra-light-speed movement comes into play.


            Now, the interesting thing is that most people and some scientists apparently, seem to look at deep space as a perfect or near perfect vacuum. I.e., they seem to discount the possibility of a travel medium in space through which light must pass and which, therefore, might affect its speed as does water in the above article.

            But what if space is not as empty as we assume? For example, we know that there are hydrogen atoms, few and far between, out there. There was a design for a high speed spacecraft that uses such atoms collected by an enormous front dish which was floated in the late 80’s.



            But what if space is filled with some form of energy, but energy which we, at present, can’t measure? With all due respect to Occam, bear in mind that the only way we really have to measure energy is by its effect on matter. In that way, energy is somewhat like God in His Essence, only really knowable through what He is not, or by the means He chooses to reveal Himself through His Energies (to draw a loose analogy).

            We live in fascinating times.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Misha, yes there is an order to the unfolding of Creation, but each step is interwoven with the previous step and with the step to come as manifestations of His life and energies. It is merely for our convenience that we see it as progressive discreet steps.

              And what is His ‘rest’ ?

              • Michael,

                I don’t understand your question. His “rest” is when He accomplished the particular work of creation He described for the previous six days. This “rest” was a “ceasing” in that sense and provided the prototype of the day of rest for men.

                I think you are concerned that I am trying to “mix” two things best left separate. That is understandable. That’s not exactly what I’m doing, however. Reality is one thing. Two mutually exclusive versions of it cannot both simultaneously be true. Therefore, one is wrong and the other is right to the extent to which they are mutually exclusive. My point is that science seems to be in the process of beginning to modify itself to more accurately reflect the truth – which is related in Scripture. I don’t rely on science to affirm, confirm or maintain my beliefs, and neither should anyone else. Do not put your trust in men or their limited conceptions.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  It is just that some equate His rest with no longer being involved in His Creation. Was not being critical of you.

    • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

      I’ve thought that perhaps the waters (metaphorical for chaos) might the state of the universe after the great rebellion by Lucifer and his followers.

      I don’t think we can call it “potential energy” because potential doesn’t exist apart from being. What came first, the being or potential? The being did. We can’t say God is the being in who the potential resides either because that would collapse the ontological distance between God and creation. Also the ordering of the creation is a function of logoi that came into existence by the speech (the language) of the Logos at the moment those words were spoken. The Logos was the agent of ordering, the logoi the means by which the ordering took shape. This too preserves the ontological ordering since creation is brought into being using language and thereby passing any notion of birth like the pagans employed.

      • Fr. Hans,

        Hmm . . . not sure I can agree with that. I’m not sure the “state of the universe” can be “the waters”. Scripture is clear, “darkness on the face of the abyss”. Seems to indicate no material or light. No mention of disorders wrought by the evil one. Potential energy, or some divine counterpart thereto, could exist within God who actually is but, of course, is also beyond being and non-being. So obviously, the being – i.e., The Being, existed first, eternally in fact. I don’t think it would collapse the ontological distance if we confine ourselves to divine energy of various types. In fact, it is difficult to read Dionysius any other way. Recall that the world was created good and with man’s creation “very good”. No hint of evil at all. Evil, having no ontological reality is more like a disorder or glitch in the program. We may have too jaded an impression of material reality based upon its state after the Fall.

        As to the logoi, you are indeed correct but I did not mean to identify the Son with any particular word but as the Word through Whom the world was created as it states in St. John’s Gospel.

  6. Michael Kinsey says

    The people who do know their God will do exploits., this the Holy Scripture proclaims. Political Correctness will not be able to stop this. Remember to persistance of the wodow before the unjust judge. PERDITION means to give up. Just don’t give up, and offer willing self sacrifice to the Holy God. Be authentic Christianity as the first Christians, for nothing stopped them. God is with us. But, don’t forgit to ask for rest when you are heavly burdened, go unto the Lord Jesus Christ, who will not leave you comfortless. I write from personal experience and as a member of the Royal Priesthood of all authentic Christianity I will assert my right to speak to any at the point of equality. The image and likeness of God inwhich all are given, is not more Divine in one person than any other person. We are human, all fallen short of the perfection of the Royal Law the Christ did fulfill absolutely perfectly. The Saints all compared themselve to the Victorious Lord Jesus ,Christ, and did not consider themselves worthy to loose the strap of His sandel. The greatest born of men , St John the Baptist said this, when comparing himself to Our Lord. St Nathanial, praised for the purity of his honesty, the widow who gave the widows mite, praised by the Lord for her pure love of giving to the Most Holy in obedience. St Martha, seeking the spiritual riches over mundane worldy concerns. These people are the authentic Christians. I suppose I could write for a year, giving more examples. We can Do as they Did ,too. PC be damned!!