Environmentalism; The New Molech Worship

Unborn ChildThe worship of Molech was a religion practiced in the nations that surrounded the biblical Israelites and eventually perverted and seduced them away from their own worship of Yahweh. The word “Molech” is a variation of the Hebrew word for king, and indicates that there is at least an element of worship of the head of state or the state itself, not unlike radical environmentalism, which looks to government to implement its religious vision of earth worship. The worship of Molech included the ritual sacrifice of live children by placing them in the arms of a bronze idol which had been heated by fire inside. The idol would raise the children by mechanical means to its mouth which opened with the raising of the arms and then the scalded child was consumed by the flames as it tumbled into the idol. Molech was a god of nature, specifically the sun and the bounty it brought to the earth.

An interesting article recently ran in Britain’s Daily Mail online edition. The article, Meet the women who won’t have babies – because they’re not eco friendly, reports on women who are so devoted to environmentalism that they have had themselves sterilized, in some cases after having aborted their babies in order to “…[help] save the planet.”

Save it from what exactly is never discussed in detail. We do not say this completely tongue-in-cheek. If movements that proclaim that they are “saving” something are sincere they explain not only what they are saving but from what they are saving it in detail and how they plan to do it. The so-called environmental movement offers only broad brush swipes at “environmental criminals,” junk science and rigged studies (e.g. Dr. Michael Mann’s discredited, if not infamous, “Hockey Stick” global surface temperature studies) and sweeping government controls based on the preceding.

We Have Met The Enemy...In 1970 Walt Kelly, the cartoonist who drew the “Pogo” comic strip, created a poster (ironically for the first Earth Day, the high holiday of the new-old worship of the created earth in place of the Creator) stating that “We have met the enemy and he is us.” It is precisely this nutshell illustration of the environmentalist philosophy, carried out to its logical absurdity, that is driving these “eco-warriors” to kill their babies and permanently mutilate themselves.

Many op-ed writers and bloggers are viewing this in a humorous light. They find it funny that that the women and men in question have willingly removed themselves from the gene pool and so will not be passing their suicidal faith along to offspring. They fail to see the forest for the trees. The book of Proverbs (8:36) tells us

But he who sins against me injures himself;
All those who hate me love death.

The underlying philosophy of these extremist environment worshippers is in diametric opposition to biblical faith. Christians believe that the earth was created specifically for human habitation and that man was given dominion over it, with instructions to subdue it while practicing good stewardship of its resources. Extremist environmentalists view man as an infectious agent, like a parasite or virus, infecting the living Mother Earth with a debilitating if not fatal illness. In order for for Mother Earth to be restored to paradisical perfection her infection must be killed. Being highly intelligent but possessing a perverse worldview, these eco-warriors are able to follow their philosophy out to its logical end-point. Having rejected the existence of God, and selected Mother Earth to take His place, there is no one capable of killing off the parasite except the parasite itself.

It is precisely the elimination of the human race is the target at which radical environmentalists are aiming. But it is not enough for these radicals to eliminate their own offspring. Being highly intelligent they realize that this will do nothing but end their own particular blood lines and their mission. Their goal then must be to evangelize others to their radical faith and convince them that they must also eliminate their own unborn and sterilize themselves. These radicals have an advantage. Having no children and being mostly highly intelligent and professionally successful they possess two things that faithful Christians who are consistent with their own worldviews do not. Time and money. This gives the radicals plenty of resources to bring as tithes and offerings to their temples of worship, the radical environmental groups who proselytize the pre-believers in high schools and college campuses. These pre-believers who have been softened to the message by a media barrage of propaganda disseminated by teachers, musicians, actors, politicians and even apostate Christians clergy, anyone who might represent themselves as authorities and demand that the teachings of parents and other authorities who question the radical ideas presented be rejected as environmental heresies.

Those who would treat eco-radicals as mere buffoons who are committing philosophical suicide would do well to stop snickering long enough to look closely at the big picture. Yes, they’re killing off their own posterity but they’re actively working to do the same to yours and they are beginning to make strong inroads in schools and college campuses, where there is a non-stop assault on parental authority to soften the ground for later plowing and planting of new beliefs.

Do not despair, however. Christians have their own advantage. A far more powerful advantage than mere money or time. We have a sovereign God who answers prayer and honors obedience. But for this to work we must be in prayer and be obedient to His mandates for evangelism and raising godly children.

And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. (Luke 19:13, KJV)

Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6, NASB)

2 thoughts on “Environmentalism; The New Molech Worship”

  1. I agree that sterilizing oneself for environmental reasons is foolish. But what about people who already have a lot of kids and don’t think that they could responsibly take care any more? What about people who think that tribulation is coming soon (and that there will be no pre-trib rapture), and therefore think that it would be cruel to bring a child into the world at this point in history? Matthew 19:12 speaks of those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” and I Corinthians 7 speaks of the idea that it is better not to marry unless you can’t control yourself (presumably because one can devote oneself more fully to work of the LORD if one does not have to be preoccupied with pleasing one’s spouse or raising children).

  2. Matt,

    Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the point. Is sterilization a legitimate method of birth control? Yes it is. Is it self-mutilation? Yes it is. Is it specifically forbidden biblically? No, but it is interesting that one of the OT ceremonial laws prohibits men with damaged testicles from entering the tent of meeting. Does that law apply today? No, mostly because it symbolized imperfection in the body of God’s chosen people. So, sterilization is a matter of conscience. If a person believes that God’s Word can be interpreted as stating that this form of birth control is permissible then their conscience can be clear before God.

    As for the passages warning against having babes at the breast during the tribulation period; that applied to the people of the first century who were being warned of the indescribable horrors of the (then) coming holocaust of 70 AD.

    Had Christians stopped bearing children because there was a belief among them that Christ was coming soon and things would be too rough for the kids, then there would have been no Christian children born from the end of the first century on. That’s about how long end-times speculators have been predicting “the end” is coming soon. All new Christians would have to be converts. The idea of a rapture (pre-, post- and mid-tribulational), as it is currently taught by Dispensationalists, is a relatively recent innovation, about 170 years old.

    The passage in Matthew doesn’t seem to imply castration as much as a pledge of celibacy, though I’m not necessarily prepared to dismiss the latter entirely. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, agrees with my assessment, though. Paul understood that it is the nature of man to desire the opposite sex and that marriage is the natural state of man. It is also God’s plan for man to marry and procreate, so it is difficult to take from the passages cited that Paul is making a rigorous case for sterilization or even abstinence. He’s making the case that while he’d like all men to be as devoted to spreading the Gospel as himself, it’s better to be married than to burn with lust, which jibes with the rest of the Bible’s teachings on human sexuality.

Comments are closed.