The Sky is Falling!—Religious Roots of the Prophesied Green Apocalypse

Why do liberals always claim the heavens are coming down? From where originates the idea the Earth is on the verge of total destruction because of mankind's sins? Thankfully, we can answer this question quite easily. In fact, no unbiased, or well-crafted study has ever proved that Earth is about to be destroyed. So what is the source of this pernicious and reckless fear-mongering? Surprisingly, (or perhaps not) the prophesied apocalypse is borrowed from the Bible writers from such books as Revelation by rank secularists intent on making their own beliefs memorable, important and highly dramatic.

Environmentalists are part of the Millenarian (thousand-year period) movement because of their fixation with apocalypse and the coming paradise on Earth. In fact, all groups which prophecy a non-traditional apocalypse tend to fall into this group. For example, a main reason the Branch Davidians burned up in the fight with the feds is their leader David Koresh had developed a fatalistic, end-of-the-world view which saw them dying in an apocalyptic scenario. This article examines the religious foundation of these highly humanistic, radical environmental groups.

I. Evangelical & Messianic Environmentalism

The modern environmental movement cannot be ignored for several reasons. First, it habitually claims the Earth is on the verge of total collapse or destruction--implying it holds facts which clearly support this claim. Second, with all of the protests and sabotage, how could anyone miss them? But perhaps the most characteristic aspect of these groups is their holier than Mao demeanor, presenting themselves as holy and religious in an ominous, judgmental, and vengeful manner. Overall, while eschewing traditional biblical dogma, these folks front an obviously spiritual story about the purpose of life.

---

Martha F. Lee describes these groups in Earth First!, Environmental Apocalypse as essentially Millenarian in nature, meaning having a pseudo-Christian nature and fixation with paradise on Earth. This is first seen in their moral approach to environmentalism, in how they claim to be able to judge men's sins against the Earth. Second, this is seen in the apocalyptic claims of these groups--that we are all doomed to die unless we change our sinful attack against the Earth. And third, in the millenarian aspect--being that peace on earth can be attained if we purify ourselves. Bron Taylor's The Religion and Politics of Earth First! examines the beliefs of radical environmental groups, unearthing both religious and political elements. Taylor writes in Earth and Nature-Based Spirituality (Part II):

Although participants in these countercultural movements often eschew the label religion, these are religious movements, in which persons find ultimate meaning and transformative power in nature. Focusing on the deep ecology movement, I further argued that (1) experiences of nature spirituality are evoked by practices as diverse as mountaineering, neo-shamanic ritualising and states of consciousness induced by hallucinogens; (2) earthen spiritualities are often contested and may be viewed as inauthentic or dangerous by practitioners of other forms of nature spirituality, and (3) despite significant diversity, a sense of connection and belonging to nature (sometimes personified as a transforming if not transcendent power) unites these cross-fertilising, and sometimes competing, spiritualities.

Lee explains the religious elements of the environmental movement:

While most Earth First!ers reject organized religion, the foundation of the movement lies in “a radical ‘ecological consciousness’ that intuitively, affectively and deeply experiences a sense of the sacredness of interconnection of all life.

Lee claims that while religious symbolism is clear in these movements, the political aspect is more prominent, This combination of religion and political elements should not surprise us as it is quite common for leftists to appeal to either political theories, or religious ideas, depending upon their need to persuade.

II. Deep Ecology & Agenda 21

A. Deep Ecology

Both Bron Taylor and Martha F. Lee mention Deep Ecology as being the essential core of modern environmentalism, but what is it? The term comes from an influential article by Arne Naess:

Arne Naess invented the term deep ecology in a famous 1973 article, "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary." By "ecology movement" Naess means a cosmology or worldview. Naess faults European and North American civilization for the arrogance of its human-centered instrumentalization of nonhuman nature. He contrasts his new "deep" (or radical) ecological worldview with the dominant "shallow" (or reform) paradigm. The shallow worldview, which he finds to be typical of mainstream environmentalism, is merely an extension of European and North American anthropocentrism--its reasons for conserving wilderness and preserving biodiversity are invariably tied to human welfare, and it prizes nonhuman nature mainly for its use-value. The deep ecological worldview, in contrast, questions the fundamental assumptions of European and North American anthropocentrism-- that is, it digs conceptually deeper. In doing so, deep ecological thinking "is not a slight reform of our present society, but a substantial reorientation of our whole civilization". This radicalism has inspired environmental activists of many stripes to hoist up Deep Ecology as their banner in calling for nothing less than the redirection of human history.

B. Biocentrism

According to Lee, Deep Ecology reject superficial anthropomorphic, aka man-centered, environmentalism. Instead, it focuses upon biocentrism as the center of "deep ecology." Biocentrism considers all life as having equal value, and therefore an equal right to life and living space. Writes Lee:

In its most basic form, deep ecology demands that human beings reevaluate their relationship with the environment in such a way as to acknowledge that both human and non-human life have an intrinsic moral worth. In adopting a deep ecology perspective, one moves from the anthropocentric of industrialized society to what is believed to be an ecologically responsible biocentrism. The philosophy also predicts that if things continue as they presently are, crisis will result, and thus include an imperative to action.

C. Bible Believers as Earth Killers

So, the religion of environmentalism rejects both the Christian religion, and the related idea that the Earth was made for man as his home, to be watched over and tended--as is claimed in the Book of Genesis. A highly influential essay on this topic was written by Lynn White which basically blamed the problems on Earth on the Jewish and Christian religions in The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. One writer sums up White's thesis:

Many of our environmental problems could be traced to the Christian notion that God gave this Earth to humans for their use and specifically directed humans to exercise dominion over the Earth and all of its life forms. While it is questionable that this is what White intended, the effect of the piece has been to serve as an indictment of Christianity as the source of our environmental problems, and to render laughable the idea that Christianity might have anything to contribute to our environmental crisis. As essayist Wendell Berry has observed, "the culpability of Christianity in the destruction of the natural world and uselessness of Christianity in any effort to correct that destruction are now established cliches of the conservation movement."

The clear implication of White's thesis is the answer to the Earth's problems is to return to a more pagan view of our cosmos. Ironically, Dave Foreman, who created Earth First! wrote in a 1980 memo called A Statement of Principles: "Earth is Goddess and the proper object of human worship," writes Lee.

D. Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is the socialist flavored United Nations program seeking to make the planet sustainable (see A Brief History & Description of Agenda 21). This presumes the Earth will die without a radical fix, making it a classic apocalyptic environmental program looking for a millennial solution. The remedy includes mass relocation of humans, creation of vast spaces for lost animal species, a reduction in the size of the economy, and stripping humans of civil and property rights. Finally, Agenda 21 aims to reduce human populations by 50% to make a "sustainable" planet. Rewilding calls for taking back massive blocks of land for nature is a quintessential example of biocentric values (see Rewilding Network-Saving Globe Through Big Wilderness: Another UN Agenda 21 Hoax). In other words, all animals are equal--so mankind must be relocated to allow other animals to thrive. Population reduction is the opposite of "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)

III. Apocalypse

Modern environmentalism is founded upon the idea that the Earth is on the absolute verge of destruction. In fact, this conviction is what gives these groups their holy urgency and their statements a rush of adrenaline. But there are several problems with the idea that the universe demands an imminent apocalypse. First, this belief is not an inescapable conclusion from scientific data that any fair-minded observer must accept. To the contrary, the Earth does not appear on the brink of disaster. Contra, the only way to gather this conclusion is to absorb large amounts of highly-biased leftist propaganda. Second, the idea of an apocalypse is taken from Christian sources, and so does not even have the requisite structure to be a part of humanist environmental beliefs. The Book of Revelation, last book of the New testament, is also known as the Apocalypse of John, aka the "Unveiling of John." The Book of Revelation is famed for its colorful and violent symbolism, which prophecies the end of the world. This is when God re-enters the world in a powerful way, and many unique events occur which end the world as we know it. While such a disaster is obviously attractive to humanist radicals, there is no reason for them to call down a humanistic apocalypse--after all, who would deliver it?!!

IV. Millenarianism & Marxism--Thousand Year Reign of Humanism

The Nazis in boasting their Third Reich would last a thousand years, were at least nominal millenarians. So the fixation on the millennium is quite widespread in the political realm. Martha F. Lee has a useful description of millenarinism as it applied to radical environmentalists. She writes,

The term millenarian, derived from the Book of Revelation (20:4), implies the Christian mythic tradition of a chosen people, united by their faith in the return of Christ and their anticipation of a thousand-year period of glory. Such doctrines combine religious faith and political imperatives in a powerful way. They capture the human imagination and allegiance through the promise of a perfect world that transcends the secular state.

In a fascinating exchange described by Lee, termed the "Anarchy Debate," radical environmentalists--such as Edward Abbey, eco-terrorism's patron saint--argued over what a post-enviromental apocalyptic world would resemble. Inexorably, the discussion turned towards "social justice," or a Marxist interpretation of the new world. The world described by the radicals was a return to primitive tribalism, where bureaucracy would not obscure every person having to stand up for their own actions. And all goods would be held communally. It is not accidental that Lee describes how religious and political symbolism in the radical environmental movement are interchangeable because this is the nature of Marxism. Everything is debased and sacrificed for use by the state. At the same time, everything is ultimately political in nature. The fact that the post-apocalyptic world of Foreman and others was one of "social justice," with a primitive tribal economy where all would share everything is quintessential Marxism. There is a strand of anarchy in the environmental movements that appears taken right out of Karl Marx's theory of the three stages, where the last evolution is into a kind of benign anarchy. So many environmentalists exhibit a kind of fatalistic idea that even if society did die while battling global warming, etc--humankind will be reborn into a kind of minimalist paradise. Further, the same kind of Marxism which infects leftist thinking regarding environmentalism and "social justice" is identified by Thomas Flanagan in Millennial Visions: Essays on Twentieth-Century Millenarianism, as a religion, or a kind of anti-religion, in structure and ideology.

Conclusion

Ultimately, we have a battle between two conflicting views. Traditional religion teaches mankind is made in God's image, and therefore has a set and predictable human nature. The other opinion, represented by the radical humanist environmentalists, tends toward atheism, and sees humans as on the same level as every other animal. Which do you believe?