A Modern Day Molech and the Dilemma of Unused Frozen Embryos

The worship of the Ammonite god Molech was probably the most grotesque and offensive of all the pagan practices in the land of Canaan prior to Israel’s presence there. Sadly, as Moses had warned (Lev. 20:1-5), the customs of Molech worship did not come to an end when the people of Israel conquered the land. Rather, the nation (Judah in particular) took up the detestable custom in the valley of Hinnom, located to the southwest of the city of Jerusalem.

Molech worship involved the sacrifice of one’s children as a burnt offering on an altar called Topheth. The Scriptures refer to the practice as making sons and daughters “pass through the fire.” King Solomon built altars to Molech, though it is not stated that he offered any of his children on them. King Ahaz did offer his son to Molech, and his grandson, Manasseh, followed suit. The logic of this form of worship seems quite simple. As a sign of gratitude to the deity, a worshipper is to offer his best in return. Molech gave his best to the worshipper, and the worshipper gives his best to Molech.

Of course, there are many reasons that Molech worship is seen as a treacherous offense in the Bible’s discourse, but two reasons in particular stand out for this discussion:

1. Gratitude to Molech is ingratitude to God.The children being offered to Molech were given as a gift and stewardship from Yahweh, not Molech (Psalm 127:3). What was perceived by Molech worshippers as the supreme sign of gratitude was perceived by Yahweh as the supreme sign of ingratitude.
2. Misplaced gratitude and worship serves the purposes of Satan. Though biblical Christians will understand that the so-called god “Molech” is a non-god, we should also recognize that there was a very real “deity” who was delighting in these human sacrifices. The serpent of old, the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) was indeed the delighted deity who loved to see both the worship and the children which belonged to Yahweh being offered instead to him.

Parenting: Early Years Magazine recently published an article entitled “Frozen Dreams” (August 2009). The headline reads: “There are nearly half a million embryos stored across the country – and the couples who created them now wrestle with the options of what to do next.” In the article, Laura Beil discusses the options available to such couples. Three options are presented in the article:

1. Donate to other infertile couples.
2. Donate to medical research.
3. Thawing without donating.

Not discussed separately as an option, but discussed throughout the article is a fourth choice: Have more children, personally or through a surrogate.

Bear in mind that frozen embryos are fertilized eggs. Conception has occurred, even if in a test tube, and if given a suitable womb, that embryo will one day have a name and a face. For a consistent pro-life Christian who is convinced (as I am) that life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13), either #1 above or the choice to have more children are legitimate options. Thawing without donating (#3) seems to be the easiest one to rule out (for the pro-lifer). But what about option #2? Is donation to medical research (embryonic stem cell research) a true “middle ground,” as Beil says some couples suggest?

Stephanie Smith and her husband are presented as a pro-life couple with “religious convictions.” They considered donating to another infertile couple. “The more she and her husband thought about it, however, the more unsettled they became,” says Beil. “She didn’t know if she’d ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers.” Stephanie and her husband resolved their dilemma by donating the embryos to medical research, an act which they considered “a gesture of gratitude to a system that had given them their dreams” (emphasis added). There are many couples like Stephanie and her husband who are comforted by donating to science, even though they know the embryos will not survive. Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly of Duke University says that such couples “feel like they were helped by science and they want to give back” (emphasis added).

Such a trend ought to make the blood of every Christian run cold. To whom is gratitude being offered? To the science which provided the gift of children. What is the expression of gratitude? The offering of the rest of the children.

The name Molech may not be invoked, and formal worship procedures may not be followed. Nevertheless, gratitude is here misplaced. One wonders if the God who grants children as a gift (Psalm 127:3) does not perceive the so-called supreme act of gratitude to science as the supreme act of ingratitude to Himself. One also has to wonder if that same beguiling serpent is not just as delighted in the sacrifice made in the laboratory test tube as in the sacrifice made on Topheth in the valley of Hinnom. After all, whether the gratitude and the children are seen to belong to Molech or science, the chief end of Satan is simply that such not be seen as belonging to Yahweh.