“Public schools are prisons!”
“Breastfeeding a 2 year old is sick!”
“I can’t believe they let their 8 year old go biking alone. It’s so dangerous!”
We human beings sometimes criticize each other harshly, particularly when it comes to a subject we can feel very defensive about: parenting decisions.
Most of us are mature enough to not resort to this, but it does happen. The media amplifies this negative behavior to grab attention and get lots of views and comments on their articles about the “mommy wars.”
This is the message the media presents: There are few different kinds of parents. Maybe just two.
- All-natural hippie moms breastfeed, don’t let their kids eat sugar, knit their own mittens out of organic wool they harvested themselves, and probably leave their son’s penis all-natural as well.
- Mainstream moms give their child antibiotics when they are sick, serve chicken nuggets and juice boxes for lunch, move baby to their own room after a few weeks, and probably have their sons circumcised if Dad is.
Maybe you have heard other stereotypes about moms of a certain income level, age, or part of the country. Of course, people don't really fall into neat boxes like this. There isn’t one perfect way to raise a child, and if there was, no one would attain to it because we are all human beings who fall short daily.
If you were to put me in a box, I’d probably fall towards the all-natural hippie moms stereotype.
Made elderberry syrup for a sick child? Check. Nursed a preschooler and a newborn at the same time? Yep. Fermented my own probiotic-rich sauerkraut? Uh-huh. Own a house with solar panels? That’s me. I'll leave the rest to your imagination. But I also really like donuts and drive most places … so much for the box.
Anyway, making a few “natural” choices early on in my parenting career did get the ball rolling. Research led me to believe that my body was well-designed for giving birth, and fussing with the process when nothing is wrong can just introduce more risks.
So it made sense to believe the same thing about my sons’ bodies: they are well-designed, and altering them when nothing is wrong just introduces more risks. And indeed my research showed that there is no medical or hygiene advantage to circumcision, as most medical professionals in the world know.
Here’s the thing: I don’t advocate “one way” for most parenting choices. For example:
- Giving birth without interventions isn’t everyone’s goal, and for some people it isn’t an option or wouldn’t be a wise choice.
- Some families may be able to maintain an overall stewardship of their health and include a few less-healthy treats, and some find they need to be more strict in what they allow in their diet.
- Families choose public school, private school, homeschooling or a mix of those based on a multitude of factors including what’s available, schedule, finances, and educational needs of the child.
I wouldn’t advocate “one way” in birth, diet, or education, and Scripture gives guidance but not a prescribed way, either. All of those decisions are important and deserve research, discussion, and prayer, but there are a variety of paths that are honoring to God in those areas of life.
So why don’t I accept circumcising or not circumcising as both legitimate options for parents to choose? Isn’t every family different? Isn’t it extreme, judgmental and divisive to say that Christians ought not to have their sons’ or daughters’ genitals cut?
My goal, and the goal of Little Images, isn’t to judge people’s standing before God for past actions. Thankfully, Jesus’ death and resurrection covers the hurtful things we have done in the past, whether we meant them to be hurtful or just acted in ignorance. But we do want to get this message out there loud and clear:
- there is no medical advantage to circumcision,
- there is no Biblical or spiritual obligation to do it,
- the losses and short- and long-term harms caused by circumcision are simply not worth it, and
- cutting a healthy child's body for purely cultural reasons conflicts with the teaching of Scripture and the church throughout history.
That’s why it doesn’t fall into the realm of parental choice, parental rights, or parenting style.
Leaving children’s genitals whole: it’s not just a thing for all-natural families. It’s a thing for all Christian families.
- Little Images 2019 Survey Results - October 11, 2019
- Unplanned: One Parent’s Take on the Movie - May 10, 2019
- Play by the rules, kids. - January 28, 2019
Christine Hubel says
I completely agree!
Sylvia Joy Swan says
Great post Hannah!! 🙂
Antonio says
This article ought to be shared world wide. Just because society has accepted circumcision it doesnt mean the god accepts it as a procedure or love.
Hannah Gloria says
Amen!!
Jennifer Downing Doughty says
“Leaving children’s genitals whole: it’s not just a thing for all-natural families. It’s a thing for all Christian families.”💙
#GodDoesNotMakeMistakes #BoysDeservetoBeWhole
Psalms 139:14
Anne Hooyer says
The American Academy of Pediatricians has come out with the recommendations that the benefits of circumcision out weighs the risks. Circumcision was prevalent in the Bible. I don’t think it is fair to say God opposes this. The choice to circumcise should ultimately be the parents, but the benefits are definitely present.
Joseph says
Thanks for writing, Anne.
Your key statement is that circumcision *was* prevalent in the Bible. However, when Christ fulfilled the covenant of the old law with His death on the cross, the practice became obsolete. We have written extensively about how the practice was completely discouraged by the early church fathers.
In response to your statement about the AAP’s recommendations, it appears you might have fallen for a common misconcepton. The AAP doesn’t go so far as to recommend the procedure, but they word it as such to make it seem OK so that it doesn’t completely dissuade insurance companies from dropping coverage. There have been many writeups from ethicists and doctors regarding the AAP’s stance, such as the rebuttal printed in Pediatrics (retrievable here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896), or this writeup by prominent ethicist Bryan Earp: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/
We at Little Images believe that it is not God’s will for circumcision to have continued at all. Please check out our website. Explore our blog. Read some papers at i2researchhub.org.
We believe that the more you learn about this issue, the less likely you are to agree that any parent has the right to decide to do this to their son.
-Joe
Sylvia RN MSN NP-C says
Also Biblical circumcision was minor – it left most of the foreskin intact- compared to the modern version that removes the entire foreskin. The foreskin was NOT a mistake by our creator God and does NOT make a man “dirtier” or “unhealthy”. In fact it has many purposes- including protective, as well as thousands of fine touch nerve endings(that are not found anywhere else in the penis). Also estrogen receptors, which scientists still are researching. By the way, the AAP does not recommend routine circumcision- only state that it’s benefits MAY outweigh the risks. However this is drastically different from all other medical organizations that recommend against circumcision. The AAP has been called “culturally biased” by doctors around the globe- because they have monetary incentive to perform circumcision, as well as many doctors have no clue regarding the purpose and function of the foreskin.
Brandi says
I do not accept this stance as a solid Christian perspective. Yes, Christ fulfilled the Law, and circumcision among other things is no longer required of us. However, the fact that God commanded it for his children completely does away with your thought that circumcision is wrong. God would not have commanded something that was wrong. Period.
You are also forgetting that God addressed circumcision in the New Testament when Paul had questions about it, and God sid not condemn either side of that argument. The only thing he condemned was the judgement by Jews of those who chose not to because So it seems that in your judgment on this matter you are wrong. It is not for you to say whether circumcision is a right decision or a wrong one. It was Gods own invention after all, and He clearly does not stand in judgement on that decision, so you shouldn’t either.
Hannah says
Thanks for reading and commenting Brandi,
I appreciate that you are looking at this issue from a perspective of reading the Bible!
Due to the short nature and scope of this blog post, I didn’t fully describe that the circumcision practiced in the Old Testament (which you rightly conclude is no longer required of us) was quite less extensive than what is practiced now and did not remove functionality.
The rabbis after the time of Christ *added* to God’s command of circumcision, removing the whole covering of the glans instead of being a relatively minor mark/cut. Please browse around here: https://www.littleimages.org/how-mgm-started/ to see more of the history. This painful addition was known about and soundly condemned by Christians in the past such as Martin Luther.
My belief is that since any type of circumcision is not required by our faith, and modern circumcision has many more harms and risks than what was *ever* asked by God, we need to treat it just like we would treat the removal of other body parts. In other words, we should only remove it when absolutely necessary due to disease, injury, etc. The practice of removing the whole foreskin of a newborn in order to fit in, look like Dad, or supposedly prevent infection, is an unnecessary pain and loss to the child.
I encourage you to look around the whole site and read the info we have here!
If you have any specific questions please let us know and we can try to answer them or address them in a future blog post.
-Hannah
Sylvia RN MSN NP-C says
Also, look at other commands from the Old Testament – animal sacrifice, stoning of rebellious children, and the slaughter of entire cities, man, woman, and child. Can we perform those commands today and still say they are acceptable? No- they are no longer to be performed. And are you following all of the feasts that God commanded? I don’t see how Christians pick out ONLY infant circumcision to follow from the Old Covenant, while ignoring all the rest. And again, as Hannah pointed out, Biblical circumcision was different from modern. God created the foreskin for several functions- it wasn’t designed to be cut entirely off even during Old Covenant times.
Not Yours to Cut says
God commanded plenty of things in the Old Testament that are wrong except when carried out by a certain people (the Jewish people) at a certain time (before the coming of Christ).
Read Deuteronomy 21:18-21 for example. Are you seriously going to argue that it’s not wrong today to stone your rebellious child?
Genital mutilation is no different.
Not Yours to Cut says
Some would, of course, not strictly say this period ends at the coming of Christ (who fulfilled the Law) but that there was a short intermediate period for Jews for some time after Christ’s death. But that is for theologians to debate; you understand the point, I hope.