What is everyone's take on this? Personally, I find the practice appalling and something Christians should not practice. However, it became entrenched throughout the English-speaking world, and only began to be abandoned in Commonwealth countries with the adoption of socialized medicine. Rates still are high in the US, and while decreasing, still higher in Canada and Australia than most Christian nations. This is a uniquely Anglophonic cultural issue. As an Anglican, what do you think of it, and is your view specifically influenced by your practice of Anglicanism in any way?
When it was commonly practiced it was a medical issue, not ever a religious one. When Britain had an Empire it made sense to circumcise most males routinely so they could potentially conquer other nations who lived in tropical climates without getting unnecessary genital infections due to lack of genital hygiene. It reduced the possibility of infection, marginally, theoretically. Nowadays it is no longer government policy, the UK having no Empire to subjugate to it's will or exploit. .
There is no official, Anglican position on the subject. That being said, there is a lot of misinformation out there on the subject, and I am not at all sympathetic to your stated view. Anti-circ zealots are right up there with flat-earthers in terms of irrationality as far as I’m concerned.
If you're interested, I'd suggest you look into the medical literature from some European countries and see if they say the same thing.
Well, here’s the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html And the American Academy of Pediatrics: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html And the Mayo Clinic: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550 No European study is going to outweigh the CDC, the AAP, and the Mayo Clinic combined. The facts are that there are real, quantifiable health benefits, these benefits far outweigh the risks (which are few), and when performed as a medical procedure rather than as a religious rite, it has no connection either way to the practice of Christianity, and is a matter of individual or parental choice. It was, however, commanded by God for the Jews, who continue to observe it, and it is practiced for religious reasons by Muslims as well. I am unprepared to thumb my nose at science, at American custom, and at the other Abrahamic religions, in a single stroke.
God commanded Abraham and his descendants to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant between Him and them. Christians are not required to be circumcised, as we plainly read in Acts and in Paul's letters. When my son was born, the hospital personnel noted that his parents stated their religion (on admission paperwork) as Christianity, and on that basis they circumcised my son without our knowledge or consent. I was greatly displeased when I learned that they had assumed they knew what we wanted and performed a medical procedure without consulting us, but at that point what could we do! Given a choice, we would have declined the procedure. It does seem to me that some people have a mistaken belief that Christianity calls for circumcision.
If people are ignorantly and mistakenly assuming that Christians are supposed to be circumcised, can't someone state their view that such ignorance is appalling without being jumped on and called an irrational zealot? I don't understand your strong negative reaction to the way @Melkite feels about this.
Sure, but that’s not what he said. Re-read his original post: he said nothing about Christians thinking they were religiously mandated to practice it (which I agree is false), but instead declared that Christians should not practice it. When another member (correctly) mentioned the health benefits, his comment was dismissed without evidence. My assessment of the OP’s view was accurate. I’ve come across this perspective before. These people think the procedure should be banned (i.e., criminalized), thereby denying the religious freedom of Jews and Muslims, along with the right of parents to make such medical decisions for their children. My toleration for such perspectives is quite low.
I guess I interpret his original post differently. It seemed to me that his concern bore upon the issue of Christians having their boys circumcised for religious reasons. When Christians do this, they are doing something that Paul expressly wrote against. The Judaizers tried to tell the Gentile Christians that they needed to be circumcised, and this was an incorrect legalism. Galatians 5:1-6 says it is wrong for Christians to be circumcised as a means of keeping the law: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. If @Melkite opposed all circumcisions of all males, I think he would not have specified Christians. But because he did specify Christians, I assumed he was implying "Christians being circumcised for religious reasons." I guess we will have to wait for him to clarify what he really means. Personally, I think if a person is convinced that the health issues warrant the performance of a prophylactic circumcision, that person should go ahead (for himself or his son).
He said he found the practice “appalling”. I’m not sure how else to take that other than as a blanket condemnation. And this despite the fact that it was commanded by God for at least some people, and the fact that the health benefits are so well documented that in America at least it’s practically a matter of mere common sense even for the uncompromisingly secular.
You could be right. I hope he will chime in and clarify his thoughts for us. I find it interesting that HIV is playing into this health issue. Back when my son was born, no one had ever heard of HIV or AIDS. (I'm dating myself.) The only thing they talked about back then was the possibility of cancer, and that risk was remote plus largely preventable through proper hygiene. The 'sexual revolution' has really changed things for the worse.
It’s interesting that a 3,000 year old practice has acquired new benefits up to and including the present day. There is something to be said for the Torah’s emphasis on cleanliness and hygiene, and its anticipation of ailments that were unknown at the time.
The main arguments I hear against circumcision are: 1) it is mutilation 2) It was given to the Jews and has been replaced in the Christian epoch by baptism I worked in healthcare for some time and it is waneing in popularity because most health insurance companies will no longer pay for it. It is fairly inexpensive and people who have strong feelings will generally pay out of pocket. My wife had strong feelings opposed to the practice. I've noticed this is fairly pervasive among Latinos. We had girls so it was a moot point.
I was raising the question with interest in how the issue was specifically viewed within the context of Anglicanism, given the peculiar Englishness of its adoption outside of a mandated religious context. Although, Invictus is correct, I do see it as a mutilation and a violation of the boy's rights. I think it is an inherently evil practice, at least after the time of Christ. I don't believe that God actually commanded Abraham to adopt it. Genesis gives two accounts of the covenant with Abraham: one that includes circumcision and one that does not. If one accepts the documentary hypothesis, or any of its derivatives, the account that includes circumcision can be shown to be a later addition. But if I am wrong on that point, and God really did command it, it was commanded to a particular group of people, and only for a set period of time. That time has expired, and most of us never belonged to that group to begin with. For us, I believe it is a sinful destruction of the form God intentionally designed for a purpose. Ideally, I would like to see it banned for minors across the board. However, I recognize that the influence of various Jewish lobbies would make that next to impossible. Most anti-circumcision people are absolute and would not give in any on a ban. I don't like the idea of making an exemption for Jews and Muslims - if circumcision is a violation of a boy's rights, Jewish and Muslim boys' rights would be equally violated by it - but I realize no ban is ever going to happen without that exemption. It probably wouldn't even happen if an exemption were offered. But without it, it never will. I could live with 2% of boys losing their rights if it protects the other 98%. It's better than leaving it up to parental discretion and 60+% of boys lose their rights. Not even the AAP says the benefits far outweigh the risks. Their position is that there are benefits, and that they may outweigh the risks, but not significantly enough to warrant recommending circumcision as a routine procedure. The KNMG stated that the AAP position is based more on American cultural bias in favor of circumcision than on any facts, and your viewpoint seems to carry that same bias. No European study is going to outweigh the CDC, the AAP and the Mayo Clinic combined? The first thing I would say to that is that they are not some divinely inspired trinity of medical organizations. They don't have a particular charism of infallibility, or even greater accuracy inherently. If their findings cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world, then they don't represent science; they represent pseudo-science. The fact is that major medical organizations in the rest of the developed world do not come to the same conclusions on this issue that American organizations do. That calls for criticism. I am not prepared to thumb my nose at the international scientific consensus just because the American stance comes to a different conclusion. The fact that ours does gives credence to the KNMG accusation that our position is culturally biased. (PDF) Cultural Bias in American Medicine: The Case of Infant Male Circumcision (researchgate.net) Prevalence of STDs are higher in the US than non-circumcising developed nations: Prevalence of STDs Across the United States and Europe (superdrug.com) Canada and Denmark recently have independently shown there is no connection between circumcision and protection from HIV or other STDs: Non-therapeutic male circumcision in infancy or childhood and risk of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections: national cohort study in Denmark | SpringerLink Circumcision and Risk of HIV among Males from Ontario, Canada | Journal of Urology (auajournals.org) This is more snake-oil salesmanship than anything. Once a supposed benefit is debunked, circumcision advocates come out with a new one. The history of circumcision in the English-speaking world over the past century and a half is a never-ending cycle of dubious claims, claims debunked, and new dubious claims proposed. To use your language, I have zero tolerance for the, truly, ignorant perspectives that perpetuate a barbaric and needless mutilation. I also have no sympathy for the parental rights angle. It doesn't offer any substantial health benefits; certainly none that can't be acquired equally by far less invasive means. It's unnecessary, and is permanent and irreversible, as is the sexual damage it causes. The parents don't have to experience any of the consequences of their decision, and the boy that does, if he ever realizes as an adult the full extent of what was done to him as an infant, has no recourse to any recovery. The only thing he can do is accept it and suffer it. No parent should have the right to do that to their child because of their, frankly, idiotic preferences.
Thank you for making my point and confirming my suspicions as to your stance. Your counterarguments are non sequiturs, Gen. 17 explicitly describes the covenant including circumcision as an “everlasting covenant” (the documentary hypothesis, which I also accept, does not dictate the exegesis of the text in its final, canonical status), and I find your other statements to be offensive and irrational. In any case, the facts simply do not matter to the anti-circ zealots, and there is really no point in debating the subject. Neither of us is going to change the other’s mind, and I’m going to trust trained doctors with no ax to grind a lot more than some overzealous partisan on the internet. I also cannot condone a position that if implemented would discriminate against Jews and Muslims as well as interfere with the rights of parents. Your view is a combination of bad theology, bad science, and bad law.
As you said, it is a cultural norm in the US, so I've never given it much thought from a religious standpoint. I suppose this falls under the adiaphora category in my mind....much like cremation, vaccination, blood/organ donation, tattos, piercings etc. I can see how someone could have scruples on the topic but I don't.