Christian refusal to sanction the mutilation of children is "problematic"

Matt Walsh has broken a huge scandal at Vanderbilt Hospital in Tennessee, where a "Trans Clinic" has been pushing "gender affirming" surgeries (double mastectomies, full hysterectomies, etc.) on minor children. The video and documentary evidence are blatant and horrifying. And the horror gets worse: Christians and others who object to this practice face "consequences" if they speak out.

This goes beyond the usual crazy leftism and into the realm of pure demonic evil. This sort of madness is rampant in American cities now: in schools, in businesses, in hospitals, in the government. And these demons will do everything they can to expel Christian voices so they can continue their butchery without interference. Their sacrifices to Moloch will continue until they are actively stopped.

This is not hysteria, or a "conspiracy theory", or "Christian nationalism", or whatever other leftist trope you want to name. This is absolute, abyssal, indefensible evil, a stench in the nostrils of God. Sodom and Gomorrah were razed down to the ground for less.

Christians cannot be absent from this fight. There is no defense of this evil, no looking away, no pretending. If we do not stand against this, and do everything we can to protect the most innocent among us, then we deserve the judgment that God will most assuredly lay upon us.

Lev. 18:21: "You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God; I am the LORD."

Lev. 20:3-5: "I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech."

Jer. 32:35: "They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

Matt. 19:13-15: "Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.' And he laid his hands on them and went away."

UPDATE: Here's a YT link if you don't have Apple Podcast software.

 

I have no confidence that Christians will stand up to this. Circumcision was the beginning of our national decline into Molech worship. You offered up your sons wholesale to demonic mutilation with barely a peep in resistance. Granted, what we're talking about here is much more severe than circumcision. But that's how I know America will do nothing. If you didn't resist offering a pinch of incense to Molech the past 70-100 years, why do you think you're going to start now? All mutilation is of Satan: both the severe and the seemingly mild. What's happening to children now isn't your last warning to repent; it's your judgement for not turning against evil before.

 

You do realise of course that every one of those boy children that Jesus 'laid hands upon', had been circumcised, and there may even have also been some girls among them, ( though that would have been most unlikely at that time ), who obviously weren't.

Jesus was himself circumcised. I don't see any indication in scripture alluding to the parents of Jesus Christ, (quote) "offering sacrifices to Moloch" or of Jesus Christ himself accusing the parents of the children that he 'laid hands upon' of: " offering sacrifices to Moloch".

The laddie doth protest too much, methinks. Apologies to Hamlet and Shakespeare.

By all means pass laws and enforce them to prevent enforced gender transformational surgery performed without the personally expressed consent of the patient.

Circumcision, in my opinion does not fall into this category though, either for strictly medical or specifically religious obligation.
.

 

I had hoped that everyone here would understand the difference between circumcision and genital mutilation, but apparently (and sadly) not. So, I will explain.

1. God ordained circumcision for the Hebrews as part of his Law (Gen. 17:10-12)*. It cannot be wrong because God himself ordained it for those men living under the Law. It cannot be an abomination because God cannot command an abomination against himself. God ordained it as a sign and seal of the relationship between the Hebrew people and their God. It forms the fundamental metaphor of this relationship, even into the New Testament era (e.g., Rom. 2:25).
2. Circumcision is not required for Christians not because it is bad or wrong (it isn't), but because we live under the covenant of grace and not the covenant of the Law as the Hebrews did...and do).
3. Circumcision does not affect the physical or sexual function of the male except in cases where the mohel made a serious mistake. It also does not prevent the male from fathering children or experiencing a normal childhood and adulthood.
4. Many western nations until recently mandated male circumcision for health or sanitary reasons. These reasons have turned out to be spurious, but this mistake is why you should treat any medical claims of necessity with extreme caution. The medical field is no less prone to social manias or fads than anyone else.

If you call circumcision wrong or sinful in all cases, you accuse God and thus commit heresy. It is not wrong for Christians (after all, Paul asked Timothy to be circumcised in order to better minister to unconverted Jews - Acts. 16:3); it is simply unnecessary from a salvific standpoint.

Transgender mutilation is an abomination because it goes against God's plan for men and women. It destroys the natural function of the male or female body, and replaces it with a grotesque (and non-functional) simulacrum of the opposite sex. It destroys the ability of the person to conceive and bear children. It causes severe health problems that are chronic and often require expensive and continuing care over the transsexual's entire life. The treatment shortens life and reduces the quality of life in many ways (due both to mental and physical effects arising from hormone imbalances, infections, and so forth). It ruins rather than repairs the body. It does not cure illness but rather implants it, permanently.

No Christian should ever countenance this butchery for anyone, let alone a minor child. There is nothing Christian in it. To the extent that the transsexual is suffering from mental illness, it is a demonic act of harm to that person, taking advantage of their illness. And any physician who practices it is committing a crime against humanity, a crime that would be punished by lengthy terms in prison if our civilization were not so sunk in evil by this point. But whether human law acts against these creatures or not, God's justice for this outrage is certain.

*Bear in mind, because this is important: God commands circumcision as part of the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic. Therefore it is not a ceremonial law but a covenantal one.

 

Also, there is no evidence that Jews have ever practiced female circumcision.

 

Why should they?
I wasn't even trying to imply that. There was never any scriptural edict that they should undergo any such procedure unlike males.

Presumably though the scripture requiring all male children to be circumcised as the sign and seal of the Covenant is 'inspired'. If you are Jewish there is no exemption from the requirements of Almighty God under the terms of the original Covenant. Though it is passing away for those who are in Christ Jesus, it still stands for all those who still remain under The Law.
.

 

I'll try not to belabor the point too much, but:

Circumcision is certainly a form of genital mutilation. This is not rationally disputable.

The circumcision God ordained was significantly less damaging than the circumcision practiced in the West today. So it doesn't follow that American circumcision is not genital mutilation if Abrahamic circumcision wasn't. I imagine you probably recognize all forms of FGM as truly genital mutilation. The most common forms are significantly less damaging than either modern or Abrahamic. So you can't logically call a lesser modification mutilation if you're not willing to recognize mutilation in those forms more severe than it. Also, I'm not sure God ordaining it means it's not a mutilation. Not sinful, sure, but is God prohibited from ordaining mutilation? If he had ordained foot-binding, would that practice cease to be mutilation because he ordained it? Does the eradication of the Canaanites cease to be genocide because God ordained it?

Circumcision verifiably and measurably affects physical and sexual function. Your third point is plainly false. The only argument you could make is that the effects are not significant enough to be debilitating. Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it's not. But circumcision does make complete sexual function impossible. There's a difference between perfect and sufficient sexual function.

No Western nations have ever mandated circumcision. Only English-speaking nations have ever introduced the practice on a wide scale.

 

What point are you trying to make here? Is Jewish circumcision bad or sinful or evil in your view? If so, how so? Was Paul committing a sin by asking Timothy to undergo circumcision? If not, why not?

My point is that circumcision is an act commanded by God upon his Jewish (male) people, and thus conforms to God's design. Christians are not bound under the Abrahamic covenant, and thus are not bound to circumcise. The practice is not evil or wrong for Jewish males, and is unnecessary for everyone else.

If you have a problem with the medical practice of circumcision in a secular society, then you are preaching to the choir. I agree that it is based on flawed science and should not be done.

 

My original point was that forced genital mutilation for transgender purposes is a moral extension of our culture adopting circumcision as a cultural practice. Because of the physical differences, I think modern circumcision is a different issue than the circumcision Jesus and the apostles would have been familiar with. So I see the question of the morality of that circumcision as irrelevent to the question of whether modern circumcision is an objective moral evil.

 

I think it has much more to do with the normalization of deviant sexual behavior rather than circumcision. I can’t imagine how what was (and is, though less frequently) a “hygienic” procedure has somehow led to mass sex-change mania. It don’t quite follow.

 

You're not able to see the connection because you recognize validity in the cultural justification for circumcision but not transgender surgeries. I am certain if you asked a supporter of these surgeries or abortion, they would think you were insane for connecting them with Molech worship. Like them, you don't see the connection because you have blinders on.

To be clear: I'm in no way saying circumcision is morally equivalent to sex-change operations or abortions. It's just one of the first stepping stones down that long path of Molech worship. In fact, some anthropologists have argued circumcision was instituted as a covenant to help back the Israelites out of child-sacrifice as they cleaved from the Canaanites socially and religiously. Circumcision allowed them to keep a degree of child and blood sacrifice in their lives.

 

There is absolutely no historical evidence that this is true, and the theory is mainly advanced by non-believers in any case.

Circumcision was ordained by the Lord God as part of the Abrahamic covenant. Rejection of circumcision as a divinely ordained covenant observance is rejection of both the Jewish and the Christian faith. (Either that, or a rejection of the Old Testament as divinely-inspired Scripture, which is Marcionism.)

I understand that you have an atavistic aversion to the practice, but it's damaging your theology. Circumcision was ordained by God as a sign and seal of his covenant with Abraham. No believing Hebrew or Jew, then or after, ever considered it anything else. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself was circumcised (the Anglican Holy Day of the Circumcision is celebrated on Jan. 1). I say again: there is nothing wrong with circumcision, for nothing ordained by God can be wrong. It is simply unnecessary for Christians who now live under the new covenant.

Don't allow your personal dislike of the practice to cloud the theological importance of it.

EDIT: You would do well to read Paul's letter to the Romans, particularly as regarding the value of circumcision.

 

CIRCUMCISION.

I. In the Old Testament

The OT gives a coherent account of the origin and practice of circumcision in Israel.

a. Origin and occurrence

It is alleged that Ex. 4:24ff. and Jos. 5:2ff., along with Gn. 17, offer three different accounts of the origin of the rite, but, in fact, Ex. 4: 24ff. can hardly be explained unless infant or child circumcision was already an established practice, and Jos. 5:2ff. states that those who left Egypt were circumcised. Gn. 17 remains as the sole biblical account of the origin of Israelite circumcision. It was integrated into the Mosaic system in connection with the Passover (Ex. 12:44), and apparently continued throughout the OT (e.g. Je. 9:25-26). It is a foundation feature of NT Judaism, and occasioned the Judaistic controversies of the apostolic period. The Jews in the NT had so associated circumcision with Moses that they had virtually forgotten its more fundamental association with Abraham (Acts 15:1, 5; 21:21; Gal. 5:2-3). Our Lord had to remind them that it antedated Moses (In. 7:22); Paul is emphatic that it was the current understanding of the Mosaic connection which was obnoxious to Christianity (Gal. 5:2-3, II, etc.), and constantly brings his readers back to Abraham (Rom. 4:11; 15:8, etc.).

b. Significance of the practice

In Gn. 17 the divine covenant is set out first as a series of promises, personal (vv. 4b-5: Abram becomes the new man with new powers), national (v. 6, the predicted rise of monarchic nationhood), spiritual (v. 7, the pledged relationship of God with Abraham and his descendants). When the covenant is, secondly, expressed in a sign, circumcision (vv. 9-14), it is this totality of divine promise which is symbolized and applied to the divinely nominated recipients. This relationship of circumcision to foregoing promise shows that the rite signifies the gracious movement of God to man, and only derivatively, as we shall see, the consecration of man to God. This truth underlies Jos. 5:2ff.: while the nation walked in the wilderness under God's displeasure (cf Nu. 14:34), the covenant was, as it were, in suspended animation, and circumcision lapsed. Or again, when Moses spoke of possessing 'uncircumcised lips' (Ex. 6:12, 30; cf Je. 6:10), only the gift of God's word could remedy it. Further, the NT speaks of circumcision as a 'seal' (Rom. 4:11) upon God's gift of righteousness. Circumcision, therefore, is the token of that work of grace whereby God chooses out and marks men for his own.

The covenant of circumcision operates on the principle of the spiritual union of the household in its head. The covenant is 'between me and you and 'your descendants after you' (Gn. 17:7), and vv. 26-27 notably express the same truth: 'Abraham ... Ishmael ... and all the men of his house ... were circumcised with him.' Thus, from its inception, infant circumcision was the distinctive Israelite custom, not derived from Egyptian or other practice, and contrasting sharply with the puberty rites of other nations: the latter point to social acknowledgment of adult status, the former to a status before God and a prevenience of divine grace.

Those who thus became members of the covenant were expected to show it outwardly by obedience to God's law, expressed to Abram in its most general form, 'Walk before me, and be blameless' (Gn. 17: I). The relation between circumcision and obedience remains a biblical constant (Je. 4:4; Rom. 2:25-29; cf Acts 15:5; Gal. 5:3). In this respect, circumcision involves the idea of consecration to God, but not as its essence. Circumcision embodies and applies covenant promises and summons to a life of covenant obedience. The blood which is shed in circumcision does not express the desperate lengths to which a man must go in self-consecration, but the costly demand which God makes of those whom he calls to himself and marks with the sign of his covenant.

This response of obedience was not always forthcoming, and, though sign and thing signified are identified in Gn. 17:10, 13-14, the Bible candidly allows that it is possible to possess the sign and nothing more, in which case it is spiritually defunct and, indeed, condemnatory (Rom. 2:27). The OT plainly teaches this, as it calls for the reality appropriate to the sign (Dt. 10:16; Je. 4:4), warns that in the absence of the reality the sign is nothing (Je. 9:25), and foresees the circumcising of the heart by God (Dt. 30:6).

In the New Testament.

The NT is unequivocal: without obedience, circumcision becomes uncircumcision (Rom. 2:25-29); the outward sign fades into insignificance when compared with tho realities of keeping the commandments. (1 Cor. 7:18-19), faith working by love, (Gal. 5:6) and a new creation, (Gal.6:15). Nevertheless, the Christian is not at liberty to scorn the sign. Although, in so far as it is expressed salvation by works of the law, the Christian must shun it (Gal. 5:2ff.), yet in its inner meaning he needs it (Col. 2:13; cf Is. 52:1). Consequently, there is a 'circumcision of Christ', the 'putting off (of) the body (and not only part) of the ... flesh', a spiritual transaction not made with hands, a relation to Christ in his death and resurrection, sealed by the initiatory ordinance of the new covenant (Col. 2:11-12).

In Phil. 3:2 Paul uses the deliberately offensive word katatome, 'those who mutilate the flesh' (RSV), 'the concision' (AV). He is not defaming circumcision on Christians (cf Gal. 5:12). The cognate verb (katatemno) is used (Lv. 21:5, LXX) of forbidden heathen mutilations. To Christians, who are 'the circumcision' (Phil. 3:3), the enforcement of the outmoded sign is tantamount to a heathenish gashing of the body.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. L. Koehler, Hebrew Man, 1956, pp. 37ff.; G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, 1959, pp. 238f.; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 1962; P. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 1953, pp. 82ff.; J. P. Hyatt, 'Circumcision', IDB; J. Sasson, JBL 85, 1966, pp. 473ff.; H. C. Hahn, 'Circumcision', NIDNTT I, pp.307-312. J.A.M.

 

@Melkite can you adduce evidence that the modern surgical procedure of male circumcision is different from the requirement for Jewish males to be circumcised according to Abrahamic law?

I think you also need to adduce some evidence if you are going to claim FGM and male circumcision are the same and the FGM is worse.

 

I do not think you are going to see the Anglican Church, particualrly in the West, stand up and criticise sex change. Rather than being the moral force it should be it is now like an NGO that follows the modern secular zeitgeist.

 

This trans-sex surgery on minors has flown largely under the radar so far. I think it's going to outrage a lot of people. Vanderbilt is already desperately scrubbing their social media, which they wouldn't be doing if they weren't afraid of the publicity.

Vanderbilt is not at all the first or only medical center to be doing this. This butchery is happening to some extent all over the US. Now that the issue has been dragged into the daylight, I'm hoping that the orthodox churches will speak out strongly against it. I doubt TEC will say anything, obviously, but I've already seen a lot outrage bubbling in ACNA circles about this, even before the Vanderbilt story broke. I plan to take it up with my own pastor and bishop in the days to come.

 

I wouldn't go that far. To be circumcised as a Christian, in Paul's day, meant that you accepted that even Christians had to live under the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenantal rules -- something Paul and the other apostles rejected* since Christ fulfilled the old covenant and instituted a new one. But Paul asked Timothy to be circumcised to better minister to unconverted Jews, so he clearly did not consider it a "heathenish gashing of the body". Circumcision, for a Christian, is simply unnecessary -- it confers no benefit. It's not sinful or wrong (it cannot be, for it was ordained for men by God himself).

This was the running battle Paul always fought with the "party of the circumcision" has he traveled around Asia Minor.

*With the possible exception of James the Just, leader of the very Jewish Jerusalem Christian church.

 

I agree that the hypothesis connecting circumcision with Canaanite child-sacrifice is somewhat speculative. I'm not really aware of any evidence that firmly denies it as a possibility either, though.

Again, the circumcision of Abraham was of a different nature than that of what is done by Rabbinic Jews and Americans. Mentioning that God commanded one form of circumcision does nothing to counter that the current form is a sinful genital mutilation.

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-an...mutilation/types-of-female-genital-mutilation

 

I’m certainly no supporter of transgender anything. And while I won’t say the connection with Molech worship is insane, I will say that it is taking it a bit high.

no one is invoking the name of Molech as the apply the scalpel. Discarded flesh isn’t being thrown into a giant furnace in the image of Molech. No one thinks that by transitioning that they can appease an angry Molech.

this Molech business is nonsense.

people are doing this because they are deluded, or because they think it is a solution to their sexual frustrations, or a panacea for their social awkwardness.