Sunday, March 31, 2013

Easter: The Christian and circumcison

I can't say it much better than my friends over at the Whole Christian Network.

"Jesus died and rose again, making all the old blood covenants void and unnecessary. Circumcision is not a Christian tradition."

It's Easter Sunday, and I have been celebrating with my family for the past several days.  I am so thankful for Jesus.  For the fact that He came to this earth as a baby. That He lived among those He came to save.  That He suffered death on a cross.  That He died, and was buried.  That He rose again on the third day.  He did all of this for me.

Ephesians 4:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

We are saved to a life with Christ, through faith in His death on the cross.  This is what Easter is about! We serve a God who was willing to send His Son-Lay down His life for us, and say "It is FINISHED".  

Our salvation is through His blood-not our own.  What a gift! The ultimate gift-His own life for ours.  We will not eternally die, because of His death, and resurrection.  

To add anything to this truth found in Scripture is to cheapen the Gospel-and miss the entire point of Easter. 

Jesus' death on the cross finished the work.  We do not need to add to it, or provide our own blood sacrifice.

In the Old Testament, as part of the Old Covenant, Jews were required to shed blood as part of their covenant with God.  The blood shed occurred in two forms: animal sacrifice and circumcision.  In the New Testament, with the death of Jesus Christ, HIS blood was shed as the ultimate sacrifice.  Under the New Covenant, Christians no longer have any Biblical reason to circumcise, or offer animal sacrifices.

Galatians 6:12-15 says:

12: It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ

About this verse, The ESV  John MacArthur study notes say, "The Judaizers were motivated by religious pride and wanted to impress others with their external piety.  They were more concerned about their personal safety than correct doctrine.  By adhering more to the Mosaic law (Law of Moses) than to the gospel of Jesus, they hoped to avoid social and financial ostracism from other Jews."

In other words, Paul, the writer of Galatians is calling out religious Jews who were circumcising as a way to keep the old law, and impress others with their religiosity.

The rest of the related passage says this,

13: For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. 

14: But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

15: For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Galatians 2:3 says:
3: But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek

"The Judaizers were teaching that there could be no salvation without circumcision.  Paul and the apostles denied that and it was settled at the Jerusalem Council.  As a true believer, Titus was living proof that circumcision and the Mosaic regulations were not prerequisites or necessary components of salvation.  The apostles' refusal to require Titus's circumcision verified the church's rejection of the Judaizer's doctrine". John MacArthur ESV commentary notes

Acts 15 covers the Jerusalem Council.  MacArthur's commentary description of this is as follows:

"Throughout history, the church's leaders have met to settle doctrinal issues.  The most important council was the first one-the Jerusalem Council-because it established the answer to the most vital doctrinal question of all:

What must a person do to be saved?

The apostles and elders defied efforts to impose legalism and ritualism as necessary prerequists for salvation.  They forever affirmed that salvation is totally by grace through faith in Christ alone."

Acts 15:7 shows Peter giving his speech, and explaining to the council how God saved Gentiles during the early days of his ministry and made no requirement that they be circumcised. 

 "If God did not require any additional requirements for salvation, neither should the legalists" MacArthur commentary notes (ESV)

There are many other examples, and I hope to continue to outline them in future posts.  

But for today, Christian, we are free! Christ's death on the cross provided all we need for salvation.  After Jesus, those who preached circumcision were CONDEMNED by the apostles as well the early church.  Circumcision is not a Christian tradition at all. Titus has his very own book in the Bible, and served God tremendously, and we are told plainly that he was not circumcised, and those who made an issue out of that were considered legalists.

Rejoice in Christs ultimate sacrifice, and know that it is finished. There is nothing else to add to it, and routine infant circumcision is not part of God's plan for the New Testament church.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Rebecca's Story-A Biblical Journey to Intactivism

I hope to, once a week, have a blog post from a friend.  Today's post if from my friend Rebecca.  She is awesome, and has 6 children-some boys, some girls, and all intact! She has been a great encouragement to me, in many different areas, and I hope you will read her story, in her words.

My Journey to Intactivism

 When we had our first son, we did not actually give a whole lot of thought to circumcision. I researched what I could find out about it and what stood out to me was: Not Necessary. That seemed simple enough to me! ‘Not necessary’ was pretty much all the information I needed. It is primarily cosmetic. That also disturbed me. Why should I have a say in how HIS genitals look? 

I shared with my husband that I’d found it was not necessary. Being the awesome man he is, that was enough for him. Since then I have learned that many fathers feel threatened or insecure at the idea of their son
being different. To some men it may feel like an admission that something is somehow wrong with them and that idea is uncomfortable. I’m very blessed to have a man that does not think this way. Neither of us wanted to do something to our son that would cause physical pain and risk complications if it wasn’t medically necessary. He agreed with me that if a surgery is not necessary for our newborn then... why would we DO that!?

We had our first son and were very pleased to leave his little body as perfect as he was born. We had no problems whatsoever and caring for him was a breeze. There is absolutely nothing extra to do when they are little because the little foreskin is literally fused with the glans of the penis so it cannot (and should not) ever be pulled back for any reason whatsoever. Cleaning it is as simple as washing his little hands! Only clean what is seen. Nothing more. It naturally takes care of itself! God’s design is truly perfect and works beautifully and easily! No disassembly required!!!! Definitely no more complicated than bathing our daughters. Just sitting him in the bath and letting him splash and kick (as you would allow any baby!) was enough to keep him clean, healthy, and happy. And we avoided having to care for a recovering newborn with an open, surgical wound sitting in a diaper during those crucial first days! Being a newborn is traumatic enough without having a surgery to deal with on top of everything else.

But even at this time I thought circumcision was still a personal parental decision for our babies. A few friends and family members said, “Well hey - God required it of Abraham so it must not be bad. In fact, it may be good! Why would God require it if it weren’t somehow beneficial?”

This argument seemed valid to me and I had no answer for it.

After thinking about it and seeing how normal and healthy my intact little boy was it seemed more and more wrong that baby boys are often routinely circumcised as newborns without much of a second thought. It even seemed like a lot of people do it just because “it’s what you do!” not knowing that there’s any other option! Why is the cutting of a baby’s genitals not considered a bigger deal? Why is it so common and accepted? In any other situation, it would be considered criminal. It deeply disturbed me. The idea that God required circumcision as a sign of the Covenant in the Old Testament continued to confuse me. The more I knew about circumcision, the more I questioned why.

I started digging deeper. What was the deal with Biblical Circumcision in the Old Testament. That’s when I learned an astounding truth. Biblical Circumcision is completely different from what modern circumcision is. They are not even remotely comparable. The circumcision that God ordained in the Old Testament as a sign of the covenant was quite simply a “clip” of the skin meant to shed a few drops of blood as that sign of the covenant. Very little was actually removed. It left the majority of the foreskin intact and fully functional. Circumcision as it is done today was completely brought about by man. Not God. Had it been done in Biblical times the way it is today, babies would have died of blood loss and infection. They didn’t have the surgical tools and clamps and medicines that have made modern circumcision possible. This should be common knowledge!

To quote my favorite article on the subject: “God never ordained that the foreskin or any other part of the human body should be amputated (i.e. his creation destroyed), unless it became diseased. Our modern invention of foreskin amputation (modern circumcision) took place in Victorian times when several doctors and psychiatrists came up with the idea in hopes of discouraging self-stimulation. It didn't work, but the practice soon became ingrained as ‘tradition.’ And there are few things so safely guarded as tradition.”

After this discovery, I became so upset that such a tradition is so misunderstood, falsely protected by “religion,” and still so common in this day and age. Prior to this discovery I hesitated to compare male circumcision to female circumcision. Prior to this discovery, I hesitated to call it a human rights issue. Now that I know the truth? There is no more hesitation.

I also learned that because the foreskin of an infant is fused to the glans of the penis, to remove it from a newborn requires being forcibly ripped away very similarly to how a fingernail would be ripped off your nail bed. That sounds painful! Yet this is traditionally and routinely subjected upon our smallest and most defenseless-- newborn babies.

Not only that, but the foreskin has purpose and function. It is a blessing and a gift from God! His creation is perfect and beautiful!

Once I understood the invention of modern circumcision was merely to curtail sexual pleasure and that it was completely different from the sign of God’s covenant in the Old Testament, I started seeing it for what it really is. A human rights violation. Even comparable to female circumcision. It’s alarming to say the least to look at all the claimed “benefits” and arguments made for female circumcision because they are eerily similar to the claimed “benefits” and arguments made for male circumcision.

After all I’ve learned about circumcision historically and Biblically, in my mind I can no longer understand this as “controversial.” The cutting of a newborn’s genitals (regardless of gender!) should be the LEAST controversial thing in the world.

Additional links with excellent information:

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

My (Carrie's) Story

When I was pregnant with my first child, I didn't research much, to be honest.  I was excited to be pregnant, and we had just moved, and I was working, and I just thought about baby names, and car seats, and making a registry.

I wanted a natural birth, and I just assumed it would happen.  I didn't research anything.  I wanted to breastfeed, and just assumed it would be easy-peasy.

I never even thought twice about circumcision.  I thought that's just what you did.  I had never heard anyone talk about it, or seen any information on it.

When I was about 37 weeks pregnant, my OB went on and had me "sign all the necessary consents-just in case".  I signed an induction form, a c-section form, and a circumcision form.  I remember where I was sitting.  I didn't even want to read the induction or c-section forms, because I didn't want those.  But I was "Required" to sign them-"just in case".  I glanced over the circumcision form.  It said some stuff that I didn't want to hear.  So I didn't read carefully.  I didn't know what I was having, so I just hoped for a girl, and signed the form I was told I needed to sign. I was alone, on a bench, and no one went over these forms with me.  No one discussed any risks of the procedures.  No one told me that the circumcision was optional, or cosmetic, or unnecessary.

I should have researched it for myself.  I own that.  But a doctor, knowing that I was a first time mom, and didn't know what I was having, should have taken the time to discuss this procedure with me.  It was their duty.

No surprise to me now, looking back, I ended up with all THREE of those "just in case" procedures that I had pre-emptively signed for.  After a failed induction turned c-section, I had my beautiful baby boy.  On the second day, they came and told me it was time for his circumcision.  Again, no one discussed it with me, or went over the risks, or in any way indicated that this was optional.  I let them take him, and I felt sick the entire time.  Something in my fresh, new "mommy gut" knew that something about this was all wrong.  He was a tiny, defenseless, brand new baby, who had only ever known safety and security, and I let them take him for a surgery that I really knew nothing about. I sat there nervously the whole time.  I remember eventually telling my sister that it was taking to long, and I wanted to go get him.  We walked down to the nursery, and they gave me my baby.  Years later, I figured out that he was in shock.  That's why babies sleep for so long after a circumcision (most of them in the United States are performed without anesthesia).  Not because they are peaceful and happy that they just had surgery-but because their little bodies are in shock. Breastfeeding with my first son got off to a hard start, and I later learned that both cesarean delivery, and circumcision surgery can have a negative impact on breastfeeding.

After my first birth, I desperately wanted a VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean), so I began researching that almost immediately.  I worked so hard on that, that I didn't research much else.  Again, I still didn't realize that circumcision was optional. I came across some circumcision information in my researching.  It was so hard to see, and so disturbing to think about, I couldn't even allow myself to "go there" mentally.  I remember having one conversation with a friend, and said that I wasn't sure about circumcising this baby (once I was pregnant again), but was nervous because my first was circumcised.  She said "That IS something to consider", and from there, I began to think that I should "do" this baby because I had "done" my first.  How wrong I was.  I again was hoping for a girl-at least then I wouldn't have to face the issue.

I got my VBAC! It was an amazing and empowering birth.  I was ecstatic.  It was another boy-an amazing, awesome, perfect boy.  I don't remember signing a consent form.  I know that no one discussed it with me.  Once again, I consented to a surgery on my perfect baby, without knowing the risks, or that it was completely unnecessary.  I felt terrible when they came to get him.  Everything in me was screaming NOOOOOOO.  But I thought I "should".  I was sick while he was gone.  I kept saying to my mom "what if something goes wrong".  Again, in my mommy gut, I knew something wasn't right-but something kept me from saying "not my son". I felt sick when I changed his diaper, and kept thinking something didn't look right.  And it didn't-no baby should be bloodied like that immediately after birth, for no reason.  It shouldn't have been done.

Between my second and third pregnancies, I started to hear friends talking about this issue, and seeing information on facebook pages.  This pushed me to investigate further.  I began reading, researching, and looking at scientific studies, personal stories, Biblical studies, and pictures. It was so, so hard to read, knowing that I was learning that I had done something wrong, and painful to my first two sons.  I wanted to run from the information, but I knew I owed it to any future sons to be fully informed, even if that came at a cost to me.

Even before I found out I was pregnant with my third child, I approached my husband.  I had reams of research ready. This is how our conversation went:

I asked him first "Do you believe that circumcision is Biblically mandated?"
Him: "No"
Me:"If we have anymore sons, I don't want to circumcise them."
Him: "Why?"
Me: "Well, I've been doing a lot of research, and the first thing is that it is cosmetic, and unnecessary".
Him: "OK"
Me: "OK? You don't want to talk about it more? You don't want to see more?"
Him: "No, I trust your word and your research.  If it's cosmetic, we don't need to do it"

I can't tell you how thankful, and how proud I was.  I had heard that a lot of men have trouble with this concept, and I had prepared myself for a lot of talking, and praying, and time.  What a gift to both me, and our future son, that my husband was tenderhearted toward this issue.

While I was pregnant, I wrote on my birth plan that I would not be circumcising if the baby was a boy.  My (Jewish) OB was looking over my birth plan, and I wondered what he'd say. He said "Thank GOODNESS." and then described what he thought of the procedure, and his description included some of the rough to hear words that I promised not to use.  He also told me that while he didn't like to do them at all, he did when people asked, because he was the only doctor in the town where I was living that used anesthesia, and that if it was going to be done, he felt the babies deserved pain management.  It made me sick to know that the fact that babies were having surgery with no pain relief wasn't just a myth.

I had my third son, and my nurse asked me if I was circumcising, and when I said no, she said, "good, because it is really just cosmetic".  I was thankful that these medical folks were confirming what I already knew, but I was ticked that no one had shared that information with me when I was doing it to my first two sons.

This is why I talk about this.  Because I researched, even when it was hard, and I came out changed.  I was sick to know what I had done to my children, "just because"-just because it was what I thought I was "supposed" to do-just because it was culturally accepted-just because I didn't research for myself.  I don't want any other mom to feel those same feelings, and I don't want any other baby to go through what my sons did, and will, as circumcision changes the body for life.  I would take it back if I could, but since I can't, I want you to know that you don't have to do this.  You don't need to do this.  Your baby is perfect, just as God wanted Him.

Should everyone in my family match?

Does everyone in your family match?

Are everyone's eyes the same color?
Does everyone have the same body type? Tall, short, thin, stocky?

One of the amazing things about people is that we are all different.  There are thousands of differences between two humans-from the physical, to the emotional, mental, personality, etc.

We don't all match, and that is ok, and exactly the way we were created.

Sometimes people are nervous to leave sons intact if dad is not.  Or sometimes people are nervous to leave a son intact, if his brother(s) are not.

I struggled with that with my second son, and I am sick that I didn't push through those feelings and do some research on his behalf.  Instead, I decided that "matching" in the genital area was important.

But you know what? They don't match.

My oldest has blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin, and a thin, stick like build.  His interests include music, and baseball, and acting.

My second has dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, and a stocky athletic build. His interests include sports of any and every kind.

These are the things you notice.  These are the things they notice.  Not their matching "parts"- But instead all the differences that are seen.  I don't know WHY I was so worried about anything else matching, when the creator of the universe made them different in all these other ways, and the differences are beautiful. (And it must be said-their creator also made their bodies, and I was the one that had altered my first son, so any not "matching" in that area was on my hands, not on my son's, and not on God's)

As for fathers and sons matching, all the same ideas apply.  Do the father and son have matching eyes? Hair? Skin? Build? Interests? If they didn't, would you change the child's hair to match the father? Would the father feel unable to love or relate to his son if their eyes didn't match? Of course not-my husband loves all our three boys infinitely, and in one way or another, he doesn't completely "match" any of them!

Furthermore, I think this goes without saying, but I'll put it out there anyway- The adult genitalia and the child/pre-pubescent genitalia look VERY different, for lots of reasons, even if they both are in the same intact or circumcised state.  I'm sure you know what I mean, without me being specific.  By the time that the father and son would have REMOTELY "matching" genitalia, they most likely will not be comparing.

As for children, I have to think about this.  What I did to my first two sons was wrong.  I am not going to wrong my third son, just so that they can all be together in my wrongness.  If my first son, or second, was missing a finger, or toe, or any other body part, I would not force my others to sacrifice their body part so that they could all match. Same goes here.

Some ask how I will explain the differences to my children, or if I will.  I do plan to.  I plan to tell my sons that I was wrong.  That the way their brother is is the way that they were born-created by God.  I plan to tell them that some people think that cutting off the foreskin is best, and that when we did that, we were doing it because it was what we thought was best at the time.  We will tell them that we were wrong, and that we are sorry. It is not a conversation that I want to have, but we have started, in small, age appropriate ways-ways that affirm our love for them, but also affirm that God's creation does not need altering. We will tell them more later.  It will be hard, but part of parenting is owning up to your mistakes, and that is what we plan to do.

Some things are hard to say. That doesn't mean they don't need to be said.

He's a cutie, if I do say so myself!

This is my intact baby boy.  This was awhile ago, but I love the smile, and the dimple, so I just had to share!

Not Just Extra Skin

The part of the body that is removed during routine infant circumcision is called the foreskin.

According to David Llewellyn, an attorney that specializes in circumcision malpractice suits, during circumcisions, oftentimes skin from the shaft is also removed.  Because all individuals are different, a doctor performing a circumcision on a newborn can not know what size the penis will be in adulthood.  Therefore, taking off the "right" amount of skin is incredibly subjective.

I think it is fairly understandable why shaft skin is important.  However, what is the function of the foreskin? Is it really just extra? Nature's mistake?

The foreskin is a useful body part throughout a males life.  In babyhood, it serves as a protective organ, similar in some ways to an eyelid.  The head of the penis (the glans) is meant to be an internal organ. The foreskin covers the glans, and protects it and keeps it warm and moist.

The foreskin should NOT be retracted in infancy.  It is fused to the glans as a protective measure.  As the boy grows, anywhere from age 2 up until puberty, the foreskin will separate from the glans on its own.  Attempts to retract the foreskin before it retracts naturally will cause pain, adhesion's, and injury.  The most common reason for a boy needing a circumcision past infancy is a caregiver causing harm by forcibly retracting the skin.

More on protection. The foreskin is the first line of defense, protecting the rest of the penis from injury-abrasions, burns, etc.  The foreskin additionally keeps the surface soft and moist, and allows the glans to remain it's healthy red or purple color.  The penis is an "entry point" to the body, and the foreskin is protective in nature from allowing foreign organisms into the body. In infancy, the fusion of the foreskin to the glans guards against foreign bodies entering the urethra.

The foreskin is self cleaning, and is naturally clean. As sterile urine passes through the urethra, and then the foreskin, any foreign bodies that may have entered are flushed out naturally. The functions and self cleaning use of the foreskin is similar to the eye, which was designed to remain clean through fluid and mucous secretions.

The foreskin hold good bacteria in the body, similar to the functions of the mouth, nose, female genitals, and skin organ.  Good bacteria helps the body fight bad bacteria.

The foreskin has extensive sexual function, which increases pleasure both for the man and his partner.  It is self lubricating, reducing or eliminating the need for any artificial lubricants.  As I have promised not to be too explicit on this blog, I will not include pictures, or even a detailed description of the further sexual functions of the foreskin.  However, if you are interested in this, there are many articles, pictures, and not as explicit drawings that show the sexual functions of the foreskin. The only thing I WILL say about this aspect is that once again, God's design is amazing, and perfect.  It is my belief that He created sex, and created our bodies, and the anatomy that He created has purpose, both functional and pleasurable.

Now, in response to the above, I have heard and read many men and their partners state that they are circumcised and are able to be sexually active. Of course! The surgery would not have stuck around this long if that were not the case.  However, we can not know what we have never been given the opportunity to experience.  The sexual functions of the whole penis, as created, are vast, and can not be ignored. The majority of the world is left intact.

Another name for the foreskin is the prepuce, which is the same name given to the female clitoral hood. The clitoral hood provides the same functions for the female clitoris as it is designed to do for the penis.  Female circumcision removes the prepuce from a woman, and male circumcision removes the prepuce from a man.  The female prepuce and the male prepuce both contain thousands of nerve endings, and are one of the most sensitive body parts.

Interestingly enough, throughout history there have been a few cases of boys born without a foreskin, and it is considered a birth defect.  Being born WITH a foreskin is NOT a birth defect, nor is it a mistake.  The foreskin is a body part that has a purpose, and should not be removed routinely from the body.

(Note: I have numerous sources for this information, but the websites and journals contain graphic descriptions as well as pictures of both infant and adult genitals.  The information and pictures are medical in nature, but I understand some people are uncomfortable with it even then.  If you would like more information, you can find much of this information in articles and studies which can be found on the Internet.  I would be happy to point you to some legitimate ones if you are interested-feel free to contact me and I will send you the information privately)

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The two words that changed everything

I'm not going to mince words, even though they are hard to say.

I believe routine, infant circumcision to be wrong.

Hear what I said.

I said that I believe routine infant circumcision to be wrong.

I did not say that people that have done it are terrible people (if that is true, I am first in line).  I did not say that parents who do it don't love their children, or are bad parents (I know I love mine more than I can explain).

I said that the act of routine infant circumcision is wrong.

I've been asked why I talk about it.  Or why it matters. Or been told it is not an issue of right and wrong.

I disagree.

The reason I talk about it, is because I do believe it matters.  I  believe it matters to God, and it should matter to us.  I believe it matters because newborn baby boys are innocent and defenseless, and I believe that we have been sold a lie by our culture. Did you know that the majority of circumcisions are performed without anesthesia? I believe that it is important to stop and think critically about things, even if they are common-even if we think it is what we are supposed to be doing.

The very, very first thing that struck me when I began to research this topic were these two words:


To be honest, I was offended.  I had already circumcised two of my children, and I was offended that anyone would believe that I did something cosmetic to my child's genitals.  What an offensive thought.

I pushed back my offense, wondering if my defensiveness should signal me that something wasn't right. I kept reading and researching.  I found that some insurance companies don't cover routine infant circumcision, because it is considered cosmetic. In 18 states, it is not covered by state insurance.

I talked to my obstetrician about it (OB's perform circumcisions in most states/hospitals).  I told him I didn't want to do it (with my third child).  I will spare you his exact words, as I have promised not to use inflammatory language, but to sum it up, he was extremely supportive of my decision.  He told me what I already knew-that it was cosmetic.

Then, I had my baby.  The nurse asked me if I was planning to circumcise him.  I said no.  She said "Well, good. It's cosmetic anyway".

I already knew this, from my study and research.  But it was good to hear it from the mouths of this medical staff.  I couldn't help but wonder though-why now? Why are people telling me this, only AFTER I decided not to do it? Why did no one tell me this when I was making this choice for my first two sons? Why did no doctor, or nurse say "you know this is cosmetic, right?".  Would it have changed my mind? I'd like to think so, but of course can't be sure.  But they should have said it.  I should have known that information before I subjected my tiny boys to the surgery.

The fact that it is cosmetic is one of the biggest reasons I believe it to be wrong.

When I allowed myself to really break that down, and really think about the fact that as a culture, we have accepted that it is acceptable to perform cosmetic surgery on the genitals of a newborn, I had to admit, even to myself, that that just isn't right.

Cosmetic surgery (female circumcision) on infant female genitalia was legal in the United States until 1997.  More on that later.

In January of this year, news stories of a mother having her three year old tattooed horrified readers.

Those two items are shocking to most folks, yet the cosmetic altering of baby boys is not shocking.  I had to start asking myself why.

I believe morally and ethically that cosmetically altering the body of newborns or children, routinely (meaning not to correct a medical problem) is wrong.

I believe, as a Christian, that routine cosmetic surgery on baby boys is wrong, because it implies that somehow, God was wrong-  That what He created was messed up, or ugly, or useless, and it needs to be promptly fixed.

Psalm 139:13-15
"For You formed my inward parts; you wove me together in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;Wonderful are your works....My frame was not hidden from you, When I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth"

I Corinthians 12:18 says " But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, each one of them exactly as they should be"

More on the Biblical and spiritual component later.  Yes, I know that there is circumcision in the Old Testament, and will address that soon!

Cosmetic. Unnecessary . Two words that changed everything. 

On Being Wrong

Some things ARE hard to say.

So I think I'll start with the hardest.

I  Was Wrong.

Making mistakes is part of living. It's part of being human, a woman, a wife, a friend, a parent.

Goodness, does being a parent bring out the mistakes.  All of my humanity, smooshed up in a heart that is so full of love, and fear, and a protective, fierce streak that doesn't ever want to mess this thing up.

So it is hard to admit, when it comes to my children, that I was wrong.  That despite all the love, and best of intentions, I was wrong.

I was wrong to allow my children to be circumcised, when they were days old.  I was wrong not to research it fully for myself-instead doing what I thought I had to do, or was supposed to do.  I was wrong to not ask more questions, or read more carefully.  I was wrong not to go with them.

So I'm going to talk about circumcision on this blog.  I'm going to talk about it, because it matters.  I will  share information, both medical and Biblical as to why it matters.  I'm going to share information with you that I wish someone had shared with me.

Here is what I promise you.

I promise you I won't use inflammatory language.
I promise you I won't post shocking or graphic photos.