Why circumcision has become a dirty word
The circumcision of Jesus is celebrated by the Church of England each Jan 1. Addressing God, who made his “Son to be circumcised, and obedient to the law”, the Collect for the day asks for “true circumcision of the Spirit; that, our hearts and all our members, being mortified from all worldly and carnal lusts, we may in all things obey thy blessed will”.
Yet, I doubt many people expect a sermon on the literal circumcision of Jesus. The Catholic Church has made Jan 1 the feast of Mary, Mother of God. Circumcision may seem an atavistic and irrational act.
I suspect too that, despite our presumed lack of prudishness, we find circumcision embarrassing to mention, especially in any context of spirituality.
That was not the case even in the modern era. John Wesley preached a celebrated sermon on the “circumcision of the heart” on Jan
1 1733, and John
Henry Newman preached on circumcision and other ceremonies on
Jan 1 1831. Both were preaching at St Mary’s, the University
Church in
Oxford, which was the centre of the Church of England’s intellectual establishment in their times.
Wesley declared that “the distinguishing mark of a true follower of Christ, of one who is in a state of acceptance with God, is not either outward circumcision or baptism or any other outward form, but a right state of soul, a mind and spirit renewed after the image of Him that created it”.
Newman, noting that Jesus was circumcised “to show that He did not renounce the religion of Abraham, to whom God gave circumcision”, took a contrary tack to Wesley and argued for the value of ceremonies not mentioned in the Bible, such as “kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper”.
Now male childhood circumcision is under attack from secularists who call it mutilation. Iceland wants to make it a crime. But, although people are always calling for a national debate, on everything from fracking to cannabis, such debate is seldom coherent, and governments bring forward legislation on grounds of their own fancy.
So I don’t want a debate about circumcision. It might make more likely its criminalisation – and that would be anti-semitic and Islamophobic. I think it would be anti-christian too.
Secularists say that children can decide to be circumcised or not when they are 18. The argument is specious. Babies are not consulted about their diet, clothes or haircut.
Some people say that circumcision has medical benefits. That is not why I favour its legality. My position is that it should be as lawful as any rite to bind a child to the culture and religion of its parents. To delay it till 18 is like delaying piano lessons till 18.
Why did circumcision become a religious ritual? No one can say, but it is obviously related to the begetting of a holy people. In other words it is to do with the sexual act not as recreation but as creation.
The Church of England says in a prayer during Holy Communion for the feast of the Circumcision of Jesus that “here is foreshadowed his perfect self-offering upon the cross, the shedding of his blood to set us free from sin and death”.
Christians use Baptism as their great initiation in place of circumcision. But they do not forbid it. It so happens that the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England was circumcised as a baby. Any defender of faiths must support Jews and Muslims threatened by a far from straightforward attack on their religious rites.