 |
I didn't learn it from Robin Hood Men in Tights though. The Hippie Housewife was listing reasons on her blog why circumcising baby boys is not beneficial. I have read and heard many similar arguments before, especially from followers of attachment parenting and similar parenting styles. Primarily that it is a traumatic procedure and has lasting bad effects by leaving the penis without it's natural protection.
The practice of circumcision is much less common today than it was in previous generations, as many parents are recognizing it as unnecessary and damaging. My husband and I never even considered circumcising our newborn son (not that I blame mothers and fathers who have in the past, thinking it was just what you were supposed to do).
As a Roman Catholic, whose faith heritage originates in Judaism, I always wondered about why God required circumsicion as a covenant sign in the old testament. I thought it might have to do with a practical health reason (like how he commanded the Israelites not to eat pork, as one could easily get sick from eating it in those days), but apparently that is not the case. Many sources I have read say there is no health benefit to circumcision. In that case it seems like a cruel thing for God to require, and not very affirming of the goodness of his creation.
On the other hand, traditional Jewish circumcision, as I learned, is much less painful than modern medical circumcision. It always took place on the 8th day after birth, when blood clotting is highest, and they supplied the child with means of comfort. It was also a clean sharp cut rather than a clamp.
What I was even more interested to learn was that it originally did not mean what we think of, which is the full removal of the foreskin, it was just a little "clip at the tip", waaaaay less traumatic or destructive.
I definitely can't claim comprehensive knowledge of the history or details, but I did find THIS interesting scholarly article concerning how the custom came to change in Jewish history. The author, Rubin Nissan, says that periah, "the splitting and peeling back of the mucosal membrane of the foreskin, thus fully uncovering the glans penis", was not the command given to Abraham by God. He suggests it is an interpretation put forward by the rabbis at at time when Jews were assimilating into gentile nations unnoticed by disguising their circumcision. In order to keep Jewish identity distinct, the rabbis required full periah as part of the law.
Nissan says it is important to distinguish between the "sacred and unchanging" text of the Torah on which Judaism is founded and the social contexts which have changed and modified in response to culture.
This makes a lot more sense to me, that circumcision as we know it was not the requirement of our loving God, but a change in practice brought about by people because of their social situation.
I'm still not quite sure why God would have chosen to ask even the minimal circumcision of his people; it's something I take on faith, like many other difficult aspects of Christianity, trusting that his reasons are greater than my understanding. But learning things like this aspect of history help me to remember that when I am tempted to make a quick judgement, the truth might not always be as it first appears.
The practice of circumcision is much less common today than it was in previous generations, as many parents are recognizing it as unnecessary and damaging. My husband and I never even considered circumcising our newborn son (not that I blame mothers and fathers who have in the past, thinking it was just what you were supposed to do).
As a Roman Catholic, whose faith heritage originates in Judaism, I always wondered about why God required circumsicion as a covenant sign in the old testament. I thought it might have to do with a practical health reason (like how he commanded the Israelites not to eat pork, as one could easily get sick from eating it in those days), but apparently that is not the case. Many sources I have read say there is no health benefit to circumcision. In that case it seems like a cruel thing for God to require, and not very affirming of the goodness of his creation.
On the other hand, traditional Jewish circumcision, as I learned, is much less painful than modern medical circumcision. It always took place on the 8th day after birth, when blood clotting is highest, and they supplied the child with means of comfort. It was also a clean sharp cut rather than a clamp.
What I was even more interested to learn was that it originally did not mean what we think of, which is the full removal of the foreskin, it was just a little "clip at the tip", waaaaay less traumatic or destructive.
I definitely can't claim comprehensive knowledge of the history or details, but I did find THIS interesting scholarly article concerning how the custom came to change in Jewish history. The author, Rubin Nissan, says that periah, "the splitting and peeling back of the mucosal membrane of the foreskin, thus fully uncovering the glans penis", was not the command given to Abraham by God. He suggests it is an interpretation put forward by the rabbis at at time when Jews were assimilating into gentile nations unnoticed by disguising their circumcision. In order to keep Jewish identity distinct, the rabbis required full periah as part of the law.
Nissan says it is important to distinguish between the "sacred and unchanging" text of the Torah on which Judaism is founded and the social contexts which have changed and modified in response to culture.
This makes a lot more sense to me, that circumcision as we know it was not the requirement of our loving God, but a change in practice brought about by people because of their social situation.
I'm still not quite sure why God would have chosen to ask even the minimal circumcision of his people; it's something I take on faith, like many other difficult aspects of Christianity, trusting that his reasons are greater than my understanding. But learning things like this aspect of history help me to remember that when I am tempted to make a quick judgement, the truth might not always be as it first appears.
No comments:
Post a Comment