Lower courts have sided with the father.
What do you think?
With these two parents come two opinions, but the boy is of significant age to make his own view known concerning the spiritual direction he chooses. On his next birthday, he turns 13. Jewish boys undergo bar mitzvahs at that age. It's then when a child is said to become a man, and takes responsibility for his actions. If the truth is uncertain regarding this boy's desire for circumcision and there's a possibility that the mother is right, then why not allow him the option next year, when the father's religious community should listen and regard his input? After all, the Biblical age to receive this rite under the Old Covenant was 8 days old (Genesis 17:12) and that time slot is gone.
So the father has newly found religion, but what a dire imposition to then foist its practices upon another, especially when it requires surgical mutilation.
Parents do have a mandate to spiritually "Train a child in the way he should go" (Proverbs 22:6), but until recently, dad had no idea what that meant. If he wants to raise a Jewish kid, that's his prerogative, but at this point, he should proceed with caution, lest junior grow up to resent him.
Hospitals used to automatically circumcise boys. Today they ask for consent, and there really isn't reason to give any, since medical circumcision doesn't religiously qualify anyway.
The rabbi-Apostle Paul (himself circumcised) said, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:28-29). Isn't that the issue here?
Under the New Covenant, we believe "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value … what counts is a new creation" (Galatians 5:6,15).
THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM
Senior Pastor
MontroseCommunityChurch.org
