Whom Does God Respect?

There is an interesting story in the Acts of the Apostles where Peter proclaims that “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34-35). This proclamation, and Peter’s antecedent vision, are considered the official doctrinal change to take the gospel to the Gentiles. (Please disregard Christ’s own commission years earlier to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations…”)

The Acts account poses an interesting question about the primacy of circumcision; namely, is the commission to proselytize among the Gentiles a new policy? Or Peter’s enlightened interpretation of an eternal law?

On the one hand, I believe that God has not graduated from the realm of personal development and is himself learning as he goes along at this stage of his existence. I understand the ipsedixitism. However, I cannot understand the principle of eternal progression without this belief. In many ways, it seems that God has tried several different approaches to managing the gospel on earth, much like an entrepreneur peddling a new product. Maybe this is one manifestation that God is still learning.

That being said, it seems silly that God wouldn't be able to foresee the problems of the extremely exclusive society of circumcised Jews under the law of Moses. And the idea that God is still learning is very difficult to reconcile with the personal accounts of several prophets who claim that God showed them the history of the world from beginning to end.

In our contemporary setting, I'm not quite sure how to interpret Acts 10. We laugh at the closed-minded Jews who were befuddled at the prospect of sharing their rites with the uncircumcised. "It must just be a societal thing" we tell ourselves. "Discrimination is not eternal." So Paul breaks down the barriers of nationalism and ethnicity, and later (much later) President Kimball reaches out to blacks. And our justification remains: "those crazy out-dated societal traditions of discrimination. God is truly no respecter of persons." What I don't understand (anybody?) is why we don't extend this same rationale onto the exclusionary barriers of gender and age. While the "Jews-only" and "blacks are less noble" policies are written off as unfortunate anachronisms, we believe that our adult-male-only policy is eternal. This fascinates me. Especially considering that our scriptures include stories about priestesses and child prophets.

So, should the policy change in Acts 10 be viewed as a step in God's development, or a step in our own development (or both)? What is the great take-home message? This has been on my mind today.

Should my Son be Circumcised?

My wife and I are expecting a baby boy in October. It's our first. I never anticipated the dialogue that has been sparked by our inaugural pregnancy: Will a pink burping towel really offend our son's burgeoning masculinity? Will dolls with long hair send the wrong message? How much do I care about other people's reaction to my parenting style?

Most recently the question came up: should our son be circumcised? Note the passive voice - I don't intend to do any snipping, nor do I know who will. However, I will be asked for permission. Nothing makes men shift uncomfortably in their seats more than a discussion about circumcision. And with good reason - the penis is important (and, incidentally, very sensitive).

Should I be making this decision? Would it be considerate or cruel to wait until our son could make this choice for himself? (I am willing to pay). I am circumcised. My father is not. Although I broached the awkward topic with my mother once, I'm still unsure what prompted them to make the choice for me. Sure, it's customary in America. But she claims that the nurses didn't pressure them. Maybe my dad was made fun of. That didn't seem to be the reason either. It seems that I was circumcised because, you know, why not?

The cost-benefit calculus is unclear to me. While circumcision used to provide a connection to God, that isn't the case anymore (at least not officially). And while circumcision is arguably more "modern" it is unarguably less natural. It is true that some studies point to unclean, uncircumcised penises as the cause of high rates of childhood urinary-tract infection. Sure, it's hard to clean behind the ears, too, but we don't cut them off. Proponents of circumcision point to studies that conclude the procedure can protect against the transmission of HIV, or the development of penile cancer. Opponents point to studies that claim circumcision can lead to an increased risk of developing gonorrhea and chlamydia. And nobody is sure about the traumatic effects on the infant. (Traumatic effect on parents negated by progressive insurance plan).

One recent study claims that an uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive; the removed foreskin contains five specific regions that are more sensitive than the most sensitive location on a circumcised penis (the circumcised scar on the ventral surface). Another study claims that women who have dual experience prefer "anatomically complete" men overwhelmingly to circumcised men. And the Jewish "Circumcision Resource Center" points to medical and psychological research when they "conclude that circumcision is not advisable."

Ultimately, the evidence in favor of circumcision seems no more compelling than arguments against, in which case I am inclined to leave my boy the way he comes. Circumcising our son seems like a pretty severe response to "everyone's doing it; it's a social more." On the other hand, my wife points out the aesthetic advantage of snipping. And I hear her on that: purple mushrooms unite! Is it wrong to conform to cultural convention? We won't be circumcising our daughters, and will probably encourage them to limit their body piercings. So maybe I'm a pawn after all, a rambouillet to my peers.

Or maybe I'd just like my son to look like me.