I heard a story on the radio yesterday (less a
story than a blurb, really) that really got me thinking. Apparently it is
becoming trendy for parents to have their infants’ ears pierced.
Now, before I begin, let me just make something
clear. I am not looking to cast aspersions. If you have had your baby’s ears
pierced, or want to do it, I am not making the case that it is evil and you are
evil for doing it. I just want to point some things out in the interest of
encouraging a thoughtful discussion.
With that said, let me take you down my stream of
consciousness. My first thought on hearing this was about circumcision. Obviously. But no, it really was my first thought. There is a growing movement to
make infant circumcision illegal, and I think it plays into this discussion.
A number of people think it is cruel to circumcise
newborn boys, and to some extent, I get their point. I have heard that it is
the healthier choice, but I am not up on the medical aspect of it. And it is
not something they remember, so there is no long-term trauma regardless. But in
the moment, certainly, it does cause pain.
For its traditional and medical aspects, I
personally see no reason why it should be outlawed. It is not an atrocity on
par with abortion (which, ironically, the proponents of a circumcision ban tend
to support). However, if the movement got steam and was able to make it
illegal, I would not be particularly broken up. That is, if not for my
religious liberty objections.
You see, the anti-circumcision crowd (AC from now
on) is not willing to carve out an exception for Jewish people. Actually, for
many AC’s, there is a particular animus against the Jews.
In the Bible, in Genesis
17:9-14, God established His covenant with Abraham and commanded the
circumcision of eight-day-old boys as the sign of God’s promises.
The Jews are the descendants of Abraham, so this covenant and its commandment
extend to them. It is also reconfirmed in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and
throughout the Old Testament.
Christianity does away with this requirement, with
baptism essentially taking its place (Colossians
2:11-15). But as far as Jewish people are concerned, it is still in effect.
The objection of the AC’s has to do with one of the reasons Christians in my
tradition baptize rather than circumcising (as a covenantal sign, anyway). We
baptize as a sign of realized faith. It needs to be chosen. There is no point
in baptizing an infant because an infant cannot choose whether he wants to
follow Christ or not. It should only be practiced on those who can and do want
it.
The thinking of the AC’s goes in the same
direction. Circumcision as an act of devotion to God is not something that
should be done to a baby boy because he cannot choose it for himself. It is not
fair for parents to force them into it.
So should Christians who understand baptism as a
choice be opposed to infant circumcision? No, for the simple reason that God once
commanded it, and the people who do it are trying to serve Him. We need to be able to make the distinction
between God’s physical and spiritual children. The Israelites, from whom the
Jews come, were set apart as a physical nation. Their very birth automatically
associates them with God’s promises, though it does not necessarily confirm
them. Circumcision acknowledges an identity, just as baptism acknowledges the
new life of someone who has been “born again” (John
3:3).
We may raise the question of whether God any
longer wants Jews to circumcise, since He has established a new covenant
through Christ. But the point is that it is what they believe He wants of them.
It is how they practice their religion, their devotion to God. Just because I
do not agree with them does not give me the right to take it away. I would not
want anyone to do that to me (Matthew
7:12).
The AC’s are essentially anti-religious liberty,
not just anti-circumcision. They want to stop anything with which they
disagree, not just protect young children from harm. And they are actually
pretty straightforward about it, from what I have seen. To them,
religion is anachronistic. At best, it should be limited to private opinions
and not practiced. Circumcision is not their only target, which is a chilling
thought.
“But Stanley,” you may say, “why have you done
this again? I want to hear about babies getting their ears pierced, not
circumcision! Why did you bring me here with this click bait?” All right. I
hear you. Like I said, though, this was stream of consciousness. I thought
about all of it in less time than it took you to read this sentence (yet alone
the whole post so far). There is a point, and I am getting there.
Because I had circumcision on the brain (wow, that
does not sound right), my initial
reaction to infant piercing was to defend it as a parental right. After all, I
do not want to be lumped in with the AC’s. But as I thought through it, I
realized it was an apples and oranges comparison. Not that it should be
illegal, but it needs a different perspective.
The question that needs to be asked, as is so
often the case, is “Why?” Piercing has occurred throughout history and in many
cultures. Generally it was a mark of ownership. Many pagans used it to show
devotion to the gods, and the ancient Israelites used it to show that someone
had chosen to be a lifelong slave to someone else (Exodus
21:1-6). Piercing was a sign of subservience.
That should raise some questions, but of course,
that is not the reason people get pierced now. It is purely aesthetic. They just want to look a certain way. You can ask the “why” question here, too, but
it takes on an added dimension where infant piercing is concerned.
For some people, I have been told it is cultural.
And for them, there are probably at least reasons behind it. But for some
others, the answer is the same as for adults. It is about the look. It is a way
to make the baby pretty. In that case, is the motive good? Is it a baby, or a
baby doll? Because I feel like a lot of people are struggling with the
difference.
Let me put more emphasis on that. How do you view
your children? And don't just tell me what sounds right. Look at the choices
you have made, because that is the proof. What are your priorities? Do you
spend money on them, or give up money
for them? Does their appearance
reflect on you, or does it serve to teach them self respect? Are they your
idol, or your responsibility? Your trophy, or your legacy? Do you glorify God
through them, or yourself? For too many people, children are more a status symbol
than real humans with a need for love and guidance. Quite simply, it's messed
up.
Again, I am not trying to tell people what they
can and cannot do. I am simply asking them to ask themselves what they should or should
not do. Infant piercing is just one topic where that can be raised. People are
cutting their children. They are making them bleed. Is it for a good reason? Kids
are people, not property, so the question needs to be asked. They deserve at
least that much.
So my point in the comparison to circumcision is
that there isn't one (a comparison. There is a point). Circumcision is an
ancient rite of passage and devotion, whether you agree with it or not.
Piercing, for many, is about something completely shallow. We need to be able
to point out the difference so we don't conflate them. It is possible to defend
the one but not the other. That is what I am doing.
Do I want infant piercing to be illegal? No. It
doesn't do enough real harm to go that far. Do I want people to stop? Sure, but I'm not going to be insistent. All I really want, is for
people to think about what they are doing, and why. They are not infants, to
just go for what is shiny. At least take the time to have a reason. And see if
you can make it a good one.
No comments:
Post a Comment