“Circumcision”
It is curious at least, strange at most that one of the words heard an inordinate amount of times for those who grew up in evangelical circles is the word, “circumcision”.
This was decidedly a sermon word, meaning that it existed not so much in conversation, but uncomfortably often in sermons. The reason for this is that the word figures quite prominently in the Bible. I will spare you the theological, religious, and cultural history as to why this is. Suffice it to say that in the religious history of Judaism and Christianity, and how the two relate, circumcision turns out to be an important word. In what is called “The Old Testament” in evangelical churches, the word appears in mostly its literal sense. One story has David (not yet King) told to bring 100 Philistine foreskins as price for a bride to King Saul. David accepts the challenge and brings back double the amount after battle with the Philistines. The story mentions that they (the 200 foreskins) were counted out, and Michal (the lucky lady) was given to David in marriage. I am reluctant to even mention the story of Dinah and the Shechemites from Genesis chapter 34.
In the “New Testament” there is still a lot of talk about circumcision, and some of the mentions are literal. However, there is a shift in how the word is used. It is often used to represent the role of religious law and ceremony and external markers in religious identity, salvation and group identity for the early Christian community.
If you were a young person who went to church regularly, it is likely the case that you heard the word circumcision with much greater frequency than most of your friends did.
Here is a passage from the book of Romans, for example:
“For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision, but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the by the letter.”
Granted, that is a less jarring passage than the David and the foreskins story, but if the passage was in the scripture reading for the day, then that’s a lot of times you heard the word. Quick side note; such passages do lead many people to rightfully ask a number of questions along the lines of, “What about the women?” Questions of religious law and ceremony, questions of gender, questions of what makes someone “acceptable” in God’s eyes, all arise from these kinds of passages. Another quick side note; how would you like to have been chosen as scripture reader for that service?
For now, though, let me just tell you what I think is a funny circumcision story. Don’t worry, the story has no actual circumcision involved.
I was a youth and associate minister for a number of years. The church had a balcony and the youth group was fairly large at the time. I used to sit with the youth group in the balcony during church services. I think that the older members of the church were mostly glad that the young people were attending, but there was the more than occasional mention of how they were talking too much or being disruptive. Another complaint that was regularly issued was that the youth group was sitting in the balcony while large portions of the main level remained empty. Eventually the young people agreed to move to the main level and took up a number of rows right near the front. It no doubt made older people in the congregation feel good that a significant number of young people were visible. It may also have been the case that they were less distracting at the front of the church. However, the move was not without incident. One Sunday the senior pastor was preaching on a passage something like the one from Romans quoted above. I don’t think that it was at my prompting, but early into the sermon I could hear that the young people were counting the number of times that the preacher said “circumcision”. I did not discourage the counting, after all, sermons can be pretty boring and someone saying “circumcision” over and over in a relatively short period of time is noteworthy. At work, a couple of days later, the senior minister told me that he wanted to talk to me about something. I could tell that he was upset about whatever it was. He told me that he had noticed during his sermon the previous Sunday that the young people were more giggly than normal, that they were snickering a little bit, and that he found it to be disruptive. He asked if I knew what had been going on.
I told him that I did know.
I told him that they were counting the number of times he said “circumcision” in the sermon. I think that I might have smiled and giggled a little bit when I told him this. He asked me next what I did to stop such behaviour. I told him that I didn’t do anything to stop it.
He asked why.
I told him that I didn’t think it was a big deal. The young people were not overly disruptive during the sermon, and they were there in church after all, and they were clearly listening attentively to the sermon.
“Besides,” I said, “It was funny. You said ‘circumcision’ 27 times in 35 minutes. You don’t think that’s funny?”
He didn’t think it was funny, but I still do.
And to be fair. I would never begrudge someone counting how many times I said circumcision during a sermon.
To me, that’s fair game.
You win Todd! 19 times in a 2 minute read plus 4 additional Un's!!