A New Kind of Evangelical

Barna: Americans Are Spiritual But Postmodern

ChristianPost.com dissects the latest research by Barna which supports what many have suspected: postmodern thought has entrenched itself in the church.

Among the findings: "just 16 percent of adults claim they make their moral choices based on the Bible." And "the younger a person is, the less likely they are to trust the Bible as their source of moral guidance or to believe that absolute moral truth exists."

These statistics do not bring Barna to the conclusion that churches and their pastors should "Preach the Word, in season and out of season". Barna's answer to postmodernity and its relativism is more pragmatism: "if they have a discussion and application to their life, or if they have a multi-sensory experience with those principles, they retain the information and the probability that they will act, rises."

Circumcision as a Crime?

Activists Want UN to Declare Circumcision a Human Rights Crime

Patrick Goodenough with CNSNews.com reports that several anti-circumcision groups have joined together in calling for the U.N. "to classify circumcision of male children as a human rights crime."

The grounds for their complaint? The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says member states "shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children." Apparently, that language includes circumcision.

Is the pain of the child the motivation for the complaint? Not at all. Goodenough quotes Dr. George Denniston of Doctors Opposing Circumcision in Seattle who "compassionately" opines that circumcision "removes erogenous tissue and leaves the genitals with significantly diminished sexual capacity."

Not only are the activists ignoring the evidence that suggests the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, the target of the anti-circumcision crowd is much farther and higher. Goodenough quotes a Jewish doctor who points out that the Bible mandates circumcision on the eighth day. Actually, it's the Old Covenant that mandated male circumcision on the eighth day. While that regulation has come and gone with the death and resurrection of Christ in the inauguration of the New Covenant, it's hard to miss the implications of the anti-circumcision crowd: Forced circumcision on male infants is a human rights crime. God required Israelites to circumcise their infants. Thus, playing to the age-old caricature of God in the Old Testament, God is a cosmic child abuser bent on stealing sexual pleasure.

Lost in the discussion is *why* God mandated circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant given to Abraham, representing the curse of the covenant. Unfaithfulness to the covenant would result in being "cut off" from the covenant (and by implication, God and salvation). But that's not the end of circumcision's significance... it's only the beginning. Circumcision pointed forward to the One who underwent the ultimate circumcision in a crucified death. God is not a cosmic kill joy. In a display of both his love and justice, He "circumcised" His Son as if the Son had broken covenant. Because Christ was cut off, we are no longer cut off from fellowship with the Father and His New Covenant blessings.