I went to my first Basic Seminar when I was 12. My family enrolled in The Advanced Training Institute (ATI) three years later. It was about seven years after that when I began having serious problems with the teachings of Bill Gothard.
Oddly enough, my doubting started because of the Institute’s teaching on circumcision.
I was enrolled in the midwifery program. I knew that circumcision on the eighth day was completely endorsed by ATI. After all, it is supposedly God’s design, commanded in His law and confirmed by the fact that Vitamin K levels (Vitamin K aids in blood clotting) are highest at eight days old.
But I had once read an article about circumcision in a secular publication that pointed out that Christians had not routinely circumcised since the time of the New Testament. That article had challenged my thinking and caused me to reject the idea that circumcision is a New Testament command. So when it came time to study circumcision in the midwifery program, I knew I wouldn’t agree with the Institute’s position.
I clearly remember sitting down with the Basic Care Bulletin on circumcision and my Bible open to the book of Galatians. I was shocked by the misrepresentation of Scripture I found that day.
Page five of the Basic Care Bulletin entitled “How to Make a Wise Decision on Circumcision,” states, “Paul also affirmed the many advantages of circumcision in his letter to the Christians in Rome: ‘What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way’ (Rom. 3:1-2).
I looked the passage up in my Bible. This is what I found, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (Emphasis mine.)
I was surprised that a verse had been cut off in the middle of a sentence to make it say something other than what the context actually said. When I read the whole of verse 2, it was obvious that the reference to circumcision was a reference to being a Jew, not to the physical act of circumcision.
As I continued to read, I was horrified to find that circumcision was being promoted as a way to help boys gain moral freedom. Page six of the Basic Care Bulletin says, “Throughout Scripture, God uses the term uncircumcision to identify immoral men.” It also says, “Many parents of uncircumcised male children have been alarmed at their children’s abnormal focus on their own private parts. In this regard, the pain connected with the procedure of circumcision could have a significant beneficial factor.”
Circumcision is presented as a good thing based on the idea that it reduces sexual pleasure. The implication, though not at all in agreement with what the Bible teaches, is that sexual pleasure is bad and that eliminating some of that pleasure is a good way to help men overcome moral impurity.
I realized that a physical action was being promoted as a way to have victory over sin. What an insult to our Gospel! Galatians 6:12-15 says, “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (Emphasis added.)
My eyes were being opened to the Institute’s propensity for glorying in the flesh, and I was shocked!
But isn’t that what we were taught in many areas? In all the various character curriculum we were given, “character qualities” that are actually fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, self control, gentleness, goodness, meekness, faithfulness) were presented as something we could develop if we did the right steps and followed the right projects. The power of the Holy Spirit was promised as a result of passing tests, not as the source of passing those tests. (See “The Power of True Success.”)
The joy of just learning to walk in the Spirit and love Jesus was replaced with commands from the Mosaic law and extra-Biblical principles that, when followed, where guaranteed to make us more like Jesus and more spiritual. If we’d just mediate right, make all the right commitments, learn to see the world through the grid of the 7 Basic Principles, etc., we’d be successful, smart, healthy, and not have to worry about anything.
We were told we were learning to think God’s thoughts, but as I saw in the circumcision teaching, what was being presented as “God’s thoughts” were often just the thoughts of a man or a misapplication of the Mosaic law.
When I think of the way I was taught to walk in my own strength and trust principles and works to keep me from sin, I’m reminded of the admonition in Colossians 2:20-23. “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”
Circumcision is not the tool God has given us to win in our fight against the flesh. Romans 6 shows us that we have all we need to live victoriously over sin and the flesh because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Because Charles Swindoll says it so well in The Grace Awakening, I’ll quote him: “Romans 6:11 tells us there is something we must consider: ‘Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.’ The word ‘consider’ is crucial. It is from a Greek word that means ‘To calculate, to take into account, to figure.’ It is a financial term, an accounting term. Rather than meaning ‘act like it is so,’ it means ‘reckon it true. Enter it in the ledger. Record it in the creases of your brain.’ What exactly are we to calculate? Namely this: We are in Christ, dead to sin’s power. And Christ is in us, releasing God’s new power.”
As I said before, circumcision isn’t the tool God gave us to find victory over sin, but He did provide for it through Calvary. As we “consider” ourselves dead to sin and yield ourselves to God, we have victory over sin and the flesh. As Paul said in I Corinthians 15:57, “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Well put, Ileata!
Not just ATI but most Christians feel this way too!! So glad my husband and I searched the scriptures for ourselves before making that choice for our son!! I thank God for putting that doubt in my mind every time I change my perfect intact lil boy!
Actually only in the US & predominantly Jewish or Muslim countries will you find this so. It might come as a huge shock to some but the US is the only coutry that routinely circumcises most baby males )and until recently also some baby girls) routinely. In fact intact care is not know either and to retract to clean - as so many think is needful, is making sure that if not circumcised at a few days old the child will need to be lalter because of the trauma to a normal and healthy body part. I am sorry to tell you that it is not just Gothard who is lying to you - the Doctors and consultants are too. If you would like some links that can help you make a decision for yourselves, please ask, but I'll finish with Paul, in Galatians 5 vs2&3 "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who let's himself be circumcised that he is obligated to keep the whole law." and finally towards Mr Gothard, vs 12 "As for those agitators, I wish they would go and emasculate themselves!"
When we know better - we do better
“Many parents of uncircumcised male children have been alarmed at their children’s abnormal focus on their own private parts. In this regard, the pain connected with the procedure of circumcision could have a significant beneficial factor.”
WHAT THE ?? Why don't we just do electric shock therapy on our 8 day old infant? This concept is deplorable, sick, and abusive!! Basically admitting that unanesthetized genital surgery causes a child to be sexually repressed, and calling it a good thing! Someone didn't think that through before they wrote it down and published it.
When I think of the way I was taught to walk in my own strength and trust principles and works to keep me from sin, I’m reminded of the admonition in Colossians 2:20-23. “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”
Right on! I truly believe that if the Apostle Paul were alive today, he would publicly and soundly call Mr. Gothard into account for twisting the gospel. But on a positive note, thank God for his grace in giving us his Spirit and enabling us to walk in the Spirit.
> "I truly believe that if the Apostle Paul were alive today, he would publicly and soundly call Mr. Gothard into account for twisting the gospel."
Well, he kind of did: refuting the idea that circumcision is connected to salvation is a large part of the point of the epistle to the Galatians. (Which makes me wonder which Bible Mr. Gothard was reading! Did somebody tear Galatians out?)
LOL!
Good article! And good point. I wish I'd realized earlier that it wasn't my fault I couldn't understand Scripture as interpreted by ATI.
When my first son was born, we had him circumcised as a matter of course. I'd come up under ATI teachings and I knew it was the right thing for a Christian couple to do. (I don't think my husband thought exactly the same way; he was following his dad's advice, who said he wished he'd been circumcised for physical reasons (not sexual) that I don't quite remember.)
By the time my second son was born, I'd learned more about my own faith. I learned that baptism was the ritual that symbolized our entry into the family of God, not circumcision. That there was absolutely no obligation to circumcise, and that in fact it might be more in keeping with NT Christianity NOT to do it.
However, we couldn't have one male in the house look different from the other males. So we got him done, too. But I didn't feel that we earned any gold stars for it.
The suggestion that the pain of circumcision could deter a child from "interest in his private parts" is ridiculous. Eight-day-old babies don't remember the pain. Sometimes it sounds like Gothard was just jotting down ideas as they occurred to him, and nobody came behind to edit them out.
"However, we couldn't have one male in the house look different from the other males."
I don't see why not. If one son had blond hair and the other black, would you make the one that didn't match Daddy dye his hair so all the males would look alike? You don't even see your child's penis most of the time, unless you happen to be nudists.
"The suggestion that the pain of circumcision could deter a child from "interest in his private parts" is ridiculous."
No, but it is true that unanethesized pain at that young age makes possibly permanent, poorly understood changes to the infant's neurology. And it's also true that the foreskin is full of nerve endings, and also helps keep the penis more sensitive by keeping it lubricated. Removing those nerve endings has an effect. Desensitizing the rest of the penis has an effect.
Point taken about difference of appearance. But I still think it was the right decision, and it's a moot point by this time anyway.
And speculations of possible effects aside, I still think it's ridiculous reasoning.
I didn't mean "aside," as if to dismiss the speculations. I meant "notwithstanding."
Very well put, Ileata. You should have asked your dad when you first read it. He always said Gothard's opinion on circumcision was absurd.
Dad
As a parent myself now, I can imagine being surprised if my child were to say they were taught something that I know I did not teach them.
For what it's worth, something I've noticed in talking to my parents about Gothardism is that they see it as one of many influences that they brought into the home. But from my perspective, if the church disagreed with Gothard, we pulled back from the church; if friends disagreed with Gothard, we pulled back from the friends (conversely, if friends agreed with Gothard we moved in closer to them). If we read Scripture and it seemed to say one thing but then we read Gothard's opinion, in the end, Gothard's opinion was often what would effectively stand.
For me, it was not one of many influences, it was the defining gold standard by which everything and everyone else was judged. This was not said with words, it was simply lived out by our actions. I did not have an already-developed understanding of theology to which I was adding Gothardism. Instead, my formation was very significantly shaped from the ground up by Gothard's materials, which I sat and studied many times over, looking for answers.
As a parent now, I can understand how parents might shake their heads and say "I didn't teach you that" but it might be hard for the parents to realize how pervasive Gothard's teachings seemed to the kids who were raised in ATIA. This isn't a knock against the parents who did the best they knew, it's just a comment about the different perspective of the parents vs. the students.
Matthew, THANK YOU!!! I couldn't have said it half as well.
This is something that has been difficult for me to explain to my parents as well. Regardless of what *they* actually believe, THIS (ATI-garbage) is what *I* came away with.
Actually, I didn't agree with it when I first read it. I already knew what they thought and already knew I disagreed with Mr. G on circumcision. What surprised me was how much he twisted Scripture to make his point....and the idea that we could be holy by a simple surgery!
So true, Ileata. All of it. I wish that I hadn't wasted so many years believing that I had to earn God's favor.
I just wanna say that it's been because of discussions w/ Ileata in the past that spurred me to really examine whether or not I wanted to circ my 2nd son. We had already done our oldest (so he'd look like dad -- poor reasoning, I know, but nonetheless, that's what we decided -- NOT because it was the more "Christian" thing to do) but I wasn't convinced it was the best way. I talked my husband into not doing so w/ #2, and 2wks later my husband told me that he was glad that that's what we chose.
Anyhow -- thanks, Ileata!
Lora, You're welcome! :-)
Funny how Christians didn't circumcise for the best part of two millennia, and yet because of some seriously bad *medical* opinions in the late 19th century, some Christians are looking for reasons to do it today.
The only places where Christians circumcise (excluding the Coptic Orthodox Christians) are the Philippines and the USA. In the Philippines, they do it around puberty, and it only started in the USA in the late 19th century for misguided medical reasons, not religious reasons.
The whole vitamin K thing is bogus - there's nothing special about the eighth day, and no other surgery would be scheduled for then. The USA and Israel are the only countries in the world where more than 50% of baby boys are circumcised.
90% of Christians worldwide do *not* circumcise. In the most Christian countries in the world (places like Mexico, Poland, Brazil, Spain, Italy), the practice is almost unknown.
The Catholic church has been opposed for centuries:
The Holy Roman Church "...commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation."
From Cantate Domino, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952
"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way." Pope Pius XII in 1952
Galatians 5:2 (New American Standard Bible)
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:2&version=NASB
Corinthians 7:18-19 (New American Standard Bible)
Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:18-19;&version=NASB
We didn't have our boys circumsized for religious reasons but because we felt it would be easier for them to keep their private area clean.
I hate to admit that... even though I couldn't prove it from scripture- I bought this flawed ATI argument hook line and sinker. I have only begun to re-evaluate it in the last couple of months. Whoever I marry will be grateful- now I won't require them to get circumcised if they weren't as a child. I find this whole idea laughable now. but I believed it in all seriousness before.
"We didn't have our boys circumsized for religious reasons but because we felt it would be easier for them to keep their private area clean."
!?! It's way harder for girls to keep their "private area" clean, but we don't cut parts of them off to make it easier.
Wow! Gothard really bought into the whole idea that circumcision was for moral purity. He wasn't the first person to do so. That is the very reason why routine circ was introduced and promoted in America. Dr. Kellog, the father of American circumcision wrote: ”A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.”
To take the belief that physical pleasure is wrong and slap a "christian" label on it is sickening to me. That this idea is still being perpetuated by christians is also sickening to me. Thank you for this glimpse into IBLP's crazy teachings. They forgot a really important verse in Galations....the one where Paul says of the men trying to convince the Gentiles they need to be circumcised that he wishes they would mutilate themselves. ;)
Come to think of it, this is the exact same reasoning why some religions circumcise their women...control of physical pleasure. We all recoil in horror to that, but not to it being done to men? Something is very wrong here.
Perhaps we men should consider ourselves fortunate that they did overlook Paul's sarcasm. I looked up Dr Kellogg and all I can say is OUCH. http://www.nndb.com/people/018/000133616/
I am really hoping that this thread does not get hijacked into a holy war over male circumcision. Discussions about this subject quickly tend to get heated (for example, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2009/09/the_case_for_male_circumcision.html )
I believe that the salient point in Ileata's article that believers can all agree upon is stated well in her penultimate paragraph: Circumcision is not the tool God has given us to win in our fight against the flesh. Romans 6 shows us that we have all we need to live victoriously over sin and the flesh because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
I would appeal to those commenting that it will take away from this critical point if people begin using the comment section as a platform for causes either for or against the practice due to reasons unrelated to the core point.
Well stated Matthew. I'm beginning to wonder if comments are even necessary? Certainly can take away from the writer's intent.
And now you put the idea in our heads, Matthew... ;p
I think that if you're going to post a very controversial and hot-button issue, you should be willing to take what comes. Obviously mean, disrespectful, or rude comments shouldn't be allowed. But it seems to me that shutting down the comments because you know how controversial the topic is is rather cowardly. So far, no one has used this as a "platform" for anything, as far as I can tell. Maybe we should cross that bridge when we come to it.
I'll vote for free speech. Everyone knows the comments are not representative of RG's stance.
Circumcision is just one of those very emotionally-charged subjects. We all hope we've made the best decision for our children. But, my intent wasn't the good or bad of circumcising for medical reasons/cleanliness, it was simply to look into Bill Gothard's false teaching that circumcision is an effective tool against sin.
I remember reading the Basic Care Bulletin and realizing that this teaching was really placing confidence in the flesh. It was really quite horrifying to me. Our boast should be in the finished work of Jesus, not the absence of foreskin.
Ileata, So glad we had that conversation back a couple years ago about Circumcision to make me even realize my thinking of it was way off. Being raised to believe it was just something you do because everyone in your family did it( and a man saying it was a must) just was not good enough anymore.
Thanks for saving my little boy from all that trauma!!
All arguments aside, yeah, the focus should be once more on BG's astounding disregard for the plain meaning of the Scripture he claims to be explaining for the less spiritual of us who don't have a direct line to the Almighty like he does.
This is one of those glaring 'BG's-opinion-over-Scripture' cases that we should draw people's attention to. It's a classic one that can stand for hundreds and hundreds of other of his misuses of the Bible.
Discuss circumcision folks, pros and cons - but remember - BG's false teachings are still the point of the article.
Get the word out... =)