Some Christians have their infants circumcised but not baptized.
They say baptism should be a choice a child makes when he is older.
They say the Bible mandates circumcision but not infant baptism.
But it's clear that circumcision, though mandated in the Old Testament, is deemed of no value in the New Testament. See Galatians 5:1-6:
1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
So, if neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, why not leave it as a choice for the child to make as well?
Notice that Paul says "every man who lets himself be circumcised." That sounds to me like someone who can make a choice for himself.
Some Christians, instead of baptizing their infants, have them dedicated.
So how about, instead of circumcising their infants, these parents have their babies' penises dedicated?
Rosemary Rothberg wrote a terrific piece for NOHARMM called, "Circumcision and the Christian Parent." Check it out for more information.
