Should a Brit Milah be Postponed because of Non-Observant Relatives?

"On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Vayikra 12:3)."

A question has arisen in modern generations, given the proliferation of secularization in the Western world. It is a phenomenon that may hearken back to the Emanicipation, but whatever the causative factors may be, those who are secular and those who are religious are often forced in both the Jewish and non-Jewish world to find middle ground on issues where they don't necessarily see eye to eye. In Qatar, it may have been: should alcohol be banned at the World Cup? In countries with a predominantly Christian ethos, "Should the judicial (de juro) /legislative arm (de facto) ban abortions?", an issue that pits conservatives and liberals across America, and I would assume other Western countries as well, but perhaps less to the same extent as it does in the U.S.

A not so new question in the Jewish world is whether secular family members should compel a religious family to deprive its new-born child of a circumcision, or brit milah, on the 8th day of his life. Some argue that after the 8th day, the father does not even have any more obligation than any other viv a vis ensuring that his son be circumcized. Everyone though concurs that the father takes precedence over other parties when the brit milah is performed at the proper time. 

Furthermore, and perhaps a more far-reaching question, to what extent should a religious perhaps have to adapt to the lifestyle choices of the secular world, and vice versa. As some recommend, should a religious father ask his secular relatives, not to attend the bris, presuming it is on Shabbat? 

It is hard to strike a middle ground; a friend, Meir Sayag suggested that in such a case, the brit should be performed on time, right after netz, or sunrise on Shabbat morning, and then the larger family can attend festivities in honor of the newly circumcized child after Shabbat. 

Perhaps that is the best middle ground. An authorative book, "The Encyclopedia of the Brit Milah" rules that a religious family should always perform the brit on the 8th day; a secular family, it depends on who you ask, as the opinions vary from those who are more permissive to those who are more staunch in their opposition. 

The Chazon Ish, revolutionary in thought, referred to all secular Jews today as tinokot she'nishbu, or captive children, kidnapped by the lure of secularization; he therefore asked that the Jewish world relate to them not with the same staunch opposition, but rather, in a more permissive way, enabling them to receive aliyot in shul and the like. At the same time, when it came to drinking wine and alcoholic beverages together, he felt that a demarcation should be created preventing socialization in situations when people could be more loose in their practices, and shared that we objectively want the osmosis to work in the opposite direction, the religious influencing those who are less so, and therefore sought to forbid discourse and socialization over wine and the like. 

Rabbi Ovadia Z"L, as the newly chosen Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv cunningly sought to prevent chilul Shabbat in a rather interesting way. The Talmud states that one is not allowed to have a wedding after Shabbat because were an unexpected guest to arrive one could easily be swept away and "slaughter an extra pulley." Rabbi Ovadia wanted to prevent widespread desecration of the Sabbath and so forbade rabbis from performing weddings on Motzaei Shabbat in Tel Aviv; when wedding halls complained, he allowed them to open for weddings during part of the "three weeks," and the "omer period" we are currently observing now. He acutely realized that Shabbat observance, both halachically and sociologically, is more vital than customs that diverge from one community to the next, and which have far less legal weight than the sacrosanct day of rest. 

It is hard to strike a middle ground. A friend told me that twice, for his sons, he had brit milahs on Shabbat; the first time, many a secular relative drove in; the second time, he asked them not to come. Perhaps Meir's suggestion is best here, so as to not offend anyone's sensibilities, but at the same time, in light of the abovementioned ruling, it would seem, in my humble opinion, that there is no reason to differentiate between whether or not the parents of the newborn child are religious or not.