Cafeteria Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section may contain too much repetition.
Please help improve this article, or discuss the issue on its talk page. Editing help is available. (December 2007)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(March 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (March 2008)

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (see Hebrews 8:6). His famous Sermon on the Mount representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype ^[1] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.

Christianity Portal

Cafeteria Christianity is a derogatory term used by some Christians to label individual Christians or Christian churches who, they believe, select which religious doctrines they will follow, and which they will not.^[2]

Cafeteria-style means to pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line. The term implies that an individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than a genuine interpretation of, Christian doctrine. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as the resurrection or the virgin birth of Jesus) or Biblical morality and ethical prohibitions (e.g. a rejection of homosexual acts) and is often associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] General use

The term is generally pressed into service for ad hominem, either to disqualify a person's omission of a Christian precept, or to invalidate their advocacy of a different precept entirely -- if they disobey one command of God, who are they to demand adherence to another?^{[citation needed]} However, there is some basis for this selectiveness in the New Testament— according to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (as well as some of Paul's letters), Gentile Christians are not obliged to keep the entire Old Testament Law.^[3]

[edit] Cafeteria Catholicism

The term Cafeteria Catholic (also à la carte Catholic or CINO = "Catholic In Name Only") is applied to those who dissent from Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality. The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war. Groups labeled as such include Call to Action, FutureChurch, and Catholics for a Free Choice.^{[citation needed]}

The term has no status in official Catholic teachings. However, the practice of selective adherence to the magisterium of the church has been repeatedly condemned through the teaching of the Popes:

In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:

"Being an adult means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature."

In a similar vein, Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."

The term has been in use since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, an official document that reminded Catholics of the Church's opposition to the use of artificial birth control and advocates natural family planning.

[edit] Historical background

Main article: Biblical law in Christianity

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) of about 50 AD was the first meeting in Early Christianity called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new community. Specifically, it had to consider whether new Gentile converts to Christianity were obligated to undergo biblical circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, though the issue has wider implications.

The decision of the Council came to be called the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:19-21) and was that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement.^[4] However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and idol worship.^[5] Beginning with Augustine of Hippo^[6], many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars^[7] reject the connection to Noahide Law (Genesis 9) and instead see Lev 17-18 as the basis. See also Old Testament Law directed at non-Jews and Leviticus 18. The modern debate over the definition of fornication and whether or not it includes Leviticus 18 is part of the Homosexuality and Christianity debate.

[edit] References

^ See also Antithesis of the Law.
^ The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible, A. J. Jacobs, Simon & Schuster, 2007, ISBN 0743291476. The American Monastic Newsletter of The American Benedictine Academy: "Yet a danger does still remain. It is the danger of "cafeteria Christianity," which lets people mix and match traditions any way they want, without discipline and without accountability. Unless we transcend cafeteria Christianity, our practices will be more sarabaite or gyrovague than Benedictine". Catholic News Agency: Archbishop calls on Costa Ricans to abandon “cafeteria Christianity” and defend life: "San Jose, Mar 29, 2005 / 12:00 am (CNA).- Archbishop Hugo Barrantes Urena of San Jose, Costa Rica, told Costa Ricans in his Easter message to embrace the faith without conditions or short-cuts and to defend the life of the unborn against efforts to legalize abortion. The archbishop warned that “based on a relativistic understanding of the Christian faith and a conditional adherence to the Church, some Catholics seek to construct a Christianity and, consequently, a Church to their own liking, unilateral and outside the identity and mission that Jesus Christ has fundamentally given us.”". What's So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza, Regnery Publishing, 2007, ISBN 1596985178, page XII: "This is "cafeteria Christianity", and it is worse than literalism. ... The cafeteria Christian simply projects his or her prejudices onto the text.
^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Gentiles: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah: "R. Emden (), in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."
^ Acts 15:19
^ Karl Josef von Hefele's Commentary on canon II of Gangra notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third 731 forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuser, like other laws."
^ Contra Faust, 32.13
^ For example: Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0300139829, chapter V