Sunday, August 23, 2009

Week One Discussion Post

On a weekly basis, we are required to submit discussion to the class message board regarding the current week topic. This is my post:

Once I went through the first few sections of the Didache, I noticed that the document became very legalistic. For example, the writer discussed how the baptism process should occur (i.e., the appropriate fasting, timing, method, and alternatives based upon certain events) As I was reading, I started to ask myself "why?". What could have been the context that would call for the need for the step by step procedure?

I then thought about the ancient cultures such as the Greeks. One could argue that the formation of their deity system was derived from explaining the unknown. Those individuals did not have the knowledge that we have today. Therefore, if the wind blows, we can explain it with a wind god. If there is a sun that shines upon us and allows us to be fruitful, then there must be a sun god. As elementary as it sounds, I can see how this could be a definite way to explain worldly processes to those that lacked knowledge.

That is the thought that brought me to a potential answer to my question above. Why did the church feel required to set forth the guidelines? Specifically, why did the church become compelled to tell people what and how to pray? In my limited knowledge at this point, could I propose that the reason that the church was so legalistic was because of the intelligence/knowledge level of its members?

In the United States, the ability to read is essentially a requirement. There are some circumstances that cause some individuals to grow up and not have that ability, but for the most part, we can all read. That being said, we have the ability to read the Bible and form our relationship with Christ. We have our own FAQ that at anytime we can open the Word and get our answers.

However, I can see how this would be a big problem in the earlier societies. So at this point, my thoughts are that maybe the church could have needed to be more legalistic in the past. Maybe in order to avoid heretic thoughts and actions, the church leaders would "help" out their church members in saying what to pray, how to pray, when to be baptized, etc. As we can "read" in the New Testament, the walk with Christ is calls more of a relationship rather than a set of rules (Yes, the rules are implied in that relationship). Yet this also makes me think of my job. At my firm, we have the new guys have a look at prior year workpapers in order to help guide them in completing the current year audit. They lack the knowledge to complete the tasks at first, so having the benchmarks helps them grow in the manner that we want them to grow.

I probably went a little long here, and I apologize!

2 comments:

  1. I love that you're putting thoughts here from your classwork. I'm going to start doing that as well! I have a question though...how do you think this all plays into the creeds that the earlier churches had? For example, there is practically zero legalism in the Apostles creed...it simply talks about what we believe. So why was it necessary to be legalistic when these creeds were for the people who couldn't read?

    Those two things may be mutually exclusive, but it's a thought I had.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, so then maybe the legalism simply stemmed from the Jews that became Christian. So instead of agreeing with the decision made during the Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts that Paul was in defense of, the people simply could not get away from their former legalist way of thinking.

    I think my professor might be on to something with the whole "discussion board" idea. I like it.

    ReplyDelete