Week 2 & 3 Discussion Questions

Socrates accused Rhapsodes of the same fault as Sophists. Neither profession took care for the greatest improvement of the soul as did Socrates, rather, above all other things the Rhapsodes and Sophists considered their own fame and fortune. Socrates would accuse them of peddling the indulgence of their curiosities by the knack of their ingenuities. According to Socrates these professionals would pontificate upon the meaning of Homeric epics with not a thought for virtue or wisdom. In effect they told lies. To Socrates the act of self indulgence where there ought to be oracular wisdom was heresy.

The Rhapsodes reified the state but in what Socrates believed to be a misdirection. Performances interpreted, and therein gave meaning to, the Greek’s sacred texts much in the same way as preachers interpret and perform the meaning of holy texts today. Hargis stated, “In a very real sense the Iliad and the Odyssey became the greek “Bible”, which could be quoted book and line and then interpreted as support for the cause under discussion just as the Hebrew-Christian Bible was construed. Some of these interpretations seemed entirely fanciful and even specifically misleading. Anything could be proved by twisting Homer to serve the purpose of the moment.”

Having said that, one must not wonder as to why the Christian church eventually sought to utilize performances as a method of evangelism years later. Initially the church was reluctant to adopt performance style evangelism because the origins of such style came to them from pagan Rome. Apparently the church was slow to imitate that which once oppressed them, but in time they came around. A common occurrence in church history is overreaction to what may be perceived by the church as sin. The Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, the curse of Ham, segregation, and the Salem Witch Trials were not our finest hour. Even presently some church members fly in the face of facts concerning evolution further isolating themselves from science and some in the church support government legislation for the unequal treatment of other human beings based upon their sexual orientation. Such actions are rash. In some cases such action may be in supposed accordance with the words of Jesus “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” However, should one take these words literally then self mutilation is in order, but paradoxically mutilation is in fact frowned upon by the church as well. Moreover, to those who might use the government as the “righteous arm of the Lord” to administer unequal rights - oppression is far from a Christ-like imitation.

Once I step off my soap box and asses the situation dispassionately I may conclude church policy is negotiable and perhaps contrary to the popular notion of church policy as a righteous and unchanging law. Not because the church must navigate a progressive world but because at times the church must apologize for it’s occasional wayward navigation. Hence, if you walk into any given church today you will witness an elaborate performance not unlike the social gatherings of Greece, Rome, and early Europe. Often what is rejected with righteous indignation is soon exploited for righteous sanctification. Socrates cursed the Rhetoricians of his day while he was chief among them. At least Paul would admit his desperate position “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.”