A modern application of the Socratic Method
by Max Maxwell
All Rights Reserved.
Introduction to The Kyrios Dialogue
The Kyrios Dialogue is a Socratic Dialogue that was drawn from my experiences using the Socratic Method in conversations about the nature of authority. The Kyrios Dialogue is, to the best of my knowledge, the only Socratic dialogue in existence that applies the Socratic Method to a modern issue with a dialectical style and effectiveness comparable to the early dialogues of Plato. I used the Socratic Method in conversations with members of the Christian men's organization called Promise Keepers and Christian men from various church denominations.
The Kyrios Dialogue confronts conservative Christian men, who believe they have total God-given authority over their wives with a process of Socratic questioning. These men embrace what some denominations believe is a biblical doctrine to an extent that makes them over controlling in their relationships with their wives.
Karen Grasse, of the University of Pennsylvania, summed up the most negative results of Christian men believing they have God-given authority over their wives:
"I know many men who have taken 'Christian' teachings and used them as their God-given authority to 'keep a woman in her place and maintain their male-leadership role. They refuse to let their wives get a job, to go to college, have her own friends, dress the way she wants to, etc. They want to control a person in order to be the 'leader.' And guess what a lot of Christian men do when their wives won't do what they tell them to -- a little verbal hollering, a few slaps, a little hitting, to show them who's in charge because God said so in the Bible."
I found the use of the Socratic Method to be vastly superior to the traditional forms of discussion in its effectiveness at engaging conservative Christian men on this dialogue’s subject. The dialogue's title, Kyrios, comes from a Greek word which was used as a title for Jesus. It can be translated as “lord” or “master.” The Christian men I spoke to believe they have a God-given role of leadership over women. They seemed to be particularly attached to the idea that a man should be the sole leader and decision maker in the home, over his wife. A common idea many of them shared is, “as God is over man, so man is over woman.” In these conversations, I found that I had to ask the same question multiple times, because no one seemed able to give an answer. I have yet to hear from anyone, who believes he has total God-given authority over his wife, that can answer the question that is pursued in the Kyrios Dialogue. Perhaps one day I will meet someone who can explain the wisdom of male domination.
The dialogue's question is actually very answerable for people who have a more egalitarian view of the role of men in family life. Since those answers involve admitting that authority in the family is shared between husband and wife, the Christian male authority bunch tend to not want to embrace the obvious answers. Conservative Christian men, in particular those who have a love for control, seem to consistently put their theological foot in their mouth when it comes to defining the authority they believe they have over their wives. By firmly placing the issue in a non-theological framework, the Socratic Method eliminates the possibility of glib theologizing and draws these men into a more thoughtful conversation about the nature of authority.
The dialogue is an abridged composite of the real conversations. A fictional narrative context was created to connect various questions, which were asked in these conversations. The real conversations were messier and longer, but had the same basic result as the Kyrios dialogue. TheKyrios Dialogue employs the Two-Phase Freestyle mode of the Socratic Method. Read the article on the home page for more information about the Two-Phase Freestyle. This dialogue was written about 6 years prior to my current Socratic Method research project, and was re-edited for publication on the web.
Max Maxwell
Synopsis of the Kyrios Dialogue:
In the Kyrios Dialogue, the Socrates character is the Socratic questioner. John and Paul are two Christian men. After John and Paul communicate a belief in their authority over their wives, Socrates then establishes the need to define that authority through defining its jurisdiction. What is jurisdiction? There are three types of jurisdiction in a legal perspective, personal, territorial and subject matter. Legally these types of jurisdiction are used to define where, and in what circumstances a court is authorized to make decisions in cases. The Kyrios Dialogue handles these types of jurisdiction in a broader way to assess authority generally.
Personal jurisdiction is the first type to be brought up when John says that, "A husband’s authority is God-given and covers his wife throughout their lives." This is a very comprehensive idea of personal jurisdiction that covers the whole of a person's life and is quickly eliminated by showing it encroaches on the various territorial and subject matter jurisdictions that society grants to women.
John then try's to define a Christian husband's authority with territorial jurisdiction. He says, "A man has authority in the home, over his wife and children." For any personal or territorial jurisdiction to be complete it must concur with some form of the third type of jurisdiction (subject matter). The Socratic Method is used to draw out the problematic nature of Johns definition of authority through territorial jurisdiction by showing the difficulties of establishing a concurrence with subject matter jurisdiction. Because John is initially wanting to embrace the authority to rule on all subject matters in the home, he makes a realistic concurrence with subject matter jurisdiction impossible. This is because there is a built in presumption of special knowledge and skill that is part of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, all authority must have as part of its basis some form of expertise to the extent that its personal or territorial jurisdiction must concur with subject matter jurisdiction. As John realizes his failure, he tries to redefine his territorial jurisdiction to formally exclude subject matter jurisdiction. This ends up incorporating the concepts of ignorance and triviality into his definition of a husband's authority in a way that causes Paul to take over the conversation.
The dialogue then focuses on subject matter jurisdiction. In subject matter jurisdiction, a particular field of knowledge or practice is defined. For example, a bankruptcy court has the authority to specialize in hearing only bankruptcy cases. To say that a biologist speaks with authority on the subject of biology is also to define authority on the basis of subject matter. Paul claims that the "knowledge of God" is the basis of his authority over his wife. As the process of Socratic questioning proceeds, Paul is unable to show where this knowledge applies in a way that can constitute a definition of subject matter jurisdiction. Paul then tries to use "authority by appointment" as a way to circumvent the need to define a jurisdiction but fails.
The conclusion of the Kyrios Dialogue is a failure to reach the goal of finding a viable definition. Two men, who believed in a certain authority, were unable to define that authority. This failure, a hallmark of the early dialogues of Plato, serves an important purpose. It lets people know what they do not know.
If you know of another Socratic dialogue, which applies the Socratic Method to a modern subject and is comparable to the early dialogues of Plato with regard to it dialectical style and effectiveness, please use the contact link on the home page to send me information about it.
This Socratic dialogue is based on conversations I had with conservative Christian men. In those conversations, I used the Socratic Method to explore an issue of authority. This dialogue demonstrates how to deconstruct a controversial theological issue by moving a theological perspective into a non-theological framework in a way that is easy going, natural and virtually irresistible. The Kyrios Dialogue has three characters. John and Paul are two conservative Christian men who believe the bible teaches that men have total God-given authority, and total control, over their wives. The Socrates character is the Socratic questioner. This Socratic dialogue will focus, in the style of the early dialogues of Plato, on seeking a definition of the authority that John and Paul believe they have over their wives. As the dialogue progresses, John and Paul realize that the theological position they value cannot be articulated in a way that makes sense in light of these simple questions.
Paul: The preacher’s sermon was excellent today. It was an inspiring message right out of the word of God.
Socrates: A message from God? What was the message?
Paul: He talked about an issue that is very important to the health of families. The sermon was about the proper role of men in the home. The preacher said that husbands have a God given authority over their families and that wives should be submissive to their husband’s authority. He encouraged husbands to start exercising this authority over their wives. In this way God’s divine order and purpose for the family can be fulfilled.
Socrates: Having order and purpose in life is a fine thing, if they also come with understanding.
John: I don’t think my wife liked the sermon very much. I do not believe she will let me exercise my authority, even if it is from God.
Paul: A lot of families are like this and it is a cause of great spiritual harm. In my home, I am in charge. I can testify that when a man exercises his God given authority, things are much better in the home. The Bible tells us, as Christ is over man, so man is over woman. John, you should just start walking in that spirit. God wants you to be the head of your family, it is His will. He will guide you and be with you. Just take the first steps of faith and be obedient to Him.
John: I understand and believe. It’s just hard to convince my wife. I do believe that a husband’s headship is vital not only to the health and well being of families, but to the whole nation. What you said, Paul, is true. The Bible does teach that the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man. A husband has a God-given role of leadership over his wife. It is the husband who is the head of the home. The wife has a role of submission to the husband's authority.
Socrates: Are you going to try to implement this principle in your family’s life?
John: If I am going to be obedient to God, I should try.
Socrates: If this really is an important truth we should embrace it. But I do not know what this authority is or how it is to be employed.
John: It is a very clear Biblical teaching.
Socrates: Then I'm lucky today. Before you, I have never talked to anyone who could explain the nature of a man’s authority over his wife. May I ask a few questions? I would like to understand it. And you seem to be the person to teach it to me.
John: Of course, go ahead.
Socrates: You believe that men should express leadership over their wives. Correct?
John: Yes.
Socrates: And this leadership carries some kind of authority?
John: Absolutely. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands. This most clearly shows that men have authority; and God gives this authority. It has also been the view of the Christian church for millennia.
Socrates: For the moment I will be content just to know your view. In regard to authority, is it not true that all authority carries the power to make decisions? For example, a ship's captain has authority. But if the first mate had the final say in all decisions pertaining to the ship, what would become of the captain's authority?
John: He would have no authority whatsoever, if you ask me.
Socrates: And does a surgeon have authority in regard to surgery?
John: Of course.
Socrates: But, I suppose, that if the patient’s spouse could walk into the operating room and make decisions about how the operation should be conducted, we might say that the surgeon's authority was in question.
John: Yes, to say the least.
Socrates: Then any authority embodies the power to make decisions?
John: Yes.
Socrates: Now, where is the jurisdiction of the Captain's authority?
John: Jurisdiction?
Socrates: Where is the authority of the ship's captain expressed?
John: He has authority on the ship.
Socrates: And the surgeon's authority, where is that expressed?
John: The surgeon has authority in the operating room.
Socrates: Can the captain, by virtue of his authority as a ship's captain, enter an operating room and make decisions about how to perform the operation?
John: Of course not.
Socrates: Could a surgeon, by virtue of his authority as a physician, enter the bridge of a ship to take command and tell the crew how to steer the boat?
John: No, he could not.
Socrates: It seems that authority has a defined jurisdiction.
John: This is true.
Socrates: Is this true only for ship's captains and doctors, or is it true for all persons in authority?
John: I think it must be true for any position of authority, except for God.
Socrates: For now, I would rather consider human males. Is it possible to have authority without a defined jurisdiction?
John: Yes, a dictator has all authority in whatever jurisdiction he desires. There is, therefore, no need for a ruthless dictator to define any jurisdiction.
Socrates: What if a ship's captain did not know the jurisdiction of his authority and tried to interfere with the surgeon in the operating room because he believed his role as a ship's captain authorized him to do so? What would we think of him?
John: I would think he was a silly goofball who needed to be arrested. Nobody would put up with that nonsense.
Socrates: And if a police officer did not know the jurisdiction of his authority, could such an officer be said to have any meaningful authority at all if he did not know under what circumstances he was allowed to express that authority and towards what ends?
John: Certainly not.
Socrates: Would you say it is true that, in the absence of a defined jurisdiction, all authority degenerates into dictatorship, silly nonsense or simply turns into no authority at all?
John: Yes, that makes sense.
Socrates: It seems like it is very important to the integrity and functioning of any particular authority to clearly define that authority's jurisdiction.
John: Yes, I agree.
Socrates: We know that the jurisdiction of the captain's authority is the ship. And we know that the jurisdiction of the surgeon’s authority is the operating room. My question is this: What is the jurisdiction of a husband’s authority over his wife?
John: A husband’s authority is God-given and covers his wife throughout their lives.
Socrates: I see. So if a man's wife were a surgeon, he could walk into the operating room and make decisions about how she will perform the operation?
John: No, he could not do that.
Socrates: If his wife were a judge, could he walk into her courtroom and dismiss her verdicts?
John: No.
Socrates: It seems that a husband's authority over his wife has limits and falls short of governing her whole life.
John: When you put it that way, of course it does.
Socrates: Then can you help me more clearly understand the jurisdiction of a husband's authority over his wife?
John: Ok, if you want the jurisdiction of a husband's authority that is easy. A man has authority in the home, over his wife and children.
Socrates: The home is a definable sphere of life. Do you remember we said that authority has the power to make decisions?
John: Yes.
Socrates: So a man has the authority to make the decisions in his own home?
John: That is correct.
Socrates: And this authority supersedes his wife?
John: Yes. This is part of his God-given role in life. The Bible teaches that this is the proper spiritual order. A man is to be over his own wife as Christ is over the church.
Socrates: You seem confident that this means something. However, I don’t understand it yet. If a husband’s authority implies the power to be the decision maker in the home, I would like to ask some questions about the nature of this decision-making.
John: It seems to me that either you believe the Bible or you don't. But if you feel the need to ask questions, I will try to help you the best I can.
Socrates: Thank you. If you were sick, whom would you want to help you make decisions about your medical care, just any man or woman, or would you want a doctor?
John: A doctor.
Socrates: If you wanted to invest money in the stock market, whom would you want to help you make decisions about your stock portfolio, a man, a woman, or someone with knowledge of the stock market?
John: I would want someone with knowledge of the stock market.
Socrates: If you were in legal trouble, whom would you want to help you make decisions pertaining to your case, a man, a woman, or a lawyer?
John: A lawyer.
Socrates: In all these cases, specific knowledge and skills grant the ability to make decisions.
John: That is true.
Socrates: Isn't all authority founded upon specific knowledge and skills?
John: Not all authority, no. There are rulers who use force to impose their will.
Socrates: Will the man who acts with God given authority be like a dictator who uses violence to establish his authority?
John: No, not at all. Out in the world when technical issues need to be decided, then one must have technical knowledge and skills. But the home is a different place. God's word tells us that the man is the head of the home over his wife. He does have the authority to be in charge, because God said it.
Socrates: I imagine that the Christian husband's authority still carries the power to make decisions in the home?
John: Yes.
Socrates: I would like to look into that. If we have a married couple, say the man is a carpenter and the woman is an emergency room doctor. If one of the kids falls from the backyard swing and is seriously injured, who has the authority to make decisions about the treatment of the child?
John: What is it with you and ship's captains and doctors, carpenters and lawyers? I am talking about the biblical authority that God has established. You keep talking like its career day at the High School.
Socrates: I hope you will have patience with me. You already know these things. I, however, am unfortunate in that I am ignorant. I know nothing about this authority, which God has established. So please help me. Do you honestly think that if the child is lying in the back yard with life threatening injuries, the husband's God given authority supersedes his wife's medical expertise?
John: No.
Socrates: In every area of life, do you believe that we should allow those who have greater knowledge and skills to make decisions which pertain to their expertise or allow people with little or no understanding to make those decisions.
John: I suppose that the people with expertise should make the decisions that are in their area of expertise.
Socrates: Then if the wife is a stockbroker and the husband is a forest ranger, who is more able to make decisions about the couple’s investments?
John: The wife.
Socrates: And if the wife is a lawyer and the husband is an artist, who is more able to make decisions about any family legal issues with regard to interpreting the law. Is it the husband or the wife?
John: The wife.
Socrates: If their car needs to be fixed, and the wife is an auto mechanic but the husband is not, who will be in a better position to make decisions about repairing the family’s car?
John: The wife.
Socrates: It looks like not all the decisions in the home fall under the auspices of God-given male authority.
John: I guess not.
Socrates: Many of the decisions made in the home seem to require the same knowledge and skills as in the outside world.
John: Apparently.
Socrates: Didn't we say that the one in authority is the one who makes the decisions?
John: Yes.
Socrates: But in numerous home situations, it is possible for the wife to be the one who is better able to make a specific decision.
John: True.
Socrates: Isn't it even possible for the husband to be grossly unqualified to make a certain decision while the wife is an expert in that field?
John: Yes. That can happen.
Socrates: In such circumstances, should a grossly unqualified husband impose his will over his expert wife?
John: No, that does not make sense.
Socrates: Then we are back where we started. You said that the jurisdiction of a man's authority over his wife is in the home. But now it appears that this is not true. For, there are many decisions made in the home, which depend on skill and knowledge and not a person's gender.
John: It seems so.
Socrates: I must ask you again. What is the jurisdiction of a husband’s authority over his wife? Where does it function?
John: I am not sure how to answer you.
Socrates: Let's see if I can clarify it for you. If you were to ask me where the authority of a judge comes into play, I would say that the judge's authority pertains to legal matters in a courtroom. If you were to ask me on what subject does a biologist speak with authority, I would answer that the subject was biology. In the same way you told me the jurisdiction of the ship’s captain's and the surgeon's authority, tell me in what area of life a Christian husband has authority over his wife.
John: There are a lot of decisions that do not require special skills or knowledge. In these areas men have the authority to make the decisions. Also, there are issues that have no clear outcome. For example, if a child is in the hospital, and both the husband and wife know nothing about medical science, then the husband has the authority to decide on the child's medical care.
Socrates: But don’t the doctors actually decide medical treatment?
John: Yes. But if the child needs surgery and one doctor wants the surgery, but another doctor says it is too dangerous, the husband has the authority to make the decision.
Socrates: So, when there is a state of mutual ignorance and no one knows any better, at that time the husband has authority even when he knows nothing?
John: Yes.
Socrates: If the ship’s captain made all his decisions, not on the basis of knowledge and experience, but just by guessing, how do you think the ship will fare?
John: I suppose not too well.
Socrates: And if a surgeon knew nothing about performing operations, but decided everything by guessing, how long to you think he would remain a surgeon?
John: Not too long.
Socrates: Then I am thinking there must be something more to a husband’s authority to make decisions than his and other peoples' ignorance. What about an example where no skills or knowledge are needed?
John: Well, if they want to rent a video, the husband has final say over what the family will watch.
Socrates: That is fairly trivial decision.
John: I suppose so.
Socrates: This God-given male authority is quite unique indeed.
John: Why do you say that?
Socrates: All other authorities require some form of knowledge or skill in order to function. But a husband’s authority over his wife appears to be the only authority that comes into play when ignorance and triviality dominate the decision under question.
John: However, I don’t think a husband’s authority is ignorant or trivial.
Socrates: But what is the basis of the doctor's authority? Isn't it true that a doctor must have a sound knowledge of medicine and possess a variety of skills pertaining to diagnosis and treatment? Do not these constitute the basis of a doctor’s authority?
John: Yes.
Socrates: And is not the basis of a police officer's authority, the knowledge and skills that enable him or her to do this job according to the specifications of the law?
John: Yes.
Socrates: But a male's authority as a husband does not require any knowledge or skills?
John: Not in this way, no.
Socrates: It looks like a husband’s authority over his wife apparently requires a circumstance in which there is either mutual ignorance, where there is no decisive knowledge, or triviality, where no knowledge or skill is needed.
John: That seems to be true.
Socrates: Then are ignorance and triviality the basis for a Christian man's authority over his wife?
Paul: Hold on! I have been listening to you two babble about a husband's authority long enough. You talk like a man needs to go to a trade school in order to be a husband. It is not true that a man’s God-given authority requires no knowledge or skill in order to function. A man needs a knowledge of the Bible and a knowledge of God in order to exercise authority over his wife. Ignorance and triviality are not the basis of a man’s authority over a woman. The Bible and almighty God are the basis of his authority!
Socrates: Well now! This may be just the thing we are looking for. In our quest to find the jurisdiction of a man’s authority over his wife, I have been very puzzled by the apparent lack of knowledge and skill pertaining to this authority. But there is one thing I would like to understand. Do you mind if I ask you some questions?
Paul: You go right ahead.
Socrates: If you were to ask me in what area the knowledge of medicine applied, I would say it applied to the care and health of the human body. If you wanted to know in what area the knowledge of carpentry applied, I would tell you it applied to working with wood. In the same way, I want you to tell me in what area the knowledge of God applies.
Paul: The Holy Spirit cannot be contained by your categories. The knowledge of the Lord is the knowledge of life.
Socrates: But when it comes to the issue of decision making, which is central to our discussion of authority, who will be more able to make decisions pertaining to architectural design? Will it be a fisherman with a knowledge of God or an architect with a knowledge of architecture?
Paul: The architect.
Socrates: And who will make better decisions on the piloting of a ship, a godly banker or a ship’s captain?
Paul: A ship's captain.
Socrates: Now tell me; in what area does the knowledge of God apply to help a man make better decisions?
Paul: The knowledge of God helps us in our spiritual lives. It helps us to make godly decisions.
Socrates: By godly decisions do you mean in matters of right and wrong?
Paul: Exactly! Here we have arrived at the heart of the matter. The knowledge of God brings forth a man's godliness. This knowledge of God, which empowers men to make godly decisions, is the foundation of a man’s authority in the home.
Socrates: In what area does the knowledge of God help men determine right from wrong. Is it in mathematics?
Paul: No.
Socrates: Perhaps the knowledge of God helps us determine right and wrong with regard to the correct workings of the art of carpentry?
Paul: No.
Socrates: Basketball?
Paul: Stop it.
Socrates: Then in what area does the knowledge of God help men determine right and wrong?
Paul: This is not the kind of right and wrong I am talking about. I am speaking of right and wrong in regards to caring for life and justice.
Socrates: Does caring for life ever have anything to do with caring for physical health?
Paul: Yes.
Socrates: With regard to the human body's health, who would be better able to know right from wrong? Is it a doctor with a knowledge of medicine or a tailor with a knowledge of God?
Paul: The Doctor.
Socrates: Does caring for justice ever have anything to do with the laws of our society?
Paul: Yes, it often does.
Socrates: And who would be more able to decide what is right and wrong with regard to interpreting the law? Would it be a judge or a godly man who is a maker of shoes?
Paul: A judge.
Socrates: Why would the doctor and the judge be more competent to decide right and wrong in these specific areas than a man whose only qualification is the knowledge of God? Is it because they have specific knowledge and skill that enables them, or for some other reason?
Paul: It is because of their knowledge and skill.
Socrates: You said that the knowledge of God helps men make godly decisions and that these godly decisions had to do with matters of right and wrong.
Paul: Yes.
Socrates: Yet, it appears that there are some areas in which a Christian husband’s knowledge of God is not adequate by itself to make decisions, but would require the assistance of other types of knowledge and skill in order to discern what is right and wrong. We should find out in what area a husband’s knowledge of God by itself helps him to decide what is right and wrong since, as you say, the knowledge of God is the foundation of a husband’s God-given authority. This would then help to define the jurisdiction of a man’s authority over his wife. I would like you to give me an example of an area in which decisions are made where the godly man is best suited, by virtue of his knowledge of God, to be the one who decides what is right and wrong. Then we can examine your example together.
Paul: I am talking about the right and wrong of morality. Specifically I am speaking of the biblical ethics a godly man must allow to be the guiding light of his spiritual and earthly life.
Socrates: Then godly decisions are ethical in nature?
Paul: Yes, Godly decisions are ethical in nature and pertain to our morality.
Socrates: So any man who would have a God-given authority over his wife must have this biblical capacity for ethical decision making?
Paul: Yes.
Socrates: I have some questions about ethics as the basis for defining and granting authority.
Paul: Go ahead.
Socrates: If you were in court, would you prefer an ethical judge or an unethical judge to preside over your case?
Paul: An ethical judge of course.
Socrates: If you were going to borrow money, would you want an ethical or unethical lender.
Paul: An ethical lender.
Socrates: If you were going into business with someone, would you want an ethical or unethical partner?
Paul: Anyone would want an ethical business partner.
Socrates: Can you think of any area where people are empowered with the authority to make decisions on behalf of others where we would not want them to be ethical in their decision-making?
Paul: No.
Socrates: Therefore, is it possible for ethics to be able to be the basis for defining the specific jurisdiction of a husband’s authority over his wife if this ethical capacity is required for all authority?
Paul: I guess not, since it required for everything.
Socrates: Now, can an ethical woman have the authority to make decisions as a judge if she is truly ethical, but has no knowledge or training in law?
Paul: No.
Socrates: Could an ethical and godly man be trusted with the authority to make decisions about high finances or business, if he had no understanding of such matters.
Paul: No, he could not be trusted.
Socrates: Would you give a biblically ethical man the authority to make decisions about how to do your brain surgery, if he never spent a day in medical school?
Paul: Of course not.
Socrates: Does it make sense to allow a sincerely ethical man to decide what light bulb to put into your lamp if he could not tell the difference between bulbs that fit and those that do not?
Paul: No, that would be a waist of time.
Socrates: Can you think of any specific area in which the quality of the ethical, by itself, is enough to grant a person the authority to make decisions on behalf of others?
Paul: I suppose not.
Socrates: In light of what you have just told me, can the ethical alone be an adequate basis for granting a man the authority for any kind of decision making?
Paul: No, it does not seem so.
Socrates: Now I find that I am once again right back where I started. From the beginning I sought to define the jurisdiction of a Christian husband's God-given authority over his wife. For a moment it seemed that a capacity to make ethical decisions could be the object of my search. However, we find that this ethical skill is not particular to a husband’s authority, but is needed for all decision making. Nor is the capacity to be ethical sufficient to grant the authority to make decisions. Other knowledge and skills are always required. Therefore, the ethical sense derived from the knowledge of God is incapable of applying to any area in such a way as is required to define a jurisdiction of authority. Since the ethical cannot define the jurisdiction of a husband’s authority, then we are currently in the position of not knowing how the knowledge of God, or godliness, can help define that jurisdiction. And so I must ask again, what is the jurisdiction of a husband’s authority over his wife? Although I do not know what this God-given male authority is, there is one thing I know for certain.
Paul: What is that?
Socrates: If we are unable to define the jurisdiction of the Christian husband’s authority over his wife, then all we are left with are ignorance and triviality as the basis of that authority.
Paul: Well, I can’t accept that.
Socrates: Then you must not grow faint and press on to complete the task at hand. Although we have already inquired into the matter, it seems we still have the same basic question before us. Namely, in what area of life does a man have authority over his wife? Do you remember earlier when John agreed that authority always implies the power to make decisions?
Paul: Yes.
Socrates: Do you agree with that?
Paul: I do.
Socrates: And you believe that the knowledge of God is the foundation of a man’s authority in the home?
Paul: Yes, I do.
Socrates: Then tell me where a husband’s knowledge of God, or godliness, helps him make decisions so we may define the jurisdiction of the Christian husband's authority over his wife.
Paul: A man’s biblical authority over his wife cannot be compared to the authorities of judges and doctors, policemen and ship’s captains. It is a spiritual leadership which has been handed down from God to man. It is God who has established a man’s authority over his wife. It is not a trade or an art, but a spiritual reality whose truth is based on the Holiness of God, not upon worldly knowledge.
Socrates: I am pleased that you regard me so kindly.
Paul: What do you mean?
Socrates: You must feel that I am well disposed towards you and will treat you with respect. I might not be inclined to give an answer as you have just given to someone who would not treat me kindly.
Paul: Explain yourself.
Socrates: If I were to go about my town claiming to own three hundred acres of land in the area, some might ask me where this land was located.
Paul: Yes, they might.
Socrates: But if I were unable to tell them, I imagine they would not have much patience for such a reply. They might even demand proof that I owned the land, such as a deed. If instead of showing my deed, I claimed that the land was a gift from God and yet still was unable to tell them where this gift was, they might lose patience with me or consider me mad.
Paul: {silence}
Socrates: Likewise, if I went about town claiming to have authority over the people, I imagine the people would have a right to know the nature of this authority. They would want to know its function and jurisdiction, not to mention how it came to be that I deserved to possess such authority. Should I judge them harshly if they lost patience with me as I showed myself unable to explain these things, and instead simply made an appeal to God?
Paul: {silence}
Socrates: I find myself in the predicament of having to ask the same question over and over again. But I assure you I am not losing patience. The fact is that I am used to not knowing the truth of things. I am accustomed to not having the answers to my questions. Do you not see the importance of the question? How can a man possibly embrace any concept of having authority over his wife if he has no understanding of the jurisdiction of that authority? And so, because of my unfortunate state of persistent ignorance, I must ask you again to teach me the nature of this authority. Do not make appeals to God’s gift giving ability as a substitute. But help my ignorance and explain to me in plain words the jurisdiction of this authority.
Paul: {silence}
Socrates: You do not look very happy with my predicament.
Paul: In plain truth, you are an annoying man. And it is not because you ask questions, but because you do not believe the Bible.
Socrates: Does this mean you are reluctant to teach me? I will be happy to believe if you would be so kind as to show me the truth of the matter.
Paul: It is true! It is true that a husband’s authority is God-given, just as the Bible says. It is authority by divine appointment.
Socrates: Perhaps you could give me another example of authority by appointment so we could examine it together.
Paul: That is a good idea and I have the perfect example. The commander of a military unit is in his position by appointment. He has authority because the military said it would be so. He is able to make all kinds of decisions. He does not have to be a watchmaker in order to tell his troops when to get up and when to go to bed. He does not have to be a chef to decide when, where, and how they shall eat. He does not need to be a doctor to decide if his troops shall rest or keep marching. They will march until he says otherwise.
Socrates: I think you have given us a good example that may illustrate the character of this God-given male authority. But I am not sure it actually answers my question. May I examine your example?
Paul: If you must.
Socrates: If I am to understand, then I must. You say the military commander has the authority to make all kinds of decisions on behalf of his troops?
Paul: Yes.
Socrates: Where does this take place?
Paul: He has authority anytime the troops are on active duty, under his command.
Socrates: What about when the troops are not on active duty? When a soldier is in his own home, off duty, does the commander have the authority to enter his home and tell him when to go to bed?
Paul: No.
Socrates: Even on active duty, can the commander decide if a soldier needs surgery? Or would he need to be a doctor in that case?
Paul: He would have to be a doctor.
Socrates: Then this authority to make decisions ends when the limit of the commander’s jurisdiction is reached, whether by deficiency of knowledge and skill as in the case of the surgery, or by definition as in the case of being off duty.
Paul: Yes, it is as you say.
Socrates: Tell me, is it not true that the military commander needs the knowledge and skill, which pertain to the art of war, in order to be granted the authority to make decisions on behalf of the troops?
Paul: Yes, he would need those things.
Socrates: Based on what I hear from you, I would say that the authority of the military commander gives him or her power to make decisions on behalf of active duty troops towards the fulfillment of orders issued to his or her unit. These decisions are made in accordance with the commander’s knowledge and skill, which pertain of to the art of war.
Paul: That sounds about right.
Socrates: Once more it seems that all authority has a definable jurisdiction. Even positions of authority by appointment have jurisdictions that are fairly easy to define and describe. Now I ask you to do with a husband’s authority as I have done with your example. I have touched upon some idea of the jurisdiction of a military commander’s appointed authority. I would be content for you to do the same with the husband’s divinely appointed authority. In what area do Christian husbands find themselves granted the authority over their wives to make decisions, and on the basis of what knowledge and skill? I would count godliness as an area of knowledge or skill if you could tell me where it applies.
Paul: I cannot seem to frame it in the way you are asking me.
Socrates: Then think about this. What about the commander, who is not properly aware of the jurisdiction of his authority and tries to enter his troop’s homes while off duty to order them around?
Paul: He would probably be disciplined or even dismissed from his command if he kept it up.
Socrates: A police officer has the authority to pull out her gun and order offenders to drop their weapon, but does she have the authority to enter your home, pull out her gun and order you to sing opera?
Paul: That’s silly, of course not. She would be fired and probably go to jail.
Socrates: And a doctor can order certain medications and diet, but does she have the authority to enter your home and threaten corporal punishment if you do not follow her orders?
Paul: Of course not. She would be sued.
Socrates: It seems those who overstep the limits of their authority face some kind of punishment.
Paul: And deservedly so.
Socrates: And what kind of punishment do you propose for the husband, who has no idea at all of the jurisdiction of his God-given male authority, yet enters the home to claim all authority?
Paul: {silence}
Socrates: Nothing could be more important for men, who believe they have a divinely appointed authority over their wives, than to seek the knowledge of the jurisdiction of this authority. For otherwise they show themselves to be no more than bullies fit for some kind of punishment. So far, we have been unable to discover any clear jurisdiction for this God-given male authority. This is not enough. Don’t leave me without a true knowledge of this divine gift to men. Tell me now, in what area do men have authority over their wives?
Paul: I am sick of discussing this in terms that make a man’s spiritual leadership over his wife seem like an issue that can be decided by a career counselor. A man does not need to be an expert in everything in order to have the right to make a decision. There are plenty of things a man can decide that do not require a diploma from a trade school.
Socrates: You mean decisions like what video to watch?
Paul: {silence}
Socrates: It seems we have again returned back to the trivial decisions. Do you remember earlier in the conversation when we found that male authority seemed to come into play only when there was a state of mutual ignorance, or when the decision was trivial in that it required no significant knowledge or skill?
Paul: I do.
Socrates: But do you really think that ignorance and triviality are an adequate basis for authority? Can you think of any other context where a Christian husband's authority over his wife is rightly able to assert itself? I must discover the proper jurisdiction and basis for this authority if I am to have any understanding of it.
Paul: I cannot stay. I have to go now.
Socrates: Please do not leave me without an understanding of a husband’s God-given authority over his wife. For those of us, who do not know the jurisdiction in which a husband's authority is valid, will be forced to ignore this divine principle and have the women we love share in the decisions made in our homes and lives. Don’t leave me with my lack of understanding. Just tell me what you know. Tell me the jurisdiction in which a Christian husband has authority over his wife.
Paul: Goodbye.
Socrates: Farewell then. I am sorry you are not inclined to share this wisdom. Perhaps your wife would tell us in what area you make better decisions. Too bad she is not here.
Paul: {Looks at Socrates and leaves}
Socrates: Have you had any new ideas on the jurisdiction of a man’s authority over his wife since you spoke up last?
John: To tell you the truth, I am more confused than ever. Yet, I cannot help thinking that there is something to what the Bible says.
Socrates: Millions of men and women do believe in the authority of men over women, so I suppose there is something to it. My poverty is that I do not know what that something is. And worse yet, those who have the knowledge of it seem unwilling or unable to teach. Those men who do not know the jurisdiction of a man’s authority over his wife would be right to abdicate this authority at once. For there is greater wisdom in acknowledging the poverty of our ignorance than in acting as if we know what we do not know.
John: As for me, I know it will be easier to plead ignorance than to convince my wife that I should be in charge of everything.
END
.jpg)
Status paradox
15 years ago
