I don’t think I understand quite what you are getting at jefscot, but here's what I was think'n about. Back in June we had a thread called MS -13. You can read about it here:

http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=10&m=91801

In that thread D brought up SK's Teleological Suspension of the Ethical. Basically, D said that if someone was about to be killed and he had it within his power to stop the perpetrator from killing that person that it wouldn't necessarily be shameful if he didn't if God had told him so. He said "What's most important in ANY SITUATION, Brandon, is discerning the Father's working in that situation, not the preservation of human life. Many times, discerning one will LEAD to the other. But one must be vigilant and ready to die (and let death happen) if that's what that situation requires." He also said, “Would the shame be coming from God or your own conscience with it's own ways of interpreting good and evil? Could this be a projection of your superego...more than anything else? Maybe? Another thought...It was thinking like this that probably lead Abraham to NOT TELL anyone what he was going to do with Issac. Good natured, moral people would have probably tried to stop him using the VERY SAME thought process as you, Brandon. Especially with Issac being the future of Abraham's family. It would have been UNETHICAL in their minds to let Abraham just go off and kill Issac. Teleological suspension of the ETHICAL (Big ups to SK). THAT's why Abraham is the FATHER OF FAITH.

Now, let’s think about a couple of things here. In the MS-13 situation it could basically be considered “ethics on the periphery” on a personal level. In other words, my question would be how far can we go with the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical (TSE)? For example, could the we talk about discerning the Father’s will with regard to sexual child abuse (and we are not even think‘n of our own self-preservation here)? Torturing a child? Could we speak of suspending the ethical say for example, you are walking down the street you pop into a gun store buy a gun go down the street and blow away a little old lady shooting her brains out and then claiming that God told you to do it? That sounds a little extreme but essentially that is what is being asked of me to consider. It just kinda starts getting weird that’s all.

One thing of importance here is authority. Around these boards I kinda get the feeling that we’ve enjoyed and take pride in the fact that we are theological rebels. Theological mavericks. Theological progressives and the rest of evangelicalism is some sort of Pharisaical gate keeper. We kinda frown on authority around here. But it seems to me that just as we have a need for security and psychological certainty, we have a need for authority as well.

I say that because back in the 1960’s there was a man by the name of Stanley Milgram. Stanley was notorious for some experiments that he did at Yale. One experiment he did was where he set up a situation in which his subjects believed they were administering successively higher doses of electricity to a “victim” at the urging of a white-coated laboratory supervisor who assured them that he himself assumed full responsibility for their actions. Now, Milgram himself plays off the tendency to obey against the assumption of personal autonomy in those who broke off the experiment, having become convinced that their continued participation in it was wrong. Like they did it because THEY felt it was wrong. However, contrary to Milgram’s analysis, at least two of the subjects claimed to be following a higher authority--God--in opposing the authority of the lab supervisor. In other words, those breaking from the experiment were not morally autonomous in a Kantian sense but were simply obeying what they saw to be an authority superior to that of the lab supervisor! In other words, people do obey authority whether we like it or not and this seems to be a part of their very make up as communal beings. As with Abraham and in the cases above, one is not simply “going out” and wantonly abusing, torturing or killing.  They would be doing so presumably with the understanding that they are obeying some higher authority. Regardless, under most circumstances this would be evil.  And to commit such atrocities is an except to the norm.

Now, I’ve said that God has created this world with particular sphere’s of authority and that when one sphere of authority begins to encroach upon another sphere of authority injustice is done. Now let’s apply this (TSE) to the creational order. Let’s use the sexual abuse example above.

Everyone intuitively understands that there is a difference between marriage and family and the role of a husband and father in each. Now, when the boundary between these two callings is breached there is the danger of what we call child abuse. In this case, it would be incestuous. Tell me. Do you think God would call you to incestuously abuse your child? Incestously torture your child? There seems to be an autonomous Kantian flava to it. Do you see my point?

Greg’s, “We will all nod our heads in agreement -- including me. Justice. Yes and Amen!!!” seems empty at this point. What’s to stop us from applying TSE (as D used it) to public justice--justice in the civic realm? For example, say you are watching a parade of soldiers. The commander, according to creational intent does not have the right to command the spectators on the side. But maybe he/she could according to TSE.  Companies. Companies who start viewing their employees as their children (suspending the ethical in this case where they are employees) end up having employees who expect their boss to be a benevolent father figure. In this paternalistic scheme an authority of false love takes place.   Sure there may be collegial loyalty, but this should not be confused with familial love. I guess we could allow that under TSE no matter the consequence.  And on and on it goes.

Now, all of these injustices can take place, but not without some really bad consequences in it‘s wake. If divorce should be easy to get, we should also remember that it contributes to an increased number of shattered families with all their dislocations and dysfunctions, psychological trauma and poverty from financial division of the household. Government may not stigmatize divorcees or place legal obstacles in their way, but it cannot proclaim that divorce will not have any negative involved or in the larger society. Let’s suspend the ethical with regard to sexuality. Sure. But let’s not pretend that we or government can decree that unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases will not proliferate. And on and on THAT goes.

Umm…nope. I totally understood what you were saying in both posts. In your second last post, you say, “In short, I can agree with D, I think, in the sense he means it.” Normally when Christians have thought of the suspension of the ethical they think of it in terms of “breaking a lower law for a higher law.” In D’s MS-13 case, he is actually suggesting that God could call us to not do anything. In which case someone will die. But if that is the case, let’s apply this to justice as I defined it above. We can talk all we want about standing by because God told us to. But it would most likely be in the direction of breaking a lower law for a higher law never “simply because.” Autonomously.

But it could be used to justify any number of atrocities. Imagine you are on your City Council. As a councillor you are responsible for passing bylaws to which all citizens are subject to. Now in your capacity as son to your mother you owe your mother honour due to her. But in your capacity as councillor your mother stands under your authority. Now, misplaced honour would be when you exempt your mother from provisions of particular bylaws and from what I’m understanding of D-- God could tell you to do such a thing. Under any other circumstances, this would be injustice.

Now Greg would say something like, “Well maybe God would tell call you to abuse, (though abuse might not really be accurate, but it has to be because it is still unjust) your authority because it is for a greater good i.e. human flourishing. i.e healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. That was all a human flourishing thing going on there. But it wouldn‘t be just because”

But seriously, can you imagine going against creational intent and order at this level? Think of apartheid, the deification of Afrikaner nationalism. Think about women’s suffrage. Maybe you might be the one that God is calling to uphold apartheid policies. Maybe you may be the one that God is calling to uphold laws which do not allow women to realize their God given creational potential.

Not only does this seem absurd on the face of it, but it is clearly antithetical to what I’m assuming (correctly I think) Greg would say above. God is not an omnipotent killjoy out to spoil your fun. As a matter of fact, when justice is done, far from being oppressive intrusions on us, the written precepts of Scripture reinforce the created order and creational intent ultimately for our flourishing. In other words, it seems to me that committing injustice? Suspending the ethical? Has grave consequences.

Yet on the other hand, I can see Greg’s point above. I think of a women who has five kids to feed and the only way she can bring money into the house is via prostitution. Can I blame her for this? No. Human flourishing could possibly occur as a result ie kids could be fed and have clothes on their backs, go to school, etc.

So on the one hand you go against the creational intent and order and injustice is committed. Jesus would have frowned upon that. On the other hand you go against creational intent and disorder and human flourishing occurs. Jesus would be smiling. So I dunno. Maybe I’m missing something here.