Recently we had a short essay on “distributive justice”
accepted by Light and Heat Ministries. You
can find the piece here. The point
was one we’ve made many times in this blog: that “distributive justice” does
not mean redistribution of existing wealth on the basis of need, but that each
participant in a common endeavor receives output in strict proportion to the
relative value of his or her input.
Redistribution may be essential as an expedient in an emergency, but it
is not a solution to growing wealth and income gap, or to widespread poverty.
Naturally there were some objections. At least one commentator objected that,
according to his understanding of God’s law, redistribution is, in fact, a
solution, and one mandated by God’s command.
The rich, because they clearly obtained their wealth dishonestly, are
not entitled to keep it. The State
should redistribute existing wealth on the basis of need, and the world would
run perfectly, as God intended.
The commentator revealed that he and we are coming from two
different paradigms. He seemed to assume
as a given that anyone who is rich became so dishonestly. The rich have obviously broken God’s
law. It is therefore proper to divest
the rich of their presumably ill-gotten gains.
These assumptions raise three key questions that must be
answered, not merely taken as assumptions.
We’ll address the first one today, and the other two in subsequent
postings.
One, how do we know that what we want enforced is God’s
law? This is a trick question.
The answer is that we can only accept something as divine
revelation on faith. We cannot know it by knowledge.
As far as relations between human beings as human beings are
concerned, God’s law is a matter of opinion.
The law, however, whether human or divine, requires a fact, not opinion.
Within the confines of human society, then, we are limited
to man’s law, not God’s. True, human law
must be based on God’s law to be just, but human law is based on God’s law
mediately, that is, indirectly. Human
law is “mediated” through human nature, created in God’s image and
likeness. Human law is therefore based
immediately (directly) on human nature, but only mediately (indirectly) on
divine Nature.
That being the case, it is grossly improper for any human
being as a human being to claim
either to enforce God’s law, or demand that it be enforced with the coercive
power of the State.
The bottom line here is that, in human terms — and this
discussion is clearly framed within the parameters of human society, not
relations between God and man — we cannot state with the required level of
proof (or proof at all) that what we demand enforcement of in such cases is
actually God’s law.
Why?
Proof is a certain conclusion drawn from reason and
empirical evidence; it is a demonstration that something is manifestly
true. Faith, however, applies to that
which is not manifestly true, and
therefore not subject to proof, that is, establishment of something as a fact.
This creates not a paradox, but a contradiction: how can we
claim to enforce God’s law, or demand that God’s law be enforced, when we do
not know with the required level of certainty that what we demand to be
enforced is, in strict point of fact, actually God’s law?
Nor is that the only problem, as we will see in tomorrow’s
posting.
