"But its not fair"

          

Some behavior scholars believe justice is man’s preeminent concern.  We can safely say that “it’s not fair” is arguably the most common phrase I heard from my children as they grew from childhood through their teens. Much of our public discourse on policy is about “what’s fair”. One issue with fairness is that there are multiple criteria by which fairness judgments are based. The most common three are equity, equality, and needs. Judgment of what is right varies by person and by situation based on which norm or basis of fairness is applied.

Probably the most common norm of fairness is equity, or what is often viewed as “getting what one deserves”. Thus, the seminal theory of justice is Adam’s Equity Theory. Adam posits that individuals make judgments of what is fair not based solely on what they receive or what they give, but the ratio of what they receive relative to what they give. Let’s represent this ratio R_I/G_I or what I receive relative to what I give.

The judgment is formed when we compare this ratio to some referent, something we chose that we think this ratio should be approximately equal to. For example, we may compare the pay wage we receive relative to the hours we work to some other person’s ratio of pay to hours worked. Each individual chooses the referent they use to compare their ratio with in many different areas to form their fariness judgment. The main point of the theory is that we change what we choose to give relative to what we receive based on whether our ratio is lower or higher than the referent. So if our ratio is lower than our referent, we decrease what we give to increase our ratio to remain equilibrium with our referent. In contrast, if our ratio is high, we increase what we give to reduce the ratio and maintain equilibrium.

Much like Social Exchange Theory, if we receive love that we cannot measure up to or deserve, we feel obligated to give back more to get our ratio up to equilibrium. This is a source of legalism. If we feel we cannot give enough to maintain equilibrium or if we feel the giver of what we received has not given us enough relative to what we think is fair, we abandon the relationship. Such is the case in the parable of the landowner (Matt 20). Here the laborers who were the most ambitious and worked all day were rewarded with the same pay as the laborers who only worked an hour.  This action by the reward giver was deemed unfair by the ambitious laborers and they abandoned the landowner grumbling all the way.

The landowner responded, why do you judge me unfavorably? Is it because of your “envious eye?”  In this story Jesus is saying that these people have an “eye (I) problem” because they choose not to accept the reward of the landowner. They abandon the landowner (God) because they cannot make sense of equity. Their judgment of fairness is based on sense making through their flesh or nature (Equity Theory). They assume the “I” in the equity ratio is themselves.  The Kingdom model of Grace replaces the “G_I” with “G_C” where Christ is the giver and we are the receiver. We cannot give anything to receive the provisions and privileges of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Jesus is the only giver. This is what Jesus meant in Matt 5 where He says He didn't come to destroy the law (justice) but to fulfill the law, replace our need to give with His acting in our stead (propitiation).

“The first shall be last and the last first” simply is a reference to the contrast of Equity Theory with Grace, God’s way to maintain our relationship with Him. The Kingdom economy is nonsense to the carnal mind.