The American Conservative on Distributism

The magazine The American Conservative has published a nice article on distributism called Distributism is the Future.  It’s a well written piece offering a brief introduction to distributism as an economic philosophy and then gives some modern day examples of how we see distributist ideas at work today.  The author shows why distributism is not socialism or capitalism but is a “third way” as some have called it.  Distributism was chiefly taught by GK Chesterton and Hillarie Belloc, sometimes these two are referred to as “Chesterbelloc.”  These two “rejected socialism, believing that private property was an essential component of human flourishing, but they also rejected the existing capitalist system as concentrating private property in far too few hands.”  

The author sums up one of the aspects of distributism I’m drawn to, which is the conservative nature of the teaching.  Distributism favors communities and families over the good of the multinational corporation.  I’ll let the author sum it up:

And finally—something that Belloc stressed—distributism has a conservative aspect: it posits as a laudable end not some utopian experiment in untested social arrangements but a socio-economic system that we already know is workable, from both historical and contemporary evidence. Furthermore, because workers themselves are the owners of capital goods, they are less likely to be forced to abandon their communities and extended families in order to keep a good job. There of course may be efficiency trade-offs in choosing to stay put rather than moving to some distant but more profitable location to find some work. But under distributism, workers would evaluate these trade-offs for themselves, rather than having some global corporate entity send them, willy-nilly, thousands of miles from their family and community—or finding themselves suddenly unemployed, as the modern corporation is loath to give its workers even a moment’s notice before they are escorted out of their workplace and onto the street by corporate security.

The author goes on to provide a few examles from around the globe that show Distributist ideas can and do work the real world and may be becoming more prevalent.  

I’m glad to see a conservative magazine picking up on the ideas of distributism.  I hope this is a trend that continues. 


Various Responses to Joe Carter’s TGC article on Abortion – Updated

Joe Carter wrote an article today for TGC responding to Donald Trump’s recent statements on how there should be consequences for a woman who has an abortion, if the practice were to be outlawed.  The responses from Justin Taylor, Russell Moore, and Denny Burk, and others have been disappointing. I haven’t seen any reasoned arguments from them appealing to scripture to support their positions.  Instead, each of these men appeal to legal history.  Ironically, Russell Moore’s post has a picture at the top of a person holding a “Justice for All” but then he shows in his article he has little sense of justice.   

I’ve decided to show and/or link to a few well thought out responses to these Joe Caetee.  The first is from Jeff Durbin, pastor of Apologia Church and host of Apologia Radio and Apologia TV.  This is from his Facebook page:

While the The Gospel Coalition’s article abandons any meaningful commitment to the Biblical Worldview (and the Gospel) in its recent article about abortion, here is what a beloved sister at Apologia Church had to say about it:

“Let me put some light on the subject…it isn’t pretty light…but it is light. Abortion is murder. It baffles me how murder committed by other means always has some sort of punishment that is usually embraced by the majority of society. Commit a crime…do the time. As a woman, who has this atrocious crime in her past, and is still here walking the earth by the grace of God and the redemption at the cross…I can without a doubt say I committed a crime, and I deserve any punishment that would come my way. See, the fact is most women and men do NOT want to admit that abortion should be punishable because most men/women do NOT want to be held accountable for this sin…and the lifestyle that comes with it. AND, most men and women do NOT want to admit that God is the sole Creator of life…because that gives HIM the glory and the ultimate say in this conversation. And, I bet, many of these people have this crime in their background. Time for talking tough…we are talking about babies being slaughtered on demand.”

Next, here is RC Sproul Jr.’s response–also found on Jeff Durbin’s Facebook page:

Joe, I’m afraid that what you have given us is more a legal history lesson than it is a reasoned moral argument. If I might summarize- a. they didn’t used to prosecute women. b. if women are charged they would be less likely to testify against the abortionist. c. Punishing women is vengeful. None of those arguments deal with the real question of whether women who hire someone to murder their unborn child should be charged with a crime. a. History is not our guide, the Bible is. In addition, it is highly likely that the principle reason why women were not charged was due to a flawed view of moral agency for women. b. criminals are often given lesser sentences for testifying against their co-conspirators. That doesn’t mean they are not guilty of a crime the state should prosecute. c. It is the God ordained function of the state to punish evildoers. Women who hire people to murder their unborn children are evildoers who should come under the purview of God’s ministers of justice. Please, rethink this piece.

Third, here is an article from the blog “The Reformed Collective” entitled TGC and the Failed Pro-Life Movement.  I’ll just quote a short selection of it.  Joe Carter asks first if women were treated as criminals before Roe v. Wade:

No, sir, you have already started on ground made of sinking sand. Does Joe Carter, a writer for the Gospel Coalition, actually believe that’s the first question we should ask here? An appeal to recent history? This has got to be an April fools, right? It is vividly obvious that Joe Carter has neglected Scripture as his authority, and has sought authority from the American judicial system and the history thereof, instead. This is truly a tragedy.

Carter, in his article appeals again to recent history but not scripture.  Josh Sommer correctly states:

Again, he returns to a secularized foundation in order to substantiate his argument, that women should virtually hold no responsibility in the crime of abortion. Joe, I have a question for you, is this how you preach the Gospel? Do you not believe in the authority of Scripture? If you wouldn’t preach the Gospel this way, why would you consider justice, which is God’s, in such a way? In other words, how do you justify divorcing a very moral question from the Gospel itself?

How do you tear it away from the ultimate standard of God’s Law? At best, you have presented a popular, historical opinion here, but you have not appealed to any objective or absolute standard of morality in order to prove your point, nor can you do so until you interact with God’s Word.

A second look at Joe Carter’s article shows a reference to a National Review author, a reference to another TGC blogger, plenty of references to recent legal history, but no references to scripture.  Carter gives no biblical standard for any of his arguments.

Finally, this isn’t a response to Joe Carter but it is fitting for the moment.  The article is from Chronicles Magazine and  is title of the article is No Piety, No JusticeIt is written by Jerry Salyer.  Please take time to read the whole article as it exposes why the pro-life movement has failed as a whole.  I will quote one part of the article:

Am I alone in finding it painful to see pro-family theorists shackle themselves to a dry, traditionless idiom incapable of expressing that very aspect of abortion which is most deplorable? Going by typical right-to-life rhetoric Roe v. Wade is just about one set of abstract rights-bearing people receiving a license to kill another set of abstract rights-bearing people. In reality, Roe v. Wade is about mothers murdering their own children—that is to say, it is about murder at its foulest, strangest, and most unnatural.

Pastor Matt Trewhella over at has also written an article on the topic that is worth reading. He brings up a good point about simply labeling the woman a victim:

By refusing to criminalize the actions of the woman and instead labeling her a victim – we undermine both the humanity of the preborn child and the rightly stated argument that abortion is murder.