An interview with Kenneth J. Collins, author of "Power, Politics, and the Fragmentation of Evangelicalism"

Kenneth J. Collins, PhD is professor of historical theology and Wesley Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of several books, including The Theology of John Wesley (Abingdon) and The Evangelical Moment (Baker). His most recent book, Power, Politics, and the Fragmentation of Evangelicalism (InterVarsity Press, 2012), is a history of American Evangelicalism from the late 19th century to the present day, focusing on the cultural influence and political fortunes of Evangelical Protestants; it also addresses many facets of Catholic-Evangelical relations. Dr. Collins spoke recently with Carl E. Olson, the editor of Catholic World Report, about the history of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, Catholic and Evangelical relations, and the common challenges facing Christians in the United States today.

CWR: Many Catholics aren’t very familiar with ecumenical relations between Catholics and Evangelicals, or why such relations are important. How would you, as an Evangelical, address the significance of those relations?

Collins: I think there are a lot of ways that Catholics and Evangelicals can work together. I want to strengthen those connections. What we are facing in the days ahead is very important. Catholics are like canaries in a coal mine. We, as Christians, weren’t supposed to bump against a modern liberal democracy; it was supposed to be everyone choosing their own good. But the Catholic Church is bumping up against it, in terms of the contraceptive issue, but also in terms of what Catholic Charities faced in Massachusetts, where the collision between the state government and the Church forced the closure of Catholic Charities, which has had a wonderful history of service to the poor.

CWR: Let’s go back to the beginning, historically. There is a lot of confusion, isn’t there.....

'm thankful for the support of other Christian groups on the HHS mandate, for instance, but I'm also aware that for them, this is purely a "freedom of religion" issue, rather than a deep, non-negotiable point of theology as contraception is for the Catholic Church.

This election makes it very clear that this point is a non-negotiable point for your church leadership, but your members don't care what they think.

We are not arguing theology. What we are looking at is a lack of discipline. We are already seeing the cries of the "moderates" that Pubs have to change their attitudes about abortion and the role of Christians in the party has to be reduced. I think the opposite is the case. We need a full throated conservatism that is not embarrassed to stand for GOD, family, country (in that order).

We will be in a minority for at least a generation with obamacare being the law of the land. We might as well strive to be Jonah's crying out to Ninevah.

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE CATHOLIC VOTE

November 9, 2012 by admin
Filed under Latest News Releases

Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic vote:

Catholics are a quarter of the electorate, and they voted for Obama over Romney by the same margin as the total electorate, 50%-48%. Contrary to what many pundits are saying, this suggests that the bishops’ campaign for religious liberty, waged against the Health and Human Services mandate, actually paid off: Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008 to McCain’s 45%.

Some commentators talk about the Catholic vote as if it were monolithic, and others say it doesn’t exist. It would be more accurate to say there are four Catholic votes: practicing and non-practicing; white and Latino.

Among practicing Catholics, Obama received 42% to Romney’s 57%; among non-practicing Catholics, Obama picked up 56% while Romney got 42%.

White Catholics gave Obama 40% of their votes while Romney earned 59%; Latino Catholics gave Obama 71% of their votes while Romney earned 27%.

From previous survey research published by the Pew Forum, we know that practicing Latino Catholics are less likely to support the Democrats than are non-practicing Latinos.

What this shows is that the more practicing a Catholic is, of any ethnic background, the less likely he is to support the more secular of the candidates.

Finally, there is a serious question whether non-practicing Catholics should be considered Catholic. By way of analogy, if someone tells a pollster that he is a vegetarian, but has long since abandoned a veggie-only diet, would it make empirical sense to count him as a vegetarian? Self-identity is an interesting psychological concept, but it is not necessarily an accurate reflection of a person’s biography.

This election makes it very clear that this point is a non-negotiable point for your church leadership, but your members don't care what they think.

To what degree they're "members" is a subject for discussion but why would they? Large numbers of them don't even go to Church. Bishop who?

We are not arguing theology. What we are looking at is a lack of discipline.

No we're not. We're looking at the complete loss of Catholic identity which has been several decades in the making. We're looking at people who don't think like Catholics, who don't really care what the Church teaches and...surprise, surprise......they don't vote according to Catholic principles either. Why would someone who's embraced the secular ethos of artificial birth control really care about some spat between Obama and the Church over contraception, irrespective of what the bishop says? They're not even listening.

What individual Christians do about entering into contracts is one thing. What churches do is another matter. There are two major food banks in my community. One takes government money (a very small portion of their budget), one does not. At the latter, no one has to fill out any forms to get food. At the other, government required paperwork has to be kept. My church supports the solely privately funded one.

And by the way, I go to a church that has a significant minority of Democrats. They largely support government welfare programs. I don’t. We all agree that we should do what we can as a Church to mitigate suffering in our community without any possibility of government dictation at any time or in any manner. We can sing hymns together on Sunday and happily vote against each other on Tuesday the way God intended. :)

We all agree that we should do what we can as a Church to mitigate suffering in our community without any possibility of government dictation at any time or in any manner

I understand what you're saying and appreciate your reply as well as the zeal of your congregation to fulfill your mission. God bless you :) Imagine though for a moment that your church started a hospital 130 years ago. What would you do with that hospital now that it has to meet unfunded government mandates and other regulations that weren't in place when your church began its ministry to provide health care to the poorest of the poor?

To be entirely free of the government, you'd have to refuse to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. You wouldn't be able to stay in operation very long because you'd be running afoul of patient discrimination laws. You'd have to shut down your hospital. On the other hand, you could contract with the government as other groups are free to do and continue providing health care services. You could also accept grants that are available to care for the uninsured. Or you could be pure and refuse them, but you'd still have to close down because the law doesn't allow you to stop accepting indigent patients when your finite resources have been exhausted.

If you see Christ in the ill, have you abandoned him if you close your hospital to avoid government intrusion in your ministry? Please understand I am not trying to be argumentative. The only way to avoid government interference is to shut down your hospital and let secularists eventually fill the void. Your conscience may feel pure about not being under the thumb of the govt, but how does it feel about all those sick people in your community who now have fewer hospital beds during flu season? Fewer options for the uninsured? Fewer outreach programs? Fewer surgical suites in the community? The gaping hole you made in the community's safety net? Is it more in keeping with Christian charity to burden the entire system or try to adapt to continue alleviating the burden in the community?

Finally, I wholly respect your efforts to privately fund your food bank. Even without govt funds there are federal and state laws to comply with. The days of having a ministry without "any possibility of government dictation at any time or in any manner" are gone. Forever :( Nonacceptance of federal funds isn't exemption from federal law.

Peace be with you.

As far as health care goes, I think it is fine to raise funds to help people out who have trouble paying their medical bills. Doctors in our community have done an admirable job of serving in our local interfaith clinic

In our region, two religiously affiliated hospital chains— one Baptist, one Catholic—have been taken over by one for profit chain. In both instances, the percentage of services provided without reimbursement has actually stayed about the same. In other words, their disappearance has not created any new holes in the safety net. You don’t have to own hospitals to help the sick. I would go even further and say that compliance with the realities of running a hospital that you mention can, in practice, interfere with true charity. The Baptist chain I mentioned had the reputation of being hyper aggressive in referring unpaid accounts to outside bill collectors.

The food bank we and other churches in our community support is staffed entirely by volunteers and is housed on a rotating basis in various churches. No one tells us who we can serve or how. I suppose the buildings have to comply with the building codes and so forth, but that doesn’t really seem on point.

I confess to being a life long strict separationist. Receipt of tax dollars inevitably corrupts the church. There are plenty of human needs that can be met by churches without building up large institutions that inevitably become commingled with the state.

I’m not sure which information you are referring to. As far as the amount of dollars Catholic charities get from federal funding, I posted a link earlier in this thread that is from a Catholic lobbying group. As far as anything stated in the immediately preceding post, everything stated is public information from various media reports covering the merger of St. Mary’s Hospital and Baptist Hospital in Knoxville TN into a new entity called Mercy Hospital and the subsequent buyout of that chain by a for profit now named Tennova.

I understand that there are pamphlets of the nature you refer to but I haven’t seen anything like that in decades. To say I have spoken ill of others when I have only said I was opposed to ANY church receiving government money seems a stretch.

As far as the amount of dollars Catholic charities get from federal funding, I posted a link earlier in this thread that is from a Catholic lobbying group.

You posted a link from Network, home of the nuns on the bus tour. Not exactly a group known for its orthodoxy. (Salvation, here's their Catholic Culture rating).

So I take it the answer to my question, gypsylea, is that your church would close its hospital or sell it to secularists? I can respect that choice if your church chose to make it. I disagree though if you're implying that a faith based group automatically fails or is deficient in charity if they continue health care ministries.

two religiously affiliated hospital chains— one Baptist, one Catholic—have been taken over by one for profit chain. In both instances, the percentage of services provided without reimbursement has actually stayed about the same.

The operative words there being "for profit chain." Catholic facilities I'm familiar with are nonprofit although I don't know that all are. The ones I'm familiar with outpace their secular counterparts by a mile in the uncompensated care they provide.

their disappearance has not created any new holes in the safety net.

How do you know by looking at the dollar amount? You have to examine whether particular services were discontinued. For example, a mobile outreach to homeless shelters might be discontinued and the funds spent on a different initiative. There's a hole in the safety net for homeless people that you wouldn't see looking at the dollar amount. Or a program that provided medication assistance is cut to help balance the budget. You wouldn't know there's a group of people who no longer get medications just by looking at the dollar figure.

No one tells us who we can serve or how.

Not to be argumentative, but yes they do. Try not serving people of a particular ethnic group. Or making people memorize scripture as a condition of receiving assistance. Or serving food that's spoiled. Not that you would do those things, of course. But you do have rules with which you must comply or face consequences.

I suppose the buildings have to comply with the building codes and so forth, but that doesn’t really seem on point.

Of course it's on point. You must meet various laws to operate a physical structure just as a hospital must. There's so much govt creep into our lives! Therefore I say it's hard to imagine a ministry that has no federal regulations impacting it in some way.

I appreciate hearing your views on the topic. Peace be with you. And know that I appreciate what your church does to feed the hungry :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.