Covers

Cov-er [kuhv'-er]-noun: a recording of a song that was first recorded or made popular by somebody else

There are a ton of covers out there--popular music is full of them. Everything from Madonna doing American Pie (Don McLean), to Alien Ant farm doing Smooth Criminal(Michael Jackson). Even Christian music has it's share of covers, the most popular of which are done by DC Talk--The Cross (Prince), In the Light (Charlie Peacock), Lean on Me (Bill Withers), etc.

Every once in a while, there comes a cover that makes you do a double take. I found one last night. Matt Weddle, of the band Obadiah Parker (a band I've never heard of, but will look more into now), does a cover of the song Hey Ya by Outkast. Just him on the acoustic guitar:



There are a lot of other cool covers out there too. I've linked some below for your auditory pleasure. Enjoy.

Franco Battiato - Ruby Tuesday (Rolling Stones) (This video is really bad. Just minimize the youtube window and listen.)

Blue Man Group - Baba O'Reilly (The Who) (Incidentally, anything by the BMG is very, very cool)

Snow & Voices - Go Your Own Way (Fleetwood Mac)

Chris Dunnett - Blue (Da Ba Dee Da Ba Di) (Eiffel 65)

Kevin Max - The Cross (w/ DC Talk) (Prince)

I'm not sure if this is a cover or a re-mix, but I'll include it just because:

Pussycat Dolls - Destiny (Jai Ho) (A.R. Rahman/Slumdog Millionaire)

The coming evangelical collapse

[CS Monitor Via a facebook friend] I've inserted some comments in between. Thoughts? Comments?

The coming evangelical collapse

An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise.

By Michael Spencer
from the March 10, 2009 edition

Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap ofbelieving in a cause more than a faith.

[So true. They will know we are Christians by our policital action, moral outrage and self-righteous anger (not to mention boycotts!)]

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

[Doctrine divides, don't ya know! Everything is relative! My faith is emerging! No need for orthodoxy!]

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

[See fascinating article: Bill Hybels says "We Were Wrong"

Consumer-driven is not a term I would have thought of before to describe Mega-churches. Is that how the world sees them?]

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

7. The money will dry up.

What will be left?

•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

[This desire for relevance is already here. Doctrine is not important, it divides. We need to be more palatable for people who don't share our faith, but by watering down?]

•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

[Side note: Son of Francis Shaeffer, Franky, now subscribes to Eastern Orthodox teaching due to disillusionment of the evangelical (and I suspect, the religious right) message.]

•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.

•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

[All Bible believing churches need to do this.]

•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?

•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.

Is all of this a bad thing?

Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.

Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.

The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.

Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

• Michael Spencer is a writer and communicator living and working in a Christian community in Kentucky. He describes himself as "a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality." This essay is adapted from a series on his blog, InternetMonk.com.

Thoughts?

A. R. Rahman

With all the attention on Slumdog Millionaire and A.R. Rahman these days, I thought I'd relink to a video of his arrangement of the Indian National Anthem Jana Gana Mana. It is very cool. The first half is instrumental, and the second half is vocals. The vocals are apparently done by superstars of Indian music. Enjoy:



He also wrote the music to the Broadway show Bombay Dreams. Personally, I don't think it's as good as Slumdog's soundtrack, but the Broadway cast recorded a version of "Joy to the World" as part of the Broadway's Carols For a Cure CD. I've been looking for this song for a couple years, since I'm too cheap to buy the whole cd for one song. I can't find a youtube version of it either. Life somehow goes on.

ThisIsWhyYoureFat.com

Most of the stuff on this site is pretty disgusting, but this you have to see:



What is this, you ask? A meatloaf cake, with potatoes and ketchup as frosting. I wonder what my cake decorator friends think of this? [Via Jon]

Detroit

Detroit, it seems, has been hit very hard by the current state of the economy. I guess I am a pseudo-Detroiter (is that what one would call someone from Detroit?), having grown up in one of its "suburbs".

With the exception of the Red Wings, even the sports scene is depressing: almost everyone thinks that the Tigers will have a fire sale in mid June; the Pistons traded for Iverson ('nuff said); the Lions, well, they're the Lions.

Some interesting links though:

A depressing photo essay.

Buyers are buying Detroit properties by the dozen

WWGD--What would Google do to save Detroit

Scumbag Billionaire

Faith Based Initiatives--A good idea?

Via Leo's blog, a very insightful post by congressman (and former presidential candidate) Ron Paul:

Freedom From Government

President Obama signed an executive order last week continuing the faith-based initiatives program created by former President Bush. When the program was created, I warned that giving taxpayer money to private religious organizations would eventually lead to political control and manipulation of them. This week has provided some evidence that this was a justified concern.

The logic behind funding faith-based initiatives seemed reasonable to some. Private organizations are much more effective in charitable endeavors than government programs and bureaucracies. Therefore, why not “outsource” some of the government’s welfare-state activities to these worthy organizations? This appealed to many conservatives, especially after the follow-up executive order exempting recipients from discriminatory hiring laws, which assured many that taking federal funds would not jeopardize their control over their own operations. But beware the government program started under an administration you like, for it may look a lot different under the one you don’t. Exemptions that Bush gave, Obama can take away.

But now, dependencies on federal money have been set, operations have been expanded accordingly, and many charities are waiting breathlessly for the administration to tell them what new conditions they will have to meet. With the stroke of a pen, religious charities might not be able to take into consideration a job applicant’s faith, sexual orientation or lifestyle if they wish to remain eligible for that taxpayer money that was so enticing a few years ago. Similarly, if FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is passed, will Catholic Church hospitals be forced to offer abortion services to retain their federal funding? Can they remain solvent without it?

This is the major problem with basing a private business model on the receipt of government funds. This money does not come without control, or the future possibility of control. We are seeing parallel control grabs in industries that have recently been the recipients of taxpayer largess. Government officials are now discussing executive compensation on Wall Street, banking, and in the auto industry. How much is too much to pay someone? When is a bonus deserved? But because politicians have bought their way into these industries, these are now political decisions. It is easy to utilize class envy to whip up public support for these interventions, but government always slides down the slippery slope. Politicians are also discussing other aspects of these businesses in which they are not expert, such as, what should lending standards be? What sort of cars should we direct the auto industry to make? Once government money infiltrates a balance sheet, “taxpayers” meaning “politicians” have a say in how you operate.

Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations. Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end. It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities. Those tempted to join Washington’s ongoing bailout bonanza should instead take the famed advice of former First Lady Nancy Reagan on the acceptance of harmful and addictive substances and “Just Say No” to government money. This is the best protection from government control.

Live Action Green Lantern Movie?

It seems so!

Warner Bros. is negotiating with Martin Campbell to direct "Green Lantern," the live-action film based on the DC Comics hero, reports the trades.

Campbell last directed "Casino Royale" and recently wrapped the Mel Gibson starrer "Edge of Darkness," based on the 1985 BBC miniseries that Campbell helmed.

The emergence of Campbell, who also helmed two "Zorro" films and the 007 film "GoldenEye," puts "Green Lantern" at the top of DC properties being set for movie treatment by WB. While the studio is hoping director Chris Nolan will follow its 2008 smash "The Dark Knight" with another Batfilm, DC projects such as Superman and "Justice League" were expected to happen quickly, but have stalled.

Instead, the hot DC titles are "Green Lantern" and "Jonah Hex," the latter of which has Josh Brolin set to play a disfigured gunslinger in a film that begins production in April, directed by Jimmy Heyward ("Horton Hears a Who").

Greg Berlanti wrote the script with Marc Guggenheim and Michael Green.

Donald DeLine will produce with Berlanti.

Berlanti had once been considered to direct. Instead, WB has attached him to direct "This Is Where I Leave You," the upcoming Jonathan Tropper novel which will be adapted by the author.

Where Sweatshops are a dream

Often western idealism is naive according to this op-ed from the New York Times:

Where Sweatshops Are a Dream
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 14, 2009

Before Barack Obama and his team act on their talk about “labor standards,” I’d like to offer them a tour of the vast garbage dump here in Phnom Penh.

This is a Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.

The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling barefoot, searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” said Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman scavenging for plastic. “At least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot.”

Another woman, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks. Her boy has never been to a doctor or a dentist, and last bathed when he was 2, so a sweatshop job by comparison would be far more pleasant and less dangerous.

I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.

When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom.

My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared — including those in my wife’s ancestral village in southern China — because of sweatshop jobs.

Manufacturing is one sector that can provide millions of jobs. Yet sweatshops usually go not to the poorest nations but to better-off countries with more reliable electricity and ports.

I often hear the argument: Labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods. That’s true. But labor standards and “living wages” have a larger impact on production costs that companies are always trying to pare. The result is to push companies to operate more capital-intensive factories in better-off nations like Malaysia, rather than labor-intensive factories in poorer countries like Ghana or Cambodia.

Cambodia has, in fact, pursued an interesting experiment by working with factories to establish decent labor standards and wages. It’s a worthwhile idea, but one result of paying above-market wages is that those in charge of hiring often demand bribes — sometimes a month’s salary — in exchange for a job. In addition, these standards add to production costs, so some factories have closed because of the global economic crisis and the difficulty of competing internationally.

The best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there. One of the best things America could do for Africa would be to strengthen our program to encourage African imports, called AGOA, and nudge Europe to match it.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely.

Look, I know that Americans have a hard time accepting that sweatshops can help people. But take it from 13-year-old Neuo Chanthou, who earns a bit less than $1 a day scavenging in the dump. She’s wearing a “Playboy” shirt and hat that she found amid the filth, and she worries about her sister, who lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran over her.

“It’s dirty, hot and smelly here,” she said wistfully. “A factory is better.”