Page 2788 – Christianity Today (2024)

Sounds like … a cohesive blend of Seal’s soulful side with the eclectic rock of Peter Gabriel, the alternative-folk of Ben Harper, and the gritty vocals of Live’s Ed Kowalczyk.

At a glance … Wherever You Are is a remarkably ambitious full-length debut from Adam McInnis that’s just as versatile in music as it is meaningful in lyrics.

Talk about broad cultural horizons. Born in Manhattan, Adam McInnis grew up the son of a Scottish/African American/American Indian father who was an evangelist and Russian mother who was classically trained as a folk and opera singer. As a child, the New York troubadour listened to everything from Greenwich Village folk to Motor City Motown, as well as a healthy dose of ’70s art rock—all channeled into a unique sound that McInnis calls “alternative rock meets singer/songwriter soul.”

A believer since birth, McInnis had his faith tested at 15 when his father passed away, followed by a period of teenage rebellion before rededicating his life to the Lord at 20. After setting a new course for his life, the budding artist began looking for opportunities, and several doors opened within the indie music community. His first major break came when winning Joe Simpson’s Score songwriting competition, followed by a brief stint on the television show The One: Making a Music Star, beating out 30,000 other up-and-comers.

But McInnis offers much more than the average reality show competitor, as demonstrated on his debut Wherever You Are, boldly presenting an unconventional sound that joins his diverse influences with rich vocals and a crafty songwriting pen. The title cut is bathed in dreamy vocals that mirror Peter Gabriel, blending hefty acoustic guitars with snarling electric strums, plus a message of Christ’s ongoing presence in all of Creation. Later he sounds like a cross between Seal and Ben Harper in the flavorful folk rocker “Beautiful Glow,” while “Say a Little Prayer” showcases his soulful side over Hammond organ reminiscent of Steve Winwood and Santana/Journey player Gregg Rolie.

McInnis displays even more musical range from there with the funky samples that drive the redemptive “Fall Into Me,” the old school gospel groove in “Give a Little,” and the stunning piano ballad “Too Much Beauty,” which resembles the work of Live’s frontman Ed Kowalczyk. The finale “I’m the One” is almost a little too Gabriel-sounding for its own good, but its brooding electronics are undeniably memorable, not to mention the lyrics written from the Lord’s perspective, offering guidance to any who call upon his name. All in all, a remarkably diverse disc that makes McInnis one of a kind in the Christian market, and someone whose artistry and testimony is relatable to Christian culture and beyond.

For more information on Adam McInnis, visit www.myspace.com/adammcinnis.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Let’s make sure we learn the right lessons from the primary season. A Christianity Today Editorial

It’s no secret that the gap between the rich and the middle class has grown over the last decade. The rich are getting very, very rich while the poor and middle class are–while not worse off–certainly no better. (Depending on your time frame, however, the poor actually are doing worse.)

This graph shows the average annual income of the top one percent earners in 2005 was more than $1 million, while the middle 60 percent is just above $50,000 per year. That compares with the $500,000 the top one percent earned just ten years before, versus an average income of just below $50,000 for the middle 60 percent. In other words, while the top one percent doubled their income, the middle 60 percent only modestly improved.

More striking is that the average income of the bottom 20 percent seems not to have moved in the last 25 years. Factor in inflation, and the bottom 20 percent is doing much worse. (Women too, it seems, haven’t done well. But instead of making less, they’re just staying home. And interestingly, feminists are making arguments for doing so.)

There’s plenty of debate over why the income of the top earners has so vastly outpaced that of everyone else. It’s tempting to argue that the top one percent is making its money off the backs of those less well off. And America, being the nation of individualists it is, has been generally content to allow the rich to get much, much richer. Plus, globalization has brought millions of new laborers into competition with those already in developed economies.

But another argument seems compelling. New York Times writer Tyler Cowen summarizes it this way:

The reason is supply and demand. For the first time in American history, the current generation is not significantly more educated than its parents. Those in need of skilled labor are bidding for a relatively stagnant supply and so must pay more.

Technological change has put a premium on workers who understand, can manage, and can profit from such advances. According to this argument, education–not abuse by the rich–makes the difference between advancing in the economy or falling behind.

But the difference between the educated and the un-educated is not a matter of wealth but of upbringing. After all, the poor can value education as much as the rich, and often do. And, education is not simply a matter of IQ, according to James Heckman, a professor at the University of Chicago and Nobel Laureate. Heckman says in his paper “Schools, Skills and Synapses” (available for download here) that “the workplace is increasingly oriented towards a greater valuation of the skills required for social interaction and for sociability.” These skills are taught in the home, Heckman says.

Heckman makes no argument for marriage support programs or other family-supporting policies. In fact, he says the state, for economic reasons, should intervene early in families deemed to be unable to nurture well-educated (in terms of IQ and sociability) children. Yet, his analysis could be used to support traditional, Christian views of the family. “Those born into disadvantaged environments are receiving relatively less stimulation and resources to promote child development … [Statistics show] the dramatic rise in the proportion of children living in single parent families. The greatest contributor to this growth is the percent living in families with never married mothers.”

But, Heckman says, having two parents–even wealthy ones–isn’t enough for healthy child development. “The proper measure of disadvantage is not necessarily family poverty or parental education. The available evidence suggests that the quality of parenting is the important scarce resource. The quality of parenting is not always closely linked to family income or parental education.” In other words, there’s no inherent reason that children who grow up with wealthy parents, or well-educated ones, should become wealthy themselves.

Unfortunately, more American children are growing up under “disadvantaged” circ*mstances. And this is having a negative impact on the American economy, because these children, even if they have high IQs, don’t have the social skills for success. “A greater fraction of young Americans,” Heckman says, “is graduating from college. At the same time, a greater fraction is dropping out of high school.”

Churches could use Heckman’s paper to argue for a different kind of social ministry, one that emphasizes parenting skills as much as poverty alleviation. Also, it shows once again, that the soft patriarchy model of the family is quite good for all involved. But, to me, it mostly argues that God had it right when he created male and female to be fruitful and multiply.

While the media keeps reminding us of the bad news–which is one of its jobs–I keep reading stories that try to put our current economic woes into perspective. Here is a paragraph from an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (“Where’s the Outrage? Really. By Arthur C. Brooks.)

In some countries, a depressed economic climate means mass unemployment, political instability and large-scale deprivation. In America this decade, we have reached the point at which even in a down economy, our unemployment rate does not reach 6% (lower than the rates in Canada and the European Union, let alone those in the developing world). Any unwanted unemployment is terrible; but it is worth remembering that this stability especially benefits the economically vulnerable.

Furthermore, no matter what the state of our economy, we can realistically count on uninterrupted provision of critical public services, high business start-up rates, the world’s highest levels of charitable giving and volunteering, and countless other benefits that come from living in a successful nation.

We may well be unsatisfied with the current state of affairs. Some Americans are suffering, and cannot be faulted for seeking substantial political change in the coming election. But most of us are reasonable people, and can see the difference between correctable problems within a strong system of democratic capitalism and the kind of catastrophic failure that justifies real outrage.

This reality should be a part of all our conversations about the current economic crisis–which is a crisis in some ways, and in some ways not.

UPDATE: Friday, Aug. 1, 9:30 a.m. BST

Here’s the link to the op-ed published in The Times of London

Here’s the sound bite:

“St Francis of Assisi said: “Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary use words.” We believe that our absence at this Lambeth Conference is the only way that our voice will be heard. For more than ten years we have been speaking and have not been heard. So maybe our absence will speak louder than our words.”

* * *

Thursday, July 31, 2008, 4:30 pm BST

HENRY LUKE OROMBI, Archbishop and primate of Uganda, will have a commentary piece published in The Times of London, which will post online at 9 p.m. BST (British Summer Time).

Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill leaked word of this piece on her blog this afternoon. Here’s what she wrote:

…in tomorrow’s Times, the Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, will accuse the Arcbishop of Canterbury of a betrayal at the very deepest level. He will argue that even the Pope is elected by his peers, but Dr Williams in his office is little better than a remnant of colonialism. ‘The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous Provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government,’ he says. Nor is the absence of Uganda, Nigeria and other Global South churches a sign that they want to leave the Communion. Far from it. It is a sign of how much they care that it endures. Read it all from when it goes online at 2100 BST and in the paper tomorrow, it is strong stuff!

This op-ed, if it holds up to be as strongly worded as Ruth suggests, opens up an additional set of questions, beyond biblical authority, human sexuality, or border crossings:

Should England retain the Church of England as its established church? Could the Anglican Communion itself play a deciding role in selecting the archbishop of Canterbury, who serves as ‘first among equals’ in the communion?

Lambeth is about to enter its Final Three days and events here on the grounds of the University of Kent and events off-campus seem to be spinning beyond the control of any one person or committee.

As expected, the Lambeth Reflections document has begun to take shape. And, now in its third draft, it is already huge. 18 pages. And, drafters have yet to address these areas:

* Gender and power

* The Scriptures

* Sexuality and Listening

* The Convenant

* The Windsor Process

* Leading in God’s mission

* Conclusion

Just this afternoon, there were three press conferences nearly back to back, including one by Quincy Bishop Keith Ackerman. See below for additional updates:

In the last three days, Lambeth has seen several important developments. Here are some of the more important ones:

Wednesday, July 30, unofficial press conference with Bishop Peter Beckwith from Springfield, IL, a well-known conservative.

Click here for Anglican TV’s full unedited video of this outdoor press event. And, click here for an unofficial transcript.

Several comments about Bishop Beckwith’s remarks:

1. CT asked, “Who speaks for conservatives here at Lambeth?” This seems like a crucial issue since Lambeth has evangelicals like the measles. They are everywhere, but don’t seem to be making much strategic difference. Granted much of Lambeth is as clear as mud, so time may prove me wrong.

Whatever one thinks of GAFCON it has added another layer of complexity on conservatives, who are already working their way through women’s ordination and related historical difference between evangelicals and Anglo-catholics.

2. Beckwith’s comments at times were deeply personal. He admitted that around the time of General Convention 2003 he was convicted that he had put the Episcopal Church ahead of his commitment to Jesus Christ; he confessed this as “idolatrous” and has since then worked to overcome that.

Thursday, July 31.

On Wednesday, the theme of the day at Lambeth was: Power and Abuse. New York suffragan Bishop Catherine Roskam dropped quite a bombshell with these words:

“We have 700 men here [at Lambeth]. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives… many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes the conversation quite difficult.”

These comments were published in Lambeth Witness, a publication associated with the Inclusive Church Network, GLBT advocacy group. It is published daily and available in print on campus.

As news of this near libelous accusation filtered across the Lambeth conference, John Sentamu, archbishop of York, today (Thurs.) issued a public demand for Bishop Roskam to produce evidence proving her point.

This has set the news media here on a great quest. In the past 12 hours, I have lost track of the number of Lambeth bishops who have been asked by a journo: “Do you beat your wife?”

It was only a matter of time. Here’s a parody interview with an anonymous wife-beating bishop.

I include one choice question + answer:

Q: Does it trouble you at all that wife-beating is contrary to the tradition of Christian faith and order, the teaching and practice of centuries of Anglicanism, the explicit statements of previous Lambeth meetings, and the consensus of the majority of the Anglican Communion?

A: Not at all. The spirit is clearly doing a “new thing” in helping us value and celebrate wife-beating. The Church has always been called to push the boundaries… so we need to leave behind the comfortable but dated assumptions and practices of the benightened pre-modern past in order to explore the new places to which God is calling us today. Our church is, in that tradition of radical liminality, encountering God by blazing a new way for others in the Communion to follow.

In the days after George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection, political analysts highlighted the Democratic Party’s failure to speak the language of faith in a way that resonated with American voters, particularly Protestant evangelicals. This disconnect was partly due to substantial differences on hot-button social issues, but more from the perception that the Democratic Party was indifferent or hostile to genuine, serious, heartfelt religion. Pundits argued that candidates who ignored religion did so at their own peril. So Democratic strategists began “finding” or “recovering” faith, while Republicans simply tried to keep it.

It was natural, then, for candidates’ religion to become a major theme this primary season. From Mitt Romney’s Mormonism to Barack Obama’s African American Christianity, each candidate’s faith was proclaimed in stump speeches or examined by the press. But instead of providing the promised boost, religion became a liability, and candidates have expended as much energy divorcing themselves from religious connections as they have making them. What happened?

This year’s primaries suggest a new truism about American political campaigning: While generic religiosity brings life, particular religious connections risk political death—or serious injury. Religious particularity arguably killed Romney’s campaign. At the very least, it didn’t help his cause. The same could be said of Mike Huckabee. While his evangelical pedigree as a Southern Baptist minister appealed to some voters, it scared even more. And the persistence and potency of the Jeremiah Wright controversy put Obama’s campaign in the ER. Amputation was the only remedy. Even John McCain, who is generally mum on religion, had to sever himself from pastors Rod Parsley and John Hagee.

In a pluralistic religious environment, showing your cards—or creeds—can be a bad move politically. Identifying particular religious commitments or accepting pastor endorsem*nts may bring candidates closer to a narrow slice of voters, but it often distances them from even more Americans.

Pluralism Problem

From its founding, the United States has been a laboratory for religious pluralism. For over 200 years we’ve been wrestling with how exactly to relate religious belief to a system of government that prides itself on religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The advice of a French political philosopher seems to have held the day.

A little more than a decade before the American Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau spoke of a nation’s need for “civil religion,” an overarching set of shared values that could unite citizens of all faiths and no faith. Civil religion could harness religious fervor for the common good and check its socially destructive tendencies.

In its most utilitarian form, civil religion is indifferent to particular religious content. As Dwight Eisenhower put it in his 1954 Flag Day speech: “Our government makes no sense, unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith—and I don’t care what it is.”

While 21st-century American civil religion is not indifferent to content (the nation is likely not open to a Muslim form of civil religion, for example), its creed can be summed up in three words: God, America, freedom. It doesn’t really matter whom Americans call God, so long as that God is for freedom and for America. In fact, now the word faith has replaced God, as the object of faith has become increasingly less important.

For American politicians, the formula requires using the language of faith without communicating much more than “I’m for faith, America, and freedom.” This affirmation risks little and invites voters to fill in the blanks with their own meaning.

Beyond Gotcha Quotes

During this year’s primaries, candidates followed this script. They spoke warmly and personally about their faith, but in general terms that should have caused no offense. Romney and Obama made major faith-oriented speeches only when media attention forced them to clarify connections.

Unfortunately, many in the national media sensed the political importance of religion without understanding what deeply religious Americans are really interested in. Some created an embarrassing sideshow out of candidates’ particular religious connections, endlessly replaying gotcha quotes. Others, given the chance to surface connections between faith and policy, reverted to Good Morning America-level human-interest chatter.

None of this means that political strategists should shy away from specific religion. The recent U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that American voters are remarkably open to other people’s faith. Desiring freedom for their own beliefs and practices, Americans ignore the “exclusivity clauses” in their own religions as they relate to neighbors of other faiths. “While Americans may have firm religious commitments, they are unwilling to impose them on other people,” the Pew Forum’s John Green said.

A better prepared press could help candidates and campaigns be specific about faith in helpful ways. Understanding how candidates’ faith histories shaped them to face the challenges of public office can only help the democratic process. Without firm theological convictions, a great leader such as Abraham Lincoln could not have risen above bitterly partisan forces to serve the good of the nation. Can candidates articulate the connections between their faith and the decisions they will need to make? Will faith help them just say no to the corrupting influences of special interests? Will it enable them to break free of political inertia to meet challenges before they become crises?

The press and the campaigns can do much to elucidate candidates’ religion in concrete detail that goes beyond civil religion and still strengthens our common bonds.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Other editorials and our full coverage of the 2008 election are available on our site.

“Too many Christians today are trying to improve on the gospel. The gospel is what it is: the Cross of Christ. Christians on both the political right and the left are downplaying the effects of the Fall, and instead buying into a secular myth of progress through market economics or socialism.”

–Mark Deveris pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. Taken from “Does Your Preaching Touch Politics?” in the Summer 2008 issue of Leadership journal. To see the quote IN context, you’ll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

When Sam Phillips last toured, she sang a memorable refrain about heartbreak: “When you’re down / You find out what’s down there.”

Phillips’s new album, Don’t Do Anything (4 stars) (Nonesuch), is like a travelogue of what she found down there. Concocting an intimate chemistry of guitars, violins, and rowdy percussion, she draws poetry from betrayal, regrets, and life in Hollywood, where she’s witnessed so many wrecked dreams. But throughout these passionate songs, she points listeners toward hope—a river of love that’s flowing “under the night.”

The title track is a half-whispered declaration of love that persists in times of despair. “It’s a pretty radical statement,” Phillips tells CT. “Everything is so performance oriented in our society that it’s easy to lose sight of grace and love.” The album concludes with “Watching Out of This World,” a soaring anthem that affirms “the splendor / the holiness of life / that reveals itself.”

But the project’s crowning glory is “Sister Rosetta Goes Before Us,” a tribute to gospel legend Rosetta Tharpe. Allison Krauss and Robert Plant covered it with quiet grace on their excellent collaboration, Raising Sand, but Phillips’s performance captures Tharpe’s zeal.

Beginning as Christian rocker Leslie Phillips in the 1980s, Sam rose from the CCM industry to critical acclaim, roles in feature films, and guitar strumming for television’s Gilmore Girls.

Don’t Do Anything marks a new chapter in Phillips’s career. It’s her first project since her 2004 divorce from T-Bone Burnett, who had produced all of her albums till now. Here, Phillips adds production duties to singing and playing piano and guitar—and she does a fine job at the controls.

Phillips can be proud of her production. It’s a pop co*cktail, by turns playful and profound, with more than just a twist of lemon.

While the scars of her own journey are evident throughout, the songs glow with hope and resilient faith.

Jeffrey Overstreet, author of Auralia’s Colors and Through a Screen Darkly, and an editor at Seattle Pacific University.

Adapted from a review at ChristianMusicToday.com.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Don’t Do Anything is available from Amazon.com and other retailers.

Phillips is performing this weekend at SoulFest, a Christian music festival in New Hampshire.

More reviews are in our music section.

Tuesday was the first full day of the “Loving God and Neighbor” conference that is bringing together Christian, Muslim, and (a few) Jewish leaders on the campus of Yale University.

The day’s meetings were kicked off by two articulate and compelling Muslim speakers.

First was the remarkably articulate and charming Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal of Jordan (who attended Princeton for his undergraduate work and holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge). Prince Ghazi characterized the “Common Word” document issued in 2007 by 138 Muslim scholars and clerics as “our extended global religious handshake.” This was not a concession to Christians, he said. The statement was “about equal peace and not capitulation.”

The first item on his list of tension-producing factors between Muslims and Western Christians was “the question of Jerusalem and Palestine” and during a break in the meetings he re-emphasized the issue of the control of and access to Jerusalem as a factor that would have to be resolved before any lasting d?tente could be achieved.

Did Ghazi go over the top when he claimed that hostility to Muslims in Western countries was at a high enough level to warrant worries about internment camps – or even concentration camps – in the near future?

It was encouraging that he treated the Holocaust as a historical fact and cited the standard six-million figure (things that often get denied by Muslims in the Middle East). But it was shocking that he claimed that Western societies were, with respect to Muslims, now comparable to the pre-genocidal prejudices among Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis in 1994.

Following Prince Ghazi was Shaykh Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. “Ours is not the problem of difference,” said Shaykh Ceric about relations between the three great Abrahamic faiths. “Ours is the problem of similarity.”

“Those who are similar are more severe to each other than those that are different,” he pointed out. “We must learn how to live with our similarities.”

Dr. Ceric preached the value of forgiveness. Having witnessed the terror and brutality of the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, he has had much to forgive. He told the Yale gathering of Muslims and Christians that “the human being has the right to ?an eye for an eye.'” But the right to revenge is balanced by Islamic teaching: “If you forgive, you will be forgiven in the world to come, and [here my notes are a bit shaky] it will be your propitiation.”

But Ceric startled several evangelical listeners when he suggested that not everyone was worthy of love all the time. While he talked about love for widows and orphans, for example, he named “the arrogant” as an example of those who should not be loved. This contrasts sharply with Christian notions of love, in which we are called to love unconditionally “because he first loved us.” And the difference between the two notions of love became a point of discussion.

Yale theologian Miroslav Volf made a point of explaining the Christian view of love in his panel presentation just before lunch. Contrasting with another Muslim cleric’s assertion that we cannot speak of love as being of the essence of God, but only of love as God’s actions, Volf read the locus classicus from 1 John 4:7-21, with its famous sentence, “God is love.” Because God loves (among the persons of the Trinity) before the world comes into existence, said Volf, God’s love is not reactive, but is of his essence.

The Muslim and Christian presentations on Tuesday were characterized by good will, but neither group backed away from the fundamentals of their faith. Critics of the 2007 “Loving God and Neighbor Together” document feared that it was not as explicitly Christian as it ought to have been. But if the conference is any indication, their concerns were unfounded. Explicitly Christian assertions of the divinity of Jesus, the Triune nature of the Godhead, and the unconditional nature of Christian love were the order of the day.

Filed: 7:05 AM, July 30, 2008

Senator John Kerry kicked off the “Loving God and Neighbor in Word and Deed” conference (also known as the “Common Word” conference) Monday night with a largely unsurprising, but welcome speech. He was, after all, preaching to the choir: Christian and Muslim leaders from around the world who want to find a way to live together peacefully.

Kerry began by telling his roughly 150 listeners that the meeting they were attending at Yale University “can help change the world,” while warning that pessimism about future relationships between the Muslim world and the West hands demagogues who play to pessimism about the inevitable violent clash of cultures and religions. “You have placed yourselves among those who are on the right side of the debate,” he told them. “We must love one another or die.”

Kerry, who is a direct descendant of Puritan governor John Winthrop, famous for his “city on a hill” sermon, recounted for the benefit of the global audience the way in which early American history was shaped by a series of bitter religious splits. But the fruit of that early experience of division was a commitment to welcoming all faiths, he said.

Kerry balanced his assertion that “we all worship the One God, the same God” with a plea that religious differences not be played down among the Abrahamic faiths. We don’t need to succumb to “mush” in order to find tolerance. Nor do we need to remove the influence of faith from our public life, he said. “If we aren’t shaped by our faith, we don’t have faith.”

Our goal should be a politics that seeks the global common good, Kerry said, not just the politics that cares for the people of one nation. He cited Vatican II documents to support this planetary notion of common good politics.

The audience gave Kerry a courteous welcome, but none of his comments drew applause until he called for the US to put Middle East peace back on the mainstream foreign policy agenda, and to do it in a way that would deal with “everyone’s grievances.”

Most quotable line of the evening: “Faith may be worth dying for, but it cannot be worth killing for.”

Kerry has gone back to Washington, but the choir has stayed behind to hear each other sing. The panel discussions today will be less inspirational and motivational and will deal with substantive issues. The dozen or so Muslim and Christian panelists Tuesday include evangelical leaders such as Miroslav Volf (Yale), Peter Kuzmic (Croatia), Tukunboh Adeyemo (Kenya), Martin Accad (Lebanon).