The 25 Most Influential Books in History

The following are the top 25 most influential books in history, in my opinion. Feel free to add any that you think I have missed or disagree with the order.

25. Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu

24. The Qu’ran

23. Utopia – Thomas More

22. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres - Copernicus

21. The Annalects – Confucius

20. The Institutes – John Calvin

19. The Leviathan – Thomas Hobbes

18. Bondage of the Will – Martin Luther

17. Summa Logicae – William of Ockham

16. Summa Theologica – Thomas Aquinas

15. Physics – Aristotle

14. Either/Or – Soren Kierkegaard

13. The Republic – Plato

12. The Social Contract – Jean Jacque Rousseau

11. On the Genealogy of Morality – Friedrich Nietzsche

10. Two Treatises of Government – John Locke

9. The Origin of the Species – Charles Darwin

8. Novum Organum – Francis Bacon

7. The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy – Eduard Bernstein

6. Das Kapital – Karl Marx

5. Discourse on Method – Rene Descartes

4. The City of God – St. Augustine

3. Critique of Pure Reason – Immanuel Kant

2. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica – Isaac Newton

1. The Bible

Praise Songs

Last week, after church, I heard several ladies talking about the music that was sung during the service that had just ended. They said how much they liked the song selection and how upbeat they thought the songs were. Some of these women were among those who I know have earlier said how the praise songs make them feel so uplifted. Since my church has become too small to have two services, one traditional and one more contemporary, the service now features hymns and psalms during the service and then two to three praise songs after the sermon to finish up the service. Occasionally there are praise songs played before the service starts as well. For many years it was been well known by my family members that I extremely dislike praise songs. However, after a conversation I had with a college friend toward the very end of the school year last year, I have felt that I should make my opinions less private and more public. Grove City College features a form of contemporary worship called “Warriors” every Thursday night. I have always felt a bit guilty for not going because the worship is so popular among fellow students. I was relieved, however, to find out that my friend equally disliked contemporary praise songs. Based on the conversation that we had, I have come up with several reasons why I have come to so dislike praise songs.

I remember, several years ago, reading an article about an atheist who auctioned himself off to people of several religions. Whoever won the auction, the atheist agreed that he would follow them in their religious practices for an extended period of time. The winner of the auction was a pastor. After the atheist’s tour of several churches, he remarked how he disliked the music. He said that many of the songs sung were on the level of something a child would sing. Something that was really worried me lately is how intellectually lacking many of today’s churches are. While there has been resurgence in interest in religion since the 1980s, much of that interest has been superficial and has lacked an intellectual base. As I turned 18 a few years ago I had a real spiritual crisis as I felt the church had not properly prepared me intellectually. This problem is no more evident than in praise songs. While hymns of old contain so much doctrine and spiritual truth, most praise songs are reduced to nothing but mantras. Compare, for instance, a praise song and a hymn sung last Sunday at my church:

Blessed Be Your Name (excerpt)
Blessed be your name – In the land that is plentiful
Where Your streams of abundance flow
Blessed be Your name
Blessed be Your name
When I’m found in the desert place
Though I walk through the wilderness
Blessed be Your Name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be your Name
Blessed be the name of the Lord
Blessed be Your glorious name.

Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing
Oh, to grace how great a debtor,
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let thy grace, Lord, like a fetter,
Bind thy wand’ring heart to Thee:
Prone to wander, Lord I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love.
Here’s my heart Lord,
Take and seal it
Seal it for thy courts above

The first song says two things: praise God in times of plenty and praise God in times of want. However, that is all the song is about. This message is then repeated in every verse and the bridge. The second song, the hymn we learn 1. Man is constrained to be a debtor due to Christ’s forgiveness, 2. God will bind our wandering hearts to Him, 3. This is because, even Christians who love God, are prone to wander, 4. God will take our souls and seal them for all eternity in heaven. Moreover, none of these themes are repeated in the hymn. Verse one is a call of praise, verse two explains why the hymnist is praising God and verse three is the hymnist’s prayer. Many hymns contain such deep and rich biblical truths and sound doctrine. I would encourage you to read Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, Crown Him with many Crowns, A Mighty Fortress is our God, O God, our Help in Ages Past, Onward Christian Soldiers, and, my favorite hymn, Be Thou My Vision (See below). My chief problem with praise songs is that they tend to be shallow and repetitious. Notice, in Blessed Be Your Name, the constant repetition of “blessed be.”

That brings me to my second problem with praise songs. The repetition and upbeat melodies tend to, psychologically, make a person emotional. I cannot help but think of the World War I American propaganda song “Over There!” that was intended to raise support for the war in Europe. When these things happen, it can be dangerous because it make a person feel that he or she is truly being pious when, in fact, it is merely an upbeat song causing emotion in a person and not true conviction. It bothers me when many Christians who like praise songs think themselves truly pious because they can get a so-called “spiritual high,” completely with hand raising, from these songs yet do not understand even the fundamentals of the Christian faith and live a life that is far from “worthy of the calling we have received.” When emotional praise songs substitute for real piety we are being seriously mislead in our Christian walk. Next time you are listening to an upbeat song on the radio or on your iPod that is repetitious, check your emotions and see how similar they are to when you listen to a praise song.

Lastly, praise songs are in the arena of popular culture. The Church does not belong in realm of popular culture. Popular culture is the realm of commercialism and I absolutely abhor people who try to “sell” Christianity. Christianity is a historic religion. It is not some fad that will quickly pass away. High culture, like hymns, can be appreciated by all generations but the praise songs will one day become obsolete and a future generation will not be able to appreciate them because they belong to an era of pop culture that has long since ended. Imagine listening to praise songs done in the likeness of Frank Sinatra or Buddy Holly songs. I feel incredibly uncomfortable praising the Lord in a song that contains music that could be used to sell pop or hair products. Finally let me say that I believe hymns are much better for reverence, which is a very proper thing to do in a service. They are slower and beautiful. They allow you to focus on what the words are saying, something I do not feel is always possible with praise songs.

I would like to say also, due to the popularity of such songs, that I do not feel that such songs are unbiblical or evil. Also, I do not believe that just you prefer praise songs to hymns that you are a lesser Christian. The above is my opinion only and I will not try to throw Scripture at you to show that you are unbiblical for worshipping with such songs. I only ask that you consider the above and see if you don't come to the conclusion that traditional forms of music are more conducive to worshipping our Lord God.

Be Thou My Vision

Irish hymn, 8th Century

Be thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me save that thou art;
Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, thy presence my light.

Be thou my Wisdom, and thou my true Word;
I ever with thee and, thou with me Lord;
Thou my great Father, and I try true son,
Thou in my dwelling, and I with thee one.

Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise;
Thou mine inheritance, now and always;
Thou and thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my treasure thou art.

High King of Heaven, my victory won;
May I reach Heaven's shores of bright Heaven's Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still by my Vision, O ruler of all.

ObamaCare: The Chief Problems

This is an update on my previous blog post about so-called healthcare reform, “Health Care for All?” Now that Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have revealed a little more about their vague plan to supposedly “make healthcare more affordable” I am able to better accurately point out the flaws in what they are proposing – as well as how astoundingly little the Obama administration knows about basic economics. Much of the plan is similar to the plan that Clinton proposed back in 1994, greater regulations in the insurance and health care industry, with the addition of a government option which people who are unhappy with their current healthcare can choose. Basically, under this plan the government will either subsidize part or all of the medical expenses of people under the government plan or force health care providers or insurers to provide their services to people at a reduced charge. How exactly the government will provide cheaper healthcare for those under the government plan I am not exactly sure. Either way the government plan will actually increase, rather than reduce, the cost of health care for most Americans. Greater “regulation” of the health care and insurance industry will certainly increase the price tag on health care.

First, we must remember the basic message of my last blog on this subject; government may reduce the price of health care for a certain individual or group but cannot reduce the cost of providing healthcare services. The cost of healthcare is determined by supply and demand. If the government mandates a price ceiling on healthcare for those under the government plan, this will mean that the healthcare companies will have reduced profits. They will either have to reduce capital investment from reduced profits or they will have to charge the middle class who are not under the price ceiling more. In the first case the quality of our healthcare will be reduced because the company will have fewer profits to put toward increasing the quality of their insurance or healthcare services, whether this means less coverage, less doctors hired, or less new technology and medical advances. In the latter case it will mean that the hard-working middle class will not save money on health care reform but will end up paying more. If Obama does not create a price ceiling, but only subsidizes healthcare for those under the government plan, this will mean a ballooning deficit for the federal government, which will mean increased taxes for the middle class.

I believe that the current proposals for the cost of this health care plan are grossly underestimated. What democrats fail to understand is that whatever measures they use to make health care “affordable” for those under the government plan, the result will be an increase in demand. With the price of healthcare reduced for those under the plan they will visit the doctor more often than usual. In addition, when they are not footing the cost of the bill, the incentive for people to engage in less risky health behaviors, such as smoking, excessive drinking, and overeating, is reduced. Remember, the biggest health problem among America’s poor is obesity and heart disease. Many of these people also smoke. The public will not become healthier from this plan but less and the bill will be footed by those hard working Americans who actually have to pay for their healthcare. For my solution to reduce healthcare costs, see “A Healthcare Solution” below. For more about the contradictions in ObamaCare see this Time article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html

There is also the question about whether or not abortions and euthanasia will be funded under this healthcare bill. While Democrats claim that nothing in the bill supports such an assertion, others point that the working, like most of the proposal, is ambiguous enough that it may include these ethically questionable procedures. Even those who believe that abortion and euthanasia should be left up to the conscience of the one receiving and performing the procedures should be upset that people who find these things ethically immoral are being forced to fun them.
Ultimately this plan will not help reduce the cost of healthcare or increase the health of Americans. All it will do is make health care more inefficient, costly, and stagnant and entangle the government in more controversial ethical questions.

Making Peace With the Pirates

Now that the dust has finally settled across the Pirates organization I have had some time to think about the mega-fire sale that just destroyed the Pirates’ starting roster. When all these trades started last summer I was angry. I continued to be angry this summer when Nate McLouth was traded. It seemed like more of the same. Once it appears that the Pirates will actually have to pay their players higher salaries, they send them backing to Boston or New York to save payroll in order to fund alternative jerseys, fireworks night, free bobble heads, or some dreadful country music concert after the game. Yet as the trades continued it appeared that the Pirates’ management was up to something. While I don’t share their optimistic spin, I believe that local sports commentators are right in saying that these moves are part of Neal Huntington’s plan to rebuild the Pirates’ farm system and that this is a step in the right direction.

Huntington has said that his vision for the Pirates’ is to build a “championship-caliber team,” not merely an above .500 team. To actualize this, Huntington felt that the current Pirates’ roster was of mediocre talent at best and could be traded off to bigger ball clubs in exchange for young talent. I still wouldn’t under value the Pirates’ former players as much as Huntington and some commentators have. If Bay, Nady, McLouth, and Sanchez were still Pirates I think that the team would have had a chance to make .500 this season. On the other hand, these players would have become too expensive for their worth and probably wouldn’t have vaulted the Pirates to the playoffs anytime soon. Thus I have come to accept that the trades are for the best.

Nevertheless, I have some reservations. First I fear that the talent that Huntington has brought into the club isn’t of the caliber he claims it to be. If the players that have been traded are as mediocre has Huntington claims, then why is the talent they got in return expected to be so good? I hardly think that the scouting for Atlanta, New York, or Boston is poor. But perhaps Huntington and his scouting crew are geniuses? The fact that Huntington gave large (for the Pirates) contracts to Snell and Sanchez only to trade them this summer gives me some room for doubt. This is also considering Snell clearly did not have the mental or emotional ability to compete in the majors. Also, if the new prospects do pan out, the Pirates ownership must be willing to give out good contracts to rising talent. Bob Nutting cannot expect a team of rookies to win the World Series. To build a winning franchise requires patience. If Huntington and Jim Russell feel that the talent coming up through the minors is good, Nutting must be willing to pay big money. It could be several seasons after these players come up from the minors before the team really becomes a “championship-caliber team.” I have serious doubts about this as I believe that Nutting is more committed to a “high profit-caliber team.” A good sign of whether or not ownership is committed is, if McCutchen, Jones, and Milledge become good outfielders, if ownership will reward them with big contracts or force Huntington to trade them for yet more prospects.

In conclusion, I will remain a loyal Pirates’ fan at least through 2011. By then I should have a better understanding of the direction of the organization. Perhaps Huntington will prove to be a scouting genius and the rising talent will finally end the Pirates’ woes. Then again perhaps in true Pirates’ fashion, ownership will force management to trade off any player with a hint of talent to the Yankees due to “payroll concerns.” Like I said, the situation of McCutchen, Jones, and Milledge will be a good marker of the organization’s commitment. If, however, Huntington’s grand over-haul of the Pirates’ farm system is a failure and the losing season keep on coming, I will sever my relationship with the Pirates indefinitely. In the meantime, I will remain a fan, but I will be tempered of any “this year is the year!”-type hope. Either the Huntington’s plan works or I will forsake the Pirates once and for all due to all the time I wasted with them.