Skip to main content

My Ten Books



The Ten Books That Have Stayed With Me:

10. Shoeless Joe, by W.P. Kinsella

9. War, by Sebastian Junger

8. Dead Man Walking, by Sister Helen Prejean

7. Anthem, by Ayn Rand

6. Radical Son, by David Horowitz

5. Congress: The Electoral Connection, by David Mayhew

4. The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr., by Jim Bishop

3. Upon This Rock, by Steven Ray

2. Dune, by Frank Herbert

1. To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee


I could easily do another 10, and perhaps I will. But these were the 10 I first thought of, and my basic criteria are:


1) I say, "This book changed the way I think and feel about the world," or 2) Someone else said I needed to read it, and I finally did. I didn't put any books up that I haven't finished, and I won't. So, there are dozens and dozens more books I have yet to finish, so I can't mention them. Also, if I read a book, and I feel I can't articulate the main theme or purpose, (that is, understand it) you won't see it on a list like this.


Recently, others who have read more fiction have critiqued it for lacking some of the great works of fiction. Well, I have two great interests (other than sports): Theology and politics. Even when I read fiction, these are the lenses I read it through, because I am me. In other words, too bad. Some are called to read the great works of fiction, and others think about humanity and its destiny. It's probably not fair to those great works if I did read them all, because what we owe to any author is to connect with his purpose, not our own.


By the way, I suppose I should comment on sports for a moment. There is a segment of intellectuals for whom sports is a little too common, a little too "Average Joe." You know what? If you were a real intellectual, you'd at least be conversant with sports. Stupid people may love sports, but brilliant people definitely love sports. This is different than being a fan, though those aren't mutually exclusive. The games we play and watch, even in all their intricate details, are a big, giant human interest story. As are the people who watch them. If you have no desire to get inside that in some way, well, you're beyond my help.


I used to say that I lived and died with the St. Louis Cardinals, and perhaps once I did. Don't get me wrong: I am a huge fan. That community, love, and passion is a real thing. I saw on the social media that a friend of a friend from Chicago remarked that watching a baseball game with Cardinals fans is very special. He said there was a "reverence" for the game and the people who play it that is rarely duplicated. Some of us surely are idolators. Even so, I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the most religious cities in the world has among the most devoted baseball fans. The pinnacle of human achievement, community, and interest points at the transcendent, even when it goes wrong. Sports doesn't build character; it reveals it, as they say. This must be at least partially true.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un