Books
9 Reasons Why You Should Read More Old Books
If you’re like me, you get anxious and marginally depressed when you see all the new books published each year.
It can happen at Barnes and Noble or while scanning the New York Times bestseller lists.
But the result is always the same: an acute sense of failure. How in the world can I read all of these books?
Fortunately, most books published each year will end up on the remainder pile–forgotten, useless and cheap.
Really cheap.
And while reading new books is a great way to stay on top of the latest ideas, I think it’s much better to make a habit of reading older books.
Here are nine reasons why. Enjoy!
1. Past the classic test.
Old books are books with ideas and stories that endure for 50, 100–even thousands of years. When you read an old book, you can be confident it’s quality writing. Not so with new books.
2. Fewer old books.
Random House’s list of the 100 best novels [all classics, though that could change in 50 years] can be read in one year. You couldn’t possibly manage to do that will all the new fiction published in one year.
3. Look odd, somewhat-sophisticated.
Reading classics adds a depth to your cocktail conversations you can’t get from new books. “You know, while I was reading Oedipus this morning, I thought of a way to solve our modern transit problem. All we have to do is….” See how that works? You just look cool.
4. Learn about the past.
Classic novels, for instance, can teach you about a particular time of history–whether it’s reading Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby [1920s] or Augustine’s City of God [100 BC to 400 AD]–while you’re enjoying yourself.
5. Cheaper.
If you’re the type of worm who likes to own all your books but don’t have deep pockets, then Barnes and Noble re-packages old books in hardcovers and sells them for less than $10. You can also almost always find used copies of old books on Amazon.
6. Free.
Since most classics are in the public domain, you can find them free at many sources online, like the Project Gutenberg [print versions] or LibriVox [audio versions].
7. Available at your library.
Naturally you have a better chance of finding old books at your library. How many times have you been on a waiting list for new, popular fiction? Too many, I’m sure.
8. Lots of commentary.
One of the things I enjoyed about reading Steinbeck’s Of Mice or Men or Dickens Bleak House was hunting down the surrounding discussion on those books. The depth of supporting literature on old books grossly out weighs that of new.
9. Quality is better.
If it’s a classic, this is obvious. Why else would it endure? But what makes a new book a classic? Themes that touch all people across time is one trait. Another trait is a sense of novelty. The book explores an idea for the first time of experiments with an new technique.
Your turn. What reasons can you think of that would convince someone to read more old books? Did I miss anything?
And what do you think make books like Luther’s Bondage of the Will or Paul Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress classic? What qualities make a story like Homer’s Iliad timeless?
Please share. I look forward to your thoughts.
What Are You Reading? And Why?
I’m always curious to know what books you are reading–helps me discover titles I might have never uncovered.
I’m also curious to know WHY you are reading those particular books.
In return, I like to share what books I’m reading in hopes I might introduce you to something new.
By the way: I’m trying to read 100 books this year. But guess what? I’m hopelessly behind.
[Let that be our little secret.]
Nonetheless, in my delusional quest to read 2.25 books a week perhaps I’ll break last year’s record…[which might be a little hard to determine since I never kept track of the books I read last year. Oh well.]
Anyway, here are the six books I’m working through right now.
Old Testament [Out of the Apologetics Study Bible
Hoping to read this in about a 5 week period. By the way, does each book of the OT count as one book? If so, then I’ll have read 33 books in 5 weeks. [Please tell me it does!]
Why I’m Reading It: I don’t think a mature Christian you make without a solid understanding of the OT under your belt. So I make reading it an annual event.
Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament
Book-by-book survey of the OT. Reading it in lockstep with the OT.
Why I’m Reading It: See the above reason.
Coaching for Improved Work Performance
A business book geared for managers hoping to increase productivity. Insights so far: managers need employees more than employees need them and work is simply “renting a certain behavior.” In my case, writing behavior.
Why I’m Reading It: I always want to be better at what I do. At this time it’s being a better editor.
Paradise Lost
John Milton’s classic tale of the Fall. I have to confess: I’m actually listening to it. But you can, too. For free: Paradise Lost at LibriVox.
Why I’m Reading It: Never have. And I love the rich language. As a writer, this is important. I’d recommend all writers to read classics like Paradise Lost. [Or listen to it.]
City of God
St. Augustine’s classic defense of the Christian faith. Reading about 3 pages every morning, which will take me the entire year. In just 300 pages though I’ve got an extensive education on pagan religions and Platonism. Didn’t expect that. [I like those little surprises.]
Why I’m Reading It: I don’t interact with ancient texts [history in general] enough, which restricts my understanding of my faith. Hoping to bridge that gap.
Statistics Demystified
One of those DIY books on the branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. It’s got a freaky cover. [So says my kids.]
Why I’m Reading It: I’ve always been fascinated with mathematics. But woefully ignorant of the topic. Plus, I like to learn about things wildly out of my field and exercise parts of my brain that are asleep.
So, what are you reading? And why? Also, are you a library fanatic? [I am.] Or do you prefer to buy books? New or used? I look forward to comments.
Is John Nash a Modern-Day Nebuchadnezzar?
You’re probably wondering what a 20th century Princeton-trained abstract mathematician has in common with a Babylonian ruler who reigned around 600 B.C.
Not much, really.
Except they both went mad.
And that’s the connection I want to explore.
Losing a Beautiful Mind
Here’s how Daniel describes Nebuchadnezzar’s descent into madness:
All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, and the king answered and said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”
While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, “O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. And you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.”
Immediately the word was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from among men and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.
It’s evident that Nebuchadnezzar lost his mind. And while John Nash didn’t crawl on all fours and eat grass, he, too, lost his mind.
I tell you all this because I recently finished reading Sylvia Nasser’s biography of John Nash–A Beautiful Mind
It was a gritty, 400-page narrative of schizophrenia–with Nash as the protagonist–that traveled from the nastiness of his narcissism to the brutality of his mental illness to the humility of his remission.
And throughout this very readable book I could not shake the comparison between Nash’s descent into madness with Nebuchadnezzar’s.
What We Can Learn from Descents into Madness
This is not what I’m saying: God used schizophrenia as an act of judgment against John Nash. I cannot demonstrate that at all.
All I’m saying is that it could be–as it was so obviously for Nebuchadnezzar. But this much is true: the depth of megalomania and hubris in each man was vast and ultimately led to their insanity.
Nebuchadnezzar reveling in his majestic glory and dictatorial demands for idol worship and John Nash exalting his mathematical genius and rubbing his status as a scientific giant into the noses of his subordinates [whom he thought was just about everyone].
The warning we need to walk away from both of these men’s stories [and Nebuchadnezzar's in particular] is that we are all prone to self-sufficiency, self-supremacy and self-exaltation…
And when we push the limits of these areas we are in great and grave danger of judgment–possibly in this life, definitely in the next.
But more importantly we must remember this: Christ alone is supreme. Christ alone is to be exalted and worshiped. And in Christ alone do we find our ultimate sufficiency.
Who Do You Praise in Your Times of Restoration?
In the end, Nebuchadnezzar was humbled by his madness. As was Nash. But Nebuchadnezzar praised God for his restoration…
He said, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.”
As far as I know, John Nash did not praise God. In fact, he talked about willing his way into rationality.
Whatever the case might be, I hope that Nash did in fact give God glory for his recovery–but that piece of news has simply been left unreported.
Until then I pray for Nash’s soul.
And yours, that you would resist pride with a ferocious and fantastic tenacity and instead adore the only being in this universe who deserves our praise–Jesus Christ.
Dr. Banks Responds to My Review of “Praying Together”
**Guest post by Dr. James Banks with a response to my review of his book The Lost Art of Praying Together. I appreciate his words and mercy.**
I’d like to thank Demian for giving me the opportunity to respond to his thoughts on The Lost Art of Praying Together.
I’m grateful for the kindness.
We both have the same interest at heart–we want to see people come to Christ and bear fruit for the Kingdom.
With that in mind and at heart, I’d like to respond to what I believe is a key misunderstanding about the book.
God’s Sovereign Work
First, I do not believe that if we simply pray together, revival will come. Revival is a sovereign work of God and can never be coerced by human methods.
God will move when He will, and it is up to us to humble ourselves before Him.
The beginning of chapter four of The Lost Art of Praying Together begins with this quote from G. Campbell Morgan, which I hope will help clarify things a bit: “We cannot organize revival but we can set our sails to catch the wind from Heaven when God chooses to blow upon His people once again.”
I believe that united prayer is often a precedent to revival (the teaching and preaching of the Word and repentance of others), and that this is something that is overlooked today.
Demian writes that “When he does pull out Scripture… you find Banks guilty of turning descriptive texts into prescriptive methods.”
My intent was to give an overview of the healthy and frequent practice of praying together throughout God’s Word (the second chapter takes a quick look at united prayer in the Old Testament, the third chapter considers Jesus’ practice of prayer, and the fourth looks at prayer in the early church).
There are over eighty scripture references within twenty six brief pages, and while one may differ with my interpretation on any, to imply God’s Word is used as an afterthought misses the mark.
Scripture, and not my personal experience, is the starting point.
I also do not intend to make all passages prescriptive, although I do believe they demonstrate a clear precedent for united prayer in scripture.
I also believe that Jesus’ promise and teaching on united prayer (i.e., Matthew 18:19-20) needs to be taken to heart and acted upon.
Humbling Ourselves/A First Resort
My aim is to show that we do not pray together in obedience to God as previous generations of Christians did, and that we are missing something as a result.
This is also where I believe Demian and I have more in common than first meets the eye.
We both see the difficulty with a church culture which relies more on quick-fixes and methods than on humbling itself before God. I do not believe (as Demian infers) that united prayer is “the superior practice of the Christian life,” but I do see it as a neglected one that needs to be reinstated.
This quote from Michael Green on page 99 of The Lost Art may help explain my perspective:
This is one of the main ways in which Western Christianity is distinguished from African, Asian and Latin American expressions of faith. We rely on technology, on books, videos, organization—in a word, on making things happen. People in the two-thirds world are often deprived of these things, which is a good thing because it makes them rely on God to make things happen. Thus you find the level of faith, the commitment to prayer, and the practice of fasting infinitely more developed in these continents than in our own. It is no surprise that the Gospel is spreading much faster and deeper there than it is in the West. For God loves to answer prayer.
Prayer, in order to be genuine, has to be humble and submitted to God. The Lost Art of Praying Together emphasizes persevering in prayer not for “name it and claim it” reasons (it may help to point out that Demian is not quoting The Lost Art when he writes “You just have to pray more, then God will move.”), but because persevering in prayer helps us give ourselves to God and discover His will with fresh passion and purpose, enabling us to move in His strength instead of our own.
My hope is that others will see prayer as a first resort, and not a last.
A Passion for Prayer that Honors God
The Lost Art of Praying Together was written to encourage believers to unite in prayer because God deeply desires us to do so. The message isn’t “pray to the exclusion of all other things,” but rather to restore united prayer to its biblical place of priority, because this honors and glorifies God and reaches for what He alone can do.
C.H. Spurgeon, in his sermon Prayer for the Church, articulates this passion far better than I:
But when we have done all that we can, let us pray much more than we ever have done. Oh, for a praying Church… May our prayer meetings be sustained in fervor, and increased in number! Praying is, after all, the chief matter. Praying is the end of preaching. Preaching has its right use, and must never be neglected; but real heart devotion is worth more than anything else. Prayer is the power, which brings God’s blessing down upon all our work.
Thanks for the chance to clear the air, Demian. I hope this helps! May God bless you and your readers as you pray!
Under God’s Mercy, Dr. James Banks.
**Dr. Banks, thank you for your clarification. I confess I now need to go back to your book and re-evaluate my position. I appreciate your mercy and understanding. And I hope others will read the book and respond, too. Like you said, by neglecting this spiritual discipline we are missing something as a result.**
Contending with Christianity’s Critics [A Review]
Want quick answers to objections the New Atheists, Bart Ehrman and Open Theists bring against Christianity?
Then Contending with Christianity’s Critics is your book.
Now, William Lane Craig [editor and contributor] says the book is both accessible and apologetically cutting-edge.
While I’ll concede cutting-edge, I have to resist “accessible.”
I’ll show you what I mean in a minute.
Here’s the deal: Contending is made up of 18 essays divided into three categories: The Existence of God, Jesus of History and Coherence of Christian Doctrine.
What follows is a SHORT review of each essay. Nano-reviews, if you will.
Dawkin’s Delusion
In under 3 pages Craig demonstrates that Richard Dawkin’s doesn’t have “a very serious argument against God’s existence.” Instead, he’s got an invalid syllogism.
At Home in the Multi-Verse
All I have to say is that James Daniel Sinclair lost me at sentence one. Go figure.
Confronting Naturalism: The Argument from Reason
Victor Reppert’s argument in a nutshell: Meaning is ambiguous if naturalism is true. However, meaning is NOT ambiguous. Thus, naturalism is false.
Belief in God: A Trick of Our Brain?
Psychological experiments about a God-sense hardwired in our brain simply demonstrate what we already know: We’ve got an instinct for God.
The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism
Mark D. Linville starts his essay like this: “Darwin’s account of the origins of human morality is at once elegant, ingenious and woefully inadequate.” He then defends that thesis in 16 pages of playful, Rob Powellesque language.
Darwin’s Best Argument Against God’s Existence
Gregory Ganssle uses four counter-features to show that Dawkin’s best argument–that features of this life fit a naturalistic explanation better than a theistic one–simply doesn’t deliver.
Criteria for The Gospel’s Authenticity
When positive evidence accumulates…and one affirms a universe open to miracles…the Gospel’s authenticity is strongly attested. That’s Robert Stein’s argument.
Jesus the Seer
Ben Witherington makes an exquisite case for Jesus’ self-understanding as God by exploring his use of the phrase “Son of Man.” Must read.
The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line
Gary Habermas works back from the composition of the Gospels to Paul’s conversion to show that Jesus’ bodily record was taught as early as 30 AD. In other words: It’s always been a creed with the church.
How Scholars Fabricate Jesus
Craig Evans argues that the scholarly track record with respect to the use of extra-canonical gospels is embarrassing. Take note, Crossan.
How Badly Did the Early Scribes Corrupt the New Testament
Dan Wallace takes Misquoting Jesus to task, stating the author [Bart Ehrman] esteems provocative positions over honesty, excitement over boredom.
Who Did Jesus Think He Was?
Michael Wilkins makes a plain-Jane case that Jesus knew he was God. The only innovation appears to be Wilkin’s use of Peter’s messianic proclamation as a test case.
The Coherence of Theism
Taliaferro and Marty look at six specific attributes of God and their seamless interaction to prove God simply makes sense.
Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder?
Paul Copan makes a case for a simple understanding of the Trinity–yet with room for mystery and worship.
Did God Become a Jew?
Copan next argues that it’s NOT absurd to think about God becoming man. One way he does this is by warning us to start with the Scriptures–not Greek philosophy–when we talk about the Incarnation.
Dostoevsky, Woody Allen and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution
Christopher Hitchens complains that Jesus’ death as vicarious atonement makes zero sense. Steve Porter’s essay will fix that.
Hell: Getting What’s Good My Own Way
Very creative case for hell by Stuart Goetz based on libertarian free will, life plans and ultimate-good-seeking decisions. C. S. Lewis would be proud.
What Does God Know? The Problems with Open Theism
David Hunt tells us that open theism doesn’t have a scriptural advantage over classical theism because it fails four truth tests.
As you might’ve noticed, Richard Dawkin’s and Co. and their ideas get a lot of work. That’s intentional.
Thus, if you want answers to this new wave of objections to Christianity, Contending is a good buy. You’ll be happy to foot the $14. I was.
Search
Recent Posts
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Categories
Archives
