In this, the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love, WORLD contributor Matthew Ristuccia takes a look at two books about The Beatles.

Why read about The Beatles? Because of their lasting culture influence, Matthew writes: “Even 40 years later, the Fab Four are still too big for Christians to ignore.”

Over at the American Spectator, writer Lawrence Henry spends a little time hatin’ on “praise music.”

On Sunday, my wife took the gang to church for 9:00 a.m. Sunday school. My sister and I dawdled behind, aiming to be late for the worship service at 10:00. Why? We were both agreed: We hate praise music. Praise music, for those who don’t know, has sprung up in the last couple of decades as a replacement for traditional hymns in “Bible” or “Gospel” churches.

After pining for the depth of meaning in the great hymns sung in more traditional and liturgical churces, Henry goes on to break down a popular praise song, “You Are My All in All.” First, the lyrics (Henry includes them all; I’m only including the first verse.)

You are my strength when I am weak,
You are the treasure that I seek,
You are my all in all.
Seeking You as a precious jewel,
Lord to give up I’d be a fool,
You are my all in all.

Then Henry’s critique:

First, note that the key phrase, the supposed theme, “You are my all in all,” means really nothing. It’s a piece of pop endearment. Triteness follows upon triteness, “treasure that I seek,” “precious jewel,” and so on, with “Lord to give you up I’d be a fool” almost literally gag-making.

Geez, why don’t you say what you really think? Check out the rest Henry’s column here. What say you on praise music versus hymns?

HT: Patrick Poole

On Saturdays, we consider a passage of Scripture. This is not a thread for theological debate, but for meditation and reflection. If you are not a Christian, consider the value of reflecting on a revered ancient text.

Here’s today’s passage:

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith — that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 3:8-14

Happy Saturday!

Today’s quote: “We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”

Just got finished watching controversial filmmaker Michael Moore’s newest documentary, SiCKO, a commentary on the United States’ private health care system. Instant reaction: Moore’s political fingerprints are all over this one, but, as opposed to Fahrenheit 911, he tries not to get in the way of the film’s point. The problem, as Moore sees it, is that large health care providers like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna and others can’t be trusted to provide quality service because their best interest involves reducing costs (i.e., reducing services). Unlike other Moore films which I tended to dismiss, I emerged asking a serious and thoughtful question: Is the profit motive of an HMO the best way to govern a health care system?

Of course, other parts of SiCKO are throwbacks to Moore’s controversial style. When he profiles the single-payer nationalized health insurance programs of other nations, he glosses over participant dissatisfaction, poor quality of service and long wait times – all things that have been well documented.

By 309-115 vote, House lawmakers yesterday amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. The doctrine would require broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming. The vote prevents the FCC from, for example, using taxpayer dollars to force Fox Radio to “balance” their programming by adding, say, Al Franken.

The issue boils down to Left v. Sane People, with liberal Democrats and policing…er, I mean, policy…experts suggesting that the government impose a “fair” airing of ideas, and almost everyone else insisting that the people can decide for themselves which political points of view they want to listen to.

In 1985 the FCC canned the policy after the Congressional Research Service reported that the Fairness Doctrine restricted journalistic freedom and “actually inhibit[ed] the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

Yesterday’s vote prevents Congress from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine in 2008. Indiana Republican Mike Pence, a former full-time radio host, said yesterday he will work on legislation to bury it forever.

Mothers matter. Everyone knows this. Even crazy people who like mothers so much they think it’s better to have two. But mothers these days, apparently, are mattering more:

There have always been close-knit mother-daughter relationships. But social, demographic and technological changes have made it more common for adult daughters to keep their mothers’ apron strings tied tighter — and for longer, say researchers who study the transition into young adulthood.

First reaction: This is great! I like it when people say normal things are good, and mothers are normal. When dogs and cats are living together, when there’s mass hysteria in the world, then I like articles about how moms are good and necessary.

Second reaction: Grow up! I love my mother, too, but is this deepening of the mother-child relationship (calling her four, eight times a day) really healthy? Is this just a symptom of the decline of marriage? Which is to ask, are adults calling their moms two dozen times a day, not because they terribly love and miss their mothers (which is super), but because they have no significant others with whom to speak? Is the rise of mom a consequence of the decline of marriage?

Third reaction: This is great, but grow up a little. Your mother would probably be fine with your calling her less if it meant you gave her a larger family, grandchildren, and lots of birthday parties for all of them. But until then, keep calling her. She loves it.

FIRST DISCLOSURE: I am a man. I believe in leaving and cleaving. I call my mother and father every Sunday, mainly to let them here their granddaughter try to eat the phone. I love my mother very much. If I called her twice a day, she would love it. My dad would think I was going transgender on him.

SECOND DISCLOSURE: I understand many of you consider yourselves responsible adults with large families, and you still call mom a lot. Fine. I think nothing is wrong with you. Just hypothesizing on coffee shop trivium: no more, no less. Don’t hate.

Liberals are feeling the shock of a balanced supreme court. They vent here, and here, and here, and here. And here. And here. This is what happens when justices vote according to their inclinations.

“Vacation” by Rita Dove

I love the hour before takeoff,
that stretch of no time, no home
but the gray vinyl seats linked like
unfolding paper dolls. Soon we shall
be summoned to the gate, soon enough
there’ll be the clumsy procedure of row numbers
and perforated stubs – but for now
I can look at these ragtag nuclear families
with their cooing and bickering
or the heeled bachelorette trying
to ignore a baby’s wail and the baby’s
exhausted mother waiting to be called up early
while the athlete, one monstrous hand
asleep on his duffel bag, listens,
perched like a seal trained for the plunge.
Even the lone executive
who has wandered this far into summer
with his lasered itinerary, briefcase
knocking his knees – even he
has worked for the pleasure of bearing
no more than a scrap of himself
into this hall. He’ll dine out, she’ll sleep late,
they’ll let sun burn them happy all morning
- a little hope, a little whimsy
before the loudspeaker blurts
and we leap up and become
Flight 828, now boarding at gate 17.

Today is the day Apple releases its latest, revolutionary gadget: the iPhone. For a mere $599 (not including monthly service charges via AT&T), you too can be part of the Apple craze. The sleek and supposedly simple-to-use gadget triples as a cell phone, iPod, and a wireless web device. So fess up: Who’s planning to get one, and who’s just wishing they could?