Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Cultural Liturgies)

James K. A. Smith offers a vision for discipleship that’s divergent from the prevailing vision in American evangelicalism. The American church tradition has valued right doctrine and aimed at the head. We have Sunday Schools to teach our children the facts, catechisms, one-on-one discipleship programs where material is read and rehearsed. All of this is good. Right doctrine is a matter of life or death. Smith says, “[The] gospel[’s . . . ] power is beauty, which speaks to our deepest desires and compels us to come not with dire moralisms but rather with a winsome invitation to share in this envisioned good life” (21). Discipleship as Smith envisions it targets the heart first, our affections; it is “the education of desire” (23). While this approach seems fresh in our current context, it is not novel in the history of the Church. Consider God’s first act of redemption. Israel is enslaved in Egypt. They are broken and defeated. God enters their life and decisively acts for them. Only after he acts, after he has arrested their affection does he give the law. And even when the law is given, he starts with love (Deut. 6:1-12). God first makes disciples by educating Israel’s affections. Smith says, “Being a disciple of Jesus is not primarily a matter of getting the right ideas and doctrines and beliefs into your head in order to guarantee proper behavior; rather, it’s a matter of being the kind of person who loves rightly—who loves God” (32). When Jesus arrives, he does the same thing. He tends to the affections of his sheep. He heals, feeds, raises—and ultimately dies and rise again. Nothing grabs for the heart like a sacrificial death. “God so loved the world he sent his son” (Jn. 3:16). The next large point Smith makes has to do with the liturgies all around us. “If many configurations of cultural practices function as quasi-liturgies, as formative pedagogies of desire that are trying to make us a certain kind of person, we need to ask ourselves: Is there a place that could form us otherwise—a space of counter-formation?” (24). The rest of the book is spent developing these ideas. Smith points out the liturgies all around us and how they create certain types of people. He also points out that the church has often combated the affection grabbing liturgies of our culture with rational arguments—whereas we should combat them the kind of affection grabbing discipleship demonstrated in Scripture. Desiring the Kingdom is the rare book that engages the reader and provides a fresh take on a crucial topic. We are at a cultural four way stop. The church will continue down its current path, especially with how it engages culture, or it will turn. Smith shows conclusively we must turn and in doing so we will find we have returned to the ancient practices of the Church and to the God who discipled us by sending his Son, by loving us.

It is a ubiquitous question for thinking and engaged Christians everywhere in every age: How do we understand the tension between the influence of the culture upon the church and the influence of the church upon the culture? In much of the recent evangelical literature on this subject, the focus has been on worldview. The big ideas have been ideas, beliefs, and doctrines and how Christians ought to transform theirs or recapture a distinctly Christian set. Smith sees the project in a different light. In fact, he sees the matter of influence to be upon our ideas and not necessarily through our ideas. In many ways, Smith reaches back through modern and enlightenment-influenced theology and philosophy to Augustine and his belief that we are primarily affective creatures before we are rational creatures: we love before we think. And if the central questions about our character and formation are about our loves, we ought to get to what forms and shapes our loves. Smith's fundamental claim and the one that drives the book is that "liturgies" form our loves, and thus, form us. Early on he notes, "The core claim of this book is that liturgies - whether `sacred' or `secular' - shape and constitute our identities by forming our most fundamental desires and our most basic attunement to the world. In short, liturgies make us certain kinds of people and what defines us in what we love." (pg. 25) Though the primary audience of the book is Christian education, Smith is aware, and I wholeheartedly agree, that his work has far-reaching application outside of the academy. If his premise is true, then this work has implications for the form and shape of the church as much as the university. I will briefly summarize the two sections of the book with some of his major points, and then offer some questions and analysis. The first of two sections is devoted to an expression of anthropology, focusing on humans as loving/affective creatures and how those loves are formed. Cultural liturgies are examined and exposited as Smith makes the case for loving as the fundamental act of the human being in place of reasoning. Most worldview thinking, he argues, has the human creature exactly upside down as it emphasizes rationalistic behavior over affective influences. For someone familiar with some of the basics of virtue theory, it will not come as a surprise that Smith argues that habits and practices play a large, if not primary, role in the forming of loves and the human character. He also employs the structure of "social imaginary" to describe how the practices of our lives and our worship form us as "noncognitive" directors of our actions and dispositions toward the world. In the second section, Smith moves from anthropology to the more constructive task of dealing with the actual ins and outs of Christian worship. In the first section he argues that we need to form a new way of imagining and seeing the Kingdom of God, and in the second part he goes about dealing with how that happens. He asks, "In other words, what does worship say about Christian faith?" (pg. 134) It is a good question, and it deserves to be dealt with. What do our actual practices as Christians tell us about the shape of our faith in Christ? The term "practical atheist" may be overused in some contexts, but its point fits just fine with Smith's larger idea. Are we as Christ followers worshiping (acting) in such a way as to make good sense of our faith? While some reviewers have noted that the first part of the book may be stronger than the second, I think a degree of charity needs to be applied to this second part. I must admit that I lost some steam reading through to the end as Smith listed the various "practical" applications of his theory, but I still found them instructive and at times provocative. I found a lot of Smith's argument to be the kind of thing we ought to be talking about in our churches and universities. Are we guilty of a kind of Gnosticism in which we have disconnected what we believe from how we behave and what we do when we gather together? Have we lost a sense of being deeply affective creatures who are often moved by our experiences more than the latest lecture we heard? We need to wrestle with the implications of these issues. Given that, there are some assertions and arguments in the book to push against. I'll get a rather small thing out of the way first. From time to time Smith seems to erect scarecrows to knock down. One particular instance happens in his sidebar on The Moulin Rouge. His argument is that there is something valuable in the way love is portrayed (at least in its force in the human being) there, and he notes, "And so one could suggest that the kingdom looks more like Montmarte than Colorado Springs!" (pg. 72) The play, of course, is on a stereotype of Colorado Springs as a kind of evangelical Mecca where nearly everyone is blindly evangelical and in lock-step with the Republican party. I was disappointed in that kind of broad-stroke ad hominem, but it isn't the only place where part of his argument relies on pigeon-holing a set of evangelicals in a cubicle and knocking the whole thing down. Then there are times where it seems Smith is too heavy-handed with other points of view in order to make his argument. The result of this tact is that he portrays an apparent disregard for and a simple denial of different points of view. Smith clearly argues that we are primarily affective/loving beings, but at times he appears to say we are exclusively affective/loving beings, showing a disregard for what seems to me to be the truth of the influence of ideas and reason. Instead of a both/and or primary/secondary approach Smith seems to want to have an either/or approach, which doesn't help his overall case. Early on Smith characterizes his foil as "rationalistic," "a talking-head version of Christianity," and provocatively enough a "'bobble head' Christianity" where what goes on in the head far outweighs what goes on in the body (pg. 42). While this can be true of some forms of Christian theology heavily influenced by the enlightenment, is it true of all forms of theology concerned with true doctrine and the content of the propositional messages we proclaim? As seems to be the case with theologians and Christians influenced by a postmodern philosophy, there might be a temptation to make a category mistake here: all who disagree with us are disjointed enlightenment thinkers. Another example of this kind of reasoning appears in the second half of the book on page 163, "The `image of God' (imago Dei) is not some de facto property of Homo sapiens (whether will or reason or language or what have you); rather, the image of God is a task, a mission" (emphasis his). This is the kind of thing that shoots the argument he wants to make in the foot. We are put off by the unnecessary bifurcation of the two - property vs. mission - and we are on guard from then on. I find it obvious in both the Scripture and in the theology on the subject that the image of God is at least a set of properties endowed to us by God that make us, not worms, uniquely human. It is then be constructive to note that the image of God is a "task, a mission" that we have as creatures living under God. I simply do not see a logical contradiction in his argument if he took love to be primary to reason, and then argued for the proper places of each in the liturgies of the believer. There is a lot to be gained through Smith's book, and he raises arguments we need to wrestle with that we don't often think through. And for that, I think this book is very useful for Christian educators and pastors. But I hope that as he fills out this project he will avoid some of the unnecessary rhetorical and argumentative devices that hurt the overall argument.

Finished this today over my lunchbreak. This has been my lunch-time reading project for the last month or so, and man, have I really enjoyed it. It wasn't really what I thought it was going to be from reading the synopsis, but had a lot of really great learning in it. Very good exposition on worship in general, and the comparisons between 'worship' in the Christian definition of the word, and the ways we 'worship' other things in life. Culture around us affects us in ways, far beyond what we realize sometimes, even as subtle as just walking through a Wal-mart. It's really worth while to step back some times, and see those things for what they are. Recognize that all sorts of things in our lives are vying for our attention, and trying to distract us from pursuing true joy in a worshipful pursuit of God our Creator. What really impressed me about this book though too, beyond the things I learned personally, is how much emphasis was put on how to properly teach other people these types of things. That being a leader or teacher within the church or Christian organizations means that *forming* other people as worshipers of Jesus is actually more than simply *INforming* them. Lots of good things to think on. Definitely recommend the book, although fair warning that it's written sort of like a text book, with plenty of deep, big words, that even I had to look up in a dictionary a few times to be sure I was understanding the author's intent correctly!

James Smith does an immaculate job describing what Christian universities strive to do and how that has failed to be a proper counterforce for the "liturgies of the world." The whole philosophy in the book challenges how we view normal everyday practices that shape what our idea of the life are about. He challenges us to consider what it looks like to cultivate practices and rituals that shape our desires. The perspective reader should know that this is a moderately dense book for the subject matter. He's recently come out with what I believe is meant to be and easier read that covers the same topic. Overall, I'm excited to go back over this book again in the future and continue to ponder the ideas he's left me with. The book will challenge the reader to think about the central purpose of being a Christian and what Christian Ccommunity ought to look like.

This book is a must read for any and all who are involved in the life if the Church and who want to be actively engaged in the stuff of culture making. The author offers a very poignant analysis of other liturgies competing for the hearts and minds of the world, and he offers an engaging analysis of the powerful liturgy of the church, which is the transformative power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Though the word "liturgy" tends to be used in reference to more "high" church traditions, the book is a valuable read for all branches of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox communities. I look very much forward to reading the next book by James K. A. Smith that's hot off the presses and is titled, "Imagining the Kingdom." I doubt I'll be disappointed.

James Smith is a Professor of Philosophy in Calvin College. His work is taken at the borderlands between theology, philosophy, politics, and other areas. He wrote a few books, including Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, Who’s Afraid of Relativism?, and Imagining the Kingdom. He has worked a lot on Postmodern Christianity, which all contemporary Christians should be concerned about. In this book, Dr. Smith argued that to make disciples of Jesus Christ, we have to recognize that humans are not thinkers who think to understand, or believers who believe to understand, but lovers who desire or love to understand. And “our loves and desires are aimed and directed by habits that dispose us to be the kind of people aimed at certain visions of the good life.” (pp. 215) This “love to understand” understanding is contrary to the “know to understand” or “believe to understand” understandings. He criticized the current practice of Christian schools that much information was taught, but spiritual formation (by cultivating our spiritual desire) is lacking. What he stated is in contrary to some theologians and Christians who believe that the normative creeds and doctrines are fundamental. Dr. Smith first argued that humans are lovers that desire an “ultimate visions of good life.” (pp. 55) To cultivate the desires and the worldview of people, he described the importance of liturgies that people practice regularly. He used secular practices or habits as examples of “liturgies.” The “liturgies” that he described include religious liturgies, but he further said that a lot of secular practices, such as mall shopping, are virtually “liturgies.” He then turned back to Christian worship (on Sunday), which he argued to be fundamental to shaping the worldview of the disciples. He then went by each step in a formal Christian worship, and explained how they shape our desires and worldview. Finally, with everything built up, Dr. Smith explained “new monasticism,” and outlined his vision of what an ideal Christian college, or an ecclesial college, is like. Dr. Smith made a point that religious practices and liturgies are important in forming our worldviews. In the Old Testament, there is no lack of description of various rituals, sacrifices, and festivals practiced by the ancient Israelites. All these rituals have meanings. For example, the fifth of the Ten Commandments commanded us to “remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy,” (Exodus 20:8) because God rested after the work of the six-day creation. (Exodus 20:11) By practicing this, we remember God’s creative work, and His identity of the Creator. If the Jewish people worshipped other gods by practicing other liturgies that were likely to be immoral, they would be punished. (Deuteronomy 28:15-68) In the New Testament, we read in the Book of Acts that believers worshipped together. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, believers are commanded not to “neglect to meet together,” (Hebrews 10:25) for “stirring up one another to love and good works.” (Hebrews 10:24) In short, the Scripture asserts the importance of liturgies, and the importance of practicing it. Despite his sound arguments, I think “liturgies” are not sufficient in spite of its necessity. Although Dr. Smith made a point that humans are primarily lovers but not thinkers, he did not boldly claim that humans do not think. Instead, we do think a lot. Besides rituals and sacrifices, the Scripture teaches a lot about making disciples through teaching the Words directly. Moses wrote in the Book of Deuteronomy that we should teach our sons the Words, and discuss and think about it at all times. (Deuteronomy 11:19-21) Jesus spent time teaching to the crowd. (Matthew 5-7) He argued with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the scribes about the biblical teaching. He also criticized the vanity of these religious peoples. (Luke 20-21) Apostles Paul, Peter, John, and Jude regard teaching as important: they constantly battled with false teachers. (2 Corinthians 11:4-5; Galatians 3:1-5:12; 2 Peter 2; 2 John 1:7-11; Jude 1:5-19) Directly teaching the Words and thinking about it are as important as “liturgies.” In fact, a lot of cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have pretty decent Christian practices, but it is their distorted teachings that are spiritually lethal. Hence, while Dr. Smith rightly acclaimed that humans are primarily lovers, not thinkers, we should not neglect teaching the normative Christian knowledge. Dr. Smith outlined his ideal ecclesial college at the last chapter of his book. He criticized the intellectualization of Christianity in current Christian colleges. His vision is that such a school does not only provide a “Christian perspective” (pp. 218) to students’ skills, but also to make them radical disciples of Jesus Christ. To do this, he summarized in the form of a school motto: “I worship in order to understand.” (pp. 223) He coined the term “new monasticism” (pp. 222) for these schools that embraced a “liturgically informed pedagogy.” (pp. 228) Dr. Smith has conducted a lot of studies about postmodernism. I think this book is a response to current Christian education in the postmodern age, in which people focused on their own feeling. However, for the schools to have the appropriate resources to immerse the students in a liturgically charged environment, they have to be in a Christian society like the Middle Age. Therefore, I doubt if this ideal is practical at all. This book is very academic, in which a lot of fresh new ideas are raised. A lot of terms are used interchangeably. For example, Dr. Smith made secular practices and liturgies in the same footing. Sometimes he proposed new terms like ecclesial colleges so that the readers do not confuse with the Christian colleges in the usual sense. The use of terminologies can be confusing sometimes, but I think it is unavoidable in discussing unfamiliar ideas. In conclusion, through developing the thesis that humans are lovers, Dr. Smith outlined his ideal Christian education in the postmodern era. Although I doubt the feasibility of such an ideal at the present time, I think he made a good point that current Christian education focused too much on intellectualism, and thus a “liturgically informed pedagogy” is needed. However, I think humans learn through both “liturgies” and receiving information. I believe the current intellectualism should not be abandoned, but I am convinced by Dr. Smith that the Christian education has to be more down-to- earth.

Review: The growing trend of implementing various philosophical and theological approaches using the developmental aim of "Spiritual Formation" is becoming much more popular as people desire to connect that which is ancient and apply into our modern context. This is most evident in the arena of human development and the relationship between cognitive development and the relationship it has with spiritual maturity. In simplicity the debate is focused on the one side an education based on an Informational Model that focuses on that which cognitive in contrast to what is being presented as a Formational model that attempts to integrate that which is both cognitive and that which shapes the "kardia" or heart of a person. Thus, within the Christian community the entry point into the discussion begins with developing a perspective concerning the nature of man in relationship with his Creator. It is in this matrix that present day scholars perceive Spiritual Formation as being profoundly social. For instance, Dallas Willard states, "For all that is between me and God affects who I am; and that, in turn, modifies my relationship to everyone around me." He goes on to write, "My relationship to others also modifies me and deeply affects my relationship to God. Hence those relationships must be transformed if I am to be transformed." It is in addressing the modern debate of how people are formed in Christian Education that James K.A. Smith, in his book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation, the first of a three volume set states, " If we consider these two very different understandings of education (the informative and the formative, and the different understandings of the human person that are at work behind them, I suggest that, over the past decades, institutions of Christian Education have unwittingly absorbed the former and eschewed the latter. Many Christian schools, colleges, and universities - particularly in the Protestant tradition - have taken on board a picture of the human person that owes more to modernity and the Enlightenment than it does to the holistic, biblical vision of human persons." It is in response to this issue that James K. A. Smith presents that most Protestant Christian Education has absorbed philosophical anthropology that sees human persons as primarily thinking things which then promotes and understanding of education largely in terms of information which makes its end the dissemination and communication of Christian ideas rather than the formation of a peculiar people. It is in light of this understanding that the author presents that this now manifested in the way the vision of Christian Education is articulated in the terms of "a Christian worldview." It is then important to understand that the author is in no way avoiding the foundation of theological expression for a more social anthropological perspective but is in fact using anthropology as one of the sectional disciplines of theology to present his thesis concerning man created in the Image of God (imago dei), as a calling to a Mission that only man is the steward of in all of creation. There are some researchers that affirm that because the concept of imago Dei in the New Testament is not only anthropological but Christological and soteriological that the only way to bridge that which is held precious to man in terms of belief with that which is cognitive in the holistic formation of people that only theology can provide a more complete portrait of the formation of people in their humanness. Thus, there can be critique that Smith's discussion concerning worldview with the employment of counter-anthropology which can be understood in Smith's question: "What if education wasn't first and foremost about what we know, but about what we love?" The argument that Smith presents is that we have an anemic vision of the human person because we treat them more as thinkers or believers rather than lovers. It is with this statement of the author defaulting to a more philosophical anthropology that criticism could be levied that he does not engage this topic theologically. It is the humble opinion of this student that though Smith's vision would offer theologian's much to think about in terms of Christian Education his use of the word telos in from the perspective of philosophical anthropology will not be theologically substantive enough to meet the depth of understanding from the areas of Christian Theology such as the ontological study of God, or Christology and Pneumatology. Smith's theological thought I think will be considered underdeveloped. It is my presentation of Smith's philosophical anthropology that the discussion of man being created in the image of God becomes the foundation for Smith to argue that man primarily was made to worship and being created in the image of God is not a thing but rather a calling and vocation. It is here that I would argue that though Smith is not approaching this subject on the basis of a systematic theology in which each one of sections of discipline is being presented in an organized fashion neither do I not perceive Smith avoiding the topics in these areas of discipline. Matter of fact, if you were to review the four approaches of understanding imago Dei: (1) First, the moral characteristics inside of man; (2) Second, a functional view, identifying the God-ordained purpose and work specific to humans; (3) Third, a relational view that sees it as man's social and relational capacity; (4) Fourth, a teleological view suggesting it is reflective of the ultimate objective of human existence. Smith attempts to not present these topics in pieces, but instead, present it in the historical event of God breaking into human history with the establishment of His Kingdom. Thus, we are fully created in God's image with a calling that is found in the person of Christ and his vocation who modeled how to live in the kingdom. Simply our doing flows out of our being and what we have loved is what we will become. It is my assumption that Smith would agree with the assessment of Greg R. Allison of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary when discussing imago Dei not being understood in separate parts like a jigsaw puzzle but rather in our humanness we are constructed holistically that in our entirety are created in the image of God. Therefore, Smith contextualizes man being created in the image of God using the language of George Eldon Ladd's description of the present "in between times" of the kingdom of God being the now but the not yet. This was central to the calling of Jesus of being the fullness of the image of God, thus accomplishing that creational task that was given to Adam which all is made complete by act and liturgy that the Cross represents (this students language not the author's). This finds its foundation in the use of the word liturgy. For the author, there are both "sacred" and "secular" liturgies at work that are attempting to grip the affection of humanity. The sacred makes the unfortunate attempt of seeking people's hearts by lecturing them, while the secular grasps at desiring humanity where they desire - their loves. The foundational thought for Smith is that liturgies form our most fundamental desires and our most basic attunement to the world. The manifestation of ultimate love using the vehicle of liturgy is that humanity worships which is not always what we are thinking. What Smith attempts to do is to present that what man desires is ultimately transcendent and using the cognitive approach of "Worldview" what inherently occurs is that people no longer live as eschatological beings in the immediate present but instead are always out of step with the times they live in never connecting with that which would truly form them. For Smith to really live as one who is being formed into Christ it is necessary to practice in our liturgy our personal confession to be completely dependent on God. Conclusion: I enjoyed reading Smith's book and feel that his attempt of use of philosophical anthropology will receive criticism from those of the theological community for not being more robust in its breadth. I also struggled with Smith's use of Aristotle when discussing habits, because virtue is defined as doing the right thing without having to think about it. Therefore, he sets forth by use of the imaginative are more non-cognitive approach to the implementation of what we believe. I think there are some other theologians throughout history that would have given a more balanced perspective of anthropology than the citing of Aristotle. The positive element that Smith attempts to do in this volume is harmonize how the Kingdom of God sets forth a whole new telos that not only engages the mind (though Smith for me goes too far in his presentation of minimizing the cognitive), and involves in the engaging of the passion of people the fact that he does not broaden his argument to engage other areas of discipline within a theological framework leaves me wondering if he develops this further in the next two volumes.

Every Christian should read this book. Move beyond merely shaping your mind and beliefs and shape your affections and all else will follow - life abundantly

This book is great. It speaks very poignantly to the nature of Christian worship and what/why we so what we do when we gather. Highly reccomended, though it's not an 'easy read' by any stretch.

Wow, an excellent book - exploring a more Biblical anthropology. It is engaging in style and the author steers the reader along the logic of his argument very deftly. It's raising questions for me, as well as developing ideas I already had.

Thoughtful and important to think about given the context in which we minister today.

Our approach to worship as significant as our Christian worldview. Interesting.

I won't say it is "like new". I will say it is new. Thanks