Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.24 AVERAGE
4.24 AVERAGE
I thought Part 1 was better than Part 2. This book made me think about the ways that our family life and our educational methods might be shaping the desires of our children - shaping our family's vision of the "good life." And it's not that I disagreed with Part 2; I just found the first part more personally applicable. Looking forward to reading the rest of the books in the series.
This was a really good book. Smith is primarily speaking to those in Christian education and is challenging the focus on information over formation. He bases his argument in a philosophical anthropology that sees humanity as primarily desiring or loving animals. The formational implications of that anthropology are that our desires are shaped by practices or liturgy. Because of this he finds the focus of Christian formation in worship. I thought that there was a lot that would be helpful for anyone looking into how Christians should be formed or counter-formed.
The best chapter of the book was Chapter 5 where he exegetes Christian worship, explaining how various practices shape our desires.
The best chapter of the book was Chapter 5 where he exegetes Christian worship, explaining how various practices shape our desires.
Quite good.
I'd been meaning to read it for years, and finally opted for an audiobook to fit it into a full slate of seminary readings.
I've interacted with Smith's work in shorter books and articles for years, and his core critique (that reducing Christianity to a set of propositional truths or a worldview fails to fully embody the messages of faith—that humans are lovers before we are thinkers and need liturgies to cement our understanding of the world in order to live in it rightly) is well laid-out here and eminently readable.
And how can I not love a book with so many illustrations from Percy, Waugh, and Greene novels....
I'd been meaning to read it for years, and finally opted for an audiobook to fit it into a full slate of seminary readings.
I've interacted with Smith's work in shorter books and articles for years, and his core critique (that reducing Christianity to a set of propositional truths or a worldview fails to fully embody the messages of faith—that humans are lovers before we are thinkers and need liturgies to cement our understanding of the world in order to live in it rightly) is well laid-out here and eminently readable.
And how can I not love a book with so many illustrations from Percy, Waugh, and Greene novels....
The author of presents a thoughtful thesis about the essential nature of human beings. As someone whose education and religious upbringing largely focused on ideas and orthodoxy at the expense of orthopathy (heart, passion) and orthopraxy (actions, practices), the author provides important insights from an alternative viewpoint. This particular book is framed from the perspective of discussing Christian education and uses many religious and scholarly jargons. "You are What You Love," another book on this topic by the same author, seems to be written for a wider audience.
"We are what we love and our love is shaped, primed, and aimed by liturgical practices that take hold of our gut and aim our heart toward certain ends."
"The liturgy of consumption births in us a desire for a way of life that is destructive of creation itself. Moreover, it births in us a desire for a way of life that we cannot feasibly extend to others, creating a system of privilege and exploitation."
"We are Christians not because of what we believe but because we have been called to be disciples of Jesus. Becoming a disciple is not a matter of a new or changed self understanding but of becoming part of a different community with a different set of practices."
"We are what we love and our love is shaped, primed, and aimed by liturgical practices that take hold of our gut and aim our heart toward certain ends."
"The liturgy of consumption births in us a desire for a way of life that is destructive of creation itself. Moreover, it births in us a desire for a way of life that we cannot feasibly extend to others, creating a system of privilege and exploitation."
"We are Christians not because of what we believe but because we have been called to be disciples of Jesus. Becoming a disciple is not a matter of a new or changed self understanding but of becoming part of a different community with a different set of practices."
Rethinking liturgy and pedagogy based on that liturgy.
As Smith sees it, our lives and societies are a series of nested, intertwined liturgies unfolding all around us. The book opens with an evocative description of walking through a mall. Smith awakens our sense of sight, smell, taste, and touch as he guides readers through the unseen rituals that attend such meccas of consumerism.
We come to understand that by “liturgy,” Smith is not simply alluding to the way some Christians choose to worship on Sunday mornings. Instead, the term is used to crystallize how we human beings learn and experience the world (both within church services and without). Every ritual encounter in our lives—whether in our churches, at the mall, a sporting event, or elsewhere—“constitutes a pedagogy that teaches us, in all sorts of precognitive ways, to be a certain kind of person.”
For more about my experience reading this book, see my podcast episode and blog post that explored the book in greater detail:
Podcast episode: https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/timeeternal/desiring_the_kingdom_in_lent
Blog post: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/timeeternal/desiring-kingdom-lent-book-review/
We come to understand that by “liturgy,” Smith is not simply alluding to the way some Christians choose to worship on Sunday mornings. Instead, the term is used to crystallize how we human beings learn and experience the world (both within church services and without). Every ritual encounter in our lives—whether in our churches, at the mall, a sporting event, or elsewhere—“constitutes a pedagogy that teaches us, in all sorts of precognitive ways, to be a certain kind of person.”
For more about my experience reading this book, see my podcast episode and blog post that explored the book in greater detail:
Podcast episode: https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/timeeternal/desiring_the_kingdom_in_lent
Blog post: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/timeeternal/desiring-kingdom-lent-book-review/
challenging
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
The book aims to provide a purpose behind “Christian education” but primarily shows us how we are affective creatures rather than merely thinking creatures. It owes a lot to Charles Taylor and is an excellent read for any contemplative Christian, regardless of whether you’re in Christian education or not.
James K.A. Smith, you are an interesting man.
This book had some absolutely incredible ideas that really shifted the way the way I think about Christianity as a structure. The primary argument the book makes is that we are much more heart driven/desire driven creatures than we are idea driven. Thus, he thinks we need to transform our methodology of Christian growth from purely Christian worldview training to a pedagogy of liturgy in which our everyday habits - from church even leading into education, transform our hearts and desires.
I will share some striking quotes that were quite good:
"The church is elected to responsibility, called to be the church to and for the world-not in order to save it or conquer it or even transform it, but to serve it by showing what redeemed human community and culture look like, as modeled by the One whose cultural work led him to the cross. In short, we're sent out to be martyrs, witnesses of the Crucified One. In that way, we win by losing"
"The fact that there seems to be little tension between Christianity and American nationalism is not a function of the generosity (let alone "Christianness") of the American ideal but rather a sign of a Christianity that has accommodated itself to these American ideals of battle, military sacrifice (which is very different from the Christian ideal of martyrdom)," individual (negative) freedom, and prosperity through property"
"We will not adequately grasp what's at stake in given cultural institutions if we just look at what appears in the present or on the surface; we need to "read" these institutions and practices in order to discern the telos at which they re aimed. It is at the point of feloi that we'll discern the antithesis between a Christian vision of the kingdom and the visions of human flourishing that are implicit in so many current configurations of cultural institutions. Thus our cultural criticism should not be asking what ideas or beliefs are being bandied about in "culture rather, we should be discerning to what ends all sorts of cultural institutions are seeking to direct our love"
"These rituals form the imagination of a people who thus construe their world as a particular kind of environment based on the formation implicit in such practices. In just this sense Christianity is a unique social imaginary that "inhabits" and emerges from the matrix of preaching and prayer. The rhythms and rituals of Christian worship are not the "expres-sion of" a Christian worldview, but are themselves an "understanding implicit in practice an understanding that cannot be had apart from the practices"
So the books highs were definitively 10 out of 10s. Some rich ideas that are very unique in this culture. He makes an excellent point that Christianity has become too secularized in our manner of thinking, as a result of the Enlightenment movement.
Now my critiques.
His writing is academically snobbish, unnecessarily long and repetitive, and some of his conclusions are vast overspiritualizations of life. Not to mention some of his conclusions at the end of the book are woefully unrealistic.
His writing is academically snobbish in the sense that he uses much heftier speech than is necessary. (To quote Kevin from the office: "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick")
Don't get me wrong, I think there is a necessity in academic writing to use certain words or phrases if their is no true substitute. If we are discussing the subject of justification, if we are writing in an academic sense, there is no substitute for that language. There is certainly a need for clarity of language, which will result in times with hefty words, language, and mannerisms in order to communicate a complex issue. However, in my humble opinion, it does not demonstrate to me anything other than making his writing clotted up with hoity toity speech. So many of his arguments could have been greatly simplified with less words, lighter words, and reduced repetition. This is not me saying that the book should be more consumer friendly, I recognize that this book is for an academic setting. The setting, however, does not change the fact that good writing is good writing and bad is bad.
As to my other point, I think that many of his points in the book are excellent, but he goes too far in overspiritualizing every aspect of life into a 'litergical, heart-forming, pedogagical sense' that it diminishes the strength of his foundational point.
James K. A. Smith - you are a very interesting man.
This book had some absolutely incredible ideas that really shifted the way the way I think about Christianity as a structure. The primary argument the book makes is that we are much more heart driven/desire driven creatures than we are idea driven. Thus, he thinks we need to transform our methodology of Christian growth from purely Christian worldview training to a pedagogy of liturgy in which our everyday habits - from church even leading into education, transform our hearts and desires.
I will share some striking quotes that were quite good:
"The church is elected to responsibility, called to be the church to and for the world-not in order to save it or conquer it or even transform it, but to serve it by showing what redeemed human community and culture look like, as modeled by the One whose cultural work led him to the cross. In short, we're sent out to be martyrs, witnesses of the Crucified One. In that way, we win by losing"
"The fact that there seems to be little tension between Christianity and American nationalism is not a function of the generosity (let alone "Christianness") of the American ideal but rather a sign of a Christianity that has accommodated itself to these American ideals of battle, military sacrifice (which is very different from the Christian ideal of martyrdom)," individual (negative) freedom, and prosperity through property"
"We will not adequately grasp what's at stake in given cultural institutions if we just look at what appears in the present or on the surface; we need to "read" these institutions and practices in order to discern the telos at which they re aimed. It is at the point of feloi that we'll discern the antithesis between a Christian vision of the kingdom and the visions of human flourishing that are implicit in so many current configurations of cultural institutions. Thus our cultural criticism should not be asking what ideas or beliefs are being bandied about in "culture rather, we should be discerning to what ends all sorts of cultural institutions are seeking to direct our love"
"These rituals form the imagination of a people who thus construe their world as a particular kind of environment based on the formation implicit in such practices. In just this sense Christianity is a unique social imaginary that "inhabits" and emerges from the matrix of preaching and prayer. The rhythms and rituals of Christian worship are not the "expres-sion of" a Christian worldview, but are themselves an "understanding implicit in practice an understanding that cannot be had apart from the practices"
So the books highs were definitively 10 out of 10s. Some rich ideas that are very unique in this culture. He makes an excellent point that Christianity has become too secularized in our manner of thinking, as a result of the Enlightenment movement.
Now my critiques.
His writing is academically snobbish, unnecessarily long and repetitive, and some of his conclusions are vast overspiritualizations of life. Not to mention some of his conclusions at the end of the book are woefully unrealistic.
His writing is academically snobbish in the sense that he uses much heftier speech than is necessary. (To quote Kevin from the office: "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick")
Don't get me wrong, I think there is a necessity in academic writing to use certain words or phrases if their is no true substitute. If we are discussing the subject of justification, if we are writing in an academic sense, there is no substitute for that language. There is certainly a need for clarity of language, which will result in times with hefty words, language, and mannerisms in order to communicate a complex issue. However, in my humble opinion, it does not demonstrate to me anything other than making his writing clotted up with hoity toity speech. So many of his arguments could have been greatly simplified with less words, lighter words, and reduced repetition. This is not me saying that the book should be more consumer friendly, I recognize that this book is for an academic setting. The setting, however, does not change the fact that good writing is good writing and bad is bad.
As to my other point, I think that many of his points in the book are excellent, but he goes too far in overspiritualizing every aspect of life into a 'litergical, heart-forming, pedogagical sense' that it diminishes the strength of his foundational point.
James K. A. Smith - you are a very interesting man.
Written for an academic audience but I found it fascinating. Thought this was headed for a 5-star review but the quality tailed off in last two chapters. Still, eagerly looking forward to reading the next volume in this series, *Imagining the Kingdom*.
I've thoroughly enjoyed other books by Smith, but this one didn't quite hit home like the others. There were certainly pockets of deep agreement, especially concerning the importance and role of liturgy in our daily lives. However, there were still many nails sticking out by the end of the book that were never hammered in - and I finished the book thinking to myself "maybe I bought the abridged/edited version, or maybe someone ripped out the last chapter of this book." In any event, there was more needed to be said and, at times, less that should have been said in this book.