Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by judahcooper
Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation by James K.A. Smith
3.0
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.