James K. A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom is one of the harder books I have reviewed. The reason is simple: his main thesis is important and needs to be digested by Christians and especially pastors. But some of his details and unanswered questions left me queasy.
His main thesis, in my words, is that rituals or liturgies shape our desires and our desires cause us to do what we do. Therefore rituals, liturgies, and worship have tremendous influence over our lives. But the influence is subtle. He would argue, and I think rightly, that what we learn in the liturgies of our lives can undo what we learn in a classroom setting. This is one of the reasons why a parent can give a child all the correct doctrine and that child still leaves the faith. Often the parents’ daily liturgies undo their teaching. He does a great job of showing how the world has competing liturgies. In chapter 3 he lists the mall, entertainment, and the university as secular liturgies that compete with the Church. He then spends a long chapter discussing what a historical Christian worship service means and how it shapes our lives. He argues persuasively that the Christian life is more about formation than information. Here Dr. Smith is at his best. I really enjoyed his discussion of liturgies and desire, as well as how he illustrated his points. As I read, I thought about the liturgy at my church and what we are teaching. But I also thought about what I do at home. What am I teaching my children through our various family liturgies? I also thought about what I want, my desires and where they come from. Why do I want what I want? I do fear that many of my desires are shaped by secular liturgies and not by the Scriptures and Christian practice.
I wrote this review in March of 2012. Since that time my thoughts on the interchange between desires and thoughts have continued to grow. So I wanted to add this to the review. Rational, logical, thought has an important part to play in the Christian life. It is just as important as desires. These two play off of each other and feed into each other. My agreement with Dr. Smith’s main thesis should not be read as our desires are superior to rational faculties. Ideas and propositions change us in tremendous and dramatic ways. The value of Dr. Smith’s book is that it emphasizes a point that has been minimized among the reformed men. But the danger of his thesis is that ideas can be put in the back seat. Here are a few other points in the book I liked besides the main thesis mentioned above.
- Dr. Smith is a professor at Calvin College, so his burden is for the university. One of the triumphs of the book is his plea for Christian colleges and universities to be rooted in the local church. He describes the Church as the sanctuary with the university being one of the small rooms connected to the sanctuary. For too long, universities have seen themselves as separate from the church, instead of an extension of it. Smith says, “The task of Christian education needs to be reconnected to the thick practices of the church.” (p. 220) This needs to be fleshed out some, but overall the concept is a good one.
- Dr. Smith also does a good job of showing that the quantity of our liturgies matter as much as quality. Thus our liturgies Monday through Saturday must line up with our liturgies on Sunday. For most of the book this is implicit, but in the last chapter he makes the point explicit as he discusses the Christian university. (p. 226-227) I think quantity is also why people can have a wonderful, biblical liturgy on Sunday and yet, that liturgy not impact their lives. They are immersed in a Christian liturgy for 1 to 2 hours on Sunday, but swimming in secular liturgies the rest of the week. It is not a surprise that the secular liturgies win.
- There is one other point, which I do not remember Dr. Smith making, but seems to follow from his thesis. What he describes works best in a local or parish setting. In other words, his thesis wars against impersonal classrooms and churches where the teachers and pastors have only limited interaction with the parishioners and students. I am not saying it can’t work with larger groups, but it would be more difficult. The formation he is aiming at would be hard without the personal connection between pastor/parishioners and teachers/students.
Here are the things I did not like about the book.
- Despite his rhetoric about countering secular liturgies, Dr. Smith often sounds like he is reciting one. For example in his discussion of the confession of sin in the worship service he says this, “We create institutions and systems that are unjust, not only because of individual bad choices, but also because the very structures and systems of these institutions are wrongly ordered, fostering systematic racism or patriarchy or exploitation of the poor.” (p. 178) This sounds like a list of talking points from a liberal Hollywood actor. It is hard to see how this is counter acting any secular liturgy. Also there is no discussion of abortion or sodomy in the book, despite the fact that these two sins are a primary part of the current secular liturgy. I agree that racism and exploitation of the poor are sins. But is racism more rampant than our culture’s hatred of children? Yet abortion goes unmentioned. It seems that Dr. Smith has been selective in which secular liturgies he is willing to call out. Liturgies such as feminism, the pro-choice movement, environmentalism, and sodomy all get a pass. Of course, the church has been influenced by our consumerist, materialistic culture, which Dr. Smith addresses. But he leaves out obvious sins that accompany greed, like abortion and sodomy. His failure to address prominent secular liturgies, left me raising my eyebrows.
- There is little emphasis on the Bible as the check on our liturgies and Christian formation. This is why Dr. Smith can say with a straight face, “The minister raises her hands.” (p. 207) He does quote from the Bible from time to time, but it does not seem to guide his thinking. There will not be true Christian formation without a deep love for and obedience to the Scriptures. His first chapters are filled with philosophers and sociologists, but very little Bible. It is precisely because liturgy is so powerful that it must be biblical. We cannot merely say that we are doing Christian liturgy. We must prove it biblically. Dr. Smith did not need to do that in his book. But he did need to show more clearly that the Scriptures were guiding this thinking. If a Martian read his book, he would never know that the Bible was the compass that guided Dr. Smith’s thinking.
- There is little discussion of the role faith in Christ plays in being formed by liturgies. One thought that kept pounding my head was. “Yes, I know liturgies are powerful. But I also know men and women who have sat under biblical liturgies for decades and yet live rotten, evil lives. How do these two truths fit together?” The deciding factor in our lives is a growing, vibrant faith in Christ that works itself out in obedience to his word. Christian liturgies can become instruments of death when someone participates apart from faith in Jesus Christ, the only Savior of sinners. On page 208, he briefly addresses the problem of good liturgies not transforming people. He plans on discussing it in volumes 2 and 3. But even in the footnote there is no mention of faith as a factor. Maybe he assumed that faith in Christ was an understood prerequisite to a faithful liturgy. However, I did not get that impression. His failure to speak of faith in Christ as the key to liturgy transforming us was a glaring omission.
- Finally I disagreed with the quote from Stanley Hauerwas, which Dr. Smith approves of. “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.” (p. 220) Paul and Jesus are constantly trying to tell Christians how they are to view themselves. You are salt and light. You were dead, but now you alive. You have been raised up with Christ. Our self understanding shapes our practices. And our practices also shape who we are. I know Dr. Smith’s focus is on the latter of these two. But the former is true as well. A proper self-understanding is essential to Christian formation. Proper self-understanding is believing what God says about Himself, the world, and us. However, one of the great acts of the Christian imagination is to view ourselves how God views us. If I have understood Dr. Smith correctly, then I think he overreaches. This might seem picky, but it isn’t. Christian formation is not simply about new practices and a new community. To say that is inadequate and can lead to a presumption that taking part in a Christian liturgy automatically forms me into a Christian.
The book was a wonderful, thought provoking read that made me evaluate numerous facets of my life, my family’s life, and the life of my church. However, there were some noticeable gaps in the book that I hope he addresses in volumes 2 and 3 of this series.<>
