Comments on: Desiring the Kingdom: Liturgical Orientation

By: Book Review: Desiring the Kingdom « Theology Forum

Book Review: Desiring the Kingdom « Theology Forum — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:12:37 +0000

[...] new volume Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation in previous posts (here, here and here). After these superficial looks, I do something closer to a robust book review here. I [...]

By: James K. A. Smith on “Going through the motions” « Theology Forum

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:09:19 +0000

[...] just don’t buy it. You can see my previous post for thoughts. I just don’t see how this meshes with Jesus’ comment, channeling Isaiah, that people [...]

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:02:08 +0000

Thanks for the heads up Matt!

By: Daily Links – 1.15.09 | Community of the Risen

Daily Links – 1.15.09 | Community of the Risen — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:17:29 +0000

[...] James K.A. Smith on Liturgy “What are the students doing when they recite this each day? Many will just be ‘going through the motions.’ However, given that we are liturgical animals who are deeply shaped by practices, I’m suggesting that a lot can happen when one just goes through the motions. The routine begins to inscribe habits of the imagination within us; the repeated saying of allegiance works itself into an orienting allegiance. What begins as a merely stated commitment begins to work itself into a functional commitment.” Comments [0]Digg it!Facebook [...]

By: Matt Dodrill

Matt Dodrill — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:32:46 +0000

Kyle, James Smith just spoke in the annual Calvin College January Series on the themes of his new book. In the near future, I think you will be able to go online and listen to it. I thought you may want to keep an eye out for that as you continue to enjoy the topics of Desiring the Kingdom.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:16:29 +0000

Thank you for your explanation and your display of grace! Yes it makes sense and on that point we are in full agreement. I also find that the only “agenda” to seek is the one where the Spirit is fully present and in the lead. I tend toward an Anabaptist view of grace (the recent text Amish Grace provided a fascinating snapshot of formation). I suggest grace is not possible without the presence and leading of the Spirit. Focus on any agenda, say performing good works in God’s name for example, is susceptable to and ultimately falls into corruption as it is indeed as you note without the Spirit. In a recent sermon series at my home church where that was the focus, and rather pointedly the agenda, my comment was that if we can be trained in the understanding of grace (my reference to the Micah verse earlier may be seen as one means whereby love, how Smith works this out will be interesting, becomes actualized) good works follow as we are giving up our agendas – we are pointing ourselves outward – where ever that may lead – as you say in the freedom of God. My apologies if my postings implied that we are to be trained to become ethical beings in the sense of a human generated understanding of ethical, rather we are to be trained in becoming beings of grace. In any event thank you for your thoughtful comments.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:54:44 +0000

Alright, now I know what’s bugging you. We are on the same page regarding divine agency and formation. Thanks.

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:03:50 +0000

Bill, no worries on getting off topic. I tend to think that life under grace by faith is life that cannot be made on our own. In other words, we abide that we bear good fruit, we don’t try to bear good fruit that we may abide. My worry about your account (and you are in good company!) is that the Spirit’s work isn’t considered in method. In other words, you can basically adopt a self-help method and when it works claim the Spirit did it. I would want to follow the Puritan and Reformed emphasis on means of grace, which would reorient practices not towards an end but towards God. In other words, to use my earlier example, I don’t use practices to try and make myself believe something is beautiful (say something in Scripture that rubs me the wrong way). I use practices to bring myself before God. I, in other words, come to the cross.

Therefore, practices may, in the freedom of God, lead anywhere. Often, they may lead to the desert rather than to what I perceive as freedom or even positive results. Practices tied too closely with developing ethical ends creates communities set on their agenda, and when they achieve that agenda, they praise God. But this tends to simply reinforce the community’s agenda rather than giving a real sign of God’s work – if that makes sense.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:53:13 +0000

Kyle your point is well said. I acknowledge and agree with your observation “I just don’t think forcing myself to look at something I think is ugly and tell myself it is beautiful changes anything in me.” If our frame of reference for making such an assessment is flawed, the practice will be essentially useless, though it may make one a more polite person. I find Micah 6:8 (CEV phrases it well I think) to be useful in seeking to establish that frame of reference – the Lord God has told us what is right and what he demands: see that justice is done, let mercy be your first concern and humbly obey your God. This particular way of phrasing this command is personally compelling as it points us outward and posits the standard as one of grace (I subscribe to the observation made by Tillich that love is grace in action). Again I must acknowledge your point is telling as even taking such a stance does not avoid corruption and establishing that unregenerate ethical model. On the other hand, I find the standard can be enacted through liturgical practice within a community context (cultish tendencies hopefully are avoided by keeping in mind that the Micah suggestion always points outward) – again with a heavy influence by Hauerwas.

I am new to your blog and apologize for moving off topic from your comments on Smith’s work, which are appreciated, but how does that change to one’s telos to emphasize the freedom of God in His Spirit avoid the criticism you lodged about just being able to say that the Spirit did it when it happens. If there is another area of your blog you can point me to, hopefully this thread won’t take you too far off topic.

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:47:17 +0000

Bill, thanks for your thoughts. I still think “one’s inclination to act in a certain way under certain circumstances” is very different than what we are called to as Christians. In your explanation, the Spirit still takes a secondary role. We create practices that form us to act in certain ways (and be inclined to – sure), and then we just say that the Spirit did it when it happens. The problem is that the world does this just as well and it works just as well. I just have an allergy to any methodology that can be taken wholesale over to an unregenerate ethical model and still function well.

In other words, I would agree with Smith about the problem, that it isn’t that we don’t think rightly or believe rightly, but that we don’t love rightly. I just don’t think you get to love through practices. Acting rightly isn’t the Christian problem as I see it. The problem is that our loves are contrary to God’s – we can look at this in aesthetical terms as well – we are not inclined to the beautiful. I just don’t think forcing myself to look at something I think is ugly and tell myself it is beautiful changes anything in me, other than the habit that when I see it I call it beautiful. That, I think, is still making the Pharisee mistake.

In the end, my “program” might not look differently from Smith’s, I certainly wouldn’t neglect practices, I would just change their telos to emphasize the freedom of God in his Spirit. On Smith’s account, the Spirit seems like a force of nature that I can tap into at will – it domesticates him to my agenda of self-formation – which I think the major thrust of sin (as attempting to self-form).