# Imagining the Kingdom (James K. A. Smith)



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2015)

We all know that worldviews (hereafter w-v) are inescapable. Worldviews rarely move beyond the intellectual dimension. Smith doesn’t want to do away with w-v talk, but to place it within a larger whole. We are not simply isolated intellects, but situated intellects--situated and embodied. We are always embodied individuals and we experience the world as being-in-the-world (per Heidegger). 

And we are not Gnostics. Rather, “The Spirit marshals our embodiment in order to rehabituate us into the kingdom of God (15).”

What is imagination? Smith defines imagination as “a kind of faculty by which we navigate and make sense of our world, but in ways and on a register that flies below the radar of conscious reflection” (19). This is why using concepts like “social imaginary” or “plausibility structure” is much superior to w-v. W-v rightly highlights the inescapability of presuppositions on our thinking. We do not deny that. Smith notes, however, that social structures and our bodily being-in-the-world also function in a “pre-theoretical” (per Dooyeweerd) manner. 

Knowing in the Body and By Stories

Liturgies are not only aesthetic, but kineasethic. They come to us in the body and tell a story. 

Perceiving by Stories

*Who we are is shaped by the stories we encounter and imbibe. “We live into the stories we’ve absorbed; we’ve become characters in the drama that has captivated us” (32).
*narrative trains our emotions and those emotions condition our perception of the world.
*we are not disembodied choice machines.

Smith aims to capture “the creational conditions of human action” (33). 
*Perception and evaluation are intricately linked.
*“Affect and emotion are part of the ‘background’ I bring with me that constitutes the situation as a certain kind of situation” (35).
*“Stories are means of emotional prefocusing that shape our tacit ‘take’ on the world” (38).
*Antepredicative know--the affective register upon which narrative operates--is processed by the body below the cognitive level (Merleau-Ponty). 

Pre-cognitive perception breaks down the traditional epistemology of subjects and objects. "The world is not what I think, but what I live through” (Merleau-Ponty). Our being-in-the-world is between instinct and intellect (43). We aren’t just thinking-things. “We don’t have being-in-the-world; we are being-in-the-world” (44). 
More on Stories

A story has a “flow” and “rhythm” that simply isn’t reducible to a string of facts. A string of facts is not a story. It’s a memo. No one dies for a memo. No one’s embodied life is transformed by a data brief. But people do die for the Story of Matthew, for instance.

“The material meaning of a poem means uniquely because it is meant on the register of motor intentionality” (Merleau-Ponty). Kineaesthetic and Poetics are interconnected.

Worship: Story as Liturgy

Smith doesn’t add too much on Reformed liturgies. He does apply his earlier insights into how it shapes stories, drawing on scholarship on John Calvin. We can rejoice that more Evangelicals are moving away from “3 songs and a lecture, 3 points and a poem.” People don’t die for that, either. So, good stuff here.

We live at the nexus of story and body--a “between” space where the aesthetic power of a story captures our imagination because it resonates with our body. And all good liturgies tell an implicit story. The Holy spirit reconfigures our neural maps.

Liturgy is a shorthand term for those rituals that are loaded with a Story about who and what we are (139). It is an imaginative social practice that captures our imaginations by becoming the stories we tell ourselves in order to live. 

Criticisms:

Smith admits he has a hard task: steer a middle course between popular literature and the scholar. He kind of succeeds. His thesis is fascinating and I believe (literally) life-transforming. Still, one gets the feeling he is often “Dancing on the edge” rather than “diving in for the kill shot.” As a result, a lot of sections seemed to “go on” in a way that repeated earlier chapters.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 1, 2015)

Thanks, Jacob, for bringing Jamie Smith's stuff to the attention of the PB! He's of some worth, though I have some critiques of him, as do you.

Here's a piece where I quote from his _Imagining the Kingdom_:

___________

*
The Babylonian Captivity of the Imagination


*“Our imaginations are contested ground, pulled and wooed and shaped by competing stories about ‘the good life,’ tempted and attracted by affective pictures of what counts as ‘flourishing.’ The way to our hearts is through our imaginations, and the way to our imaginations is story, image, symbol, song…

“But because we miss the affective, non-conscious way that we ‘get’ stories—and the ways such stories can incorporate us into disordered social bodies—we will tend to simply fail to see where the battle lies. The irony, Budde concludes, is that ‘the commercial “orchestrators of attention” … are winning a contest that church leaders scarcely recognize as underway.’[SUP]34[/SUP] …

“The formative power of cultural narratives cannot be adequately met or countered with mere didactics. Counterformation requires countermeasures that capture our imagination and don't just convince our intellect. (Why should the devil get all the best stories?)”​
–James K. A. Smith, _Imagining the Kingdom_, pp 162-3​ 

There really is a battle raging, for the most part below the awareness of many; I know people – who profess a living faith in the story Scripture tells of Jesus Christ – whose imaginations are in captivity to the marvelous tales of Babylon, and they live in rapturous thrall to the excitement of these stories. As far as _the true story of Earth_ goes, it doesn’t do much for them, heart- and thrill-wise. To the reality of what goes on spiritually within them and in the world around them they are mostly dead, or at least deadened.

The imagination is like the stomach; you feed it rich fare till it is sated, and it has no more appetite for a while. When we _continually_ take in the high-tech-enhanced sagas of earthly (or unearthly) prowess, genius, drama, and glory, what room is there for the lower-key but immeasurably potent and heart-rending _true stories_ of lightbearers wending their painful ways through the gauntlet of demon-infested societies as they aim for the City of God, presently off-world?

I have to admit I also love the sci fi and fantasy genres – whether in book or film – yet I love more the presence of Him who gives me vision to see where I’m going, and heart to stay near Him, reflecting His Spirit and vision to those I encounter on my pilgrimage.

_Pilgrimage_. This ain’t my home. Well, it will be, when death, tears, illness, toxicity, and evil are done away with, and Earth filled with such high glory that the love of it would be hard to bear did not the King give us new hearts to receive it. But now it’s a hold of devils seeking to fulfill the old agenda of a Christ- and Christian-free earth so they may have the dark prince worshipped with all manner of blasphemous and foul wickedness.

Those saints caught up in the Babylonish arts and their thrall are full, sated, and with bloated hearts struggle across increasingly mean streets, troubled deep in their own souls. The _increasing_ meanness of said streets will so crush them they will find no comfort or joy in Babylon’s arts, but turn to the font of eternal joy, giving their hearts – and their imaginations – to revel in the way told by the hobbits: lowly, quietly – without fanfare – going about their lifesaving quests. Not in Tolkien’s stories, but the Story beneath even his, though the mirage he painted so truly reflected what was happening on the ground!

The use and good of the furnace of affliction is to take off the dross from the gold that it might be purified and precious to the Assayer of souls, whose approval and seal we all need to stand confident when “the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven”.

And it is true that the muted glory of the true heroes and heroines, in their often broken bodies, is far better than the futile dreams and fantasies of Babylon’s sorcerers, for they walk steady among angels and demons, watched over by the King of New Earth, who wields the scepter of unassailable power, and accompanies them to their eternal homes, He at their sides, albeit unseen.

Even the Hobbits, and adventures told by the master of Middle Earth, weary me now, but dreams amid the high-velocity troubles that afflict our waking lives. Where can we find the courage – the heart – to continue on against the stream of death and pain we ford to the far shore? In the heart of our King, His eyes ever upon us, and ear keen to our cries, His presence will sustain us when nothing else can.

Bilbo told Gandalf on their way home to the Shire after the slaying of the dragon, “... our back is to legends and we are coming home.” Our own faces set like flint to Celestial City and its Lord, our true home, and we leave the world and its fantasy legends behind us. Why eat and drink what cannot sustain us, and lulls us to the surrounding dangers?

We have wondrous wine and bread from Heaven, and a Friend with us who lends a saving hand.

__________


[SUP]34[/SUP] Michael L. Budde, “Collecting Praise: Global Culture Industries,” in Hauerwas and Wells, _Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, _125


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2015)

A lot of my critique of Smith's project in general (and he is probably my favorite Reformed thinker at the moment) is his use of the more bohemian aspects of pop culture. I despise avante-garde type art/literature/film with all my heart. Smith correctly notes that content isn't all there is to an entity. Rather, it is _how_ you experience that entity (cue Hans Georg Gadamer). Garbage like postmodern art and literature determines the content of it. There is simply no Christian way to salvage it, yet Smith seems to think there is.

Ironically, a non-Christian like Peter Jackson does a better job at presenting Christianized art than hippie Christian postmoderns.


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2015)

This is just psycho-therapy, manipulating men's beliefs by ritualistic practices. It is essentially the same ritualism which makes Romanism attractive to people who love their "doubtsome faith."

This is not reformed. It should not be encouraged on a confessionally reformed board. Reformed people should be "protesting" against it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2015)

MW said:


> This is just psycho-therapy, manipulating men's beliefs by ritualistic practices. It is essentially the same ritualism which makes Romanism attractive to people who love their "doubtsome faith."
> 
> This is not reformed. It should not be encouraged on a confessionally reformed board. Reformed people should be "protesting" against it.



So..is reading my bible and saying my prayers every day a form of psycho-theraphy?


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> So..is reading my bible and saying my prayers every day a form of psycho-theraphy?



If you are doing it for the reasons your reviewed author has given, yes.

See John 5:39-40. See John 6:34-35.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 1, 2015)

I was part of a group that looked at and discussed Smith's first book in the series, _Desiring the Kingdom_, and my primary objection to his views was the denigrating of preaching, and holding up a view of a more robust liturgy—more expressive—to give the church an ability to counter the heart / affection-stealing "liturgies" of the secular culture, especially the "Mall". My response was that in a sound church robustness came from the anointing of the Holy Spirit through the preached word of God. All aspects of the liturgy—the entire service of worship—must be "bathed" in the anointing of God's presence, and the primary font of that was the sermon.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 2, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > So..is reading my bible and saying my prayers every day a form of psycho-theraphy?
> ...



What reasons are those? I saw him as simply saying if you want to create a habit you do an action over and over again. If this is Freudian psycho-therapy, then I am chief of sinners.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 2, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I was part of a group that looked at and discussed Smith's first book in the series, _Desiring the Kingdom_, and my primary objection to his views was the denigrating of preaching, and holding up a view of a more robust liturgy—more expressive—to give the church an ability to counter the heart / affection-stealing "liturgies" of the secular culture, especially the "Mall". My response was that in a sound church robustness came from the anointing of the Holy Spirit through the preached word of God. All aspects of the liturgy—the entire service of worship—must be "bathed" in the anointing of God's presence, and the primary font of that was the sermon.



I didn't have a chance to finish DTK, so I can't comment on that in detail. In his other books he does tend to de-emphasize preaching. But emphasis criticisms are just that--emphasis. He might have a role for strong preaching but hasn't mentioned it yet. Ironically, I don't see him advocating a high liturgy. Quite the opposite (and in line with my criticisms of his postmodern culture approach). If you read his _Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?_ (most of which is quite good), he gets really silly on liturgy at the end (definitely not the high church Anglican approach).


----------



## MW (Jul 2, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> What reasons are those? I saw him as simply saying if you want to create a habit you do an action over and over again. If this is Freudian psycho-therapy, then I am chief of sinners.



Then repent and believe. Man is not a creature of his circumstances. He is a willing, rational agent. He puts the meaning into his actions. Hence the word "motive." The bare doing of things does not create beliefs. The beliefs create the experience. The beliefs form the habits, not vice versa. Truth, righteousness, and goodness are objective standards by which all experience can be tested. Hence the necessity of the Word, and the centrality of preaching to the reformed faith. Ritualism is death to Christianity!


----------



## timfost (Jul 2, 2015)

Heidelberg:



> 98. But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?
> 
> No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols, but by the lively preaching of His Word.



It seems that promoting stories and imagination to a large degree is a synthesis of word and pictures. Nothing against bible stories and such, but an over-emphasis on the experience of imagination in the context of worship seems to put too much stress on mental images which can detract from the preaching of the Word.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > What reasons are those? I saw him as simply saying if you want to create a habit you do an action over and over again. If this is Freudian psycho-therapy, then I am chief of sinners.
> ...



Seriously? This just seems like an advertisement and not really engaging with what I am saying.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2015)

timfost said:


> Heidelberg:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not how he is using the word "imagination." And I don't know how you got from "story" to images. In fact, the Greek mindset prized image over story


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Seriously? This just seems like an advertisement and not really engaging with what I am saying.



Yes, seriously. Your psychological theory destroys the moral responsibility of man as a reasoning, willing agent, and places an immediate objection over against the call to repent and believe. You would have it that some practice is necessary to form the habit first. As noted, this is death to Christianity. Anyone with even a basic idea of the biblical view of man should be able to see through this nonsense.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously? This just seems like an advertisement and not really engaging with what I am saying.
> ...



I didn't say you have to first form a habit beforehand. I merely noted that a lot of activity happens below the cognitive level. Seemed fairly basic and common sense to me. In fact, one can even say it is presuppositionalism "all the way down," even to the physical element. No neutrality, or some such van Tillian mantra.


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I didn't say you have to first form a habit beforehand. I merely noted that a lot of activity happens below the cognitive level. Seemed fairly basic and common sense to me. In fact, one can even say it is presuppositionalism "all the way down," even to the physical element. No neutrality, or some such van Tillian mantra.



There is nothing basic or common sense about a rational man being a slave to non-rational forces. Presuppositions are preconditions for rationality, and are themselves rational. There is no place for basic common sense in your sensualistic philosophy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say you have to first form a habit beforehand. I merely noted that a lot of activity happens below the cognitive level. Seemed fairly basic and common sense to me. In fact, one can even say it is presuppositionalism "all the way down," even to the physical element. No neutrality, or some such van Tillian mantra.
> ...



I give up.


----------

