In this culmination of his widely read and highly acclaimed Cultural Liturgies project, James K. A. Smith examines politics through the lens of liturgy. What if, he asks, citizens are not only thinkers or believers but also lovers? Smith explores how our analysis of political institutions would look different if we viewed them as incubators of love-shaping practices—not merely governing us but forming what we love. How would our political engagement change if we weren’t simply looking for permission to express our “views” in the political sphere but actually hoped to shape the ethos of a nation, a state, or a municipality to foster a way of life that bends toward shalom? This book offers a well-rounded public theology as an alternative to contemporary debates about politics. Smith explores the religious nature of politics and the political nature of Christian worship, sketching how the worship of the church propels us to be invested in forging the common good. This book creatively merges theological and philosophical reflection with illustrations from film, novels, and music and includes helpful exposition and contemporary commentary on key figures in political theology.
“This is ultimately an eschatological tempering of our political expectations. The kingdom is something we await, not create.” (Page 220)
“The citizen of the city of God, Augustine emphasizes, will always find herself thrown into a situation of being a resident alien in some outpost of the earthly city. Citizens of the heavenly city, Augustine tells us, lead ‘what we may call a life of captivity in this earthly city as in a foreign land, although it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as a kind of pledge of it.’” (Pages xiii–xiv)
“Resident aliens are resident where they are alien. It is not a question of whether we engage in common life but how.” (Page 54)
“ are liturgical creatures who are always already being shaped by some liturgies” (Page 169)
“Our eschatological orientation should change our expectations, not our goals. We shouldn’t shrink from hoping to bend our policy and public rituals in the direction of rightly ordered love, not so we can ‘win’ or ‘be in control,’ but for the sake of our neighbors, for the flourishing of the poor and vulnerable, for the common good.” (Page 34)