Integrating Passion and Presence
A Review of Bruce Epperly's
The God of Tomorrow
There is, however, in the Galilean origin of Christianity yet another suggestion that does not fit very well with any of the three main strands of thought. It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operate by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules nor is it unmoved; it is also a little oblivious as to morals. It does not look to the future, for it finds its own reward in the immediate present.
— Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality
Matter is also alive with divinity, and so is the child playing, the child reading with a grandparent, or a monk at prayer. Inner fire energizes all things with a passion for the future. Deep down, everyone is a potential mystic and can awaken to God’s presence in the initial aim or the evolving Christ within. The Divine Eros or Inner Fire enlightens each person and permeates all creation.
- Bruce Epperly, The God of Tomorrow
Above you find two beautiful passages, one from Alfred North Whitehead and one from Bruce Epperly. I suspect there is wisdom in both of them. Still, there is a tension. Whitehead's idea that love does not look to the future but finds its reward in the immediate present is not readily reconciled with Bruce Epperly's emphasis on the way that God, understood as divine fire, elicits a "passion for the future." Bruce builds on Whitehead's idea that God is present in human life as an inwardly felt lure toward satisfaction in the present but also a lure to the future itself. In this passage, Whitehead points to another side of God that is important to him: God as an infinite tenderness who is present to the world as it is, not as it can be. God as the deep Tenderness, the deep Listening.
Is there a place in his book for being present to what is present, in a mindful and loving way, without looking to the future at all? Is such attention also, in its way, a form of contemplation, of spirituality? This is a question I'll explore below. But first, I want to sing the praises of the book because it contains so much more than this question.
Bruce's book, The God of Tomorrow: Whitehead and Teilhard on Metaphysics, Mysticism, and Mission (Energion Publications. Kindle Edition), is a wonderful read in many ways: its emphasis on moving beyond dogmatic religion to experiential religion, its emphasis on expanding our sense of loyalty beyond personal loyalty to world loyalty—all by showing powerful and synergetic connections between the philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead and Teilhard de Chardin. Here are some connections:
To these five ideas, Bruce adds a sixth: namely, that of embodied mysticism with its "passion for the future." I offer the quote in full:
"God is the ground and goal of our becoming self, the inspiration for each moment’s self-creation. Matter is also alive with divinity, and so is the child playing, the child reading with a grandparent, or a monk at prayer. Inner fire energizes all things with a passion for the future. Deep down, everyone is a potential mystic and can awaken to God’s presence in the initial aim or the evolving Christ within. The Divine Eros or Inner Fire enlightens each person and permeates all creation. No one is excluded from experiencing God, regardless of religion, culture, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, or educational level. God is present in the secular as well as religious realms of life. Our mysticism leads to mission. Contemplation leads to action and claiming our role in building the earth and promoting Christ’s growth in the world."
Another strength of The God of Tomorrow is the way it unpacks five dimensions of such mysticism: awakening, affirming, simplifying, transforming, and expanding. I offer extended quotes because they are wise and lyrical:
As these citations suggest, Bruce Epperly is a natural writer. It is no accident that many see him as a leading—perhaps the leading—process theologian who articulates process theology in ways both accurate, inspiring, and accessible. Among his many books, The God of Tomorrow is especially relevant to Christians who have grown up in conservative, somewhat authoritarian forms of Christianity, who want to focus on experience over doctrines, and perhaps who have a special interest in religion and science. It is also relevant to many, Protestant and Catholic, who yearn for a vision that unites process theology (influenced by Whitehead) and the brilliant wisdom of Teilhard de Chardin.
In light of this excellence, I offer three areas that deserve further discussion.
Can passion for the future coexist with mindful attention in the present moment? Bruce's emphasis on God as the call of the future toward creative transformation is insightful and important. However, it potentially underplays the value of mindfulness in the present moment. As noted above, Whitehead himself speaks to the importance of love that "does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate present." Thus, a more balanced approach might emphasize that God's presence is not only a lure toward future creativity but also a grounding presence in the here and now. It might emphasize that side of the consequent nature of God which does not lure toward the future but instead "feels with feelings" of each and all with a "tender care that nothing be lost." I speak of this side of God as the Deep Listening. I believe that when we are truly present to others in loving and caring ways, we participate in this deep listening. When we truly listen to others, we are "with" them, and concerns for the future fall away.
Can spirituality include appreciating the intrinsic value of living beings apart from their relation to God? When we listen to other people or feel the presence of hills and rivers, trees, and stars, we need not bring God into the picture; they elicit our listening on their own terms and for their own sakes, God or no God. Bruce's emphasis on finding God in all things could benefit from more focus on the intrinsic value of living beings for their own sake. This perspective resonates with Whitehead's idea that each actuality has value in itself as a self-enjoying and self-creative subject and his idea that, in its own self-enjoyment and self-creativity, it transcends God. Living beings possess value independently of their relation to God, and this value warrants acknowledgment and respect in its own right.
How might we better appreciate the way in which that 'old time religion' is sometimes preferable to self-described "progressive" religion? While critiquing rigid and sterile forms of religion is necessary, recognizing that traditional religious experiences can also be sources of love, wonder, hope, and hospitality is essential. Bruce tells us about an "old time religion" he rejects—a literalistic old time religion that "sought a faith that was secure, strong, and self-contained, fully aligned with a literal understanding of the words of their black-backed Bibles."
"In contrast to those who hold onto the God of Yesterday, I believe that the future of Christianity, and the future of the nation and planet, depend on our wise embrace of the forces of movement, change, and transformation in science, technology, spirituality, human rights, and climatology. Our hope to meet the challenges of the future can be inspired only by a God of Tomorrow, whose wise creativity enables us to meet the technologies and changes of the future with wisdom and compassion. Yesterday’s God cannot be entirely jettisoned. We must honor the insight and piety of those who came before us. But the God of Tomorrow calls us beyond established orders to new possibilities and challenges us to join the gifts of the past with the hopes and novelties of the future."
There is wisdom in what he says, and he does add that "Yesterday's God cannot entirely be jettisoned." But it seems to me that he could have said a bit more about how, for some, Yesterday's God and its "old time religion" provide a context not just for security but also for love and wonder, for kindness and service, that can be lacking in more self-described "progressive" forms of Christianity. Bruce is rightly sensitive to a recognition that there is not a one-to-one relationship between what people believe, in a formal way, and what they experience in the wider contexts of their daily lives, and that how beliefs function in people's lives differs according to different circumstances. Beliefs, including traditional beliefs, can function in healthy ways in some people's lives and in unhealthy ways in other people's lives. I think of my own childhood and the many people I knew, and still know, who are not progressive in their theology but quite wise and loving in their way of living. Allow me a personal word:
One Methodist's Journey
Bruce grew up a Baptist; I grew up a Methodist. The primary emphasis in the Christianity I knew as a child was love. As a child in my local Methodist church, I have no recollection of hearing about the inerrancy of scripture, everlasting damnation, the inescapability of sin, or the primacy of faith over reason. It is sometimes said that the primary concern of John Wesley was the transformation of the human heart into love. That's what I got as a child. Not that I was perfectly loving, but that "love" was what it was all about. Thus, my religious journey has not required resistance to what Bruce describes as sterile, rigid religion: a religion of yesterday.
In addition, I can't remember ever thinking that God was all-powerful in the sense of being able to fully control (much less preordain) what happens in life. I don't remember ever being told that God could prevent terrible things that happen, but I do remember learning that God was with me, and with everybody, no matter what. I always thought of God as a companion, a loving presence, a "fellow sufferer who understands," to quote Whitehead. Here again, God is a companion to today, whatever today brings.
Additionally, I grew up thinking that life could be good or beautiful in its own right, quite apart from references to God. I think I got this from my mother but perhaps also from church. Other people were worthy of friendship, respect, and care, and I didn't have to add "because I see God in you." They had "intrinsic value" of their own, to quote process theologians. So did other creatures: dogs, cats, fish, worms. I grew up thinking that they were loved by God in their existence and beauty, but that I didn't have to find God in them. I don't think even God had to find God in them. Just as a loving parent doesn't love her children because she sees herself in them, God doesn't love the world because God sees "himself" in them. They are good in their own right.
What is Now and What is to Come
Back, then, to adventure. One of the problems of the modern world is that we are so goal-directed that the pursuit of goals has become, for many of us, compulsive. The goals we pursue may be different. We may pursue fame, fortune, and power as individuals, we may crave attention and recognition for our achievements, or we may pursue beloved community and ecological sustainability in a spirit of humility and relative anonymity. But our pursuit of either becomes compulsive if we cannot find some kind of peace, some kind of at-homeness, in the present. Whitehead's intuition that there is a kind of spirituality that "does not look to the future" is instructive. Indeed, in Adventures of Ideas, he returns to the theme and suggests that the consummation of human life is not eros, including its passion for the future, but rather a kind of peace that comes from relinquishing attachment to personality and a craving for something better but awakening to beauty.
This attention to peace is what I miss in adventure-centered spiritualities. To be sure, there is also something right about them. We do experience God as a calling presence within us and beyond us, and part of this call is toward the future. How might our experience of such a presence be combined with a gratitude for what is present? Struck by this question, I did something Bruce himself might recommend, given his openness to AI. I asked ChatGPT. Its response was almost Epperlian in spirit:
I won't pretend that these practices solve the problem of how to reconcile "passion for the future" with "being present to what is," but perhaps they can help.
Intrinsic Value
Being present to what is in a loving way is attention to the suchness, the as-it-isness of things. The leading interfaith spiritual organization of our time, Spirituality and Practice, defines it this way:
Attention is also known as mindfulness, awareness, concentration, recollection. It is a primary practice, and not just alphabetically. We must stay alert or we risk missing critical elements of the spiritual life—moments of grace, opportunities for gratitude, evidence of our connections to others, signs of the presence of Spirit. The good news is that attention can be practiced anywhere, anytime, in the daily rounds of our lives. Begin by doing one thing at a time. Keep your mind focused on whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. It is through the mundane and the familiar that we discover a world of ceaseless wonders. Train yourself to notice details.
I am reminded of this passage from The God of Tomorrow:
Despite our limitations and tendency to privilege abstract doctrines over concrete spiritual experience, and self-interest over world loyalty, philosophy and theology matter. The most insightful theologians and philosophers live between silence and speech and infinity and finitude and in that tension follow the counsel of poet Mary Oliver, “Pay Attention. Be astonished. Tell about it.”
My point is that this kind of attention need not be about God, for God's sake. I truly mean "for God's sake." In process theology, God is not vain. All things do not need to refer to God. God does not need to be "referenced." The impulse to be recognized, to be self-referential, to have all things refer back to yourself, is not what God is about. God is about love, and love is humble, making space for others. In Whitehead's philosophy, the world transcends God even as God is immanent within the world. And God transcends the world even as God is immanent within the world. God and the World—they are mutually immanent and mutually transcendent. An embodied mysticism does not need to refer to God all the time. It can affirm the world, in astonishment. Even God does that. God declares the world very good in Genesis. It is like the goodness of a child or a grandchild. No need to say "I," No need to say "You are important because you contain me." The You is enough. In process theology as in Teilhard de Chardin, all actual entities are You's. All have their value, their beauty, their importance. We can love them for their own sakes. Even God loves them in this way. Like a grandfather or grandmother.
- Jay McDaniel
— Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality
Matter is also alive with divinity, and so is the child playing, the child reading with a grandparent, or a monk at prayer. Inner fire energizes all things with a passion for the future. Deep down, everyone is a potential mystic and can awaken to God’s presence in the initial aim or the evolving Christ within. The Divine Eros or Inner Fire enlightens each person and permeates all creation.
- Bruce Epperly, The God of Tomorrow
Above you find two beautiful passages, one from Alfred North Whitehead and one from Bruce Epperly. I suspect there is wisdom in both of them. Still, there is a tension. Whitehead's idea that love does not look to the future but finds its reward in the immediate present is not readily reconciled with Bruce Epperly's emphasis on the way that God, understood as divine fire, elicits a "passion for the future." Bruce builds on Whitehead's idea that God is present in human life as an inwardly felt lure toward satisfaction in the present but also a lure to the future itself. In this passage, Whitehead points to another side of God that is important to him: God as an infinite tenderness who is present to the world as it is, not as it can be. God as the deep Tenderness, the deep Listening.
Is there a place in his book for being present to what is present, in a mindful and loving way, without looking to the future at all? Is such attention also, in its way, a form of contemplation, of spirituality? This is a question I'll explore below. But first, I want to sing the praises of the book because it contains so much more than this question.
Bruce's book, The God of Tomorrow: Whitehead and Teilhard on Metaphysics, Mysticism, and Mission (Energion Publications. Kindle Edition), is a wonderful read in many ways: its emphasis on moving beyond dogmatic religion to experiential religion, its emphasis on expanding our sense of loyalty beyond personal loyalty to world loyalty—all by showing powerful and synergetic connections between the philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead and Teilhard de Chardin. Here are some connections:
- Process and Evolution: Both Whitehead and Teilhard see the universe as dynamic and evolving. Whitehead's process philosophy emphasizes the becoming of actual entities through prehensions, while Teilhard's evolutionary theology sees the universe as moving towards an Omega Point of ultimate unity and consciousness.
- Panentheism: Both thinkers advocate for a panentheistic understanding of God, where God is immanent within the universe and also transcends it. For Whitehead, God is the source of novelty and the lure for creativity within the process of becoming. Teilhard sees God as the divine presence that energizes and directs the evolutionary process.
- The Role of Humanity: Humanity plays a crucial role in the evolutionary process for both Whitehead and Teilhard. Whitehead views humans as co-creators with God, capable of responding to the divine lure and contributing to the creative advance. Teilhard emphasizes the noosphere, a sphere of human thought, as a critical stage in the evolution of consciousness, where humans participate in the divine plan.
- Mysticism and Spirituality: Both Whitehead and Teilhard integrate mysticism and spirituality into their metaphysical visions. Whitehead’s concept of the "consequent nature of God" allows for an intimate relationship and experience of the divine. Teilhard’s spirituality is deeply rooted in his vision of Christ as the divine milieu in which we live and move.
- Ethics and Mission: Their metaphysical visions have ethical implications that inspire mission and action in the world. Whitehead's philosophy encourages an ethics of creativity, relationality, and ecological sensitivity. Teilhard's vision calls for active participation in the evolutionary process through love, cooperation, and the building of the Earth.
To these five ideas, Bruce adds a sixth: namely, that of embodied mysticism with its "passion for the future." I offer the quote in full:
"God is the ground and goal of our becoming self, the inspiration for each moment’s self-creation. Matter is also alive with divinity, and so is the child playing, the child reading with a grandparent, or a monk at prayer. Inner fire energizes all things with a passion for the future. Deep down, everyone is a potential mystic and can awaken to God’s presence in the initial aim or the evolving Christ within. The Divine Eros or Inner Fire enlightens each person and permeates all creation. No one is excluded from experiencing God, regardless of religion, culture, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, or educational level. God is present in the secular as well as religious realms of life. Our mysticism leads to mission. Contemplation leads to action and claiming our role in building the earth and promoting Christ’s growth in the world."
Another strength of The God of Tomorrow is the way it unpacks five dimensions of such mysticism: awakening, affirming, simplifying, transforming, and expanding. I offer extended quotes because they are wise and lyrical:
- Awakening: "Divine revelation is universal in nature. Mysticism awakens us to God in this place, and this place is wherever we are. We can experience God in the mundane and mystical. Paul’s promise, 'nothing can separate us from the love of God,' is both a statement of divine protection and comfort and an affirmation that God is with us and can be experienced each moment of the day."
- Affirming: "The theologies of Whitehead and Teilhard affirm the good Earth and look for God’s presence in history and embodiment. Our spiritual adventures join heaven and earth and seek to embody God’s realm on earth as it is in heaven. The apostle Paul invites us to 'be transformed by the renewing of your minds' (Romans 12:2)."
- Simplifying: "Revelation present in God’s initial aim and in the 'within' of our experience touches each moment of our lives. Still, we bring God’s revelation to the surface of our consciousness by spiritual practices (John 15:1-8). A process asceticism, grounded in the insights of Whitehead and Teilhard, involves focus rather than bodily denial. We can love God in the world of the flesh, as T.S. Eliot says, by aspiring to do 'only one thing' – opening to God’s inner and ambient presence wherever we are. With Jesus, we trim all the branches that stand in the way of our relationship with God. In trimming or decluttering our lives, we more fully let God’s light shine in our lives. Without abandoning the earth, we let go of everything that is superfluous or detracts from our spiritual growth and the well-being of those around us, including the planet."
- Transforming: "Our encounter with God inspires us to change the world. In speaking of the relationship of mysticism and social change, theologian-pastor-mystic Howard Thurman asserts that the mystic challenges everything that prevents persons from experiencing equality and justice. Our calling is to be agents of evolution and to support the moral and spiritual arcs of the universe – the emergence of Christ in the evolutionary process – by bringing forth the holiness and wholeness in every situation and claiming our vocation as God’s companions in birthing Christ in our daily lives and the world."
- Expanding: "Whitehead describes religious adventure as a journey from self-interest to world loyalty. Teilhard speaks of the interplay of creative union and personal and relational differentiation. Peace and compassion come from expanding our sense of self beyond our experience to embrace the experiences of friends and strangers, humans and non-humans. This is what it means to have the 'mind of Christ' or be a 'Bodhisattva,' who defers enlightenment until everyone is enlightened."
As these citations suggest, Bruce Epperly is a natural writer. It is no accident that many see him as a leading—perhaps the leading—process theologian who articulates process theology in ways both accurate, inspiring, and accessible. Among his many books, The God of Tomorrow is especially relevant to Christians who have grown up in conservative, somewhat authoritarian forms of Christianity, who want to focus on experience over doctrines, and perhaps who have a special interest in religion and science. It is also relevant to many, Protestant and Catholic, who yearn for a vision that unites process theology (influenced by Whitehead) and the brilliant wisdom of Teilhard de Chardin.
In light of this excellence, I offer three areas that deserve further discussion.
Can passion for the future coexist with mindful attention in the present moment? Bruce's emphasis on God as the call of the future toward creative transformation is insightful and important. However, it potentially underplays the value of mindfulness in the present moment. As noted above, Whitehead himself speaks to the importance of love that "does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate present." Thus, a more balanced approach might emphasize that God's presence is not only a lure toward future creativity but also a grounding presence in the here and now. It might emphasize that side of the consequent nature of God which does not lure toward the future but instead "feels with feelings" of each and all with a "tender care that nothing be lost." I speak of this side of God as the Deep Listening. I believe that when we are truly present to others in loving and caring ways, we participate in this deep listening. When we truly listen to others, we are "with" them, and concerns for the future fall away.
Can spirituality include appreciating the intrinsic value of living beings apart from their relation to God? When we listen to other people or feel the presence of hills and rivers, trees, and stars, we need not bring God into the picture; they elicit our listening on their own terms and for their own sakes, God or no God. Bruce's emphasis on finding God in all things could benefit from more focus on the intrinsic value of living beings for their own sake. This perspective resonates with Whitehead's idea that each actuality has value in itself as a self-enjoying and self-creative subject and his idea that, in its own self-enjoyment and self-creativity, it transcends God. Living beings possess value independently of their relation to God, and this value warrants acknowledgment and respect in its own right.
How might we better appreciate the way in which that 'old time religion' is sometimes preferable to self-described "progressive" religion? While critiquing rigid and sterile forms of religion is necessary, recognizing that traditional religious experiences can also be sources of love, wonder, hope, and hospitality is essential. Bruce tells us about an "old time religion" he rejects—a literalistic old time religion that "sought a faith that was secure, strong, and self-contained, fully aligned with a literal understanding of the words of their black-backed Bibles."
"In contrast to those who hold onto the God of Yesterday, I believe that the future of Christianity, and the future of the nation and planet, depend on our wise embrace of the forces of movement, change, and transformation in science, technology, spirituality, human rights, and climatology. Our hope to meet the challenges of the future can be inspired only by a God of Tomorrow, whose wise creativity enables us to meet the technologies and changes of the future with wisdom and compassion. Yesterday’s God cannot be entirely jettisoned. We must honor the insight and piety of those who came before us. But the God of Tomorrow calls us beyond established orders to new possibilities and challenges us to join the gifts of the past with the hopes and novelties of the future."
There is wisdom in what he says, and he does add that "Yesterday's God cannot entirely be jettisoned." But it seems to me that he could have said a bit more about how, for some, Yesterday's God and its "old time religion" provide a context not just for security but also for love and wonder, for kindness and service, that can be lacking in more self-described "progressive" forms of Christianity. Bruce is rightly sensitive to a recognition that there is not a one-to-one relationship between what people believe, in a formal way, and what they experience in the wider contexts of their daily lives, and that how beliefs function in people's lives differs according to different circumstances. Beliefs, including traditional beliefs, can function in healthy ways in some people's lives and in unhealthy ways in other people's lives. I think of my own childhood and the many people I knew, and still know, who are not progressive in their theology but quite wise and loving in their way of living. Allow me a personal word:
One Methodist's Journey
Bruce grew up a Baptist; I grew up a Methodist. The primary emphasis in the Christianity I knew as a child was love. As a child in my local Methodist church, I have no recollection of hearing about the inerrancy of scripture, everlasting damnation, the inescapability of sin, or the primacy of faith over reason. It is sometimes said that the primary concern of John Wesley was the transformation of the human heart into love. That's what I got as a child. Not that I was perfectly loving, but that "love" was what it was all about. Thus, my religious journey has not required resistance to what Bruce describes as sterile, rigid religion: a religion of yesterday.
In addition, I can't remember ever thinking that God was all-powerful in the sense of being able to fully control (much less preordain) what happens in life. I don't remember ever being told that God could prevent terrible things that happen, but I do remember learning that God was with me, and with everybody, no matter what. I always thought of God as a companion, a loving presence, a "fellow sufferer who understands," to quote Whitehead. Here again, God is a companion to today, whatever today brings.
Additionally, I grew up thinking that life could be good or beautiful in its own right, quite apart from references to God. I think I got this from my mother but perhaps also from church. Other people were worthy of friendship, respect, and care, and I didn't have to add "because I see God in you." They had "intrinsic value" of their own, to quote process theologians. So did other creatures: dogs, cats, fish, worms. I grew up thinking that they were loved by God in their existence and beauty, but that I didn't have to find God in them. I don't think even God had to find God in them. Just as a loving parent doesn't love her children because she sees herself in them, God doesn't love the world because God sees "himself" in them. They are good in their own right.
What is Now and What is to Come
Back, then, to adventure. One of the problems of the modern world is that we are so goal-directed that the pursuit of goals has become, for many of us, compulsive. The goals we pursue may be different. We may pursue fame, fortune, and power as individuals, we may crave attention and recognition for our achievements, or we may pursue beloved community and ecological sustainability in a spirit of humility and relative anonymity. But our pursuit of either becomes compulsive if we cannot find some kind of peace, some kind of at-homeness, in the present. Whitehead's intuition that there is a kind of spirituality that "does not look to the future" is instructive. Indeed, in Adventures of Ideas, he returns to the theme and suggests that the consummation of human life is not eros, including its passion for the future, but rather a kind of peace that comes from relinquishing attachment to personality and a craving for something better but awakening to beauty.
This attention to peace is what I miss in adventure-centered spiritualities. To be sure, there is also something right about them. We do experience God as a calling presence within us and beyond us, and part of this call is toward the future. How might our experience of such a presence be combined with a gratitude for what is present? Struck by this question, I did something Bruce himself might recommend, given his openness to AI. I asked ChatGPT. Its response was almost Epperlian in spirit:
- Mindful Visioning:
- Presence in Planning: Embrace the present moment while planning for the future. Engage in activities that ground you in the now, such as meditation or mindfulness practices, before engaging in future-oriented tasks.
- Action in the Now: Focus on what can be done today to shape the desired future. Break down long-term goals into immediate, actionable steps.
- Process-Oriented Goals:
- Enjoy the Journey: Find joy in the process of working towards future goals, rather than fixating solely on the outcomes. Appreciate each step and the learning it brings.
- Short-Term Milestones: Set short-term milestones that align with long-term aspirations. Celebrate these small victories to stay motivated.
- Integrating Passion and Presence:
- Inspired Actions: Let your passion for the future inspire your actions in the present. Channel your enthusiasm into creative and meaningful endeavors that contribute to your long-term vision.
- Balanced Perspective: Hold a balanced perspective where you acknowledge the importance of future goals but remain flexible and adaptable to changes that occur along the way.
- Reflective Practices:
- Regular Reflection: Set aside time for regular reflection on your progress and alignment with your future goals. Use journaling or contemplative practices to assess where you are and where you want to go.
- Feedback Loops: Create feedback loops that allow you to adjust your actions based on present realities and future aspirations.
- Holistic Living:
- Whole-Life Integration: Integrate your vision for the future with your daily life. Ensure that your current actions and lifestyle are in harmony with your long-term aspirations.
- Sustainable Practices: Adopt sustainable practices that benefit both your present well-being and future goals. This can include personal habits, work routines, and environmental consciousness.
- Community and Collaboration:
- Shared Vision: Engage with communities or groups that share your vision for the future. Collaborate on projects that allow you to contribute to a collective future while staying connected in the present.
- Support Systems: Build support systems that help you stay grounded while pursuing your passions. Surround yourself with people who encourage both mindfulness and visionary thinking.
- Spiritual and Philosophical Integration:
- Philosophical Grounding: Explore philosophical or spiritual frameworks that reconcile living in the present with envisioning the future. Concepts from Buddhism (mindfulness) and Process Theology (open and relational thinking) might offer valuable insights.
- Inner Alignment: Cultivate an inner alignment where your passion for the future energizes your present actions, creating a seamless flow between now and what’s to come.
I won't pretend that these practices solve the problem of how to reconcile "passion for the future" with "being present to what is," but perhaps they can help.
Intrinsic Value
Being present to what is in a loving way is attention to the suchness, the as-it-isness of things. The leading interfaith spiritual organization of our time, Spirituality and Practice, defines it this way:
Attention is also known as mindfulness, awareness, concentration, recollection. It is a primary practice, and not just alphabetically. We must stay alert or we risk missing critical elements of the spiritual life—moments of grace, opportunities for gratitude, evidence of our connections to others, signs of the presence of Spirit. The good news is that attention can be practiced anywhere, anytime, in the daily rounds of our lives. Begin by doing one thing at a time. Keep your mind focused on whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. It is through the mundane and the familiar that we discover a world of ceaseless wonders. Train yourself to notice details.
I am reminded of this passage from The God of Tomorrow:
Despite our limitations and tendency to privilege abstract doctrines over concrete spiritual experience, and self-interest over world loyalty, philosophy and theology matter. The most insightful theologians and philosophers live between silence and speech and infinity and finitude and in that tension follow the counsel of poet Mary Oliver, “Pay Attention. Be astonished. Tell about it.”
My point is that this kind of attention need not be about God, for God's sake. I truly mean "for God's sake." In process theology, God is not vain. All things do not need to refer to God. God does not need to be "referenced." The impulse to be recognized, to be self-referential, to have all things refer back to yourself, is not what God is about. God is about love, and love is humble, making space for others. In Whitehead's philosophy, the world transcends God even as God is immanent within the world. And God transcends the world even as God is immanent within the world. God and the World—they are mutually immanent and mutually transcendent. An embodied mysticism does not need to refer to God all the time. It can affirm the world, in astonishment. Even God does that. God declares the world very good in Genesis. It is like the goodness of a child or a grandchild. No need to say "I," No need to say "You are important because you contain me." The You is enough. In process theology as in Teilhard de Chardin, all actual entities are You's. All have their value, their beauty, their importance. We can love them for their own sakes. Even God loves them in this way. Like a grandfather or grandmother.
- Jay McDaniel