John Cobb: My Frugal, Visionary Mentor

John Cobb

My Frugal, Visionary Mentor

John Cobb, my mentor, is nearing his 100th birthday. He is a visionary par excellence. More than any philosopher or theologian I know, John has done two things simultaneously. He has made clear to us impending catastrophes we face as a species (global climate change, violence and the threat of nuclear war, political dysfunction, economic collapse, and widespread loneliness) lest we change our ways of thinking and living in the world. And he has simultaneously sparked a collective movement of hope around the world: the hope of a new kind of civilization, an Ecological Civilization, which can serve the well-being of life.

There are many institutions around the world indebted to him. They include the Center for Process Studies, The Cobb Institute for Community and Practice, the Institute for Ecological Civilization, the Institute for the Postmodern Development of China, the Living Earth movement, Pando Populus, and still more. And there are thousands of students, I among them, likewise indebted. He is not just my mentor; he is our mentor.

If you passed him on the street, you might not notice him. Small in stature, there's nothing flashy about him: no designer clothes, no fancy watches, no air of importance. He would likely be wearing pants and a sweater that he's owned for the last fifty years.
On his birthday, he will be celebrated for numerous accomplishments: publishing over a hundred books, pioneering process theology, possessing an amazingly interdisciplinary mind, working in China and other nations, and demonstrating a visionary commitment to ecological civilization. Click here to learn about his academic achievements.

He will also be celebrated for his kindness to people from all walks of life, his unpretentiousness, his indifference to questions of status, and his caring heart. John draws no distinctions between "important" and "unimportant" people; all are important. It's not just John's achievements that inspire people; it's who he is and how he treats them.

In this spirit, I want to celebrate one more aspect of his life: his simple lifestyle. This includes his minimalist wardrobe mentioned above and his living space. When you visit John in his apartment, he doesn't turn on lights because he doesn't want to waste energy; sunlight suffices. John lives simply and frugally, without the trappings of conspicuous consumption. He is a mentor to me and others in this, too.

This frugality is not solely his own design; he inherited it from his parents and his Methodist (Wesleyan) tradition with its commitment to simple living. In principle, he could have learned it from the Benedictines as well, or the Quakers, or the Franciscans, or the Amish. Or, if he lived elsewhere, from Gandhi and from many Buddhist communities. Methodists do not have a monopoly on simple living. But John learned it from his parents, their friends, and the Wesleyans. He chose to follow the way of his elders.

There is authenticity to this choice. In a world where appearances often take precedence, John's lifestyle underscores his humility and care for the world. He lives without ostentation, embodying a down-to-earth demeanor that fosters connection and relatability. People like to be around him because he is so polite and humble. This is one reason he is so popular in China. It's not just his ideas; it's his demeanor.

His lifestyle also carries a counter-cultural and indeed, a Christian message. John seeks to follow Jesus in his daily life. He believes that the God whom Jesus revealed is a God of love, not ostentation. He believes that God's call to each of us and to all of us is to live simply, in community with one another and other creatures, so that others might simply live. You can get an idea of his sense of vocation in the essay below.

But first, a word about process theology. John does not parade process theology as if it were the answer to all questions. He is more committed to the well-being of life than to process theology. But John's commitment to simple living is itself an embodiment of process theology and its idea that mutuality and relationality are at the heart of what is really important in life. John's lifestyle is a reminder that true richness does not lie in the abundance of possessions but in the richness of experiences, relationships, and service to others.

This is the kind of richness, this is the kind of wealth, that we see when the will of God is done on earth as it is in heaven. When we know this love, there is no need for conspicuous consumption or ostentatious display. The love, like the sunlight in his apartment, is enough.

- Jay McDaniel

What is My Vocation?

by John Cobb

The idea of “vocation” has had an important history in the West. The word suggests that we are “called” to do something. It was long used by Christians to emphasize the idea that lifelong service to the church was something that one should not choose for oneself on a practical basis but rather should undertake only out of a definite sense that God called one to be a priest, a monk, or a nun. The fact that these all took vows of celibacy accented their special role.

In the fifteenth century the Protestant Reformers argued that every Christian has a “calling” or “vocation,” and that none of these required celibacy. Serving the institutional church was just one vocation among many. Christians were equally called to be lawyers or doctors, cobblers or merchants. Whatever one’s calling, one should pursue it conscientiously as one’s service of God and neighbor.

This teaching could lead to a high sense of service through one’s daily work. In a feudal society it worked quite well. Every role required both knowledge and skill, and each had its contribution to make to the whole. Emphasizing this could give to all a fuller sense of participation. However, with the shift to industrial capitalism, one’s work was understood as a necessity in order to live. The word “vocation” came to mean for many people little more than a job.

Responding to the Call of the Moment

Nevertheless, the idea that we are “called” can still evoke a deeper meaning.   Whitehead radicalized it. He taught that every momentary event is called to be the best that can be achieved in that moment at that place. His terminology was that there is an “initial aim” for every “actual occasion.” Like the traditional “calling” this aim is derived from God. The implications for personal experience are much like those of the original idea of “vocation,” but now generalized through existentialism. I am called, right now, in this and every moment, to be and do the best I can. There is a calling for each moment.

Fostering Healthy Relations with Other People

Often this call focuses on relations with another person. That person may be my spouse, my child, my friend, or a stranger. That personal presence participates in my momentary experience. I am who I am in this moment partly because of the presence of that other person. That presence enriches my experience, and the more open I am to it, and to what it offers, the more I am enriched. To some extent I feel the feelings of the other.

Sometimes it is enough simply to be there with the other. But often one is called to something more. The other may be lonely or anxious or insecure. I am called to respond. Perhaps I need only signal that I am open to listening. That is a step of which most of us are capable even if we often do not take it. We prefer to speak ourselves rather than hear others into speech. Accordingly, others sense that their feelings and needs are not of interest to us. Instead, we want to draw them into our projects. True listening and responding are rare.

This kind of openness to the other does not exclude our speaking. Indeed, sometimes it is only when we share our hesitations and weakness that the other is assured that we can hear without judgment or ridicule. Adjusting our need to be heard and affirmed by others by the recognition of their need to be heard and affirmed is the beginning of ethics.

We are often called by or through the other’s need to do more than listen. Some of the other’s needs are for food and shelter and safety. To some extent, we can and should respond directly, especially when the other is a friend or family member. And there are practical needs of the stranger that also call for immediate practical response.

Fostering Healthy Relations with the Natural World

But the world that surrounds us and grounds our experience moment by moment is not limited to other people. Western ethics has been far too focused on interpersonal relations. Our pets play an important role, as do plants and birds, and insects, and grass, and trees, and soil, and rocks. These “others” offer themselves to us and claim a place in our experience. They too have their needs, massively so today.

The needs of the human stranger and the natural world often lead to another level of ethical action. We can respond only to a very small number of these multifarious needs. Our personal awareness of them is miniscule in comparison with the reality. Recognizing this leads us to a concern for the health of the larger society and the natural environment. We want a human community in which all take responsibility for the wellbeing of all, including the natural world.

As we reflect about ourselves we recognize that who we are and what we are is largely a function of the societies of which we are a part. I am an American, a Californian, a member of a retirement community, a churchman, a theologian, and so forth. My participation in these human societies and the landscapes with which they are connected enables others to identify me and shapes my self-identification as well. My wellbeing is largely a function of the wellbeing of these societies and their natural contexts, and I know that this is true for other members. To whatever extent the societies in which we inescapably live become authentic communities of mutual care we all benefit. While I can directly respond to very few of the needs of my fellow members, through building community and healing the natural environment I can help many indirectly.

Helping build just and sustainable communities

To whatever extent I listen to others, I am already engaged in building community. This is the level at which all can fully participate. But most are called to other, less personal, ways of shaping and strengthening community. This may involve attending meetings, working on committees and accepting particular responsibilities. In some cases it may require me to be active in the politics of the society. Sometimes I may be asked to represent the community to outsiders. In all these cases I am called to seek the well being of the community rather than my private advantage over other members. Occasionally this involves real personal sacrifice. More often my subordination of private interest to that of the community ends up as deeply rewarding to me.

Reflecting upon and advocating compassionate public policies

But responding to the call to serve the community through active participation in its life leads me to understand that this ethical activity raises questions at still another level. Sometimes I see that the community is acting in ways that are self-destructive. In our world this appears especially in the massive damage human communities are inflicting on the natural world.   We can envisage acting more wisely. This is the level of policy. A community needs participation in its life whatever its policies may be, but that it keep adapting its policies to new situations and improving them is also of great importance to all its participants. Justice and sustainability are crucial goals of good policy. We are called to support good policies, and that means to involve ourselves in the politics of the communities in which we live. For some, this is their major vocation.

Often one sees that in its zeal to do well, one’s community seeks to advance at the expense of others. My ethical subordination of my private interests to those of the community turns out to be an unethical contribution to harming other communities. This can happen at all levels. In the past, deep convictions have often led religious communities to harm each other.

Critiquing collective Idolatries (e.g. Christianism and American Exceptionalism)

In our world, this ethical complexity appears most often and most painfully in relation to nations. As an American, my vocation includes active citizenship and participation in national life. I am called to strengthen and improve that national life and to protect it from encroachments by others. But I discover that some of what I do, ethically, for the sake of my nation, in the larger scheme of things, harms other peoples. I am called to envision and support national policies that work for the larger good and not simply for the power of my nation over others. I have identified some other collective idolatries that seem to me very dangerous in Deconstructing Modernity.

Analyzing and Challenging Basic Assumptions about the World

When I realize that devotion to my religious community or my nation is harmful to humanity as a whole, I cannot simply solve the problem by trying to be more moral. The general meaning of morality reflects an understanding of religious or national communities that in fact leads them into conflict. Self-sacrificial service of one’s nation may lead to killing those who are self-sacrificially serving their nations.

We are called to ask questions at a different level. What about the assumptions that shape this ordinary understanding of morality as service of the common good of my community. Asking this question may be thought of as another dimension of ethics. We may call it the ethics of thought.

When we realize that doing what seems right and good often ends up harming others, we also realize that something is wrong with our ideas. Often these ideas are widespread in our communities. Daring to question the beliefs that are simply accepted by most people is a special vocation. Many are called to be open to such questioning. For some this challenge to common assumptions is a major vocation.

Once we grasp the importance of criticizing the assumptions that underlie our actions and even our reflections on morality, we can extend this to other areas. There are assumptions that underlie our choices of public policy, our educational practice, our legal system, our social and natural sciences. When we study the history of these areas of thought, it becomes clear that assumptions now recognized as unsatisfactory have played a large role. There is no reason to suppose that those assumptions that now operate are free from problems. The ethics of thought is as important to human beings as the ethics of personal relations, the ethics of community, and the ethics of policy.

Accepting the responsibility to be unpopular or disruptive (for the sake of the common good)

Ethical behavior always has its dangers. When we genuinely listen to a stranger, we may find ourselves drawn into ways of thinking and even of acting that are uncomfortable and disruptive. When we seek the well being of communities, we may antagonize those who personally profit through distortions of community life. When we seek to direct our governments away from self-aggrandizing policies, we are likely to be called unpatriotic. When we question the assumptions that are widespread in our cultures, we upset many who have based their lives and their thought upon them.

But hope for the world lies in ethics, and today this is especially true of the ethics of thought, the vocation to analyze assumptions. Established assumptions about human beings and economic policies, and finance, and international affairs have led humanity to the brink of catastrophe. If we do not challenge and uproot these assumptions, there is little chance of changing behavior sufficiently to save the world.

*

Note: John Cobb has offered his own ideas on the assumptions that need to be challenged. We are called to challenge anthropocentrism, individuality, sense-bound empiricism, small group loyalty, and conventional morality. See Foundations for a New Civilization. He has shared alternative and constructive ideas for living lightly and gently on the planet. See Ten Ideas for Saving the Planet.  In addition, and importantly, he offers an analysis of assumptions which, in his view, must be challenged (or de-constructed) in our time. See Deconstructing Modernity.

God as Abba

Excerpts from God as Abba, used with John Cobb's permission

Two Problems with "God" as Too Often Conceived

For me, God is of central importance to life and thought. As a boy I found that my conviction fitted comfortably with widely shared belief. I did not agree with everything I heard people say about God, but the problem with “God-language” was not much different fromother instances of disagreement and confusion.

Today the situation has changed. God remains of central importance for me. But I no longer find that belief to fit comfortably into my cultural context. On the contrary, many people are both skeptical that the word God has any reference and very uncertain what that reference would be like if it existed at all. In addition, the word now has a strongly negative connotation for many thoughtful and sensitive people, and I often find myself upset by how it is used. If the problem were simply linguistic, we could solve it easily. Just use another term: Creator, Goddess, Great Spirit, Almighty, Yahweh. Using other names sometimes helps, but the problem is deeper. What has happened?

One problem is intellectual. From the outset of modernity, belief in the biblical God has been problematic. The biblical God is operative in both nature and history, whereas modernity, from its beginning, denied that God was a factor in what happened in the natural world. That is, it asserts that if you are trying to explain any natural event, you are not allowed to attribute any role to God.

At first, there was one exception. The world seemed so wonderfully ordered that it could not be thought of as coming into existence on its own or by chance. Most people assumed that it was created by an intelligent and powerful being, and did not hesitate to call that being “God.” Scientists found that the world was governed by laws, so that the Creator was also the Lawgiver. Some religious people thought that every now and again the God who created the laws intervened and caused something to happen that did not obey them. Thus there were supernaturalists, but the default position was “deism,” that is, the belief that God’s only relation to nature was the one act of creation and the imposing of natural laws.

At the same time, everyone assumed that human beings were not part of the nature from which God was excluded. Opinions differed on how God was related to human beings. The devout could picture the relation as quite intimate, but the dominant culture encouraged the idea that God had created human beings and had also given them rules to live by. Unlike plants and animals, people might choose not to obey these rules. After death those who violated them were punished, whereas those who obeyed them were rewarded.

Deistic thinking still continues, but it has far less support than in the earlier period. It was deeply shaken by Charles Darwin’s demonstration that the world we now know developed in a natural evolutionary way from a much simpler beginning. God was no longer needed to explain the remarkably complex and beautiful world we have around us; it could be explained by natural causes. Equally important was that human beings are fully part of this evolving nature. If God is excluded from playing any role in natural events, then God is excluded from playing any role in human events. The default position now is atheism.

*

Credibility has not been the only problem we theists faced. For many people “God” has become an offensive idea because so many terrible things have been done by his followers. I grew up believing that God was always good and loving. I knew that human beings, even those who worshiped God, had done some very bad things, but I supposed that this was an aberration and that we Christians had repented and were seeking peace and justice everywhere.

However, along with many others, I came to see history differently. In the name of God, Christians had persecuted Jews for most of Christian history. This persecution had reached new heights in what we considered a Christian country, Germany. True, the Nazis were not Christians, but they could show the continuity of their anti-Jewish teachings and actions with statements of Christian leaders, and the opposition to Nazi anti-Judaism on the part of Christians was weak.

I learned that in the century-long theft of the New World from its inhabitants, many Christian missionaries had played embarrassing roles. I learned that, indeed, even the more recent missions to Africa and Asia had often supported colonial exploitation of the people. Even the better missions were often tainted with the sense of Western superiority, and with condescension toward those to whom they were witnessing. More generally,

More generally, I learned that over the centuries the churches were usually allied with the rich and powerful. I learned that the enslavement of nonwhite races had been supported as God’s will. I discovered that earlier members of my own family had written pious Christian books in defense of slavery. Even many of those leaders to
whom we looked with admiration, such as Abraham Lincoln, had been racists. The Bible that seemed evidently to oppose such racism had been widely and successfully used to justify it. (John Cobb)

Rediscovering God through Jesus

The purpose of this book is to propose that it is time for thoughtful Christians to free themselves from acquiescence to the late modern worldview. My conviction is that the biblical worldview in general, and the worldview of Jesus and Paul in particular, is superior. Of course, there are many respects in which their worldview is out of date. But bringing it up to date is much easier and more fruitful than trying to make the modern worldview adequate to our needs. We certainly have a great deal of knowledge about astronomy today that is far more accurate than the beliefs that prevailed in New Testament times. But adjusting to that information is no threat to the basic insights of Jesus or Paul.

We know now that the world is composed of quantum events, a view that is vastly different from ideas in the minds of any New Testament writer. But their worldview was basically one that gave primacy to events. That events characterize the world at microscopic levels is not an uncongenial idea, whereas the modern world is not able to assimilate it. And above all, the idea that events are both subjective and objective would pose no problem to the ancients, whereas the moderns have to deny it, conceal it, or treat it as an anomaly.I have focused on what is central for Jesus, the reality and purposes of Abba. I have wanted to show that belief in Abba makes a lot of sense today.

Of course, I have not proved the existence of Abba;
indeed, it is not really possible to prove the existence of anything. I cannot prove that I exist, but we know much that we cannot prove. We cannot prove that there were any events before the present moment. How could we do so?

But I for one do not doubt that many things have happened, and I doubt that you are seriously doubtful. Although we cannot prove anything, we can disprove a good many things. We can disprove the indivisibility of what we still call atoms, named when we thought they were indivisible. Science has disproved the astronomy generally accepted in New Testament times. It has disproved the idea that the world is just six thousand years old.

I believe we can disprove some beliefs about God as well. For example, the systematic implications of the belief that God is all-powerful and the belief that God is all-beneficent contradict each other, and their combination is incompatible with the historical facts. It is very sad when those who consider themselves followers of Jesus spend their time defending ideas that are indefensible and are not found in the Bible. The idea that the Bible is inerrant is another belief that is easily disproved. So is the idea that Jesus and Paul were supporters of what are today called “family values.”

The basic argument of this book is that, although many ideas associated with God and Christian faith have been disproved, Jesus’ teaching about Abba has not. On the contrary, it is coherent with our experience and responds well to the needs of the world in our day. It can be tested against personal experience. I commend it enthusiastically.

For my part, I strive to be a faithful disciple of Jesus. There are those who follow Jesus without sharing his belief in Abba. I admire them, but I am convinced that the effort to follow Jesus while ignoring his Abba has a tragic character. It usually results from being socialized into a culture and a way of thinking that is not deserving of commitment. I am convinced that a much deeper and more joyful faithfulness is possible if we seek to relate to Abba as Jesus did. I commend a faithfulness to Jesus that shares Jesus’ confidence in the love and empowering power of Abba.

"Abba cares much more about the future of the world than about who believes in him and who does not."

But loving an omnipotent God, or a morally judgmental God, or an exclusivist God, or a God who demands sacrifice in order to forgive, can be harmful. Abba is none of those things. I believe that loving Abba is the best hope for the world’s future, and loving Abba means working with Abba....Abba cares much more about the future of the world than about who believes in him and who does not. We who love Abba will eagerly cooperate with those who do not, if they are working to save the world. But today we may rejoice that the leading voice in the movement to save the world comes from one who loves Abba: Pope Francis. It is my hope that my tiny effort to renew and strengthen the worship of Jesus’ Abba will also build support for the great work of Pope Francis. (John Cobb)

"Abba is always present in the world working for good."

In sum, with regard to all that I have said thus far, I believe that we experience in some usually faint and fragmentary way Abba’s presence with us, working in all things for good. Abba’s work is most effective if we attend to it, open ourselves to it, align ourselves with it. This is part of the meaning of faith. Our resulting thoughts and actions sometimes have effects beyond our intentions. We can experience ourselves to be participating in Abba’s salvific work in the world. And we can sense the companionship of Abba as well as of others who work with Abba. We can know something of the divine commonwealth, the presence of which Jesus announced. (John Cobb)

"Abba is present even in the cells in our bodies."

I am repeatedly surprised by how rapidly wounds heal when the body is given the chance. Doctors often comment that their medicines do not heal us. They counter hostile forces in the body. When these are removed, nature works its healing power. When thought and emotions are healthy and supportive, the healing work of nature is speeded and strengthened. For me, there is no “nature” from which Abba is absent. That does not identify God and nature. There is much in nature other than Abba. But I think that it is Abba’s presence in nature that makes for healing. I believe that Abba is in every cell in the body calling it to do its part for its own well-being and for the well-being of the whole.