Do we live primarily for the present or the future?

[public hermit]

Or maybe I should say that it looks like another point of view from the usual. (Two good Old Testament heroes I like to point at seemed to have that "other" mentality, so different from most people-- Daniel, and Joseph --so different they were, and so dependent on/ centered on God that the kings of their very captors appointed them both 2nd in their respective kingdoms, trusting them (their own captives) above anyone else.)

Good examples. There was something different about them, but obviously something very good if they could be trusted as captives.

This paragraph may seem, perhaps, off point: One phenomenon I have noticed that seems almost backwards: Knowing several long-time Christians as they became elderly, having walked with God more faithfully than I could hope to, I have noticed their intense pleasure in this life, a desire to explore and learn and do things, not as a "bucket list before I die and it is too late" so much as (or so it seems to me) a delight in what God has done and in God's ways of doing things. Likewise, they seemed to love and enjoy the people around them more than I would expect.

No, I think this gets to the point. If I am following you, you are saying they saw their present experience in a richer, more robust, way because of their maturity as Christians. Maybe, it seems backwards because they defy the old saw "They are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good." Would it be accurate to say they held to a future hope and that future hope enriched their experience in the present?

 

[Blade]

I look at it like this. In the word of God we were not promised tomorrow.. even Christ said tomorrow will take care of its self (worries). To prepare is wise but.. I have faith in today.. right now.

 

[zippy2006]

Good point. I just think it's pretty much the norm. Yes, we take the future in consideration (maybe I have retirement, change my oil, and work out for long term health). But, generally speaking, our focus is close to the present and diminishes as we go further out. Most of the things I did today have relevance in the near future. I don't mean that as a virtue or vice, but just how it is. When I say we are myopic, I just mean that the usual mode of operation is to focus on the relevant present.

Okay, that makes sense.

Right, good example. I do think that is a problem. But it was not quite what I was after. Apparently, my OP was not all that clear, haha! Honestly, I was reading Mary Midgley's Are You an Illusion? saw the phrase, had a thought, and within ten minutes was writing this OP. So...

Haha, okay then much of what I've said is probably off, yet I would still be interested to hear your positive construal of your point. I was curious about where the thread came from, but I'm not familiar with that book. What was she saying in the phrase?

The goal is temporal only in the sense that it is not yet. It is future, but we don't know if it's in the next five seconds or five decades. You intimated earlier that it is both now and not yet (as some often put it). I agree.

Okay.

Take some morally significant situation in the present in which one must choose. The person who believes there is a future telos might respond/choose differently than the one who does not hold that there is a future telos. For the Christian, that future telos is going to be significant in how they make moral decisions in the present. Presumably, the prospect of being face-to-face with the Lord matters in how we live now (Hebrews 12:14).

I can see how a future telos changes how one understands the present and one's choices, but I don't see how it overrides the present. Even if my retirement analogy is inaccurate it still seems like you are claiming that there is a future goal which competes with "living for the present," such that we need to pay less attention to the present and more attention to the future.

Now, add to that the natural experience of caring more about the present than the future. The cares of the present can override the main determining factor, i.e. the final end, because so long as we still wait that telos is still in the future. I take this to be common Christian experience, but maybe I'm not explaining it well. Or, maybe I'm confused, haha! It wouldn't be the first time.

I probably should have saved this reply for tomorrow since I'm tired and I may be getting sloppy.

I'm happy with the Augustinian formulation that says preferring a creature to God is a sin, and I agree that our telos should change the way we live, but I'm not sure that the Christian telos entails preferring the future to the present. It entails preferring the spirit to the flesh and not being subsumed in this earthly existence. I admit that I like N.T. Wright on this topic, who claims that Protestants shifted the entire focal point of the Christian life to heaven with their conception of justification and sort of left our present lives in the lurch, and Western Christianity followed suit.

Yes it is equidistant, metaphysically speaking, but not in terms of our experience. We experience it in the present as a future event, just like any other future event. Even if we get glimpses of it (e.g. the mutual vision Augustine and Monica experienced at Ostia), we still think of it as future event.

What I mean is that my present actions have as much (more?) influence on my future destiny as my future actions. It would seem, then, that focusing on the present is precisely how that eternal goal is achieved.

Worry doesn't get me any closer, but indifference or everyday concerns can take precedence in such a way that I neglect my obligations as someone who has a telos.

Okay sure, getting sucked into everyday concerns and forgetting your calling is definitely a danger.

Probably.

It's not the same, but it's not altogether different. As I have been saying there is always a temporal aspect so long as we are in time.

Okay, true.

Only if you think of "make provision" in grossly material terms. In spiritual terms, aren't we living for a future life? Not earning, but living now on the basis of what will be? Let me put it differently. Shouldn't the prospect of a future beatitude have some bearing on what I do today? And if it does, won't that look different than if I had no future beatitude informing my decisions?

Can you expand on that? And what would we do concretely to live for the future?

Not necessarily, but it can. It can if, practically speaking, I live in the present as if there is no future beatitude. If my day to day transactions and decisions are in no way based on a future end, then am I living for God?

Would you say that the early Hebrews who did not believe in an afterlife were unable to live for God?

Are we not to be pitied if for this life, and this life only, we have lived in hope?

Yes, but are we not also to be pitied if we have lived for nothing but a future hope?

The belief that heaven will be different from earth is rather interesting. (I state it in a pure form to give it the largest range of meaning. "Completely different would be more appeasing.") I worry that too great a discontinuity is problematic.

What is "the present" in relation to "this life only"?

See, that is the distinction I prefer: a focus on earthly or worldly life as opposed to "spiritual" life. Sorry if I am belaboring this, but it's an interesting question. Hopefully I will be more coherent tomorrow.

 

[Tom 1]

I recently came across this assertion: We live mainly for the present, not the future. I think, all things being equal, that's right. Practically speaking, much of what we do pertains to the present, or perhaps, the immediate future. But the further out into the future we consider, the less our current choices and activities pertain to it. Humans are myopic. It is a rare individual who regularly acts on behalf of what might be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. Exceptions, of course, can be found. But, generally speaking, we are mostly concerned with the here and now, or what is not far from the here and now. At best most of what we do concerns what will be within a year's time.

Assuming the above is accurate, this presents a particular problem for us as Christians. For the most part, our hope is tied to a future that may be still be a good way off. You may live thirty more years, depending on your age. And yet, our actions are, to some extent, to be done in light of a promised future that only the Father knows in advance. We are to refrain from certain things, not on the promise of immediate gratification, but on the promise of a blessed hope that may be awhile in coming.

So, two questions:
1. Is it true that, practically speaking, we live primarily for the present and not for the future? I'm not asking what we should do, but what we actually do.
2. If (1) is true, then how do we, as Christians, live for a future hope that might still be a good way off, when much of what we decide and do in everyday life pertains to the present and immediate future? In other words, what are some practical things a person can do to overcome the human tendency to be myopic in outlook?

Ys, I think we have plans and feelings about the future but we experience those in the present (as it rolls into the future). Personally I think having a useful structure in your life, that directs you towards useful activity, and investing in relationships in the now are helpful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good examples. There was something different about them, but obviously something very good if they could be trusted as captives.



No, I think this gets to the point. If I am following you, you are saying they saw their present experience in a richer, more robust, way because of their maturity as Christians. Maybe, it seems backwards because they defy the old saw "They are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good." Would it be accurate to say they held to a future hope and that future hope enriched their experience in the present?

Accurate enough, as long as it is understood that their "future hope" is Christ himself, not pie in the sky.

 

[public hermit]

Accurate enough, as long as it is understood that their "future hope" is Christ himself, not pie in the sky.

I'm not sure what "pie in the sky means." Are you referring to heaven? Is heaven not good?

 

[Hawkins]

It is actually human nature to take care of one's own future. That's why people won't quit a job lightly in highly competitive cities. People may worry less in the western world because of its prosperity in the past hundred years. The point is rather how far away a future is that we need to prepare. Primarily this point is our physical death. That's why we need pensions as a personal responsibility. In some regions such a responsibility is enforced by laws which force you to deposit into your own pension by setting aside an amount from your salary. It is so in case you lost your sense about what your personal responsibility is.

The question to humans is rather, is it good enough to only prepare such a future up to the point of our physical death. Do we need to prepare beyond that point? That's where religions coming from. Rather to believe that you don't need to prepare such a future beyond death is just another faith.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not sure what "pie in the sky means." Are you referring to heaven? Is heaven not good?

Yes, I was, perhaps, overemphasizing for effect. Heaven, as most conceive of it, has little to do with being one with God, but more for relief from suffering and pain, peace, abundance of pleasure, etc. But that is not what is most attractive about Heaven.

I think most people completely miss this, and rightfully they are mocked with the common phrase, "Pie in the Sky", or pictures of people playing harps in the clouds, etc.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, I was, perhaps, overemphasizing for effect. Heaven, as most conceive of it, has little to do with being one with God, but more for relief from suffering and pain, peace, abundance of pleasure, etc. But that is not what is most attractive about Heaven.

I think most people completely miss this, and rightfully they are mocked with the common phrase, "Pie in the Sky", or pictures of people playing harps in the clouds, etc.

That makes good sense. I have some sympathy with what you're saying.

 

[Halbhh]

I recently came across this assertion: We live mainly for the present, not the future. I think, all things being equal, that's right. Practically speaking, much of what we do pertains to the present, or perhaps, the immediate future. But the further out into the future we consider, the less our current choices and activities pertain to it. Humans are myopic. It is a rare individual who regularly acts on behalf of what might be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. Exceptions, of course, can be found. But, generally speaking, we are mostly concerned with the here and now, or what is not far from the here and now. At best most of what we do concerns what will be within a year's time.

Assuming the above is accurate, this presents a particular problem for us as Christians. For the most part, our hope is tied to a future that may be still be a good way off. You may live thirty more years, depending on your age. And yet, our actions are, to some extent, to be done in light of a promised future that only the Father knows in advance. We are to refrain from certain things, not on the promise of immediate gratification, but on the promise of a blessed hope that may be awhile in coming.

So, two questions:
1. Is it true that, practically speaking, we live primarily for the present and not for the future? I'm not asking what we should do, but what we actually do.
2. If (1) is true, then how do we, as Christians, live for a future hope that might still be a good way off, when much of what we decide and do in everyday life pertains to the present and immediate future? In other words, what are some practical things a person can do to overcome the human tendency to be myopic in outlook?

Both.

Once I lived (when very young) for the now.

Later, as a teen and young adult at lot for the future, hoping for marriage and such later in time.

Later, as an adult trying to get back to myself, I sought to connect to the now:
"Be Here Now" was one mantra people said in those circles.

Later, as a Christian, for both now and the future:
We have to live our beliefs right now, and know the suffering we might experience at times is only temporary. So we live for both now -- obeying Christ here and now, immediately -- and also live for the wonderful future.

 

[renniks]

I recently came across this assertion: We live mainly for the present, not the future. I think, all things being equal, that's right. Practically speaking, much of what we do pertains to the present, or perhaps, the immediate future. But the further out into the future we consider, the less our current choices and activities pertain to it. Humans are myopic. It is a rare individual who regularly acts on behalf of what might be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. Exceptions, of course, can be found. But, generally speaking, we are mostly concerned with the here and now, or what is not far from the here and now. At best most of what we do concerns what will be within a year's time.

Assuming the above is accurate, this presents a particular problem for us as Christians. For the most part, our hope is tied to a future that may be still be a good way off. You may live thirty more years, depending on your age. And yet, our actions are, to some extent, to be done in light of a promised future that only the Father knows in advance. We are to refrain from certain things, not on the promise of immediate gratification, but on the promise of a blessed hope that may be awhile in coming.

So, two questions:
1. Is it true that, practically speaking, we live primarily for the present and not for the future? I'm not asking what we should do, but what we actually do.
2. If (1) is true, then how do we, as Christians, live for a future hope that might still be a good way off, when much of what we decide and do in everyday life pertains to the present and immediate future? In other words, what are some practical things a person can do to overcome the human tendency to be myopic in outlook?

Well, I can't answer for anyone else..so I can not see much point to the poll. I think some live in the past, some never live in anything but the present and some live almost entirely in the future. I do all three, really. I have a longing for a future perfection I've never witnessed in life, but I must force myself to live now, and it's important to enjoy the day. But I also dwell on the past quite often.

If I have to guess most non believers are focused on the immediately future, (having fun this weekend) but because that never is fully satisfying, they also long for something they can't define and long for past days that really were not as good as they remember them.

 

[public hermit]

I would still be interested to hear your positive construal of your point.

I admit that I like N.T. Wright on this topic, who claims that Protestants shifted the entire focal point of the Christian life to heaven with their conception of justification and sort of left our present lives in the lurch, and Western Christianity followed suit.

You're right, a positive account of how I see it would probably help. First, let me say I have sympathy with Wright's critique, or with something similar to it. I do think there is this unfortunate view of Christianity which (even if only in practice) assumes, "I'm baptized, I'm saved, I'm going to heaven, so how I live is really of no significant import or consequence." I don't think many would admit to that characterization of it, but that's what it boils down to. It probably predominates among Protestants. Although, I'm not certain Catholics are immune to something similar. Then again, I may be inordinately influenced by too many gangster movies, lol.

But if the response to that is a blanket, "It's not about heaven or the afterlife" I can't get on board with that, either. I mentioned above the old saw, "Christians are too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." I take that to be in reference to what I characterized above. It's witty, I guess, but it's off the mark. If someone is comfortable because they believe they will go to heaven and yet is also greedy, indifferent, and a rascal; it has nothing to do with heaven. They're just greedy, indifferent, and a rascal. It's who they are and they have a panacea to ease their conscience. I don't think the appropriate reaction to that reality is to minimize our future hope. So, I'll give my positive account.

Take Jesus' commandment to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." I think "kingdom of God" has at least two significant points of reference. First, it references a kingdom (God's) that will be consummated. This consummation entails resurrection, judgment, beatitude and whatever else is relevant. Second, the command to seek said kingdom pertains to a way of life in this world. A world which is in significant ways different than the ways of the kingdom and can be at odds with the ways of the kingdom. I take this to be pretty standard Christian stuff, but I could be wrong.

Given all that, there are at least two ways to live in the present: according to ways of the kingdom or not. If we do live according to the ways of the kingdom in the present it can be good. Being prudent, trustworthy, loving, wise, and whatever else good goes with living according to the kingdom can certainly be a plus. But, living according to ways of the kingdom can also rub against the ways of the world. Just because we might love others as Christ loves us is not a guarantee that the world is going to love us back. Nor that we are somehow exempt from the trial and tribs common to all of humanity. In fact, a disciplined life for the sake of the kingdom can be downright difficult. And, we have to not just deal with an outer "ways of the world" but with our own inner tendency to follow the ways of this world.

When I say our future hope informs our present experience and should be a determining factor, I'm just saying we should live in this world according to God's kingdom even if it doesn't appear immediately advantageous to do so. And part of what was on my mind is that we go through this world and part of our strength and hope is that the trials will come to an end. Injustice, sorrow, suffering, evil will come to an end. What is good, true, and beautiful will be vindicated. God's world will be redeemed. If that future hope is not informing the present, I don't understand why not. I don't see it as a panacea or an excuse to be greedy and indifferent, either.

Then there is the tension between the telos (future beatitude) and my temporal future. Finances is such a good example. I consider myself a financially prudent person. I like to have the bills covered, save, invest. I like to be prepared for the future. But I also want to be generous and giving. It is not lost on me that every time I save or invest for the future, there is someone who could use that money a lot more right now than I might need it for some possible future. There is a guaranteed future (the telos, the final end). That is what should frame my present experience and choices. But, I also face this possible temporal future (i.e. not guaranteed). I am investing in a possible future in light of this guaranteed future that should take precedence. How do we, as Christians navigate that tension?

These were some of the thoughts that crossed my mind when I read, "We live mainly for the present, not the future." Maybe I should have wrote some of this in the OP!

Now that I look back at the OP, I don't know that my request for practical solutions was framed all that well.

What I mean is that my present actions have as much (more?) influence on my future destiny as my future actions. It would seem, then, that focusing on the present is precisely how that eternal goal is achieved.

I don't think any of this is disagreeable.

Would you say that the early Hebrews who did not believe in an afterlife were unable to live for God?

I wouldn't say that. They lived in light of what they had, as we all do. I would say, they encountered a theological crisis by the time of the exile(s). It's hard to sustain a theology that says obedience will always bear fruit in this life in a world with unjust suffering. Reading Proverbs and Job side-by-side shows the tension that ultimately informed belief in an afterlife (or the realization that there must be one related to the justice of God). Proverbs basically says, you do the right things and the right things happen. Job says, there is suffering and injustice that can't simply be reduce to "You're a sinner and deserve every bit of it." That's the whole point of Job being righteous in God's eyes, i.e. his suffering couldn't be tied to his personal sin. So, as Kant pointed out, practical judgment says if justice is going to obtain there must be an afterlife. (Don't quote me on that)

Yes, but are we not also to be pitied if we have lived for nothing but a future hope?

Yes. I think this goes back to Wright's critique? Absolutely.

The belief that heaven will be different from earth is rather interesting. (I state it in a pure form to give it the largest range of meaning. "Completely different would be more appeasing.") I worry that too great a discontinuity is problematic.

That's an interesting thought. There has to be some kind of continuity. I assume personal existence being one necessary continuity. If it's not me, it's not me.

See, that is the distinction I prefer: a focus on earthly or worldly life as opposed to "spiritual" life. Sorry if I am belaboring this, but it's an interesting question.

No need to apologize. This thread is like me throwing something up on the wall and it happened to stick. Now, I have to somehow defend it! Hahaha. I should have framed it better, I think.

I was curious about where the thread came from, but I'm not familiar with that book. What was she saying in the phrase?

I wanted to save this for last. What she was talking about has pretty much nothing to do with my rambling, haha. But, I will take this opportunity to put in a plug for Mary Midgley. She is one of my heroes. I want to say she was in her 90's when she published Are You an Illusion. Certainly, she was in her eighties. If memory serves, she didn't start publishing philosophy until she was in her 50's.

Are You an Illusion is her defense of the mind and critique of material reductionism when it comes to the mind/brain issue. I don't know. It would be like my grandmother writing philosophy and whacking idiots over the head with her philosophical purse. She's great. Plus, she's British, so she has that backhanded sense of humor, which is great.

She said, "We live mainly for the present, not the future" as she was critiquing the modern tendency to reduce all motives to an innate drive to continue the species. She was contrasting our usual (believed) motives for what we do with this supposed unconscious drive. So, yeah, I read that and my mind went off in left field, lol.

 

[public hermit]

Later, as a Christian, for both now and the future:
We have to live our beliefs right now, and know the suffering we might experience at times is only temporary. So we live for both now -- obeying Christ here and now, immediately -- and also live for the wonderful future.

Yes. This is kind of the tension I had in mind, both now and the future. We have to live according to the way of Christ now, which may or may not seem adventageuous at the present moment (depends on the situation). But we do it with a future hope in view, where the life we lived in hope is vindicated. Or, something like that.

 

[public hermit]

I have a longing for a future perfection I've never witnessed in life, but I must force myself to live now, and it's important to enjoy the day. But I also dwell on the past quite often.

I can relate to all of this.

If I have to guess most non believers are focused on the immediately future, (having fun this weekend) but because that never is fully satisfying, they also long for something they can't define and long for past days that really were not as good as they remember them.

I was like that for a long time. In my case, that's a pretty accurate insight.

 

[CaspianSails]

So, two questions:
1. Is it true that, practically speaking, we live primarily for the present and not for the future? I'm not asking what we should do, but what we actually do.
2. If (1) is true, then how do we, as Christians, live for a future hope that might still be a good way off, when much of what we decide and do in everyday life pertains to the present and immediate future? In other words, what are some practical things a person can do to overcome the human tendency to be myopic in outlook?[/QUOTE]

I think we can and do both. Doing both is not a contradiction. I live today, I may not live tomorrow. I can plan for tomorrow, knowing that tomorrow or even the next second is not guaranteed to me. If I have a family I am charged to be the leader of the family and provide for them. So this I must do, today. When it comes to goals or rewards I must live for Christ and do the things He directs me to do without thought of present reward or praise from my fellow man. These are done in secret to honor my Father who sees things done in secret. The reward is given by Christ later and being like Him I recognize it is and was He who worked anything good in me, and I will return the reward to Him and worship Him. So we can do both, trust God for the day and for eternity and live in both. Our Hope is secure and is already completed. Christ finished His work. We must know that and live it. The hope is present in every believer by the presence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I thank God every day for His abiding presence with me and with all who know Him and are known by Him.

 

[Archivist]

I would say both. Certainly we should live more for the present—your family, friends, things of interest, because you or they could be gone tomorrow. At the same time we should prepare for the future. If you aren’t putting away money to support yourself in retirement you are undoubtably doing a disservice to your family.

Now, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior needs to take place in the present because, as I said, you might not be around tomorrow. No salvation for you, no chance to spread the Word to others.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I recently came across this assertion: We live mainly for the present, not the future. I think, all things being equal, that's right. Practically speaking, much of what we do pertains to the present, or perhaps, the immediate future. But the further out into the future we consider, the less our current choices and activities pertain to it. Humans are myopic. It is a rare individual who regularly acts on behalf of what might be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. Exceptions, of course, can be found. But, generally speaking, we are mostly concerned with the here and now, or what is not far from the here and now. At best most of what we do concerns what will be within a year's time.

Assuming the above is accurate, this presents a particular problem for us as Christians. For the most part, our hope is tied to a future that may be still be a good way off. You may live thirty more years, depending on your age. And yet, our actions are, to some extent, to be done in light of a promised future that only the Father knows in advance. We are to refrain from certain things, not on the promise of immediate gratification, but on the promise of a blessed hope that may be awhile in coming.

So, two questions:
1. Is it true that, practically speaking, we live primarily for the present and not for the future? I'm not asking what we should do, but what we actually do.
2. If (1) is true, then how do we, as Christians, live for a future hope that might still be a good way off, when much of what we decide and do in everyday life pertains to the present and immediate future? In other words, what are some practical things a person can do to overcome the human tendency to be myopic in outlook?

Just live.

In God's view of time, it is beginning, and has also ended.

 

[Zao is life]

I recently came across this assertion: We live mainly for the present, not the future. I think, all things being equal, that's right. Practically speaking, much of what we do pertains to the present, or perhaps, the immediate future. But the further out into the future we consider, the less our current choices and activities pertain to it. Humans are myopic. It is a rare individual who regularly acts on behalf of what might be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. Exceptions, of course, can be found. But, generally speaking, we are mostly concerned with the here and now, or what is not far from the here and now. At best most of what we do concerns what will be within a year's time.

Assuming the above is accurate, this presents a particular problem for us as Christians. For the most part, our hope is tied to a future that may be still be a good way off. You may live thirty more years, depending on your age. And yet, our actions are, to some extent, to be done in light of a promised future that only the Father knows in advance. We are to refrain from certain things, not on the promise of immediate gratification, but on the promise of a blessed hope that may be awhile in coming.

So, two questions:
1. Is it true that, practically speaking, we live primarily for the present and not for the future? I'm not asking what we should do, but what we actually do.
2. If (1) is true, then how do we, as Christians, live for a future hope that might still be a good way off, when much of what we decide and do in everyday life pertains to the present and immediate future? In other words, what are some practical things a person can do to overcome the human tendency to be myopic in outlook?

The only time that exists in the universe right now, this very moment, at the time you are reading this, is right now, this very moment. The future does not exist right now, this very moment, neither does the past. So while it's wise to plan for the future, the only time to live in right now, this very moment, is right now, this very moment - and living in the future, hoping for better days to come, is as futile as living in the past, wishing for better days gone by.

The reason children who are happy (those who are blessed with normal lives) are so spontaneous and have such an energetic zest for life, is because unless they are dreaming about what they want to be when they grow up (the future), they only live in "right now, this very moment", each and every moment of the day. So when they feel a need to cry, then they cry, when they have to do work, they work (reluctantly), and when they play, they play. They don't live a whole lot in the future, nor in the past. They live in the only time that exists in the universe, each moment - which is always "right now, this very moment".

In a way the past and the future all meet in the present - the earth is in the exact same position in its orbit round the sun right now, as you read this, that it was in 365.333 days ago, and that it will be in 365.333 days from now. But right now, this very moment, is the only time that exists in the universe, and therefore the only time to live in.

 

[public hermit]

The only time that exists in the universe right now, this very moment, at the time you are reading this, is right now, this very moment. The future does not exist right now, this very moment, neither does the past. So while it's wise to plan for the future, the only time to live in right now, this very moment, is right now, this very moment - and living in the future, hoping for better days to come, is as futile as living in the past, wishing for better days gone by.

The reason children who are happy (those who are blessed with normal lives) are so spontaneous and have such an energetic zest for life, is because unless they are dreaming about what they want to be when they grow up (the future), they only live in "right now, this very moment", each and every moment of the day. So when they feel a need to cry, then they cry, when they have to do work, they work (reluctantly), and when they play, they play. They don't live a whole lot in the future, nor in the past. They live in the only time that exists in the universe, each moment - which is always "right now, this very moment".

In a way the past and the future all meet in the present - the earth is in the exact same position in its orbit round the sun right now, as you read this, that it was in 365.333 days ago, and that it will be in 365.333 days from now. But right now, this very moment, is the only time that exists in the universe, and therefore the only time to live in.

Great thoughts! Thank you!

 

[zippy2006]

You're right, a positive account of how I see it would probably help. First, let me say I have sympathy with Wright's critique, or with something similar to it. I do think there is this unfortunate view of Christianity which (even if only in practice) assumes, "I'm baptized, I'm saved, I'm going to heaven, so how I live is really of no significant import or consequence." I don't think many would admit to that characterization of it, but that's what it boils down to. It probably predominates among Protestants. Although, I'm not certain Catholics are immune to something similar. Then again, I may be inordinately influenced by too many gangster movies, lol.

Sure, or perhaps even the idea that Christianity has no transformational power and merely provides us with a ticket to heaven that we ought to keep in a safe place until we die.

But if the response to that is a blanket, "It's not about heaven or the afterlife" I can't get on board with that, either. I mentioned above the old saw, "Christians are too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." I take that to be in reference to what I characterized above. It's witty, I guess, but it's off the mark. If someone is comfortable because they believe they will go to heaven and yet is also greedy, indifferent, and a rascal; it has nothing to do with heaven. They're just greedy, indifferent, and a rascal. It's who they are and they have a panacea to ease their conscience. I don't think the appropriate reaction to that reality is to minimize our future hope. So, I'll give my positive account.

True. I think the theological virtue of hope requires a future expectation and orientation.

Take Jesus' commandment to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." I think "kingdom of God" has at least two significant points of reference. First, it references a kingdom (God's) that will be consummated. This consummation entails resurrection, judgment, beatitude and whatever else is relevant. Second, the command to seek said kingdom pertains to a way of life in this world. A world which is in significant ways different than the ways of the kingdom and can be at odds with the ways of the kingdom. I take this to be pretty standard Christian stuff, but I could be wrong.

Given all that, there are at least two ways to live in the present: according to ways of the kingdom or not. If we do live according to the ways of the kingdom in the present it can be good. Being prudent, trustworthy, loving, wise, and whatever else good goes with living according to the kingdom can certainly be a plus. But, living according to ways of the kingdom can also rub against the ways of the world. Just because we might love others as Christ loves us is not a guarantee that the world is going to love us back. Nor that we are somehow exempt from the trial and tribs common to all of humanity. In fact, a disciplined life for the sake of the kingdom can be downright difficult. And, we have to not just deal with an outer "ways of the world" but with our own inner tendency to follow the ways of this world.

Yes, good points. There should definitely be a tension when true Christians are living in the world.

When I say our future hope informs our present experience and should be a determining factor, I'm just saying we should live in this world according to God's kingdom even if it doesn't appear immediately advantageous to do so. And part of what was on my mind is that we go through this world and part of our strength and hope is that the trials will come to an end. Injustice, sorrow, suffering, evil will come to an end. What is good, true, and beautiful will be vindicated. God's world will be redeemed. If that future hope is not informing the present, I don't understand why not. I don't see it as a panacea or an excuse to be greedy and indifferent, either.

True, I definitely agree with this.

Then there is the tension between the telos (future beatitude) and my temporal future. Finances is such a good example. I consider myself a financially prudent person. I like to have the bills covered, save, invest. I like to be prepared for the future. But I also want to be generous and giving. It is not lost on me that every time I save or invest for the future, there is someone who could use that money a lot more right now than I might need it for some possible future. There is a guaranteed future (the telos, the final end). That is what should frame my present experience and choices. But, I also face this possible temporal future (i.e. not guaranteed). I am investing in a possible future in light of this guaranteed future that should take precedence. How do we, as Christians navigate that tension?

Yes, you put this well.

Here is something else I've been thinking about. I am curious about looking at the way that beatitude spills over into our present life, and how that relates to future beatitude. There is a way in which focus on future beatitude can go slightly astray insofar as it focuses on the effects of love of God or union with God (e.g. bliss, freedom, etc.). Though I do think those effects can also spill over in first fruits, I would point out that the essence of beatitude is present in our fallen world among children of God: belief in Christ and love of God. When considering those essentials there isn't such a great difference between our life now and our future hope. Sure, there is some difference, but if our love of God is conditioned only on receiving gifts from him then it is an undeveloped mercenary love.

There is an article I recently read which is on point. It is kind of about a Catholic concept of "perfect contrition," but the heart of the article is actually about perfect charity and what that really means: Perfect Contrition and Perfect Charity.

I wouldn't say that. They lived in light of what they had, as we all do. I would say, they encountered a theological crisis by the time of the exile(s). It's hard to sustain a theology that says obedience will always bear fruit in this life in a world with unjust suffering. Reading Proverbs and Job side-by-side shows the tension that ultimately informed belief in an afterlife (or the realization that there must be one related to the justice of God). Proverbs basically says, you do the right things and the right things happen. Job says, there is suffering and injustice that can't simply be reduce to "You're a sinner and deserve every bit of it." That's the whole point of Job being righteous in God's eyes, i.e. his suffering couldn't be tied to his personal sin. So, as Kant pointed out, practical judgment says if justice is going to obtain there must be an afterlife. (Don't quote me on that)

That's an interesting thought. There has to be some kind of continuity. I assume personal existence being one necessary continuity. If it's not me, it's not me.

"The stuff we do here is only instrumental in getting to heaven." That's the proposition I worry about. Theologically it ties in with the New Creation, which will be a transformation of the old.

No need to apologize. This thread is like me throwing something up on the wall and it happened to stick. Now, I have to somehow defend it! Hahaha. I should have framed it better, I think.

Haha

I wanted to save this for last. What she was talking about has pretty much nothing to do with my rambling, haha. But, I will take this opportunity to put in a plug for Mary Midgley. She is one of my heroes. I want to say she was in her 90's when she published Are You an Illusion. Certainly, she was in her eighties. If memory serves, she didn't start publishing philosophy until she was in her 50's.

Are You an Illusion is her defense of the mind and critique of material reductionism when it comes to the mind/brain issue. I don't know. It would be like my grandmother writing philosophy and whacking idiots over the head with her philosophical purse. She's great. Plus, she's British, so she has that backhanded sense of humor, which is great.

She said, "We live mainly for the present, not the future" as she was critiquing the modern tendency to reduce all motives to an innate drive to continue the species. She was contrasting our usual (believed) motives for what we do with this supposed unconscious drive. So, yeah, I read that and my mind went off in left field, lol.

Interesting! Yeah that is very different from your OP, but it sure seems like a valid point.