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.