Holding Time Well: When the Future Feels Far Away (Or Too Close) 

By Joel Murphy

Do you think of the future? How do you approach conversations about the past, present, and future? What is your relationship with the concept of ‘time’? 

In a 2023 article, Diego Guana and his partners researched the future of food and agriculture in Argentina. In their work, they identified five archetypes of how individuals imagine the future. These were: stuck in the present, the future is not ours, the future never comes, the future is being built, and the future is ours. Futures studies includes many examples like these that explore how people perceive time itself. A new and useful term I came across recently is Tempocentrism. 

Tempocentrism, as defined by Textor (2003), is “being unduly centered in one’s own temporality, in situations where that time frame is inappropriate” (p. 522). Notice the emphasis on unduly and inappropriate—this means it’s not wrong to value the present or the past. In fact, both are essential to faithful leadership. But tempocentrism distorts our perspective, especially during moments of significant change. It narrows our attention to the present or recent past and limits our imagination for what might come. While this posture may offer psychological comfort or a sense of control, it ultimately restricts our capacity to respond meaningfully to change. It becomes both a cognitive and emotional limitation, preventing individuals and communities from embracing transformation and can be a barrier to growing in wisdom of God’s ongoing redemptive work in the world. 

Leadership experts Heifetz and Linsky (2002) allude to this dynamic, emphasizing that people are not always resisting change itself, but are in fact resisting loss. 

What is being lost? 
What was lost? 
What could be lost? 

These are important questions to hold. But they should not distract us from also asking: 

What could be gained? 

Many researchers and leaders argue that we are living in one of the most tumultuous and rapidly changing periods in modern history. Whether it’s the rise of AI technologies, global conflicts, housing crises, environmental concerns, or rapidly evolving labor markets—uncertainty defines much of our current landscape. Futurist Amy Webb describes this as the “era of transition,” pointing out that we are living through a technological super cycle. While the nature of change is often driven by social reform and world events, it’s perhaps most visible in the sheer pace of technological advancement. The figure below offers perspective on just how dramatically that rate has accelerated.

Figure 1 – Technological Advancement drawn from Thillaivasan, Wickramasinghe, & Devdas, 2020. 

The intensity of our current context can lead to anxiety, nostalgia, technological determinism, and tempocentrism. These responses are understandable. When change is overwhelming, it’s reasonable to feel disoriented or to long for “simpler” times. But as Textor reminds us, it’s not appropriate to remain in that posture indefinitely. Remaining in this space leads to decline, stagnation, and diminishes innovation. However, fixating on novelty, innovation, and or futurism without discernment produces its own kind of distortion. 

Andrew Root (2022) critiques this tendency in his work on ministry and innovation. He suggests that in some church and organizational contexts, innovation becomes a stand-in for faithfulness, where the call to transform becomes disconnected from deeper theological reflection and communal discernment. Focusing and elevating the future, over the past and present can be in itself a type of tempocentrism.  

This imbalance was addressed in a keynote by Jesse Wente at Imagining 2080: A Forum on Canada’s Futures. Wente reminded listeners that many of today’s challenges don’t require high-tech, futuristic solutions. Instead, they may be addressed through ancient ways of being and doing wisdom that is often preserved in tradition, community, and story. This echoes the biblical wisdom found in Jeremiah 6:16: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it.” 

In conclusion, leaders must be consistently reflective about how they posture themselves toward the future. This is a spiritual and strategic tension. To lead well in churches, businesses, educational institutions, and beyond requires a posture that is both humble and courageous. We are called to move forward in these uncertain times by remembering the past, engaging the present, and faithfully imagining the future. 

This kind of posture does not promise certainty. But it does create space for faithful, theologically grounded, and creative innovation. Being rooted in God’s ongoing work of renewal. 

References 

Root, A. (2022). The church after innovation: Questioning our obsession with work, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Baker Academic. 

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading. Harvard Business Review Press. 

Textor, R. B. (2003). Honoring excellence in anticipatory anthropology. Futures : The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, 35(5), 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00098-8 

World Economic Forum. (2018, April 5). This chart shows every major technological innovation in the last 150 years – and how they have changed the way we work. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/04/this-chart-shows-every-major-technological-innovation-in-the-last-150-years-and-how-they-have-changed-the-way-we-work/ 

Thillaivasan, D., Wickramasinghe, C., & Devdas, U. (2020). Theorizing the plausibility of exponential organizations through digital transformation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 11(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-12-2019-0101