A Body in Transition: From Center to Institute
We are living through a hinge moment in the human story. Artificial intelligence, planetary crisis, and the steady erosion of shared meaning are not three separate emergencies; they are the same emergency seen from different sides. Each is asking the same question: who, in this century, do we intend to become? It is in the gravity of that question that the Center for Christogenesis is undergoing a transition — from “Christogenesis” to the “World Institute for Science, Religion and Culture.”
Some have asked, why the change? Why does anything change? Because life is energetic, a restless flow of attraction and transcendence — what Teilhard de Chardin called withinness and withoutness. There is an intrinsic dialectic built into nature, a yearning for resolution, for wholeness. On a practical level, that yearning expresses itself in language, and the language we use either opens or closes the door to the world we hope to form.
Teilhard coined “Christogenesis” to name a cosmic process of transpersonal formation — a vision he understood as global, planetary, and stretched across deep evolutionary time. Yet to the non-Teilhardian ear, the word lands as confessional, explicitly Christian, and therefore bounded, even divisive. Teilhard spent his life trying to widen that horizon, elucidating Christogenesis for a world still in formation. The new name does not abandon his vision; it removes the door that kept others outside it.
The deeper reason for the change has less to do with Teilhardian language than with what I have come to see as a crisis of knowing. Science and technology have transformed nearly everything around us — what we make, how we communicate, what we know, even what we are — and yet we continue to educate as if a century or two has not passed. We are forming students for a world that no longer exists. Unless we change the way we think, we will not change the way we act, and we are running out of time to act differently.
Education in the classical sense was formative: a deepening of mind and heart that expanded the whole person toward truth. Higher education today, by contrast, is largely organized around careerism and information streams designed to deliver success rather than wisdom. It produces graduates who can do almost anything and have not been asked what is worth doing. That is not a small failure. It is the failure on which most of the others rest.
The World Institute for Science, Religion and Culture (WISR) is an educational platform dedicated to forming the human person on the level of the Noosphere — the sphere of shared mind and meaning that Teilhard saw emerging across the planet, now intensified beyond his imagining by global communication and the rise of machine intelligence. WISR’s aim is to form the whole person for the whole world of the twenty-first century: to bring science, religion, and culture back into conversation precisely where they have been kept apart, and to take seriously that human beings are not finished. In doing so, WISR carries Christogenesis from concept into lived practice — an evolution from the conceptual to the embodied, from formation to transformation.
This is not an abstract project. One of my undergraduate students recently wrote, “Artificial intelligence forces me to think about the future as more than a technological issue. It is also an ethical, spiritual and evolutionary question.” Our choices shape the direction technology takes; the technology, in turn, will shape what kind of creatures we become. How do we live responsibly with the new forms of intelligence we are bringing into the world? Another student answered with arresting clarity: “The real danger of AI is not that it will take over but that we will use it to avoid the work of figuring out and becoming who we truly are.”
That is the heart of the matter. The real risk of this century is not that machines will think for us; it is that we will let them, and in doing so quietly hand over the labor of becoming human. WISR is built around precisely this point. Only by beginning here — at the level of formation, of who we are willing to become — can we hope to form a global ethics for a converging world. Christogenesis is the process of that formation.
This is why we need your support. Scholarships, faculty, conferences, the infrastructure of a thinking center — these are the ordinary materials out of which extraordinary things are built. True knowledge must lead to love, or it will dissolve into the infinite streams of information that already flood our lives. In the end, only love remains, because only love unites.
A world that does not learn to converge will not, in this age, outlast its divisions. Now we have an opportunity to educate for a new world rising up in our midst and to transform our lives for a world in formation. This is the best of Christogenesis as it yields to WISR, discovering a new God for the new person and a new earth. The past is behind us, and our only true reality is the future. Let us travel together into the future.
View print-friendly version
15 Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Posts
Holy Family University to Honor Theologian Ilia Delio
Read Holy Family University’s full announcement here. Holy Family University will grant two honorary Doctors of Humane Letters at its 2026 commencement ceremony on May 16. Sister Ilia Delio, OSF, Ph.D.,…
Dear Sister Ilia,
I have no doubt that you have given incredible amounts of time, thought and research into your determination to change your organization’s name from Christogenesis to The World Institute for Science, Religion and Culture (WISER). In the course of your explanation for this move you seem to assert that your thrust will be “forming the human person on the level of the Noosphere…”and that in so doing “…Christogenesis is the process for that formation”. So it would seem that Christogenesis remains central to your endeavor while concomitantly eliminating that term from your title. The apparent reason seems to be that by eliminating the term Christogenesis you might have greater appeal to non-Christians who may be offended / turned-off by the word Christ. Quite a dilemma you have. How to form people into the process of Christogenesis without letting them know Christ is in the picture. YIKES!
Sister Ilia, you also mention that it is your intent that WISER bring “….science,religion and culture back into conversation precisely where they have been kept apart, and to take seriously that humans are not finished. In doing so, WISER carries Christogenesis from concept to lived practice—an evolution from the conceptual to the embodied, from formation to transformation.” Personally, l applaud this goal 100%. Yet in your attempts at fulfilling your goal, I find the name change to WISER disturbing.
The Triune God is the source and foundation of the whole evolutionary enterprise. The Christ of Christogenesis is the bearer of that process. Is the transformation that you foresee really into a secular humanism such as the name, The Wold Institute of Science, Religion and Culture, might connote? I suspect not. To me, the new name and its acronym WISER (pronounced wiser???) bear a tone of arrogance besides being somewhat vapid lacking the sense of movement inherent in the name Christogenesis.
Sister Ilia, if you must change the name, I would hope that in your esteemed wisdom you might find a name that encapsulates more clearly your goals of forming people through the process of Christogenesis while concurrently engaging support for that endeavor through conversation with science,religion and culture.
Blessings on you tremendous work,
Bill Eidle
My Response to the Commentary: A Body in Transition: From Center to Institute
The title itself sets the tone for my response. Let’s start with – From/To, which I will highlight and assign the keys words in its place.
The Who/What question, as an Open/Close response, envisions the Old/New name of Christogenesis/WISR (or World Institute for Science, Religion and Culture) as a continued human formation/transformation pathway to 1) encompass the Earth/Noosphere, and 2) the ever- expanding Religion/Science vision of the Christ/Universe.
The personal challenge is to See/Know the choices posed by the AI/Technology phenomenon and driven by the Data-Information/Love opportunities to live a Present/Future reality that entails a “new God, for the new person and a new earth.”
I am amazed at what the future holds and appreciate the hope that Ilia brings. At 81 years of age. I ask the Almighty to continue to call me and bless me with a desire to move forward.
“Some things change, some things never do”. I agree language and names must change in order to keep in sync with natural change; it seems wrong sometimes, but I agree The Centre for Christogenesis name should change. The word “Institution” works well (like Brian Swimmes “Institute of Integral Studies”).
However I disagree with the idea of a “new God”, tradition cannot be erased, and after all, there is only one God.
I just hope the Catholic Church can change also in this direction.
I am grateful for this writing. I will do what I can in the time I have left. Iam 94 years old and have been waiting a long time for this to be understood. Thank you.