Perhaps you’ve seen the clip, or perhaps you’ve heard conversations ‘round the Internet’s water cooler (Facebook). But here’s the scoop in case you haven’t: A few weeks ago comedian Louis C.K. offered a brilliant, albeit colorful, rant on how smartphones are impacting our culture.
“You need to build the ability to just be yourself and not be doing something. That’s what the phones are taking away. The ability to just sit there.”
Instead of being present, we text, tweet, update statuses, and, in the end, miss out. We’ve grown so accustomed to not looking at people when we talk to them that we might not even notice that they’re missing out too.
What exactly is the payoff in staying plugged in, yet disconnected? Louis C.K. suggests it’s to avoid the realization that “underneath everything, there’s that thing: that forever empty…that knowledge that it’s all for nothing and you’re all alone.” Pretty depressing if that’s your worldview. I’ll take scrolling Reddit over sitting in that sad state any day.
In contrast, the Christian perspective offers an optimistic worldview. In his upcoming book, Christian Endgame, philosopher and theologian Ken Samples writes,
The good news is that Jesus Christ is hope incarnate. His incomparable life in this time-space world testifies to the goodness and value of being made in the image of God. Christ’s atoning death on the cross of Calvary instills confidence to believe that God loves sinners and has indeed forgiven the sin that weighs on the human conscience. Jesus’ amazing bodily Resurrection from the grave gives assurance that not even physical death can crush a living hope in God.
This promise of Christ’s Second Coming ought to permeate a believer’s life—especially those quiet, still moments—with joyful hope of being in His presence, which is the ultimate connection. On the other hand, Ken is quick to clarify that “It is possible to become so preoccupied with future things that one neglects one’s responsibilities in this present age.” In other words, believers are not in the clear to Candy Crush our lives away simply because our real life begins in the new creation.
I recall a moving panel discussion from the Inhabit conference in New York last week. Andrea Lippke, a Brooklyn-based editor and writer and mom, talked about time being “sliced so thin” she could see to the next moment. I know the feeling. Chances are you do, too. The ability to “just sit there” is a lost art when there are clothes to fold and meetings to attend and notification alerts to answer.
Andrea shared how a look from her daughter set everything into perspective. “Be here now, mama,” her daughter’s eyes pleaded. The visual picture hit harder than a loss in Words with Friends and left me wondering how God, too, wants us to be present in the here and now.
If hope in Christ shouts louder in the quiet moments, why not invite them a bit more often by unplugging and reconnecting with God and with those around us? In contrast to that “forever empty” feeling, believers experience hope in this life that we are promised eternity with Christ, being “forever full” in the next life.
As Ken puts it, this future hope “can fuel believer’s passion to begin the everlasting worship service now.” Maybe then we can find deeper appreciation for “future things” and, better yet, share the hope we have with those struggling with the “forever empty” feeling. Assuming we can put our phones down for a second.
–Sandra
Resources:
Christian Endgame: Careful Thinking about the End Times by Kenneth Samples (Releases November 2013)
“Thinking about ‘Future Things,’” 12-part series
Take Two 
October 11, 2013 at 10:50 am
Pascal said it first! 🙂 About man’s need for diversions to avoid the realities of life; the heart of man does not change…
October 11, 2013 at 6:17 pm
Distraction is a huge barrier to closeness with God. It always has been. Here’s a recent thought on the subject (tied to the Belgic Confession):
http://sharedveracity.net/2013/08/03/dr-bells-submarine-chaser/
Thanks for the post! I’m looking forward to the realease of Ken’s book.
By the way, Dr. Ross was brilliant today in his debate with Jason Lisle at he NCCA conference in Charlotte–really, really impresive!
October 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
“Christ’s atoning death on the cross of Calvary instills confidence to believe that God loves sinners and has indeed forgiven the sin that weighs on the human conscience. ”
There is a small problem here: according to Ken’s worldview, God predetermined most such sinners to die without him and ETERNALLY suffer, as he argued in length in his last podcast episodes.
October 17, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Hi, Lotharson. Thank you for your comment. I forwarded your comment to Kenneth Samples and he offered the following response:
Lotharson:
Greetings again.
Since you have identified yourself on my blog site as holding a progressive (doctrinally liberal) theology, I’m not surprised that you object to eternal punishment. But your description of the historic Reformed position concerning predestination (and the one I also hold) is an unfortunate straw man fallacy. The traditional infralapsarian position of Reformed theology is quite compatible with the quote from me that Sandra Dimas used in her fine article. As a theological liberal you have every right to disagree with my conservative theology, but I would encourage you to do a little more research into Reformed theology so that you avoid future misrepresentations.
I recommend you read William Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology and/or Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology for a careful discussion of the historic Reformed view of predestination (particularly the differences between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, also called “the order of God’s decrees”).
Respectfully yours,
Kenneth Samples
October 17, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Dear Mr. Sample, thanks for your answer.
I think that theologian Roger Olson demonstrated rather conclusively in his book “Against Calvinism” that divine determinism and TULIP logically entail that God predetermined people to eternally burn in hell, there is just no other escape, unless one is willing to introduce libertarian free will in the game.
So I know the differences between both forms of Calvinism but do find them insignificant.
Do you think that God still loves the individuals eternally suffering? How can such a love be a meaningful concept if their atrocious suffering does not serve any redemptive purpose at all?
Now I know you are very busy so that I don’t necessarily expect an answer.
I hope you don’t mind if I keep commenting on your blog in the future and I guess there are probably quite a few things we agree upon.
Friendly greetings from Europe, Marc.
P.S: a requirement for being a theological liberal is denying the supernatural, which I don’t:
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/on-the-definition-and-meaningfulness-of-progressive-christianity/
October 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Hi again, Lotharson. Here’s another response from Kenneth:
Lotharson:
This will have to be my last response since I’m working on a new book.
It is interesting that you quote a conservative Arminian theologian to attempt to settle the question as to whether Reformed theology is theologically consistent. Did you also read Reformed theologian Michael Horton’s book entitled For Calvinism? The two books were written as counterpoints.
With all due respect to theologian Roger Olson (a skilled and conservative Arminian theologian), his criticisms of Reformed theology were not convincing in my opinion. I think if you are going to declare centuries-debated theological issues to be settled you should admit that that is merely your opinion. Arguably historic Christianity’s greatest theologians Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin held very similar views when it comes divine election and they were very different than the conclusions of Arminius and the Wesleyan tradition.
I think infralapsarianism reasonably shows that my quote in Sandra’s article is consistent with Reformed theology. And as the historic Augustinian-Reformed consensus reasons if God elects out of the fall then no one can rightly claim that they deserve God’s grace and mercy and have been treated unjustly.
But of course these great and perplexing theological questions have not been answered to everyone’s satisfaction and so all of us should let people know that we are merely giving our considered theological perspectives.
I’m glad to hear that you believe in the supernatural. Thanks for that further clarification of your theological viewpoint.
Best regards,
Ken Samples