(considering) 8:28

As many of you dear readers know, I will soon be leaving Canada for a position as a preacher in South Korea. Perhaps it is this coming move that is giving me some courage in letting out my inner conservative (conservatism being slightly less acceptable in Newfoundland than a love for Quebec). But I wonder about the sanity of my beloved homeland in any case.

Today I decided to renew my driver’s license. It will expire on my birthday this year, and I will be in Asia by the time that happens. So, I went to the services office to get the license renewed, foolishly believing this would be a simple and sensical process.

I arrived at a small building (that had once been a local bar) to get the work done, somewhat pleasantly surprised that I would be the next person served (my number was the next one). It was this soon hope that kept me mollified for the next 30 minutes as I waited for the next available agent to serve me.

When I came to the counter, however, I was told that I could not renew my license until 45 days before my license expired. Okay, assuming that there is a reason for this, I asked why. I was given the reply that it was “because the computer won’t accept it”.

Somehow sure that the agent was having fun at my expense, I asked again for the reason that I could not renew my license. Again, I got the somewhat testy reply concerning the computer system.

Now, to explain to some who may not know why I was struck by this, my question was not as to the reason for the agent’s inability to do something, but was rather as to why the system was designed this way. No answer was forthcoming to this query, even when the agent got her supervisor to respond.

So what was I to do with a system that would not let me renew yet? The agent said that I could 1) get my picture taken now, so that it would be on file, 2) fill out the form now so that the information would also be on file, and 3) send someone down to pick up the license near the end of June and then mail me the driver’s license in Asia. I did all this, and now they are all ready to print up my license at the end of June when HAL decides that I am allowed to have it. But what possible advantage is there to the system for making me wait? If anything is to change between now and 5 weeks from now, the people at Newfoundland Services aren’t going to know. I’m not going to be there to get my new license.

I was drawn to think of my job as a lowly call centre agent while I was waiting for a posting. While I fixed internet for people, I was often asked questions as to why, for example, a person had to wait 30 days to get back an e-mail address once it had been deleted. I always needed to have an answer beyond “because the system won’t let me”, even when the underlying reason was stupid. I was trained to give these answers in a complete deadpan because if I didn’t, the client would go to the competition whose agents had a better understanding. All the while, my pay scale hovered slightly minimum wage (a good deal less than agents and supervisors are paid at Newfoundland government services).

And people wonder why I oppose the government having as much of a role in our lives as they do……

That seems to be the opinion of one of my sometime readers.

Of course, I think she is mostly right, but as with most determinist  readings of a given series of facts, I think she (like the bias people she refers to) misses a great deal of the situation. I think that honestly it’s both (mixed with some arrogance). 

1) The journalists actually believe they understand the issues, well before actually asking the questions (arrogance). The result is that they need only do cursory examinations of the particulars of a given story, because they already believe they understand the overarching narrative of which their story is just a piece. This problem is not limited to journalists, but is common throughout western culture (as even this blog is a partial example). We often believe we’re a lot more knowledgeable than we are, and it’s been a long time since humility was considered a virtue instead  of a neurosis.

Unfortunately life is complex, and the differences between overarching perspectives are hard to capture in a sound byte.

2) The Journalistic worldview is shaped by their culture. Journalists often hang with other journalists, or with other people who have the same educational background. No surprise, but then that is what shapes their understanding of a given set of events. They unconsciously make it fit their metanarrative, and since it "fits" they assume they have it right.

I think that may be why the freakishly talented j-school student who interviewed me for a story after I had dropped out of seminary because I was too conservative, used me for the "liberal" viewpoint. In one sense, I am (I find the Canadian Book of Common Prayer dry). But in most senses (as you can see by reading this site) I’m conservative (at least religiously speaking).

3) Both of these points, if the journalist is not aware of them, leads to “laziness”. Add in the crazy deadlines and inability of journalists to specialize due to budgetary constraints, and you have a recipe for shallow and lazy reporting. It’s not just the specific journalist’s fault. Indeed, we who read journalists may be partially to blame as well. Why aren’t we investing more in the people who inform us about the world?

P.S. I’ll be getting back to my series on the 5 points of Calvinism soon. I apologize, but I’m in the midst of relocating to the other side of the planet.

Moving along in what is often called the 5 points of Calvinism, we come to the question of particular redemption (or what others would call “limited atonement”).

This point is basically that Jesus Christ did not come into the world to save everybody, but to reconcile his own people to God. The majority of the verses quoted previously also have a bearing on this, but most especially there is the statement that:

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
(Joh 10:14-16)

Note that Jesus is not saying that He lays down his life for all of those in the world who may, or may not come to faith in Him. No, Jesus dies for “the sheep”. This means the believers in Him. Thus by extension we can say that Jesus, in a special way, died for those he came to save. He knew who He was dying for on the cross, even if we were still sinners (or not even born) at the time.

Now I would hope that some thought about the first two points I discussed would blunt the largest objection to this point. That being the claim that because Jesus only dies for some, that He is somehow unjust in doing it.

However, as we have seen, the Christian message is that justice would demand that we all perish for our sin. The injustice is that any are saved, which is dealt with by the atonement. Christ’s death absorbed the wrath we so richly deserve. God’s love shows its depth in that it purchases for us what we could not earn, so that God is both just and loving in salvation.

Again, all of this is to the praise of God

Soli Deo Gloria

Bible: USA Today prints an article about scriptural authority, Albert Mohler responds.

Resurrection: AN Wilson (who wrote the book “Jesus”, claiming that Jesus was a failed revolutionary) seems to have a change of heart.

Piracy: A French naval ship captures a Somali pirate ship.

U.S. Politics: Former Illinois senator Rod Blagojevich petitions to be allowed to join a Costa Rican reality show.