I wanted to share this on my blog as I think it smartly integrates good theology with a creative presentation.

From a Christian perspective, who we essentially are is not something that is directly discoverable through reason or emotion, for our essential self is bound in the redemptive activity of God in Christ. Our essence is embedded in our relationship with God, wherein his energies works through Christ to constitute us into the image he had of us in Christ from the foundations of the world. This means that our essence does not directly lie within us waiting to be discovered by whatever means. Instead we paradoxically discover ourselves by going outside of ourselves: outside of our emotions, our desires, and our limited understanding, and into the person of Jesus, who is the fount of all that is genuine about any of us.

The thing that is tricky in the above framework is that our desires can be both an indicator of what God, through his Spirit, is working in our hearts, and it can be an expression of the brokenness that continues to blight our existence. For this reason, though our desires should not be stoically denied, as Buddhist counsel might offer, neither should they be consulted as the final arbiter of what is most true about us, or what is ultimately going to bring us fulfillment. Instead, discernment is needed regarding the significance of our desires, which is precisely what the world cannot see. From the world’s perspective the idea that our genuine self and self fulfillment is somehow beyond us, and particularly beyond our scope of understanding, is just plain absurd.

All this said, if God was like the Chairman of the Adjustment Bureau, and his plan was as rigid and static as the movie indicated, then I would probably be rebelling as well. But, the fact is that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is a dynamic and responsive God, who made us to be dynamic and responsive beings. This God does not have a strict blueprint for our lives, but he certainly has endowed each one of us with skills, desires, and purpose that can only find their fullest satisfaction and expression in and through him.

Putting the Golden Mean aside, the other day I was listening to NPR and I heard a report by their ombudsmen, Alicia C. Shepherd, about bias and the media. In this report, Ms. Shepherd mentioned that “between June 9 and Oct. 19, 2008 [her] office received 282 emails specifically accusing NPR of favoring Obama and 252 emails accusing NPR of favoring McCain.” She further said she had received hundreds of more email that charged the network with being too conservative or too liberal. As the report continued, Ms. Shepherd went on to give further information and statistics regarding NPR’s coverage during this election season, the summation of which was that both candidates received roughly equal coverage, and if anything, McCain received slightly more.

Beyond the amount of coverage, Ms. Shepherd also acknowledged that a complete picture regarding media bias must address “how a broadcast network covers political candidates.” Elaborating on this, she gave a few examples of how different types of coverage can leave different types of impressions upon the listeners, even when the coverage is analytical and not promotional in nature.

Perhaps the most illuminating factor that Ms. Shepherd addressed regarding media bias was the related issue of listener bias, which is to say that people hear through their values and convictions, which influences their impressions of how content was presented. Not wanting to place the impression of bias solely upon the listeners, however, Ms. Shepherd referred to a report conducted by Timothy Groseclose, a political science professor, which stated that 18 of the 20 major media outlets were just left of center in relation to the average American voter.

In the end, what I found interesting regarding Ms. Shepherd’s report was the location of bias. Is it something in the media or something in the listener? My own personal conviction, one that I think was implied by Ms. Shepherd’s report, is that though journalists are professionals who are trained to approach news coverage objectively, no one is ever completely free from values and viewpoints when it comes to handling and presenting information.

So, do you think complete objectivity is possible? Given human nature, what should we reasonably expect from journalists and the news media? How sensitive and alert are you to your own biases? How do you strive to be as truthful or objective as possible? Are there news sources you recommend, and do you recommend them because they are fairly objective or might they just align with your convictions?