I wasn't going to start watching any new television shows
this year, but one of them caught my eye: Journeyman. I've always been a sucker for time travel plots or shows about people fixing things that have gone wrong (either in this
universe (Early Edition) or a parallel
one (Sliders)). You put both of those things together and you
have the formula that frequently appears in my list of favorite shows since
that king of all shows from my childhood, Voyagers!. (And yes, the exclamation point is part of
the title.) So I felt that if any show
was going to be so complete in its Amyness, it was my duty to at least give it
a try.
The plot of Journeyman
is simple. A man (Dan) suddenly finds himself
unexpectedly traveling to the past (so far, only within the past 30 or 40
years) for brief periods of time. He has
no control over when this happens or for how long, and at first, the trips seem
to be random. But soon he discovers there's a meaningful pattern to his journeys.
He finds himself following the life of a specific person as he jumps
through history. With a little help from
the Internet during his intermittent returns to the present, Dan is able to
figure out how he can help/protect/save the one he's following so that person
can then go on to fulfill his purpose of helping other people in the present. When Dan's mission is accomplished, he's on
to the next episode where he finds himself tracking a new person in
trouble. ...Okay, maybe that doesn't sound
so simple to some of you, but for sci-fi fans, this is a pretty common formula.
So far I've been enjoying the show, but I've found one thing about it to be very odd. Dan expresses his confusion about what is happening to him and how, but he hasn't yet even once asked the most obvious question to me: who is causing this to happen? For any thoughtful observer, there's no doubt that a personal being is behind his travels; random forces aren't complex (putting him in just the right time and place over and over in a specific person's life) and meaningful (there's a definite purpose--the person is saved so she can then do a specific act in the future that will save others). There is intelligence, foreknowledge, goodness, and care involved, and all of these things point to a personal, powerful, compassionate being. Yet, there's no talk of God or to God, even though it seems that both of these reactions would be most natural in this situation. There's only a strange, unnatural silence on the whole subject--particularly strange since Dan recognizes the intelligent design involved as he discovers and notes the "reasons why" he was "supposed" to help each person.
So why no talk of who might be behind this? It may be because we've been conditioned by Darwinian thought to ignore obvious signs of design and purpose. We want to enjoy their benefits (a meaningful life, or in this case, a meaningful story) without taking them too seriously or following them to their logical conclusion, so we've trained ourselves not to ask the "who" question.
[T]hat which is known about God
is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse. For even though they knew God,
they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their
speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:19-21)



