Skip to main content

Spock Makes Star Trek Go

And you don't realize it at first. And this character seems oddly cold at times, with his logical analysis and suppression of emotion. The story on the Vulcans is that they are deeply passionate people with a lively spiritual life, but some centuries ago, those passions almost destroyed their civilization. A man named Surak led the people in prizing logic over emotion. The frustrations of the other characters at this philosophy often pushes the story forward.

But Spock is no ordinary Vulcan. His mother Amanda was human. After she died, his father Sarek (not to be confused with Surak above) took another human wife, Perrin. Spock often feels the tension of his emotions, believing them to arise from his human half. Of course, he is mistaken; the passions of his Vulcan heritage dwarf that of any human.

But his friendship with Jim Kirk would change how he understood humanity and himself. James T. Kirk is a roguish, passionate, loyal, and supremely courageous man. He has cheated death countless times, and when he finally died, it was in service to people he did not know, and to a ship and crew that were not his. It's hard for any of us to know when and how this unlikely friendship formed, but we know that Spock was his closest confidante. Kirk calls him "a brother," and is quite willing to sacrifice everything for him.

The truth of the matter is that Kirk is often a consequentialist. He needs Spock to remind him that what feels right is not always right, that intending to do good is not sufficient. Where logic and true humanity intersect, there is the natural law. And the aged Spock is one who took the best of Kirk and what he had known and fused them. Spock is the most Christ-like of all the characters in the Star Trek universe. When Spock died, he did so to save his friends. (Note to the reader: I am referring to the original timeline.) You can almost hear the words of Jesus echoing in your ears as you watch the scene: "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends." It remains the most affecting scene in the history of Star Trek.

At Spock's funeral, Kirk said, "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most human." And the sense of that is in Christ, the "perfect man," who in His Incarnation, reveals man to himself.

Somewhere in the written adaptions for the episodes for what we call, "The Original Series," D.C. Fontana, an important writer for Star Trek, relates a conversation with Gene Roddenberry (its creator) about Spock. Star Trek is still here because of this character. And Roddenberry agreed. There is plenty of humanist nonsense in Star Trek. But it finds its deepest resonance in those themes and motifs that are first present in the story of our redemption, and in Him by whom it is accomplished.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un