Skip to main content

Love Is The Answer, Redux

I was thinking about my favorite movies, and especially what makes them effective in terms of pathos. The writer sets up for the things he wants you to feel; he or she seeds the ground, so to speak, so that when the big climax comes, it doesn't feel forced, cheap, or silly. One of the great things about the troika of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley--better known as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy--is that those actors spent a lot of time thinking about their characters in relation to the others. What would it be like if I were this guy, and these other two guys were my closest friends in the universe? Everything you would say, or could say, changes as a result. In the greatest scene in Star Trek history--the climax of The Wrath of Khan--the whole thing was set up by another scene in Spock's quarters. Kirk just found out that someone has blocked his radio transmission with Dr. Carol Marcus, as they tried to find out who is playing games with Marcus's Genesis project. The Enterprise is ordered to investigate, and now Admiral Kirk is authorized to take command. (Captain Spock is technically in command, training Starfleet cadets.)

Kirk is emotionally invested in convincing Spock that he has no interest in poaching his command. He's possibly feeling guilt from having done so many years before, when he took command from an inexperienced Will Decker at the outset of the V'Ger probe crisis. Spock first says his first iconic axiom in response to Kirk's continued resistance to take command. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Kirk continues his protest, and Spock says, "Jim, you proceed from a false assumption. I am a Vulcan; I have no ego to bruise." Spock tells him that his "first best destiny" is commanding a starship, and quite probably, the Enterprise. Kirk never should have accepted the promotion to Admiral, Spock says. And then Spock ends the scene with this: "You are my superior officer. You are also my friend. I have been, and always shall be, yours." Kirk takes his next steps boldly, in the confidence of that support and loyalty. When Spock later sacrifices himself to save his comrades using the same words he used in the prior scene, Kirk realizes the depth of Spock's love, for him, and for the crew. Powerful bookends.

As a side-note, many people remind us rightly that love is not a feeling, but a determined willing of the good for another. Observers often say these things in response to a perceived pervasive sentimentalism without content. Yet it is also true that strong emotions of thankfulness and affection are appropriate responses to heroic acts of love. I can recall reading a story of one of many Christians who sheltered Jews during the Nazi reign of terror. The unalloyed justice of that action overwhelms one, as well it should.

Feelings are not the whole story, but they are valuable and good. In fact, when people have inappropriate emotional reactions to reality, that can be the first sign that something is wrong. In any case, I have observed a kind of spiritualizing of stoicism. Expressing emotion is for Them, and you know how those people are. It spills into all sorts of areas in life. If I become aware of some injustice, as a matter of emotion and intellect, I should desire to address the injustice, thinking of possible ways to do that. There is no purpose in prattling on about being people of "logic" and "facts,"--unlike others--when what one intends to say is, "I don't care about this." You may find yourself morally at fault in such an admission. Yet it's better than hiding the truth. The Love that begets all other loves can free us from that fault as well.

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