Thursday, August 6, 2009

"Why Vulcans and Intellectuals Don't belong in the Big Chair"

Here's something for the Star Trek part of this blog.

At Pajamas TV, there is an analysis of the recent comparison of President Obama to Spock by some in the media.

Say what you want about the political side of things and the intellectual side of things, but he definitely out Star Treks those who have made the Trek comparison.

The best line is in this analysis of Gene Roddenberry's project is how Roddenberry created "the template for the only genuinely American mythology of the modern world."

I personally think that leadership involves an intellectual component. Without making any comments on our President, I simple note the sum total of leadership is not intellectualism alone. A leader needs to think and be reflective. Kirk was not unintelligent. but he had a gusto that Spock lacked. But leaders do need a certain bravado, a certain willingness to, 'pull the trigger' if you will. Sometimes the intellectual can be undone by endless analysis. A leader also needs moral conviction which is never something ascertained by intellectualism alone. Granted, a moral conviction should be arrived at through analysis and thoughtful processes but thoughtful processes do not alone a conviction make. Conviction comes from character and character is forged in trials and perseverance not simply study.

Now for the pastor, I am fully committed to the importance of study. A pastor must be intellectual. His ministry must be one of studying the Word of God. He must be able to weigh and exegete passages. This requires mental energy and intelligence. But a pastor cannot be a detached intellectualist. As much as he loves his books, he must love his people, God's people. I am saying this not because I have mastered this balance but because this is the goal of the Bible.

The apostle Paul was brilliant. He understood Scripture and could argue and reason intelligently for his day--although His message of Christ crucified was scorned by mere human wisdom. Yet Paul had compassion. He suffered with his people. He strove for the elect. He had a gusto, a conviction driven by the gospel. He was a leader. He was intelligent. But he was not an intellectual in the contemporary sense. At the risk of reductionism, anachronism and a whole host of other sins: Paul was a 'Kirk' and not a 'Spock.'

No comments:

"The Voyages..." Forays into Biblical studies, Biblical exegesis, theology, exposition, life, and occasionally some Star Trek...