For about 20 years, Ray Keating wrote a weekly column - a short time with the New York City Tribune, more than 11 years with Newsday, another seven years with Long Island Business News, plus another year-and-a-half with RealClearMarkets.com. As an economist, Keating also pens an assortment of analyses each week. With the Keating Files, he decided to expand his efforts with regular commentary touching on a broad range of issues, written by himself and an assortment of talented contributors and columnists. So, here goes...

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Death and Resurrection in Game of Thrones

 (Warning: Spoilers)

 

by David Keating

The Keating Files – October 15, 2020

 

About a year and a half ago, the end of the television series Game of Thrones aired for the first time. In the aftermath of what was, in many people’s estimation, the most poorly received finale for a series of Game of Thrones’ magnitude, there has been much written and dissected about the show. This spoiler-heavy article discusses the ending, so for those who haven’t finished the show, be warned. 

 

Complaints about the ending to Game of Thrones seem to stem from two main areas. The first complaint focuses on the unsatisfying character arcs. It wasn’t that people necessarily had a problem with where the characters ended up at the finale, but rather it was how the writers chose to get them from point A to point B. Bran Stark may very well have been destined to rule over the Seven Kingdoms, but given that the writers refused to “show their work,” so to speak, people came away frustrated and angry. 



The second main complaint emerged from the showrunners decision regarding actions taken by certain characters. I’ll explain. 

 

Jon Snow, the bastard son of Ned Stark (or so we are led to believe), takes the typical “hero’s journey.” The journey of our main protagonist seemed to follow the monomyth, clearly outlined by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces. The hero’s journey typically starts with a call to adventure, the death of a mentor, the descent into the abyss (death and rebirth), followed by the hero winning the day having been transformed by his experience. 

 

For the first seven seasons of the show, Jon Snow followed this formula and people were, by and large, happy with it. The problem for Game of Thrones emerged in season 8. Instead of our hero who is on his journey defeating the Night King (who quite literally is the harbinger of death, having raised an army of zombies to do his bidding), another character kills the avatar of ice and death. That character was Arya Stark.

 

Arya Stark, the youngest daughter in the Stark family, uses her skills as an assassin to kill the Night King while our hero with a thousand faces watches on, unable to get to the final confrontation, let alone deal the deadly blow. The scene is beautifully shot, the music is intense, and the action is well choreographed. The only problem is: it didn’t fit her character arc. Arya’s character arc was meant to lead her into confrontation with the nobles in King’s Landing; the same nobles who took her father’s head and propelled her on her call to adventure. 

 

By contrast, the Night King had nothing to do with Arya’s call to adventure, nor her emergence from the conflict in her character arc. The writers sacrificed good writing for a surprise, twist ending, which they thought audiences would react to. And react they did! Audiences signed petitions demanding a new ending, they punished HBO’s social media via Twitter, and review-bombed the show’s scores on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Amazon’s customer reviews. 

 

That behavior aside, why were audiences so displeased? I would argue it comes back to fundamental understandings of good, evil, and the monomyth that I wrote about earlier. Perhaps, most importantly, the showrunners ignored what people know about death and resurrection. Characters that die and then rise again, necessarily have to defeat evil and win the day. It’s true of fiction, but it’s also true of Christianity as well. When Jesus rises from the dead, Christianity teaches that sin, death, and the devil are defeated, the battle is over and the day is won. It wouldn’t make any sense, as far as the narrative and the story are concerned, for Christ to rise from the dead and then hand off the final victorious blow to someone else. 

 

I’m not sure that the writers of the show would have been aware of this idea, but audiences certainly were. What is particularly neat about this, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that your average viewer still intuitively understands themes surrounding death and resurrection, good and evil, and the arc of a hero. The arc of the various heroes we read about and watch closely mirror the arc of Jesus for this very reason. Heroes like Jon Snow are meant to follow the path of Christ Jesus as they die, rise again, and defeat a powerful foe. Perhaps the predominantly negative reaction to the ending of Game of Thrones is a reminder to fans and creators that the monomyth still works for a reason, and that reason, I would argue, comes from a fondness for the Christian imagery inherent in good mythmaking. 

 

__________

 

The Reverend David Keating is pastor at St. John’s Lutheran Church in Curtis, Nebraska.

 

Previously by Pastor Keating…

 

“Greta Gerwig’s Church Nostalgia: Why Does Hollywood Miss Christianity?

 

“Interstellar: Love, Time, and Space”

 

“Mad Men - What is Happiness? Don Draper and St. Augustine”

 

Zack Snyder’s Messy Super-Jesus”

 

“Short Message: How Do, or Should, Christians Witness?”

 

“Amazon’s ‘The Boys’ - Does Christianity Have a Culture Problem?

 

“Reflecting on 9/11: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?”

 

Monday, October 12, 2020

Is Trump Turning Texas Purple?

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – October 12, 2020

 

Is Donald Trump managing to turn Texas from a solid Red State (i.e., Republican) to a Purple State (a toss-up state)? If so, that would have earth-shaking consequences for American presidential politics.



Consider that the last time Texas favored a Democrat over the Republican candidate in a presidential contest was 44 years ago in 1976. Texas has gone Republican in every race since.

 

And the margins of victory generally have been pretty comfortable. The exceptions were in two losing efforts by Republicans, with Texan Ross Perot factoring into the equation. George H.W. Bush earned only 40.6 percent of the Texas vote in 1992, with Bill Clinton getting 37.1 percent and Ross Perot 22 percent. In the next election (1996), Bob Dole received 48.8 percent to Clinton’s 43.8 percent and Perot at 6.8 percent.

 

Republicans re-established solid wins in the next four elections. In 2000, George W. Bush took 59.3 percent in his home state versus Al Gore’s 38 percent, and in 2004, it was Bush 61.1 percent to John Kerry’s 38.2 percent. And then even in losing national efforts, Republicans did well in Texas in 2008 and 2012, with John McCain beating Barack Obama 55.5 percent to 43.7 percent, and Mitt Romney defeating Obama 57.2 percent to 41.4 percent. 

 

And then we come to 2016. Donald Trump won Texas, but only with 52.1 percent of the vote. So, Trump topped the percentages earned by Bush 41 and Dole in losing efforts in 1992 and 1996, respectively. But Trump managed the lowest tally in Texas for a Republican presidential winner since Herbert Hoover in 1928.

 

However, Trump’s 2016 Texas win was still quite comfortable given that Hillary Clinton only earned 43.1 percent of the state vote.

 

And now we’re only three weeks away from Election Day 2020, and President Trump and his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, are in a dead heat in Texas, according to the polls.

 

Of the Texas October polls, one has Trump up by 7 percentage points and another up by 5 points. That’s what one would expect for a Republican in Texas. However, another poll has Biden up by 2 percentage points, and another has the Democrat up by one point. And two other polls put the two candidates even.

 

Win or lose, Biden seems on track, at least at this point in time, to earn the largest percentage vote in Texas for any Democrat since Jimmy Carter won the state in 1976.

 

Suddenly, Texas is competitive. That’s deeply troubling news for Republicans. After all, of the four most populous states, two are solid Blue (Democrat), i.e., California and New York, and one, Florida, has gone from leaning Republican to being a Purple State.

 

We’ll have a somewhat clearer picture of what’s happening in Texas after this year’s election. But even then, there will be the question as to whether a poor showing, perhaps even a loss, by Trump in Texas might be a short-term Trump effect or something more lasting for the GOP. And if Texas does in fact go Purple, that would mean that there would be no reliable Red States among at least the top dozen populous states. For Republicans, that would be a big “Yikes!”

 

__________

 

Recent and Related Columns by Ray Keating…

 

“A Flood of Bad Economics on Tech and Immigration”

 

“Polls Before the Dreaded Presidential Debates”

 

“Voting Your Conscience Isn’t Wasting Your Vote”

 

“Character-Rich Sci-Fi: Take the Netflix Journey with ‘Away’”

 

“Applaud, Don’t Attack, Robinhood”

 

“Sports Are Back But Americans Aren’t Happy”

 

“Should We Take Our Ball and Go Home When Pro Athletes Disagree with Us?”

 

“‘Greyhound’ Ranks as Strong Storytelling – Even on a Smaller Screen”

 

__________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should KnowThe views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

Keating’s latest novel is  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12thbook in the series. The best way to fully enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

PRESS CLUB C Podcast with Ray Keating – Episode #34: 5 Points on the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Pick


Ray Keating sorts through the ugly politics on both sides of the political aisle when it comes to the Amy Coney Barrett nomination to the Supreme Court. While acknowledging that she likely would be a fine addition to the Court, Keating also addresses the issue that ultimately frustrates those of us who desire a Court that is not activist but instead one that properly interprets and applies the Constitution. That problem is stare decisis, or elevating precedent to the same level as, or even above, the Constitution and the law. Keating hopes that Justice Barrett will follow Justice Clarence Thomas, but he has his doubts.

Friday, October 9, 2020

Hey! For Less Than 6 Bucks Enjoy the Weekend with a Great Read!

Grab the Kindle edition of any or all of the Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries. Nice savings over the paperback price. By the way, make sure you’re caught up on all 12 thrillers/mysteries because another Pastor Stephen Grant adventure – VATICAN SHADOWS – will be arriving soon!


Get the Kindle edition of THE TRAITOR for only $5.99 at 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1709209771

 

Get the Kindle edition of DEEP ROUGH for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/107308843X

 

Get the Kindle edition of SHIFTING SANDS for only $4.49 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1730956866

 

Get the Kindle edition of HEROES AND VILLAINS for only $4.49 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1718881614

 

Get the Kindle edition of REAGAN COUNTRY for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1979463514

 

Get the Kindle edition of LIONHEARTS for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1548964182

 

Get the Kindle edition of WINE INTO WATER for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1515274950

 

Get the Kindle edition of MURDERER’S ROW for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1514137615

 

Get the Kindle edition of THE RIVER for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1499514174

 

Get the Kindle edition of AN ADVENT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY for only $4.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1480174491

 

Get the Kindle edition of ROOT OF ALL EVIL? for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B083TX7M9P

 

Get the Kindle edition of WARRIOR MONK for only $5.99 at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1793144745

 

Thursday, October 8, 2020

Greta Gerwig’s Church Nostalgia: Why Does Hollywood Miss Christianity?

 by David Keating

The Keating Files – October 8, 2020

 

A common critique leveled at Hollywood is that it’s a place unwelcoming to Christians and those who hold a more traditional worldview or set of values. This can be true for many segments of the entertainment world. However, something that I’ve noticed while watching some of the most highly acclaimed movies of the past several years is a degree of, for lack of a better word, nostalgia for church. 

 

This doesn’t mean that there is somehow a Christian revolution in filmmaking happening right now, but instead, I would argue that there is a certain feeling of longing for a time when Christianity occupied a percentage of one’s time throughout the week. Christianity provided a sense of identity and meaning for many Americans in the past and Hollywood has taken note of the Church’s public absence in the culture. This feeling, I think, has slipped into film in some pretty interesting ways. 



Specifically, I want to take a look at this “church nostalgia” phenomenon through the lens of A24’s Lady Bird (2017). Directed by Greta Gerwig, Lady Bird is a coming-of-age film that deals with the typical themes that you would expect of the genre. The movie takes a look at what it means to come into one’s adulthood, taking responsibility for the decisions that one makes, and it aims to struggle with the feeling of the loss of childhood and youth that happens as one ages and transitions to a new stage in life. 

 

Gerwig has described the film as semi-autobiographical as it draws on many experiences that she dealt with as a teenager heading into her college years. The main character in the film, Christine McPherson (portrayed by Saoirse Ronan), attends a Catholic school and tries her best to cast off both her religious and familial identity. She and her best friend Julie cut class and sit in the sacristy consuming unconsecrated wafers. She voices pro-choice opinions at the school’s pro-life rally, and even vandalizes the car belonging to one of the nuns who teaches at the school. Christine essentially aims to behave in an irreligious way in her religious environment. 

 

As part of her attempt to throw away the identity her parents have provided for her, she has (prior to the film’s beginning) begun to go by Lady Bird instead of the name that her parents gave to her. In addition to these behaviors, we also see the run-of-the-mill rebelliousness that comes with youth, such as staying out late, underage drinking, and having run ins with the opposite sex, etc. 

 

What I find so interesting about Lady Bird isn’t all of these behaviors, but rather the way that the film portrays them. Rather than teenage angst and rebelliousness being celebrated, Lady Bird, more often than not, comes across as rather unsympathetic and (at times) selfish. 

 

While she struggles to find out who she is, her behavior is contrasted with the actions of her parents who sacrifice money, time, and sleepless hours for her, and that doesn’t take into account the emotional toll that we see her father undergo as he attempts to provide for his family. We see that her friend Julie too is comfortable with who she is and has her priorities in the right place, even if she tags along for many of Christine’s misadventures. So, the film seems to reject the idea that all teenagers are caught up in a wandering turbulent time of directionless anxiety, consequently being awful to their parents.

 

The end of the film (and the end of Lady Bird’s rebelliousness) culminates with a scene that features a church. Lady Bird, after leaving for college, ends up at a party where she consumes too much alcohol, vomits, and subsequently has to have her stomach pumped at the emergency room. The morning after, Lady Bird leaves the hospital and walks to a Presbyterian church conducting its Sunday morning worship. Lady Bird listens to the sound of the choir and is moved to tears by their song. After this encounter in a sanctuary, she leaves, calling home to her parents to thank them for everything they have done on her behalf. Importantly, she uses her given name in this final scene before the movie ends.

 

What is Greta Gerwig communicating to her audience in this final scene? I think there is a melancholic longing for the stability that is and was provided by family, specifically family grounded in a Christian tradition. Whether or not Gerwig herself holds to Christianity isn’t necessarily the point of the film. Instead, I think that this ache over the loss of childhood, the longing for home, and the beauty of church music and liturgy all point to the tragic way in which culture has missed the fact that Christianity in the past helped to provide something to the individual and to make them whole. 

 

The feeling of nostalgia crafted by the film serves as a reminder that not all of Hollywood is opposed to the Christian faith. Perhaps, even, there is a segment of Hollywood creators who actually miss the Church in their lives! The good news is that the Church can be there for those who want to return home to their faith and to their Christianity. We can be that welcoming presence that is offered when wayward Christians seek to return to their long past, yet not forgotten roots. This might not be everyone who leaves the fold of Christianity, but I think it’s a hopeful thing that, for some, Christianity is still missed. 

 

__________

 

The Reverend David Keating is pastor at St. John’s Lutheran Church in Curtis, Nebraska.

 

Previously by Pastor Keating…

 

“Interstellar: Love, Time, and Space”

 

“Mad Men - What is Happiness? Don Draper and St. Augustine”

 

Zack Snyder’s Messy Super-Jesus”

 

“Short Message: How Do, or Should, Christians Witness?”

 

“Amazon’s ‘The Boys’ - Does Christianity Have a Culture Problem?

 

“Reflecting on 9/11: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?”

 

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

A Flood of Bad Economics on Tech and Immigration

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – October 7, 2020

 

With a presidential election less than a month away, the political silly season has shifted into high gear. And that’s saying something because we now live in a 24/7, 365-days-a-year political silly season.



It’s not just the calendar that signals the current stage of such silliness, but what politicians are saying and doing as well. For example, these days it’s standard fare to rail against technology firms and immigrants, while, of course, ignoring actual economics. After all, economics and reason can be an annoying distraction when trying to turn out one’s political base.

 

So, we have a hot-off-the-presses report from the Democratic staff of the House Antitrust Subcommittee that accuses tech companies Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet (i.e., Google), and Apple of wielding monopoly power, and stomping out competition and innovation. The Democrats ominously declared, “Our economy and democracy are at stake.” Golly.

 

The Democrats tossed out some ideas for government action, including forcing companies to separate certain lines of business and more forceful antitrust powers.

 

Not to be out done, Republicans on the subcommittee chimed in with their own report, which asserted that “Big Tech is out to get conservatives.” Golly … again.

 

In reality, this political stunt fails to take note of the vast innovation that is ongoing in and around the internet; the ever-multiplying choices and reduced costs for consumers; the expanded opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses; and the fact that no tech company, no matter how big it happens to be today, can afford to sit back like a fat monopoly, and raise costs or reduce quality for consumers. Were that to happen, that company would be crushed by new or existing competitors, and consumers would quickly move on.

 

Political grandstanding and antitrust regulation are by nature backward looking. Trying to guide and regulate a sector of our economy via antitrust is the equivalent of putting a government bureaucrat in an industry driver’s seat – which should make us all very uneasy – and then have that political appointee drive the car while looking in the rearview mirror. This has always been the case, but given the fast-changing, dynamic nature of our tech economy, it’s particularly ridiculous and dangerous.

 

The question really is quite simple. Who do you want calling the shots in the end: consumers or government? If you favor consumers, then let tech companies – big, small, emerging and still-yet-to-be-born – compete to serve consumers. If you favor government, then forget consumers, let politics reign, and pull more technology under the control of government. After all, how could that possibly go wrong?

 

Oh yeah, and by the way, regarding accusations from Republicans – in particular, populists – who say that tech companies are out to get them, well, while Silicon Valley clearly leans strongly Left in terms of its prevailing politics, the tech tools they produce seem to be serving Republicans and populists quite well. Hmmm, go figure.

 

For good measure, Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden also favors increased antitrust regulation. For example, a Biden campaign spokesman toldThe Wall Street Journal recently: “Many technology giants and their executives have not only abused their power, but misled the American people, damaged our democracy, and evaded any form of responsibility. That ends with a President Biden.” Golly, one more time.

 

But attacks on so-called Big Tech can’t stop there during the political silly season. How about a two-for-one policy change that not only slaps U.S. tech companies, but immigrants as well? President Trump and his administration certainly can’t pass up that opportunity. After all, that anti-immigration base needs shoring up.

 

As a result, the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor have announced a tightening of requirements for H1-B visas, which cover high-skilled foreign workers. Apparently, it’s time to make it tougher to bring in such immigrants and to raise the costs of doing so.

 

The new regulations, according to officials, will increase the level of rejected H1-B visa applications, and mandate that H1-B visa workers receive higher pay. Wait, is that like an increased minimum wage for immigrants? The political folks might want to take a closer look at that – could be a bad look with the base. 

 

Joe Biden also favors jacking up government mandated wages for H1-B visa workers.

 

This entire effort, of course, is built upon the fiction that immigrants coming to the U.S. take jobs from native-born Americans, drive down wages, and contribute nothing. But the truth is that these and other immigrants fill jobs that U.S. businesses cannot fill otherwise; do complementary work that enhances the productivity and incomes of native-born workers; generate further growth as producers and consumers; and have a higher propensity for entrepreneurship than do the native born. Immigration, as most economists will tell you, is a net-plus for the economy, and studies overwhelmingly show no negative effects on wages of the native born due to immigration.

 

The U.S. economy is not a zero-sum game, whereby one person’s gain is another’s loss. Instead, when not held back by pandemics, government shutdowns, and/or costly public policies like high taxes and onerous regulations, entrepreneurs, investors, businesses and workers – including tech companies and immigrants – drive wealth creation, economic growth, productivity, income growth, and job creation forward.

 

__________

 

Recent and Related Columns by Ray Keating…

 

“Polls Before the Dreaded Presidential Debates”

 

“Voting Your Conscience Isn’t Wasting Your Vote”

 

“Character-Rich Sci-Fi: Take the Netflix Journey with ‘Away’”

 

“Applaud, Don’t Attack, Robinhood”

 

“Sports Are Back But Americans Aren’t Happy”

 

“Should We Take Our Ball and Go Home When Pro Athletes Disagree with Us?”

 

“‘Greyhound’ Ranks as Strong Storytelling – Even on a Smaller Screen”

 

“2020 Politics as the Conventions Get Rolling … Kind of?”

 

“Biden Picks Harris: Will It Matter on Election Night?”

 

__________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should KnowThe views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

Keating’s latest novel is  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12thbook in the series. The best way to fully enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

Friday, October 2, 2020

Interstellar: Love, Time, and Space

 by David Keating

The Keating Files – October 2, 2020

 

Movies are back! At least, kind of back. Christopher Nolan’s Tenet has been released into theaters globally and in many places across the United States. 

 

But, given that I am unwilling to brave the crowds, such as they are at this point, I used the release of Nolan’s newest venture to look at one of his past films. Recently, my wife and I rewatched 2014’s Interstellar

 


When Interstellar was released it had mixed-to-positive reviews. Many critics saw this as Nolan’s attempt to make a 2001: A Space Odyssey type of film, but felt that the themes in the movie became a little lost or muddied throughout the course of this nearly three hour venture. (Of course, 2001 isn’t exactly a case of cinematic clarity.)

            

I happened to not just like Interstellar, but adored it. The set design, the performances, and the roaring organ music that formed the backbone of the score all appealed to me in various ways. I also enjoyed a key plot thread that I often see overlooked in reviews of the film. 

            

The main dynamic in the film is between a pilot turned farmer named Cooper (played by Matthew McConaughey) and his daughter Murph (played by three different actresses as time progresses through the film). Cooper is called upon to pilot an expedition into space to help find a new habitable world now that the earth is becoming more and more unstable given its deteriorating climate. He is told that leaving earth will mean sacrificing years of time with his daughter. Time will also pass more quickly for those on earth compared to the planets which Cooper will visit, so time with his daughter ends up slipping away very quickly throughout the film. 

            

The dramatic tension of the film comes from the fact that if Cooper doesn’t leave, the earth might not survive. But if he does leave, he certainly will miss out on many precious moments that a father hopes to experience with a daughter. So, what we find is that it is love that both causes Cooper to leave on his expedition, and love that he hopes will guide him back home to his family.

            

This is a pretty standard trope within movies to build dramatic tension, but, as with all of his films, Christopher Nolan offers a unique insight into the way that he understands love and the way in which he wants his audience to view it as well. About a third of the way through the film, Cooper has a conversation with another explorer, Dr. Brand (portrayed by Anne Hathaway). 

 

As they travel, the two reflect on the fact that time is growing short for the people back on earth. Dr. Brand is worried about whether or not she will even see loved ones like her father again. She then tells Cooper that, “Love isn’t something that we invented. It’s observable; powerful. It has to mean something.” 

 

Cooper replies that, “Love has meaning, yes. Social utility, social bonding, child-rearing.” 

 

Brand says that, “We love people who have died. Where’s the social utility in that?” 

 

Cooper doesn’t think there is any, so Dr. Brand continues, “Maybe it means something more. Something we can’t yet understand. Maybe it’s some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can’t consciously perceive. … Love is the one thing that we’re capable of perceiving that transcends the dimensions of time and space.” 

 

Many people found this out of place in a movie that was mostly about pushing the boundaries of scientific advancement in order to invent our way out of the problems that we’re facing. Yet, I think that Dr. Brand’s observations help hold the film together. It is love which helps Cooper discover a way back to his daughter, and it is love that allows Cooper’s daughter Murph to come up with a way to save the human race from its climate-based extinction. 

 

In today’s hyper-analytical world, we often miss this point as well. We think that we are able to dig our way out of any hole we are in, whether through scientific research and advancement or through entrepreneurial endeavor. That certainly might be the case, as it was in Interstellar. But we shouldn’t hold those things up to such a degree that we lose sight of the motivation for these kinds of activities. 

 

We invent, we innovate, and we reach new heights as a culture, primarily driven by love for one another and compassion for our fellow man. It is love that, although it may not be quantifiable as Dr. Brand indicated, drives us to help conquer the problems that we face. 

 

Perhaps, this is why the Church still has a role to play in a culture that places an ever-growing focus on science above all else. The Church can remind culture that scientific advancement is a good and wonderful thing, but it isn’t the only thing upon which we base our lives. Instead, the Church can care for the souls of people as well. We can point people to the love for one another that drives our daily activities and our work. Most of all, we can point people to a kind of love that is immeasurable and unlike any other we can experience: the love of Christ. 

 

As we progress further and further as a people, even reaching for the stars, we can remind the world that we still have an ethic that shapes what we do. What is that ethic? It’s all grounded in love of God and love for one another. And as St. Paul reminds us, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

 

__________

 

The Reverend David Keating is pastor at St. John’s Lutheran Church in Curtis, Nebraska.

 

Previously by Pastor Keating…

 

“Mad Men - What is Happiness? Don Draper and St. Augustine”

 

Zack Snyder’s Messy Super-Jesus”

 

“Short Message: How Do, or Should, Christians Witness?”

 

“Amazon’s ‘The Boys’ - Does Christianity Have a Culture Problem?

 

“Reflecting on 9/11: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?”