Star Trek TOS--The Man Trap

Star Trek

This show has become the universally acknowledged "god" of the sci-fi television genre, with 4 (count 'em, 4) spin-offs, each of which lasted far longer than the original series did on the air. The show's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was an atheist, and his perspective heavily influenced the content of the show (which is why, even though there are references to the Bible and Christianity in several episodes, these references are to "mythical" events rather than to legitimate beliefs that one or more Federation representatives hold). This is a very important aspect of Star Trek that any viewer--particularly any viewer who is Christian--must keep in mind, because by its very nature, Star Trek is a show that enthusiastically endorses atheism as its principle guiding social and cultural informant, a philosophy that, as anyone who believes in the Christian God (or any god) can attest, is diametrically opposed to the principle of believing in something beyond ourselves as creator, originator, designer.

Now, let's take a look at the very first episode of this show to air--The Man Trap.

1966 was an important year in the evolution of American culture, a transitional year which saw the advent of civil rights voices that challenged Martin Luther King's stance of passive nonresistance to racial oppression, the feminist movement, and (most importantly) the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement had, as its centerpiece, what we in America today call the "counterculture"--a movement based largely on Eastern mysticism--which became the catalyst of a fundamental cultural shift in America between the kind of society that had existed in the early twentieth century and the society that exists now. All of our major cultural practices--including popular music, clothing, and even slang--have been influenced, in large part, by this movement, and it is in this context, and only in this context, that the instant cult popularity of Star Trek, which first aired in September of 1966, can be understood.

Let's look at the first two segments of the show (the teaser, which occurs at the beginning of all Star Trek shows, including the spin-offs, and the first full segment). Immediately, amongst all the set designs and special effects (which were quite advanced for that era), we can see 3 aspects of the show that revolutionized the way people "saw" their culture on television during that era--the presence of a non-human alien with devilish ears and a coldly logical way of perceiving the universe, the presence of an African-American officer on board the equivalent of a naval ship serving with Caucasians, and (of course) the standard Starfleet-issue uniform for female officers (tight, with ample exposure of legs and cleavage). I am not, at this point, going to comment on the merits of these 3 elements of the show--everyone can see, for example, how important it was in the year after the Civil Rights Act that an African-American appear among whites on television as an equal--but I do want to point at here that all 3 elements are indicative of values within the counterculture movement: a destruction of social boundaries, a deconstruction of sexual traditions and mores, and a rejection of Christianity (then rightfully seen as an aid in global oppression) as a perspective that could serve to inform the way Americans perceive the world. Is it any wonder, then, that this little show, which was almost axed before it began to air, gained such a fanatical following amongst members of the counterculture?

Personally, I have no animosity toward the 1960's counterculture. (How can I, when such a large part of my world has been shaped by it?) However, I do want to emphasize that the counterculture enthusiastically embraced a rejection of Christianity--particularly institutional Christianity--as a foundational lens through which Americans could view the world. To be fair, let's remember that during this decade, as well as the previous decade, Christianity had been used as an excuse for racial oppression, for wars all over the globe, and (in the memories of Europeans) for the exploitation of peoples who were less technologically savvy than the citizens of the West. In many ways, the counterculture's rejection of Christianity was well-justified, and as someone who shares that counterculture's wariness of institutional religion, I also share their distaste for the kinds of ideological compromises that institutional Christians have been willing to make over the past 1500 centuries to justify atrocities that would have shamed Paul and the rest of Jesus' disciples. However, I do not share the movement's rejection of Christ himself, and this is a fundamental difference that I, and any born again believer in Christ Jesus, will always have with that movement.

Now, the premise of "The Man Trap" is that an alien being, masquerading as an archeologist's wife, assumes different guises, infiltrating the star-ship Enterprise in its quest for salt . . . a quest that becomes a predatory search for vulnerable human bodies which contain salt. This in itself is a plot device known to sci-fi fans as a "monster of the week" episode, and it ends, as most "monster" episodes do, with the monster discovered, quarantined, or (in this case) killed. Notice, however, what the show's producer seems to be saying about male-female relationships here. For example, Dr. McCoy's one connection to the archeologist is a previous affair with the archeologist's wife that he had enjoyed before she married (and which he seems to be yearning to continue in this episode). Also, the first crew death that occurs in this episode involves a man who, after seeing a mental projection of a woman he had presumably been intimate with on a pleasure planet, is lured to his doom by the monster. This is, again, a perfectly acceptable plot device, but notice what both of these elements of the show are saying about male-female relationships--that knowing someone well before having sex with that person is not important, that whether or not that person is married is not important, and (because the monster assumes both genders during the show) that whether or not that person is a member of the opposite sex is not important. This is a hard realization to face, but it is one of the guiding principles of most television writing since the 1960's, so we need to be aware of it whenever we see portrayals of romance on television.

The most important part of the show, of course, is the speech given by the archeologist himself:

"She was the last of her kind . . . Earth history, remember? Like the passenger pigeon or the buffalo . . . once there were millions of them, prairies black with them. One herd covered three whole states, and they moved like thunder . . . the creatures here, once there were millions of them. Now there's one left."

This series of lines is the heart--the "lesson" of the show--but why, a believer in Christ might ask, should anyone be concerned about the destruction of an animal species (or, in this case, a species of monsters) if he or she does not believe they were created by an external God? If the development of species is accidental or due to the concept of survival of the fittest, then what value is there in preserving a species that obviously did not survive well enough to avoid extinction? This is the fundamental flaw, not only in the show's plot but within the movement it portrays--environmentalism. Yes, it is important to protect animal species that are dying--in fact, I think it is one of the primary concerns that Christians should have in our era--but the reason has nothing to do with preserving the natural balance or maintaining biodiversity. It is simply because those species--like us--have been created by a loving God who cares about them as much as He cares about us. Our foolishness, our tampering with the environment and with nature's order (God's order) has brought about the environmental nightmares we have witnessed every decade since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. How can environmentalists, many of whom share the same rejection of Christianity that the counterculture exhibited, ever hope to justify the sacrifices needed to save species of animals from extinction without a God, without a Creator, without a Supreme Being to whom we (and those animals) are accountable? This is the fundamental flaw within environmentalism and why, even though it has made strides in our society, it will not win more adherents within the ranks of conservative Christianity. Whether or not it should--whether or not Christians should embrace the protection of endangered species--is, I think, a matter of personal conviction and one on which I think Christians can legitimately disagree. However, my point here is that the environmentalism promoted in this episode of Star Trek is, at its core, fundamentally opposed to the environmentalism promoted in the Bible, because the environmentalism of the Bible has, as its fundamental concern, a devotion to Jesus Christ, rather than to animals. Without that devotion to Jesus Christ, we are left with merely a soulless moralism, a moralism as cold and lifeless as that promoted by the Pharisees.

That moralism guides much of what we do in our society today. It is, indeed, part of the spirit of this age, and as Star Trek reflected the moralistic spirit of the 1960's counterculture, so television, in all its guises, reflects the moralistic spirit of our era. Understanding that is our key to understanding the extent to which our era--and indeed we ourselves--have allowed ourselves to fall under the teachings of men and spirits who do not confess the beauty, the love, and the lordship of Jesus Christ.