As some of you know, this week I begin a 6-month sabbatical from my work with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship! This is a gracious gift offered to paid employees after 7 sequential years of service (it’s been 8.5 for me), and I’ve been looking forward to it for quite some time. Already, I have deactivated all of my social media profiles, set up work email’s autoresponder, and deleted any work-related apps off of my phone. Beyond that, during this sabbatical I am looking forward more time to read, write, pray, sleep, be outside, do small house projects, and spend time with my family.
This Sunday I was reflecting on the concept of fasting, i.e., abstaining from something (usually food) for a designated period of time, usually with the goal of gaining greater spiritual focus, clarity, insight, or depth. And in some ways, I think that a sabbatical (a period of “fasting” from work) is very similar to a period of fasting from food.
Like food, work was designed by God as a good thing for humans to have and to enjoy–both existed in the Garden of Eden before sin entered the world. However, we see in our present world that humans have a broken relationship with both of these things in many ways. Thus fasting and sabbaticals (or even just a weekly Sabbath) are crucial spiritual disciplines to remind ourselves as humans that ultimately these things are not where our identity can be found, but rather in being children of God. Both fasting and sabbaticals are deeply biblical, and we can see periods of both fasting and rest (sometimes both at the same time!) being commanded of God’s people throughout Scripture.
For myself, I have always been a high achiever and a hard worker, ever since entering school 25 years ago and the workforce 10 years ago. I am a little scared but mostly eager for these next 6 months to rest and to reflect deeply on who I am when I am not achieving something. It’s for that reason that I have kept my goals and plans fairly minimal for this time–I could of course take a seminary course or start a side hustle, but then I would still feel tempted by the idol of productivity. I am instead going to try my best to embrace the gift of rest and all that God has for me.
If you are the praying sort, please pray for God to meet me during the next six months. Thank you!
All Posts
Some quick, unedited thoughts in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
A month ago, I wrote about possible responses that President Biden might take in response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. In no particular order, here are a few of the things I’ve been learning or thinking now that Russia has actually invaded.
–My original comparison of Ukraine to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 has been apt, and if anything, understated. While Jimmy Carter publicly levied sanctions and boycotts of Russia, he only sent RPGs and anti-air Stinger missiles to Afghanistan in secret, via back channels and neutral countries. In contrast, we have seen the US and many other countries publicly commit to directly sending anti-armor weapons and munitions to Ukraine. And a little bit similar to their experience in 1980s Afghanistan…
-…Russia has so far struggled in ways that they really should have prepared for. Despite having advanced intelligence, Russia failed to destroy Ukraine’s air force and anti-air capabilities. As such, they have struggled to establish air superiority over the skies, leaving their advance units vulnerable to counter-attack by sky or air. Already, I’ve seen reports of a Ukrainian pilot shooting down 6 Russian planes in a single day, something that hasn’t happened in Europe since WWII. Beyond the air, Russian supply lines have been overextended, leaving their troops lost, out of fuel, and vulnerable.
–Russia’s timeline for the start of the invasion was fairly obvious to those who were paying attention. While on NPR and other media outlets were questioning why the Biden administration kept saying invasion was imminent day after day, it’s clear that the intelligence was spot on. Moreover, experts had long said that Russia wanted to wait to invade Ukraine until mid-February or early March, when the ground would be most frozen and allow their tanks and support vehicles to traverse the ground without getting stuck in mud. No one should be surprised that 150,000 troops weren’t just there for “exercises”; that they were there to be an invasion force. The fact that some nations, such as Germany, were indeed surprised, shows a lack of understanding of how Putin works. In retrospect the Biden administration to continue to share publicly all the intelligence about Russian activities (in order to forestall a “false flag” operation, among other things) appear to be very prescient, and most likely denied the Russians a meaningful “casus belli” (cause for war).
–This was never just about the pro-Russian breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine; instead it’s about installing a pro-Moscow leader and solidifying holds over Ukrainian resources. Ever since the Kyiv revolution in 2014 overthrew the pro-Russian president, Putin has been looking for ways to re-install a sympathetic regime in Ukraine. In fact, the day before Russia actually invaded I was texting with a friend and stated this very thing, that it seems likely that Putin’s goal is to kill Zelensky (who is pro-EU and pro-Western) and install a ruler that Russia can control. That’s why we’ve seen so many Russian saboteur units attempt to sneak into Kyiv, and a strong focus on taking that city, and it makes Zelensky’s decision to stay and fight all the more bold. He must be careful to only surround himself with the most loyal of advisors; an assassin only has to be successful 1 out of a 100 times to topple his government. Additionally, taking most of eastern Ukraine will allow Russia to control the gas, oil, and water supplies that flow through the region: I did not know this until yesterday, but the Crimean peninsula that Russia annexed in 2014 is reliant upon the flow of water that comes from central Ukraine–and it has been cut off by Zelensky in retribution for that annexation. It’s essential that Putin control either the government or the land mass of Ukraine east of the Dnieper; and preferably both.
–Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukraine by withholding military aid in 2019 seems even more odious in hindsight. Most people have forgotten the circumstances that triggered the first Trump impeachment, but it involved Trump trying to manipulate Ukraine and Zelensky into launching false, public investigation of Joe Biden by choosing to withhold military aid. (Ukraine continued to be a talking point among the right-wing media for years, to the point that many still reflexively support Putin!) Given Trump’s stated desire to pull the United States out of NATO in his second term and withdraw military support from European nations facing the guns of Russia, it’s clear that Putin thought that he could get away with a quick invasion of a country that apparently did not have the full support of the United States.
-Putin has energized Western European nations to unify and mobilize militarily in ways not seen in decades. Despite Trump’s best attempts to force Germany to increase their defense spending (like Obama before him), that country had long refused to raise military spending to the minimum goal of 2% of GDP, nor send military aid to Ukraine. Both of those things have changed in the past 7 days, with the chancellor pledging a massive increase in military spending and shipping anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. Germany is not alone; many other nations in NATO and the EU have pledged unprecedented military responses to Russia. As Thucydides predicted 2500 years ago, when a powerful state begins to assert itself, even if its purpose is to increase its own security, it inevitably cause surrounding nations to rally to counter this rising threat. If Putin’s stated desire was to prevent NATO and EU from mobilizing against Russian interests, he has caused the exact opposite to happen.
–Just like the Biblical story in Judges 12 about the word “shibboleth”, Russian invaders have been vulnerable to small cultural differences including the pronunciation of certain words. While there are major linguistic similarities between the two countries, Ukrainians have been able to identify and halt Russians by asking them to pronounce “palyanitsa“, the word for a type of bread. If the Russians can’t pronounce it, they are identified as outsiders and attacked. Relatedly, Ukrainians have torn down roadsigns (or replaced them with obscene phrases) to hinder the ability of Russians to find their way around the country.
–Though they share many similarities, the religious differences between Ukrainians and Russians are important to recognize. This has not been widely discussed in the mainstream media, but Putin’s connections to the Russian Orthodox Church may be a substantial motivator for him and others seeking to conquer Ukraine. Kyiv is the historic site for the founding of the Russian Orthodox Church, but the Ukraine Orthodox community has been seeking to distance themselves from Russia and the Patriarch Kirill (who is a major ally of Putin’s). Additionally, while in Russia evangelical Christians have faced persecution and hostility, videos have emerged of evangelicals in Ukraine worshipping in bomb shelters while shells rain down from the sky.
-Speaking of shells, a surprising amount of Russian armaments have failed. I have seen over a dozen pictures and videos of unexploded Russian ordinance (rockets and shells). While that always happens a certain number of times in war, the frequency seems to indicate subpar weapons and maintenance among the Russians. Their army and air force have vastly underperformed expectations, even granted Ukrainian tenacity.
-Ukraine may be an interesting test case for the American gun debate. Many Americans have long held that citizens need to be able to own automatic assault rifles to defend against a tyrannical governmental military force. Ukraine will be an interesting test case, given how many citizens there own AK-47s and other military-style weapons. Will that be enough to repel a Russian invasion? Or is it more the case that the decider will be the presence of anti-tank weapons, and RPGs? And if it’s the second one, can we finally stop pretending that a handful of citizens armed solely with rifles can meaningfully defeat a modern-day nation state? Or will gun activists in the US decide to start advocating for the right to own RPGs?
Anyway, there’s probably a lot more I could say, but I wanted to share a few quick responses to all that’s going on. As always, these are my personal thoughts, subject to change as new information arises.
How will Biden Respond to Russian Aggression in Ukraine?
To have any sense of historical memory in America nowadays is to feel like one is slowly going insane. Objective facts, once universally accepted across society, are either completely memory-holed, or twisted to mean the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder: Am I the crazy one? Or are we all just being gaslit by nefarious actors seeking their own personal gain?
Think back just a few years, to the first Trump impeachment (yes, there were two Trump impeachments). The reason for this impeachment was that Trump tried to violate treaty obligations and withhold military defense aid from Ukraine, a fledgling democracy trying to bolster its defenses against potential Russian military aggression. Now here we are, and Ukraine is on the verge of invasion by Russia, with 120,000 soldiers on its border. Even without Trump in the Oval Office, Putin perceives weakness on the part of Ukraine and America alike, and only he knows what may happen next.
Despite the seeming inevitability of invasion, I would caution Putin to also remember the historical record. A seemingly weak American president choosing to react strongly against a Russian invasion of a border nation? It’s happened before, in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As I wrote for one of my senior seminars in college:
“President Carter is widely derided by many as a “dove” who let foreign powers walk all over the United States. At first glance, this view may seem accurate. Under Carter, the US economy faltered, Iranian radicals took over the American embassy in Tehran, Sandinista rebels took over Nicaragua, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. However, Carter’s reaction to the latter event would surprise many: he immediately funneled immense amounts of military aid to rebel mujahedeen, threatened to boycott the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and shut down SALT II nuclear arms reduction talks. This paper shall explore and analyze the Carter administration’s decision-making process in the wake of the Soviet invasion. Carter’s harsh line, seemingly out of character for him, can be explained when one examines the military, political, and societal forces surrounding the situation. Fearing Soviet influence over the Persian Gulf and eager to win back American opinion of his foreign policy, Carter chose to react forcefully against the Russians. Carter’s “hawkish” response to the invasion thus makes sense: the Carter administration was merely shifting in reaction to changes in the global and domestic environment.“
Nothing can unite a country like a military response to a foreign policy crisis (in political science this is known as the “rally-around-the-flag” effect). While Putin may sense an opportunity to expand Russia’s borders, the Biden administration may find that a strong response is not only militarily feasible, but politically popular. In am election year where he is (like Carter) facing inflation, deep unpopularity, and perceived weakness both at home and abroad, Biden may decide to pivot to a more muscular foreign policy in 2022.
Seem far-fetched? I invite you to read the rest of my research paper analyzing President Carter’s response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, and consider: in what ways is this similar or different to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine? How might Joe Biden respond, both publicly and secretly? What sympathy might images of Ukrainian refugees fleeing Russian aggression generate in the mass media? Post your comments and questions below.
Jesus’ Commands Don’t Always Feel Loving
As a Christian, I believe that 1. God is love, and 2. Jesus is God. As a corollary to those two beliefs, I believe that everything Jesus said and did on Earth was an act of love. Over and over Jesus expresses radical love to those around him, and that was illustrated most powerfully through his sacrificial death on the cross and resurrection three days later.
However, just because everything Jesus did was loving does not mean that every person around him experienced it as love. Sometimes they may have been offended, or angry, or mournful, or disheartened, etc. The love that Jesus expressed through his every action did not always feel like it was “good news,” even if it actually was! Sometimes following Jesus is extremely costly, hard, and burdensome. For example, take the following incidents found in the Gospels:
- When Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to sell all his possessions and give it away to the poor, the young man went away very sad. He probably didn’t think this was a very loving thing for Jesus to command.
- When Jesus initially ignored the Syrophonecian woman and referred to her as a dog, that does not sound very loving.
- When Jesus defended the woman caught in adultery but then told her to go and sin no more, she might not have experienced that final statement as loving.
- When Jesus told his disciples to pick up their cross and deny themselves, that does not sound very loving.
- When Jesus told the Samaritan woman that her religious beliefs were wrong, and that salvation comes from the Jews, she might not have experienced that as loving.
- When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and his disciples, they may not have experienced it as love.
- When Jesus told his followers to “hate” their father, mother, children, and even their own lives, for the sake of following him, that does not sound very loving.
- When Jesus promised weeping and gnashing of teeth for those who do not care for the “least of these brothers and sisters of mine,” that does not sound loving.
- When Jesus said that it is better not to marry and to live as a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of God, that does not sound very loving.
- When Jesus said to love your enemies, and to do good to those who hurt you, that does not sound loving. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
- When Jesus told his disciples that he would need to die on the cross, that did not sound like a loving act of self-sacrifice, it sounded like foolishness. And when why Peter rebuked him for talking about such things, Jesus called him Satan! That doesn’t sound very loving.
These are just a few instances that I could think of the top of my head where the commands of Jesus don’t always feel loving to our modern ears. I’m sure there are many more. Depending on who you are and your life experiences, Jesus’ commands can feel challenging, risky, and potentially damaging to your mind, emotions, and body. Thus it can be incredibly tempting to reinterpret the words of Jesus through a hermeneutic wherein “only commands that feel loving are valid.” But to adopt that hermeneutic is to re-make Jesus into our own image, and to miss out on the potential liberation that may come through obedience. The rich young ruler may have kept his wealth and his security when he walked away from Jesus, but he missed out on the opportunity to do justice, experience God’s provision, and follow Jesus.
The question for Christians today is, which of God’s commands are we tempted to discount simply because they don’t feel loving? I would argue probably the most universally-ignored command is the one to love our enemies, but there are many others as well. Do we have the faith to believe that Jesus’ words are good news even if it doesn’t always feel like it?