Wednesday, February 16, 2022

Two All Too Common Errors

 

Two All Too Common Errors

February 15, 2022

 

The Bible is the foundational book of the Christian faith. It is about God and how we are to relate to God, or at least most of it is. I don’t, but most Christians think that it has authority because in one way or another it comes from God. We’re supposed to revere it, and in a way I do, but not like some people. I’ve seen a priest carry the Bible through the congregation in a Catholic mass and offer it to various people, including me, to kiss. That seems a bit like idolatry to me, and I try never to make the Bible an idol. Still, however we may think of it, the Bible is a big deal for us Christians. Especially if you think that it comes from God you’d expect it to be somehow more divine than human. Well, here’s a truth about the Bible. Time and again it commits two fundamental errors. Far too often (and once would be too often) it makes God too human and thereby makes God too small. That’s one of the errors. The other is that it takes ugly human prejudices and raises them to the level of sacred scripture. I want here to use two passages, one from the Old Testament and one from the New, to illustrate and critique each of those errors.

The All Too Human God

Isaiah 63:7-14 comes from what the scholars call Third Isaiah. Third Isaiah consists of the parts of the book of Isaiah written in the late sixth or early fifth century BCE after the Persians had let the Hebrews return to Judah and Jerusalem from their Babylonian exile. Verses 7 to 14 of chapter 63 of Isaiah begin by praising the "gracious deeds” and “praiseworthy acts” of God.[1] The text says that God became the people’s “savior in all their distress.” It says God saved, lifted, and carried them. So far so good. But then we run into trouble. We read:

 

But they rebelled

     and grieved his holy spirit;

therefore he became their enemy;

     he himself fought against them. Isaiah 63:10.

 

This verse is just one of a great many Old Testament verses that we can cite that say that because of the people’s faithlessness their God turned against them, punishing them with conquest by foreign powers. That notion is the main theme of the eighth century Hebrew prophet like Micah and Amos. We see it here in a text from over two hundred years after those prophets.

The problem with such verses is that they make God too human and thereby make God too small. The prophets specify basically two things the people do wrong. Sometimes their fault is that they do not worship Yahweh or do not worship Yahweh properly. At other times their fault is that they oppress the poor and vulnerable among them. In the prophets’ telling of it Yahweh experiences both of these failings as a slight. Yahweh is offended, and he reacts exactly the way so many people do when they feel slighted. He gets mad. He gets furious, and he turns against the people. Do you see how human that is? To this way of thinking God is nothing but humanity writ large; and even though the humanity in question is writ large, it makes God too human, too small.

In another part of Isaiah, this time from the prophet scholars call Second Isaiah, we see that at least one of Israel’s ancient sages knew better. In chapter 55 of Isaiah the prophet reports these words as the words of God:

 

For my thoughts are not your

thoughts,

     nor are you ways my ways, says

the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than

     the earth,

          so are my ways higher than your

ways. Isaiah 55:8-9.

 

How true that is! God is not merely humanity writ large. Yes, God is always present with us here on earth. And yes, God relates to us in a personal way, but that does not make God a person, not even a very big person. God does not react to things the way we humans so often do. While God is omnipresent here on earth, God also transcends us humans and our human ways absolutely.

It is so easy for us to make God too human and thus too small. We make God as judgmental as we are if not more so. We make God the issuer of laws just as we humans make laws. Some Christians make God bless or even commit violence because we so love violence. We make God hate the people we hate. We make God as angry as we are, but of course only at the things or people we are angry at. We make God demand and impose judgment on wrongdoers just as we pass judgment on wrongdoers. It is easy for us to make God too human, too small, and we do it all the time.

Yet God is not human, not even human writ large. God certainly isn’t less then human. God is much, much more than human. God transcends the human so much that God remains always ultimate mystery. God is the great known unknown. We know that God is love, but we always make God’s love too human, too small, too restricted. We know that God is a God of grace, but we so often limit God’s grace to people we approve of. We know that God is a God of forgiveness, but we insist that there are unforgivable sins and unforgivable people. We simply will not believe that God’s love, grace, and forgiveness are so much more than our ability to comprehend them that all we can do is stand in awe of the greatness of God.

We think that God operates more or less the same way we do. Yet we are finite, God is infinite. We are limited, God is limitless. God’s love, grace, and forgiveness are infinite, without limit. So whenever we think God and God’s goodness are limited we’re just wrong. We’ve made God too human, too small; and a too small God is not God at all. Even the Bible makes this mistake, but we really do need to let God be as great, as infinite, as God really is.

 

Cultural Prejudice as Scripture

 

The second error I want to consider here is the way the Bible contains things that are nothing but human prejudices that we make divine because they are in the Bible. All of the books of the Bible were written in and for cultures were patriarchal, androcentric, and misogynist to the marrow of their bones. They held women to be of little or no account. Men ran things. At least in public men decided things. Women didn’t. That’s just how it was.

That cultural prejudice against women shows up in the Bible in many ways. I’ll give you just one example. In 1 Timothy we read:

 

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

 

This passage has an exegesis of the story of Adam and Eve that would get an F in any respectable seminary, but that’s not what I want to focus on here. I want to focus on lines like men are to pray, but let women be silent with full submission. Don’t let them arrogate to themselves the role of teacher. Never, ever let he have any authority over any man. Blame her not him for human sins. These lines truly are appalling. They’re obviously wrong, but there they are, in the Bible. Tragically, verses like these have buttressed Christian misogyny from the late first century CE until recently, and sadly far too many Christian churches still use them to suppress and silence women.

1 Timothy says it is by Paul. It isn’t. One way that we know that it isn’t is that in his authentic letters Paul expresses a view of woman very different from the one in 1 Timothy. In Galatians Paul says, ”there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28. We know that 1 Timothy’s diametrically opposed view of women is cultural prejudice not divine wisdom. How do we know that? We know it first of all because we know that any culture of the ancient world in which 1 Timothy could have been written was patriarchal, androcentric, and misogynist. What 1 Timothy says about women states what we know to have been the view of the culture that produced the letter. The letter deviates not at all from the cultural norms, bigoted as they were, of its time and place.

We know that what Paul says about women in Galatians is divine wisdom. We know that first of all because what Paul says differs radically from the cultural norms of its time and place. It turns those norms upside down. It rejects them and gives us something entirely different in their place. Second, we know that what Paul says about women in Galatians is divine wisdom because it is a statement of greater inclusivity and respect that were the ways of the culture in and for which it was written. We Christians know as much as it is possible for us to know about God’s will and ways through Jesus Christ. The Gospels that tell us about him don’t always get it right, but we do learn from what they say about Jesus that God’s ways are the world’s ways turned on their heads. And we know that God loves all people, including especially the people earthly cultures marginalize and oppress. In most human cultures that includes women. The world far too often excludes. God includes. When we put all of these truths together we see that in what it says about women 1 Timothy is merely stating a cultural prejudice. The Christian tradition has elevated 1 Timothy to the status of sacred scripture with tragic results from 1 Timothy’s day to ours.

So there we have two all too common errors in how we see God, although I suppose the second error is really an example of the first error. The Bible makes these mistakes. That doesn’t mean we have to or even may. Sometimes the Bible makes God too small. We must always remember that God isn’t small at all. The Bible sometimes (often, actually) expresses cultural prejudices. We must always remember that cultural prejudices are not divine wisdom even though they appear in the Bible. We really do need to see those things as error. God is big beyond our imagining. God includes without limit. So let’s not let the Bible lead us to make God too human, too small. Let’s not ascribe human prejudices to God. Let’s let God be God.

 

The Scripture quotations contained here are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used with permission. All rights reserved.



[1] The text says “the Lord” not “God.” I’ve said a hundred times before, and I’ll say it again here. In the Old Testament when you see the English word Lord typed that way in what are called “small caps,” you know that the Hebrew word being translated is the sacred name of God usually rendered in English as Yahweh. Never, ever in the Old Testament does the word “lord” however it is printed mean Jesus.

Monday, February 14, 2022

How to Read the Bible: A Case Study

 

How to Read the Bible: A Case Study

February 14, 2021

 

I recently got into a discussion with a friend and colleague of mine over the meaning of a particular Bible passage, namely, Genesis 43:3-11. Those verses are the culmination of the story of Joseph and his brothers. In earlier parts of the story Joseph’s brothers, all of them sons of the patriarch Isaac, get mad at Joseph because, frankly, he’s being quite an arrogant jerk with them. They decide to kill him and tell their father that a wild animal had devoured him. They seize Joseph and throw him into a dry pit. One of them, Reuben, planned to come back to rescue Joseph, but the brothers see a caravan of traders coming by heading for Egypt. So they drag Joseph out of the pit and sell him as a slave to the traders. The traders take him to Egypt. Quite unexpectedly (and inexplicably and unhistorically) Joseph rises to the position of ruling all of Egypt for the pharaoh. He stores up a large supply of grain because he knew several years of famine were coming. And no, the great pyramids of Egypt were not Joseph’s grain elevators as I heard a biblical literalist who was one of President Trump’s cabinet officers say once that they were. Back home in Canaan the famine hits, and Joseph’s brothers flee to Egypt, where they expect there will be food. Joseph appears before them and reveals his identity to them. Then we get to the part of the story where my friend and I had a disagreement.

Our disagreement was over these lines from the story. We read that Joseph says to his brothers, “And now, do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.” Genesis 43:5. Joseph repeats his point, saying, “God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors.” Genesis 43:7. Then he says again, “So it was not you who sent me here, but God.” Genesis 43:9. I read these lines one way. My friend reads them a different way.

I take these lines at face value. They say what they say. They don’t say what they don’t say. Joseph’s attributing his being sold as a slave and ending up in Egypt not to his brothers but to God seems to me necessarily to be saying that God brought about Joseph’s brothers act of first trying to kill him, then selling him into slavery. That is, God did something evil so that later on God could do something good. Joseph asserts that though it sure looked like it was his brothers who did evil to him, in fact it wasn’t them but God who did evil to him.

I can’t read this story any other way. Because I can’t I have long thought that the story gives us some very bad theology. The story says that God does really bad stuff to people just so God can bring something good out of it. I’m sorry, Joseph, but that’s just flat wrong. God doesn’t cause bad things to happen to people for that or any other reason. God isn’t about harming anyone for any reason. No, Joseph’s brothers throwing him into a pit, then selling him into slavery was not God’s doing.

The disagreement I had with my friend came about because he doesn’t read the story that way. In our conversation he asserted that that you can read the this story as not saying that God was the one who had Joseph sold into slavery. He reads this story as saying that God was able to bring something good out of what happened without understanding that God caused what happened. Now, my friend’s reading of this story gives us very good theology, not the very bad theology my reading gives us. God does indeed bring good out of the bad.

I have lived that truth in my own life. Back in 2002 I was just beginning my first call as a church pastor. At that time my wife was dying of breast cancer. We both knew that her death would come soon, and indeed it did. I was with her to the end, and the people of my church knew what had happened. They knew that I had lived through my wife suffering and dying. My wife’s premature death was nothing but a tragedy. It was a very bad thing, and I will never think of it as other than a very bad thing.

But that I had had that painful experience, and that the people of my church knew that I had had that painful experience, made a better pastor. It made a better pastor in general. More specifically it made me a better pastor for people experiencing something like what I had experienced. It’s not that anyone’s experience is identical to any else’s, but when I was pastor to people with a terminal illness or whose spouse had a terminal illness, those people knew that I could understand what they were going through better than anyone who had not lived through such an experience.

I also know, however, that God did not cause my wife’s suffering and dying just so God could make me a better pastor. Frankly, I could not love and would never serve a God who would do such a thing. God is love, and a God who is love would never do such a thing. Yes, with God’s help my experience made me a better pastor. That’s the good that God brought out of tragedy of my wife’s death, but God did not cause that death.

My friend and I share this theology. What we don’t share is how to read the story of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers. My friend reads that good theology into the story. As much as I respect this friend, and I do, I hear him doing something that I consider  improper when reading scripture. I hear him making the story say what he would like it to say rather than accepting what it actually does say. He is reading meaning into the text rather than finding the meaning that is in the text. In this instance I reject the meaning that I am sure is in the story, but I don’t read other meaning into it.

I think there is a lesson we can take from my recent disagreement with my friend over the meaning of this story. In any reading of any biblical text (or any other text for that matter) we must begin with the text as it is. We must read the text very carefully and clearly. We must ask questions like are what the story’s words and what do those words mean. The text is what it is. It has its own integrity that we must respect. It is true, as I have taught and written for a long time, that a text can have more than one meaning. It can even have a meaning different from the meaning the author of the text intended. What the text can’t do is mean something that contradicts the words of the story. It can’t have a meaning that is fundamentally different from the meaning of the words of the text. In the story of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers “God sent me before you to preserve life” and “It was not you who sent me here, but God” cannot mean that God didn’t send him there. I don’t mean to suggest that what the text says is correct. It isn’t, but that it isn’t correct doesn’t mean that the text doesn’t say what it says.

It is so easy for us to read any text as saying something other than what it actually says. To read it as saying what we’d like it to say or something we’ve been told that it says. I will never assert that every meaning of every biblical text is true. Many people insist that everything in the Bible is true, but that contention is so obviously wrong that I don’t know how anyone can believe it. The realization that something in a biblical text is not true is however not license for us to read whatever meaning we want into the text. We can’t read Jesus saying “Love your enemies” to mean “hate your enemies.” We can’t even read it as saying its OK to be indifferent toward your enemies. The text “Love your enemies” just doesn’t say those things, nor does it give us permission to say that it says those things. Our tendency to be too loose in our reading of biblical texts is precisely why we must not wander too far from the what the text actually says as we look for meaning in the text. That’s the caution I leave with you today. Let’s be careful with our texts. It is the only way to handle them appropriately.

The Scripture quotations contained here are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used with permission. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Are We a Threat to Russia?

 

Are We a Threat to Russia?

February 9, 2022

 

Today I read online a statement by someone identified as a Kremlin spokesperson. He said that Russia faces a threat that is only getting stronger. He could only mean that NATO putting more troops into former Soviet Socialist Republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact presents a threat to Russia. NATO is predominantly  the United States. So I want to consider here whether or not we actually are a threat to Russia and if we aren’t why Russia thinks we are. To understand why Russia thinks NATO is a threat, whether it really is or not, we will have to consider Russia’s current context and how that context relates to Russia’s history. First, Russia’s current context.

Until December 25, 1991, the date when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was officially dissolved, Russia was by far the dominant element in a nation that was a legitimate world power. Other nations and groups of nations like NATO had to consider the Soviet Union in making many of their geopolitical decisions. The power of the Soviet Union was not limited to within its own borders. The USSR had created a buffer between itself and western Europe. The buffer consisted of a string of nations ruled by Communists and dominated by the Soviet Union that stretched from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania that were within the Soviet Union itself in the north to Bulgaria in the south. All of those nations, three of them as part of the Soviet Union, were members of the Warsaw Pact, the mostly militarily alliance the Soviet Union created several years after the creation of NATO in the west. By the time the USSR ceased to exist that buffer was gone. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were independent sovereign states. Communists no longer controlled any of the Warsaw Pact nations, and the Warsaw Pact was terminated on July 1, 1991, several months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Russia was more vulnerable to attack from western Europe that it had been for a long time, or at least that’s surely what the Russian government thought.

Then, from the Russians’ point of view, things got worse. A lot worse. The nations that had been Russia’s buffer began to join NATO, the military alliance that had been Russia’s opponent all through the years of the Cold War. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia joined NATO in 2004. Russia surely saw these countries joining NATO as a betrayal of their former ally Russia. Worse, for the Russians the wolf was at the door. The military alliance that had been their adversary since it was founded in 1949 was now at Russia’s doorstep.[1] Russia is so large geographically that we can’t say that NATO surrounded Russia. Still, military forces that Russia had opposed for decades were now on Russia’s western border as they never had been before.

Now we must consider that reality in the context of Russian history. Over the centuries western powers have invaded Russia again and again. For example, Poland invaded Russia in 1609. Sweden invaded Russia in 1707 and had done so before way back in 1240. The French under Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. The Germans under Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. The effect of these and other invasions of Russia from the west on the Russians may be hard for us Americans to understand. No foreign military has invaded the United States since 1812.[2] We have land borders with only two nations, Canada and Mexico, neither of which would have any chance of defeating us if they invaded. We are protected by oceans both on our east coast and on our west coast. Russia is so very different in this regard. It borders eight nations to the west, all of which except Finland are now members of NATO. Russia has no natural barriers to invasion from the west. That great country is vulnerable to invasion in a way we are not and never have been. It would be surprising if Russia were not defensive about invasion from the west. I find it not difficult at all to understand why Russia would see the presence of NATO at its border to be a threat.

So Russia perceives NATO to be a threat to her national security , but is it? I like to think and hope not. NATO was formed in 1949 specifically as an anti-Russian (anti-Soviet actually) organization. A number of countries of western Europe plus Canada and the United States formed NATO to prevent further Soviet expansion into western Europe. But NATO is and always has been a defensive alliance. It did once bomb Serbs in an effort to stop the genocide the Serbs wee committing against Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but it has conducted no other military action in Europe. Surely the leaders of NATO know the history of the catastrophe that befell both Napoleon and Hitler when they made the colossal mistake of invading Russia. I cannot imagine a situation that would prompt NATO to invade Russia.

So we have here an unfortunate relationship between NATO and Russia. Russia sees NATO as a threat. NATO sees its mission as defensive only not as being an offensive threat to Russia or anyone else. This situation calls for well-informed and careful action by both sides. If I have a fear here it is that the politicians who make decisions for NATO are insufficiently sensitive to Russia’s security concerns and fears. Those fears and concerns are easy to dismiss only if you are insufficiently knowledgeable about Russian history—and we Americans are notoriously bad at understanding the history of Russia or of anyone else including ourselves. I do not think NATO will invade Russia. I do not think NATO will attack Russia even if Russian invades Ukraine as Russian president Putin has threatened to do. I pray that I am right about that, and I pray that Russia does not feel so threatened by NATO that it attacks NATO nations though they are indeed on Russia’s doorstep. A war between Russia and NATO would be a disaster for both sides even if neither side used its nuclear weapons. Let us all hope and pray that cooler heads will prevail and that the current difficult situation in eastern Europe does not erupt into violence.



[1] The nation of Belarus is an independent country located between Russia and Poland. It became an independent country when the Soviet Union fell apart, but it did not join the migration to NATO as so many other states did. It is such a close ally of Russia that I consider Belarus’ western border to be Russia’s western border. As I write these words Russia and Belarus’ are preparing to conduct a large, joint military exercise in Belarus’.

[2] The Japanese did occupy some of the Aleutian Islands and dropped one bomb on Oregon during World War II, but neither of those actions posed any real threat to this country.

Tuesday, February 8, 2022

On Putin's Russia

 

On Putin’s Russia

February 8, 2022

 

© Thomas C. Sorenson, 2022

 

Russia has been much in the news recently for the crisis Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has created with his threat to invade Ukraine. I am currently reading the book The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep, by David Satter.[1] Satter paints a picture of Russia in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union that is almost unbearably bleak. In Satter’s telling of it life in Russia since the fall of the USSR has been characterized by rampant crime and corruption that ran all the way up to Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, the first post-Soviet president of Russia, and to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Yeltsin’s successor and the current president of Russia. As the book’s subtitle suggests, Satter’s book is an account of how Russia missed its chance to become a true democracy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in1991. It is a tale of leadership incompetence an greed in which organized crime infected every aspect of Russian life. Such crime has been tolerated if not actually encouraged at the highest levels of the Russian government. Satter, correctly I think, accuses Russia’s leaders of stealing businesses that had been privatized and whose owners were not loyal followers of Putin by forcing the owners to sell the business to someone the regime liked at well below market prices. The government used arrests on false charges and trials where the outcome was preordained to force such sales. the buyers of those businesses, of course, are all people who will support and not criticize the regime. The government under Putin has especially forced the owners of Russia’s major television networks to sell to handpicked buyers in order to silence opposition.

Satter’s most powerful and somewhat shocking charge against the post-Soviet Russian government under Yeltsin is that it carried out three bombings of civilian apartment buildings in different Russian cities including Moscow. Something like three hundred civilians were killed in those bombings, and many more were injured. The government blamed and blames the bombings on Chechen terrorists.[2] Yeltsin used the bombings, Satter says, as a way to raise his favorability ratings in advance of a presidential election. He used the bombings as an excuse to launch a military campaign against Chechnia, and his popularity numbers did improve. Satter makes a strong case in support of his claim that the highest levels of the Russian government carried out the bombings against their own people  for the purposes of political gain. There is however now way to know for sure if Satter’s charge is correct.

Satter accuses the Russian government under Putin of being responsible for two more tragic incidents of violence against innocent people. October 23, 2002, terrorists entered and occupied a movie theater in Moscow. The Russian authorities, probably the FSB, fed toxic gas into the theater. Forces then entered it a killed all of the terrorists. A large if uncertain number of civilians died as a result either during the assault or from gas poisoning later on. Satter goes through evidence that suggests governmental involvement in the attack at least to the extent of facilitating it.

On September 1, 2004, Chechen terrorists attacked and occupied a school in the town of Beslan, taking a large number of civilians, including school children, hostage. The terrorists treated the hostages very badly, but only a small number of them died as a result. Rather than negotiate with the terrorists the authorities launched essentially a full-scale military attack on the school. Satter says that 318 hostages, including 186 children, died in the attack. Satter accuses the Russian government of at least facilitating the attack when people in the government knew it was coming. He has some substantial evidence of government complicity, and it certainly seems that the authorities launched an attack against the school when there may well have been other, nonviolent ways of resolving the crisis. As with the apartment bombings and the taking of the theater, there is no way to know if Satter’s charges are correct.

What it is possible to know is that, if the Russian government was in any complicit in any of these incidents (or really even if they weren’t), the post-Soviet Russian government values human life no more than the Soviet Communists did, which is to say not much. Russia is a country balanced on the divide between Europe and Asia. One of its Asian characteristics is that Russians have never valued human life as highly as the people of Europe and North America have. I’ll cite just one example. One reason Soviet casualties in World War II were as high as they were—something like more than twenty million dead—is that one of the Soviets strategies in fighting the invading Germans was to throw wave after wave of soldiers at the Germans knowing that a great number of those soldiers had no chance of survival. I have heard, though I can’t vouch for it, that Stalin said he had more soldiers than the Germans had bullets. Western militaries commonly try to keep casualties at a minimum in any military conflict. The Russians don’t and never have. This aspect of Russian culture certainly seems to have survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.                                                           

I was struck by this passage from Satter’s book. He’s talking here about the development of the Russian government under Putin:

 

The shift of power to the government bureaucracy and concentration of decision making in the hands of the president created a situation in which nearly everyone in a management position felt that he needed the protection of a good relationship with the authorities, which, as representatives of the regime made clear, was best guaranteed by donations and activism on behalf of United Russia.[3]

 

When I read those words I thought yes, Putin really is trying to build a state as much as possible on the Soviet model. Substitute Communist Party for “governmental bureaucracy,” and you’ve got the Soviet model without the Soviet Union’s Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Then there’s this that Satter says about the courts under Putin: “[I]f there is ‘government interest’ in a case, orders for its resolution are transmitted to the judge through the court chairman.” This is exactly the way the  courts worked in the Soviet Union. The courts usually decided each case on the basis of the applicable law and the facts of the case. That’s how every court should function in every case. In the Soviet Union however everything changed as soon as the KGB took an interest in the case. In such a case every judge knew what had to happen. The court had to reach the verdict the KGB wanted. It's not that the law was written that way. It wasn’t. Still, every judge knew what they had to do. Ruling against the KGB would at the very least be detrimental to the judge’s career, and everyone knew it. Most Soviet people never even thought about going against the KGB or the Communist Party generally. It rarely if ever happened. Passivity of the citizens in the face of evil is what every totalitarian our would be totalitarian regime tries to create. Th Communist Party of the Soviet Union created it more completely than most other totalitarian regimes have been able to do.

It is no coincidence that Vladimir Putin has Russia running on so much of the Soviet model. He was born in 1952. He was a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1975 to 1991. He started to work for the KGB in 1975. He was the Director of the FSB, the Russian successor to the Soviet KGB, in 1998. He moved into a governmental position in 1999, and on August 16 of that year the State Duma approved Yeltsin’s appointment of Putin as Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. Yeltsin made it known that he wanted Putin to be his successor as the country’s president, the one who held virtually all political power in the country. When Yeltsin suddenly resigned as president on New Year’s Eve 1999, Putin became acting president. He was elected as president later that year. Putin’s first act as president was to pardon Yeltsin and all of Yeltsin’s family for any crimes they had committed. I doubt that there’s any way to know for sure, but it looks like Yeltsin and Putin had a deal. Putin would promise to pardon Yeltsin and his family, Yeltsin would make Putin president.

I have seen Putin quoted as saying in 1999 that communism was “a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization.” More familiar to most of us is his statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical calamity of the twentieth century. One wonders if he had forgotten about the two world wars in that century, but never mind. What’s important is that Putin believes it, and there is no reason to doubt that he does. When we put these two statements together it isn’t at all surprising that Putin is trying to recreate the USSR without its communist ideology.

Satter blames Russia’s descent into what his book’s  subtitle calls “terror and dictatorship” mostly on Yeltsin and Putin. It certainly is true that both of these post-Soviet Russian presidents consolidated power in the office of the president. It certainly is true that Yeltsin benefitted from and Putin continues to benefit from the corruption and crime that came to dominate Russian political and economic life. Yet it seems to me that there is a deeper dynamic at work in Russia’s failure to become a western-style democracy. That dynamic is Russian history. Russia has never had a political system that was in any way truly democratic. The effect of Russia’s lack of a democratic tradition under the tsars was amplified by the seventy-four years of Communist dictatorship which was far more deadly and far more totalitarian then any tsar had ever been.

Russia’s historical development differed greatly from those of more western nations. At least since the time of Ivan IV, known to us as Ivan the Terrible, who ruled from 1533 to 1584 and as tsar for the last fifty-one years of his reign,[4] political power in Russa became wholly centralized in the person of the tsar. There had been a privileged caste in Russia known as the boyars. In earlier times they had some political influence. Ivan IV reduced them to servants of the tsar with essentially no political power whatsoever. Tsar Peter I, known as Peter the Great, ruled 1682 to 1725, tried to modernize Russia in various ways, but he brooked no interference with his imperial power whatsoever. Later in the eighteenth century Tsarina (the feminine form of tsar) Ekaterina II, known to us as Catherine the Great (who was German not Russian) was enamored with some of the rationalistic thought of the European Enlightenment. However, she did nothing to modify Russia’s autocratic form of government along western lines. By the early nineteenth century some Russians had come to want Russia’s autocracy modified in the direction of a democracy. When Tsar Alexander I died in 1825 a group of Russian military officers, known in Russian history as the Decembrists, attempted a coup. The governmental forces easily crushed and then executed them. The tsar whose ascension to the throne the Decembrists were trying to prevent, Nicholas I, made his regime one of the most regressive and authoritarian in the imperial period of Russian history.

In the 1860s, after Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War, the next tsar, Alexander II, introduced some significant reforms in the Russian political and social systems. Most importantly, he liberated the serfs. The serfs were Russia’s peasants. They weren’t slaves exactly, but they were not free to leave the land they worked. Alexander’s program of freeing them was hardly free of questionable elements, but at least the serfs were now more or less free to leave the land. Alexander II reformed Russia’s  legal system somewhat along western lines. He also created local administrative bodies called zemstvos. They elected their own leaders, but only the landed gentry could vote. The zemstvos had some autonomy with regard to purely local administrative affairs, but they were in no way free to alter any of the tsar’s national policies, and they had no meaningful influence over the tsar at all.

In 1881 a group of radical terrorists assassinated Tsar Alexander II. Upon his death his son became tsar. He ruled from 1881 to 1894 as Tsar Alexander III. Upon his ascension to the throne he issued something called the “Manifesto on the Reaffirmation of Autocracy.” It had been written by Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev, a legal scholar who had opposed nearly every one of Alexander II’s reforms (though he did work on the reform of the legal system some). He had been a tutor on the civil law to both Alexander II and Alexander III. He was firmly committed to Russian autocracy and opposed any modification of it throughout his long career in the Russian government.[5] In that Manifesto Pobedonostsev had the new tsar say that God had called him to reaffirm and preserve autocratic power. Alexander III became one of the most regressive tsars in Russian history. He did indeed preserve Russia’s autocracy unchanged just as his Manifesto said he was called to do. There was no development at all in the direction of democracy under Alexander III.

Alexander III died in 1894, and his son, Nikolai Alexandrovich, known to history as Nicholas II, came to the throne. Nicholas II never should have been tsar. He didn’t want to be tsar. He had neither the temperament nor the abilities for being an autocratic ruler. Yet he was as committed to preserving Russian autocracy as his father had been. The difference between Alexander III and Nicholas II was that Alexander III was able to do what he set out to do but Nicholas II wasn’t. In 1905, after Russia’s humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 the people of Russia rebelled. The Revolution of 1905, the first Russian revolution of the twentieth century, led Nicholas II to change Russia’s system of government to make it look somewhat democratic. He created a body called the Duma. It consisted of elected representatives, and it could and did pass laws. Yet it was all for show. The tsar retained the authority to veto or disregard anything the Duma did. Nicholas II continued to reign while paying little or no attention to anything the Duma did.

Begun in 1914, the First World War completely undid both the Russian economy and its political structure. Nicholas II abdicated in March, 1917, thereby ending Russian hereditary autocracy and more than three hundred years of rule by the Romanov family. The so-called Provisional Government was formed in its place. It consisted of more or less liberal men. It could perhaps have moved Russian along the path to democracy, but it refused to do the two things Russia desperately needed it to do. It failed to pull Russia out of World War I, and it refused to call a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for the country. Yet it insisted that it really couldn’t do anything until after such a constitution had been drafted. It never was.

The most important consequence of the Provisional Government was that on November 7, 1917, a small group of Marxist fanatics then called the Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Ilyich  Lenin, nee Ulyanov, staged a coupe d’état against the Provisional Government in St. Petersburg. The Soviet Communists called this coup “the great October Revolution,” (October because Russia was still on the old Julian calendar at the time. In that calendar our November 7 was October 25). Yet what the Bolsheviks did in 1917 can hardly be called a revolution. They seized control of the Russian government, but they had to fight a long civil war in order to establish their control over the whole country. By 1922 the Bolsheviks, by then called the Communists, had gained control of most of what had been the Russian Empire.

The Communists formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922. Having been essentially taken over by Joseph Stalin (nee Dzhugashvili, a Georgian not a Russian), the Soviet Communists proceeded to create one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in all of human history. Stalin ruled through terror all the while convincing the people of the Soviet Union that he was their great friend and benefactor. He is responsible for the deaths of millions of the people he was supposed to be benefitting. The exact number of deaths for which he is responsible is difficult to determine. Scholarly estimates range from around one million to nearly twenty million. Whatever the number was, under Stalin the Russian people became more subservient to the state and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union than they ever had been to the tsars.

Stalin died in 1953. Thereafter the Soviet regime was less oppressive than it had been under Stalin. In 1956 Stalin’s successor, Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, gave a famous secret speech to the twentieth congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which he condemned Stalin. That speech was a start, but Khrushchev didn’t go nearly far enough. He condemned Stalin for his purging of the Communist Party. Stalin had indeed eliminated all of the so-called “Old Bolsheviks,” the people who had worked with Lenin. Khrushchev did not condemn Stalin for starving millions of peasants to death to force them into collective farms. He did not condemn the totalitarian nature of the Soviet state. Though Khrushchev loosened the state’s controls on freed of expression a little bit, he had no intention of creating a true democracy. He took no steps in that direction.

After Khrushchev Soviet Union was led by Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev from 1964 to 1982. Russians call the Brezhnev years the era of stagnation. It seems Brezhnev had no intention of doing anything other than maintain the Soviet regime. I was in the Soviet Union for one of the Brezhnev years doing PhD dissertation research. To me and most observers of the time the USSR seemed to be a huge, inert mass that wasn’t going to go away any time soon but that wasn’t going to change much at all either. In the 1970s we couldn’t imagine the Soviet Union ceasing to exist in our lifetimes.

How wrong we were! In 1985 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He would be that nation’s last Communist leader, at least so far. Under Gorbachev the USSR began to change. He tried to reform the country’s stagnant economy by introducing reforms in the direction of a market economy. We know these reforms as perestroika. He also loosened the Party’s control of freedom of expression. We know those reforms as glasnost’. It seems Gorbachev didn’t know what he had unleashed. It wasn’t long before the Soviet Union started to fall apart. I’ll skip all the gory details. The Soviet Union was dissolved on December 25, 1991 (which isn’t Christmas in the Russian Orthodox Church). Each of the constituent republics of the USSR became an independent, sovereign nation.

This is the point in Russian history where Satter says Russia missed its chance to become a democracy. It is true that Russia today is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. What I find questionable is Satter’s assertion that with the fall of the Soviet Union Russia had a meaningful chance of becoming a true democracy. I won’t say that Russia becoming one was impossible. I am however convinced that she faced very long odds against becoming one. History matters. History cannot be ignored without dire consequences. History colors everything in the present. There are at best only faint traces of democracy in Russia’s history. Except for the faint traces of the zemstvos, the powerless post-1905 Duma, and the ineffective Provisional Government of 1917, Russia’s political history is one of authoritarian autocracy at best and Stalinist totalitarianism at worst. All through the century before the fall of the autocracy in 1917 there were Russian voices calling for reform of the autocracy in the direction of democracy. They were never able to produce that reform. Instead Russia went from Soviet totalitarianism to the chaos of the first post-Soviet years.

That Russia in those years would become authoritarian rather than democratic was perfectly predictable. Of course I wish Russia’s development after 1991 had been different than it was. Even without the freedom we take for granted, the Russian people have created one of the world’s great cultures. They have remarkable achievements in science. Even in the Soviet period Moscow State University was named for the great eighteenth century Russian scientists Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov. The Russians beat the US into space, a feat of which Russians are understandably proud to this day. World literature would be poorer than it is without the contribution of great Russian writers from Pushkin to Solzhenitsyn. World music would be poorer than it is without the contribution of great Russian composers from Tchaikovsky to Shostakovich. The great Russian people deserve better government than they have ever had. They deserve better than Vladimir Putin. What they have is Putin’s attempt to recreate the Soviet Union as an authoritarian if not quite totalitarian state without Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Will Russia ever become a truly free and democratic nation? I would never say it isn’t possible. I will say that Russia has a long, hard struggle ahead if she is ever to become such a nation. That is the reality with which Russian history has presented the Russian people. One possible ray of hope is that Putin has no apparent successor, and his United Russia party is nothing like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union used to be. Authoritarian systems survive only when they have a strong leader and/or a strong party apparatus capable of asserting and maintaining control of a country. There is no way to know for sure what will become of Russia after Putin is gone. There is however no way to deny that Russia becoming a true democracy after Putin will be difficult at best. We can perhaps hope that it might evolve in the direction of democracy and the rule of law. Of course, only time will tell.



[1] Satter, David, The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep, Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016).

[2] Chechnia is a predominately Muslim area in the south of European Russia. Chechen extremists have been agitation for independence for quite some time, and they have not been shy about using terror to advance their demands.

[3] Satter, op. cit. 89-90. United Russia is Putin’s political party.

[4] The Russian word “tsar” is a Slavic adaptation of the Latin word “Caesar.” The rulers formerly known as the Grand Princes of Moscow began to use it around one century after the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks.

[5] In 1881 Alexander III made Pobedonostsev the Over-Procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Holy Synod became the ruling body of the Russian Orthodox Church when Peter the Great abolished the Moscow Patriarchate. Pobedonostsev served in that capacity until 1905. Although being Over-Procurator made him in many ways the one with decision making authority in the Russian Orthodox Church, Pobedonostsev was a government official not a churchman. For what I believe still to be the best study of Pobedonostsev in English see Sorenson, Thomas Calnan, Reflections on a Russian Statesman, The Populist Conservatism of Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev, available in paperback and electronic form from amazon.com. It is the book I turned my PhD dissertation into.

Monday, February 7, 2022

On Paul's Gnosticism

 

On Paul’s Gnosticism

February 7, 2022

 

In the first century CE, when Paul was spreading the good news of Jesus Christ around the eastern Mediterranean world, there was a philosophy that sometimes competed with and even affected the development of the Christian faith. It was called Gnosticism. The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge. Gnosticism was an anthropology of sorts, an understanding of the existential nature of us human beings. Perhaps you have heard humans described as inspirited bodies. In this way of thinking the human body isn’t bad, it is a temple of the divine. Gnosticism turned that understanding of the human upside down. The Gnostics taught that in our true essence we are spirit. The human existential dilemma isn’t sin, it is that we don’t know that what we really are is not flesh but spirit. For the Gnostics our good, even divine spirit, is trapped. It is imprisoned in a body of evil flesh. Knowing that we are really spirit is the basic gnosis, the knowledge the Gnostics thought we needed to know but didn’t.

The Christian tradition considers Gnosticism to be a heresy. The theology that Paul expresses in his authentic letters is of course considered to be orthodox not heresy. Paul does however at times skate awfully close to the line between orthodox Christianity and the heresy of Gnosticism. Here’s an example of him doing that from his letter to the Galatians. We’ll see what he has to say here about both human flesh and the Spirit.

 

Live by the Spirit I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh….Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you….Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:16-21 with omissions.

 

Here's what he says about Spirit as he continues, with a jab back at flesh at the end.

 

    By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 5:22-24.

 

Pretty clear, isn’t it? When Paul gives us vices and virtues lists like this one (there are others in his writings) that for him human flesh is bad and the Spirit of God into which Paul calls us to live is good.

If that attitude toward human bodiliness, toward our physicality, sounds like something you’ve been taught in church, there’s a good reason that it does. See, Gnosticism lost the battle with orthodoxy over the nature of the body, but in the long run orthodox Christianity absorbed so much of Gnosticism that it often sounds like Gnosticism won the war. The Christian tradition came to have quite a negative attitude toward human physicality. It has taught in particular that our sexual desires, especially those of women, must be suppressed as something bad or even downright evil. Why else would the Roman Catholic tradition, which was the tradition of us Protestants too before the sixteenth century CE, insist that Jesus’ mother Mary is “ever virgin?” Why else would the Roman Catholic Church teach to this day that sexual relations are permissible only between a woman and a man who are married to each other and even then only if the sex act carries with it the possibility of the woman becoming pregnant? Protestant churches too have preached a narrow sexual morality that sure seems to be grounded in the belief that sex in and of itself is somehow bad, sinful even.

Well, a lot of us Christians, and even a lot of us ordained Christian clergy like me, do not believe that sex in and of itself is bad or necessarily sinful, though of course we humans are quite able to turn it into something bad, and we do it all the time. No, many of us today take a different view of the body from Paul’s, and it’s just as biblical. Consider these familiar lines:

 

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image according to our likeness’….

 

So God created humankind in his image,

   in the image of God he created them,

                  male and female the created them….

 

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Genesis 1:26a, 27, and 31a.

 

What did God make that was indeed very good? All of creation, and Genesis specifically includes God’s creation of humans as female and male, that is, as sexual beings, as very good. I assume that Paul knew the creation story with which the Hebrew Bible opens. It opened with that story in his time too. Unfortunately, he chose to emphasize the Bible’s second creation story, the one about Adam and Eve, over the Bible’s first creation story, and he blamed Adam for bringing sin into the world. See Romans 5:12. Paul preferred the very ancient and quite primitive story of Adam and Eve to the beautiful and less ancient (though still very old) story of God creating all that is, including the sabbath, in seven days simply by speaking all that is into existence. That doesn’t mean, however, that we have to do the same. Genesis 1:27 recognizes that God made us humans as physical, sexual beings. And indeed it was very good.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Human sexuality is God’s good gift to us, but in order to keep it from becoming sinful, that is, to keep us from corrupting that gift, we must exercise our sexuality very carefully. I need not list all the dangers associated with sex. We all know what they are. Still, sex is part of our good creation in the image and likeness of God. We must make sure we practice it only as God’s good gift.

So Paul, I know that you were Christ’s apostle to us Gentiles. I know that you developed the theology of justification by grace through faith that is the basis of our Protestant Christianity. For those things I give thanks to you and to God. But your take on human physicality is just too gnostic for me and for many people today. We are not good spirit trapped in evil flesh. Both our spirits and our bodies are part of God’s good creation. Let’s treat both of them as the good gifts that they are. May it be so.

Thursday, February 3, 2022

A Complex Situation: The Current Russia-Ukraine Crisis

 

A Complex Situation: The Current Russia-Ukraine Crisis

February 3, 2022

© Thomas C. Sorenson, 2022

 

President Vladimir Putin of Russia has threatened that Russia will invade Ukraine. The United States and NATO have threatened to institute crippling economic sanctions against Russia if it does. This crisis is serious, yet it is but the latest event in a long and complex history of relations between Russia and Ukraine. I hope the information I present here will help you better understand that crisis. My purpose here is to explain not to justify. Though it has been so only since 1991, as I will explain below, Ukraine today is an independent, sovereign nation recognized by the international community as such. Russia has no right under international law to invade Ukraine. I’ll say more about what I think about the prospect of Russia doing that at the end of this piece. Time, of course, will tell.

To understand the current situation between Russia and Ukraine we must start with at least a cursory look at Ukrainian and Russian history, ethnicity, and geography. Ukraine is located south of Russia on the north coast of the Black Sea. A peninsula called Crimea extends from the Ukrainian mainland into the Black Sea. The Russian and Ukrainian languages today are both recognized as distinct East Slavic languages. As we will see, Russians historically have not considered Ukrainian to be a separate language but to be only a dialect of Russian.

We start our review of Russian-Ukrainian history with the uncontested fact that Russian history began in Ukraine. More specifically, it began in the city of Kiev (the Russian version of the name and the way we used to spell the name in English) or Kyiv (the Ukrainian version of the name and the way it is often spelled today). Kyiv is located on the west bank of the Dnieper River about 550 miles south southwest of Moscow, Russia. The Dnieper River essentially divides Ukraine into eastern and western sections, a fact that has played a role in Ukrainian history. The first Russian (the Ukrainians would say the first Ukrainian) political entity of any historical significance is called Kievan Rus’. It arose in the ninth century CE. As the name tells us, it was centered on the city of Kyiv. It flourished until roughly the twelfth or thirteenth century. The Dnieper Rover on which Kyiv is located was at that time part of an important trade route between Scandinavia to the north and Constantinople to the south. Kyiv was perfectly situated to control that trade.

The Russian people and most of the Ukrainian people have been Orthodox Christians for centuries. What became the Russian Orthodox Church came into existence in Kyiv. In 988 CE Grand Prince Vladimir I of Kievan Rus’ converted to Orthodox Christianity. He had all of his people baptized as Orthodox Christians. (We don’t do baptism that way any more, by the way.) The Orthodox Church in Kyiv was placed under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In 1240 the Mongols from Asia attacked and conquered Kyiv. Thereafter the center of Russian political power shifted to the northeast, first to cities called Vladimir and Suzdal, then to Moscow. Jurisdiction over the Russian Orthodox Church was eventually transferred from the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Moscow. The Grand Princes of Moscow, later to be called tsar or Imperator, expanded their control of the lands of the East Slavic peoples in all directions from Moscow, but for a very long time they did not rule the land that we call Ukraine today. Ukraine came under the control of the Mongols and other peoples thereafter. About that a bit more below.

Ukraine’s history thereafter is extremely complex. I’ll review it very briefly here. At different times Ukraine was ruled by Turkic people called Tatars, by Lithuania, and by Poland. Russian dominance of Ukraine picked up speed in the seventeenth century when Russia and Poland, a major power in the region at the time, divided Ukraine up between them. Poland took Ukraine west of the Dnieper. Russia took Ukraine east of the Dnieper, but it also got Kyiv although that city is on the west bank of the river. From the mid-seventeenth century Russian dominance over Ukraine expanded. By late in the eighteenth century, when Russia was ruled by Empress Catherine II, known as Catherine the Great (who, by the way, was German not Russian), all of Ukraine except its westernmost part had become incorporated into the Russian Empire.

Once they had full control of most of Ukraine the Russians did not create any kind of Ukrainian political unit within the Russian Empire. Ukraine just became part of that empire and was ruled and administered the same way other parts of the empire were. In the imperial period of Russian history, roughly 1700 to 1917, the Russians did not consider Ukrainians to be a people distinct from the Russians. They called the eastern part of Ukraine “Little Russia.” Because imperial officials did not consider Ukrainian to be its own language, the language of public administration in Ukraine under the empire was Russian. To this day most educated Ukrainians are fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian. There is also a large number of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, especially on the Crimean Peninsula and in eastern Ukraine.

World War I brought about the collapse of the Russian Empire. The Russian Communists, then called Bolsheviks, staged a coup in St. Petersburg on October 25, 1917. (That was the date of the coup on the Julian calendar the Russians used at the time. On the Gregorian calendar that almost everyone else uses the date was November 7, 1917. That’s why the Soviet Union called that coup the October Revolution. They celebrated it in November.) A long and bloody civil war followed. Much of it was fought in Ukraine. Eventually the Russian Communist Party established its control over all of Ukraine.

In 1922 the Russian Communists created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly known as the USSR. It consisted of so-called republics organized by major ethnic groups within the country. Control of the whole country was, however, strongly centralized in Moscow. One of the original republics was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. That subordinate political entity in the USSR constituted the first time in all of Ukrainian history that Ukraine had a set political structure based mostly on Ukrainian language. Its borders were mostly those of Ukraine today except that the Crimean Peninsula was at that time part of the Russian republic not the Ukrainian republic.

Then we come to one of most horrendous tragedies in the history of humanity. By the end of the 1920s the Soviet Union was under the control of Joseph Stalin, nee Dzhugashvili. He instituted a policy of rapid industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture throughout the country. The Communist Party, headed by Stalin, forced peasants across the USSR to surrender their private land holdings, farm animals, and farm equipment to entities usually called collective farms. All agricultural property was owned by the collective farm not by the people who were part of the collective. Peasants across the country resisted collectivization. In Ukraine, where the best farm land in the USSR was located—Ukraine was once called “the breadbasket of Europe”—the resistance was particularly strong.

To force the Ukrainian peasants to accept collectivization, Stalin created a massive, wholly artificial famine in Ukraine. There were sufficient crops to feed the people, but the government confiscated them and exported them to get hard currency that Russia did not have in its own. Soldiers even entered people’s houses and took away any food they found there. Something like 4 million Ukrainians starved to death. The Ukrainians call this famine the Holodomor. That’s a word based on Ukrainian words for kill and hunger. It has the power and horrific connotation for the Ukrainians that the word Holocaust has for us. Though Stalin was Georgian (from the soviet socialist republic, now independent nation of Georgia). he was dictator over a country primarily run by and for the benefit of the Russians. The Ukrainians quite appropriately blame the Russians for the Holodomor. Though it took place ninety years ago, it colors the Ukrainians’ view of the Russians to this day. As I’m sure you could guess, it does not improve that view.

Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. German military forces soon occupied all of Ukraine. Scholars say that a great many Ukrainians would have joined the Germans in fighting the Russians both because they hated the Russians for the Holodomor and because they hated Soviet communism. Hitler, however, thought that all Slavic people were subhuman. How anyone could think that of people with history and culture as rich as those of the Slavic people is beyond comprehension, but that’s what Hitler thought. So rather than favoring the Ukrainians and inducing them to help them fight the Russians, the Germans treated the Ukrainians no better than he treated other Slavic people he had conquered like the Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles, and he didn’t treat them well at all. Eventually of course the Soviets defeated and Germans and ended the Second World War in Europe.

Stalin died on March 5, 1953. He was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as head of the Communist Part and for time head of the Soviet government as well. Earlier in his career he had been a Party functionary in the Donbas, a region in far eastern Ukraine where many of the people were (and are) Russians not Ukrainians. He is important for us because in 1954 he transferred Crimea from the Russian soviet republic to the Ukrainian one. No one quite knows for sure why he did it. It isn’t clear that he had the legal authority to do it, but then the lack of legal authority never stopped any Soviet leaders from doing anything.

I lived in Soviet Russia for the academic year 1975-76 doing PhD dissertation research. The Soviet Union felt to me and many other people like a huge, inert mass that wasn’t doing much but that was going to last for long time. So I and a lot of other people knowledgeable about the Soviet Union were surprised if not shocked when the USSR started falling apart in the late 1980s. The history of the collapse of the Soviet Union is complex and fascinating. The important part of that history for us is only that on December 25, 1991, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved. (Because of that calendar difference I mentioned above, December 25 on our calendar is not Christmas on the Orthodox calendar.) The Russian flag replaced the Soviet flag flying over the Kremlin in Moscow. A few months earlier the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had declared itself to be at first autonomous within the USSR, then completely independent as its own sovereign nation. This was the first time in history that there had been an independent Ukrainian nation.

I can’t overstress a point I have already made that plays an important role in the current Russia-Ukraine crisis. Throughout the long history of Ukrainian-Russian relations most Russians have never considered the Ukrainians to be a separate people distinct from the Russians. At times the Russian Empire prohibited the use of Ukrainian in schools in Ukraine. In the Russians’ view Ukrainian was merely a dialect of Russian. While I was in Russia I did a lot of research on a man who was significant in the government of Russia and in the Russian Orthodox Church from the 1860s until the Russian revolution in 1905, the first Russian revolution of the twentieth century not the one that toppled the tsar. This man had significant dealings with what is now Ukraine, mostly in church affairs. I never saw any reference to Ukraine as anything other than Russia politically, culturally, or religiously. When the Soviet Union collapsed and for a very long time before that most Ukrainians hated the Russians, and the Russians considered Ukrainians really to be Russian.

In 2014 Vladimir Putin’s Russia occupied the Crimean Peninsula militarily and eventually annexed to Russia. Most of the international community doesn’t recognize that annexation and has imposed sanctions on Russia because of it. Recall that in Soviet times Crimea was first part of the Russian republic, then from 1954 on part of the Ukrainian republic. When Ukraine became an independent country in 1991 Crimea was part of the new Ukrainian nation. The Crimean port city of Sevastopol was the home port of the Russian Black Sea fleet. It had been the home port first of the imperial Russian Black Sea fleet, then of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, then the Russian Black Sea fleet again for a very long time. Sevastopol remained the home port of the Russian fleet when it became part of the independent nation of Ukraine. Moreover, the population of Crimea was mostly Russian not Ukrainian. Despite the economic sanctions imposed on Russia in response to what Russia did in Crimea, that annexation of Crimea to Russia is very popular among the Russian people. It did however violate international law. Whatever else it may mean, Russia’s annexation of Crimea gives the Ukrainians one more reason to hate the Russians.

Today Russian president Putin has stationed over 100,000 Russian troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border and has threatened to invade Ukraine. His threat is, perhaps among other things, an attempt to force concessions from NATO and the United States. So to understand what Putin is up to we must know some of the history of relations between Russia and NATO. The United States and several western European countries created NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, on April 1, 1949. They created NATO specifically to stop the spread of Soviet influence in western Europe. It did that by having the United States commit to its European allies that it would defend them against any Soviet attack. Several years later, in 1955, the Soviet Union created the so-called Warsaw Pact. It members included the Soviet Union and all of the Communist ruled, Soviet dominated countries in eastern Europe from Poland in the north to Bulgaria in the south. Thereafter the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was also a standoff between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in July 1, 1991, shortly before the final collapse of the Soviet Union. NATO is of course still very much with us.

When the Soviet Union was disbanded in late 1991 all fifteen of the former soviet socialist republics became independent nations. Particularly striking was the regained independence of the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They had long been part of the Russian Empire. They all became independent nations after World War I. However, after the singing of the Nazi-Soviet treaty known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, those states came once more under Soviet pressure and occupation. The Germans occupied all of them for a time during World War II. As the Soviets pushed the Germans out of the Baltic states they incorporated all three states into the USSR, each of them becoming one of the soviet socialist republics. Each of them became an independent nation again upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded to the east. Beginning around 1999 NATO started accepting applications to join the alliance from former Warsaw Pact members and the three Baltic nations. Poland became a member of NATO in 1999. The three Baltic states join in 2004. Today all former Warsaw Pact members except for three former soviet republics, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, are members of NATO.

From the time it first started to happen, Russia has considered NATO expansion into lands formerly under their control to be an aggressive act against Russia. Adding former Soviet controlled nations to NATO may seem in the west to be designed to protect them from Russian aggression. Russia, at least in the person of its president Vladimir Putin, sees it as aimed directly against Russia. We need to consider why that is so. Recall that NATO was always a strong adversary of the Soviet Union. Recall also how so many times nations to Russia’s west invaded it over the centuries. The invasions of the French under Napoleon in June, 1812 and the Germans under Hitler in June, 1941, are the most famous invasions of Russia, but there had been numerous other invasions from the west in earlier centuries. After World War II the Russians had established their dominance over all of the nations of eastern Europe (except Austria if you consider Austria to be in eastern Europe). The Soviets did that in significant part to create buffer states between the Soviet Union and the west. Now all of that buffer except for Russia’s ally Belarus is gone. NATO, Russia’s opponent  all through the Cold War, has expanded into the nations that had formed Russia’s buffer. To Putin the wolf is at the door. He greatly fears that NATO’s expansion might one day extend to Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would feel nearly surrounded by a potentially aggressive enemy.

Putin clearly intends his threat to invade Ukraine to be an attempt to get NATO and the US to back off. He has demanded that the three Baltic states be expelled from NATO, that NATO remove its forces from the former Warsaw Pact nations that have joined it, and that NATO pledge that it will never accept Ukraine as a member. It seems perfectly obvious that NATO never could accept any of these demands and never will. Doing what Putin wants would be a betrayal of NATO’s newest members. It would leave Ukraine more at Russia’s mercy than it already is. The odd thing about Putin’s demands is that he must have known that NATO and the US would never accept them. It seems so obvious that NATO and the US would never accept them that we have to ask whether Putin had some hidden motive behind his demanding them. Putin is after all an old Cold Warrior and KGB operative full of deceit and subterfuge. There are, I think, a few things that might be Putin’s hidden motive.

First, he may be playing to his domestic audience more than to Ukraine or the west. Like I’ve already said, historically at least Russians don’t see  Ukrainians as a people distinct from themselves. Many Russians may believe that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent, sovereign nation. The Russian people reacted very favorably to Putin’s annexation of Crimea. Many Russians share Putin’s belief that NATO is a threat to Russia’s national security. Putin’s favorability ratings are not always very high. He has probably retained his hold on power by falsifying election returns in various ways (and by having his chief opponents jailed or even murdered, but that’s a matter for another day). I would not be surprised if his strong stance against the west and Ukraine boosted his standing in the polls.

Another possible reason for what Putin is doing has to do with Putin’s long-range foreign policy goals. According to people knowledgeable about such things, those goals are first to create a Russian sphere of influence that reproduces the Russian or Soviet empire (they were geographically nearly the same thing) to the greatest extent possible. Putin has said that he considers the collapse of the Soviet Union to have been the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the twentieth century. It doesn’t matter if he’s right about that or not. (He isn’t.) What matters is that that’s what Putin thinks. He can’t come close to achieving this goal if he can’t get Ukraine into his sphere of influence. He may hope that even though the west will not accept his demands, in the long run NATO will back off their support for Ukraine because of the danger his threats against that country create.

Second, Putin wants to deepen fractures that already exist in the European Union. (Many, though not all, Ukrainians would very much like to join the EU, but so far Ukraine has not been invited in.) Not all members of the EU have the same economic relationship with Russia. Germany, for example, is more dependent on a supply of Russian natural gas than are some other EU members. Political attitudes toward Russia differ too. Neo-fascist leaders like those in Hungary and Turkey are more inclined to like Putin and Putin’s Russia than are the true democrats in countries like Germany and France. Putin forcing Europe to make new decisions about sanctions on Russia could indeed deepen those fractures.

Third, Putin hopes to drive a wedge between the United States and its NATO allies. It is much easier for the US to take a firm stand against Russia than it is for America’s European allies. We’re a lot farther away from Russia than they are. We are in no way dependent on Russian natural gas and other natural resources as some European countries are. That means we can worry less about Russia’s response to severe sanctions against it than the European nations can. Perhaps all this is speculation, but it makes sense to me.

Finally, will Putin really invade Ukraine? There is no way to know for sure. I doubt that even Putin himself knows for sure whether or not he will. Russia is far stronger militarily than Ukraine even when we take Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal out of the picture as most unlikely to be used. The military aid Ukraine is receiving from the US and from NATO helps that country’s military preparedness, but it can’t put Ukraine on an equal footing with Russia in that regard. Russia could probably overwhelm Ukraine and occupy the country with relative ease. What Russia could not do is subdue all Ukrainian resistance or get the Ukrainian people to accept any kind of Russian control over them. They have already rebelled once against a pro-Russia leader. It's a pretty sure bet they would do it again. Russia would probably face at least ongoing guerilla war against it. The notion of Russia conquering and in any way ruling Ukraine is one that Putin’s military and political strategists would, I am sure, much rather avoid than undertake. The US and NATO threat of severe sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine may have some deterrent effect on Putin, or it may not.

The thing that could prompt Putin to do something he otherwise would not do is that he has painted himself into a corner. He has threatened to invade Ukraine. He has positioned a huge, highly trained, and well equipped army on the Russo-Ukrainian border. He has made demands that NATO and the US will never accept. Putin may think that he has no way out of the situation he has created than to invade Ukraine. No leader wants to lose face. Authoritarian leaders like Putin want to lose it less than most.

Yet there is one thing Putin could do that would be a use of military force against Ukraine but would not be a full-scale invasion. There are a lot of Russians everywhere in Ukraine, but the population of the eastern part of the country has a particularly high percentage of Russians living among the Ukrainians. A couple of areas in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine have already declared themselves to be independent of Ukraine. They have set up small state structures of a sort. The Donbas Russians are already receiving military aid from Russia. Russian soldiers have been and may still be on the ground there. Putin could send his troops into far eastern of Ukraine, then annex it to Russia the way he did with Crimea. The Ukrainian armed forces would probably fight back, but they are no match for Russia’s mighty military capabilities. I understand that the troops Putin has sent to the Ukrainian border are not positioned for invading Ukraine in the far eastern end of the country. Still, invading and annexing east Ukraine could give Putin a way out short of an all out invasion.

So there you have it. Actually, if you’ve read this far you probably have more than you want to have. The current crisis arising from Putin’s threat to invade Ukraine is complex at best. Historically, relations between Russia and Ukraine are at least fraught. The two peoples, the Russians and the Ukrainians, are either separate peoples or not depending on who you talk to. I take some comfort from the pledge the US and NATO have made not to enter into a war between Ukraine and Russia. I pray that for the sake of both people but especially for the Ukrainians that Russia does not invade.