St. Justin on Pre-determinism

For me, one great attraction of the theology of the Wesleys (and indeed other Anglicans like C.S. Lewis) is their strong assertion that we humans really are responsible agents, who make real choices with real consequences.  Some Christians (who occasionally call themselves Calvinists, though I'm uncertain that John Calvin himself would willingly own their ideas) have taught that God controls everything so completely that we humans have no free choices at all but, like puppets on strings, do only what he has determined that we should do (which would lead to the strange assertion that God has predetermined that I should write this blog post rejecting such predeterminism...which would be a very odd thing for God to do).

The rejection of Predeterminism did not begin with the Wesleys or with Jacob Arminius (a Reformation-era theologian who influenced them); rather the belief in the genuineness of human choices and responsibility goes all the way back to the earliest Christians.

One of the Early Fathers to address this issue with remarkable clarity is St. Justin the Martyr (so named because he was killed for his faith in Christ).  Justin Martyr was born around the year A.D. 100, only a few years after St. John the Apostle died.  When Justin when to church, he was part of a community that had a living memory of the Apostles themselves who were taught and ordained by Christ.  Even at this very early and pure stage the Church rejected the kind of determinism that denies real human choices.  Here is how Justin puts it in his First Apology, Chapter XLIII:

Chapter XLIII.—Responsibility asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;1855 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

What is the endgame in Crimea?

What has happened so far?

As everyone likely knows, Russian troops seized control of the Crimean region of Ukraine in the final days of February.  It quickly became apparent that the uniformed troops without insignia were indeed Russians.  The occupation of Crimea came in response to a change in Ukraine's government from a pro-Russian to a pro-Western government.  You may recall that a (normally elected) pro-Russian government came under intense pressure late last year due to popular protests in the capitol, Kiev.  The violence of those protests led to condemnation of Ukraine's leaders by the Western nations and also ultimately led to the establishment of a new government that is seeking closer ties with Europe.

The Russians - claiming that ethnic Russians who populate Crimea will not be treated fairly by this new government - seized control of the Crimean Region of Ukraine to "protect Russians living there."  It is also worth noting that Crimea is home to a strategically important Russian naval base that was being leased from Ukraine by Russia (an arrangement that may have been endangered by the rise of the new Ukrainian government that wanted to distance itself from Russia).  Last Sunday the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to break away from Ukraine and join Russia.  Despite some concerns that the presence of Russian troops nullifies the legitimacy of such a vote, many commentators believe that actually the vast majority of people in Crimea do indeed wish to rejoin Russia.  The Russian Parliament is now moving on annexation of Crimea.

Where are we now?

The US and European Union have condemned the Russian move as an act of blatant invasion and have already put in place economic sanctions to punish Russia and Russian leaders.  Commentators have suggested that these sanctions are intended to push Russia into diplomatic talks and to serve as a deterrent to further aggression rather than persuade Russia to give Crimea back.

When I was a child we were living through the final decade of the Cold War; Russia was "the bad guy" on the world stage, and to find myself again in a US/Europe versus Russia moment actually has a certain familiarity to it.  Perhaps others feel the same way.

Yet I wonder if seeing this situation through a Cold War lens has perhaps led to a knee-jerk reaction among US and European leaders that misses the point of current events.  Or at least this is what I've been wondering since listening to former US Ambassador  Jack Matlock's contribution to the March 19th episode of "To The Point" on NPR (which you can listen to here, beginning at 19 minutes 32 seconds).  Ambassador Matlock's arguments really challenged the way I've understood this whole situation in Crimea.    

Ambassador Matlock points that that - as Putin claims - Crimea was indeed historically a part of Russia (that is why the people there are Russian) - it was given to Ukraine when both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union, so that was a transfer of bureaucratic functions without any real "national boundary" significance since the people were still being ruled from Moscow in either case.  The feeling, he says, both in Russia and in Crimea has been that the Crimean region is indeed a part of Russia.

Matlock also points out that what Russia has done in Crimea is essentially the exact same thing that NATO did in Kosovo a few years back: forcing a larger country to give up claims to an ethnic minority region that wants to separate anyways - except Russia has done so without killing anyone (whereas we bombed Serbia for almost 3 months to pound them into submission and force them to relinquish Kosovo).  Is it not, then, hypocritical for us to condemn this move by Russia?  Ambassador Matlock also states that - technically - Putin and Crimea have acted within the letter of the law (a point that US Secretary of State John Kerry obviously disputes) in terms of how regions break away from larger countries and become independent - and once independent their decision to join Russia is their own business, not ours.

The most important question he raises is "what is the compelling US interest here?"  Ambassador Matlock says he does not see a "Western stake" in this conflict, suggesting that we are inserting ourselves into someone else's family dispute.  Given the history, it may actually be true (as Putin claims) that Russia is simply reclaiming what both Russians and Crimeans see as Russian territory that was cut off by an accident of history.  If that is the case then there is little reason to think that Russia will try to conquer all of Ukraine or other countries/regions that are not ethnically Russian.  Further, if the people of Crimea do wish to join Russia, and have expressed that wish through a democratic vote - does the US and EU (champions of democracy that we are) really want to over-rule (from far-off Washington) the voice of the Crimean people there on the ground?  Who does that ultimately help?

Yesterday (March 20) the US and EU increased the intensity of economic sanctions against Russia.  My question is: "To what end?"  Do we really think that Russia will give Crimea back to Ukraine?  Even if they did so, do we really think that the Crimean people - having achieved their goal of reunion with Russia - would then willingly go back to Ukrainian control?  Would we not simply be setting the stage for an on-going guerrilla war as the Russian population of Crimea refused to submit to the authority of the government in Kiev?  Would not such a protracted conflict simply further de-stabilize the country and especially the pro-Western government in Kiev? 

If, on the other hand, we do not expect Russia to give Crimea back (I certainly do not expect that) in response to sanctions, then how long are we expected to keep these sanctions in place?  Forever?  What is the endgame here?  Considering that these sanctions may have negative impacts on economies far beyond Russia, how can the US possibly come out "ahead" from having gotten involved here?

It seems that our best move going forward is to concede Crimea to Russia and do what we can to strengthen the rest of Ukraine economically, militarily, and politically so that it can stand stable on its own two feet without threat of further aggression and chart its own (presumably pro-Western) course into the future.

Lenten discipline: Reading the Fathers or the New Testament

Some of you may have seen this going around Facebook - a reading plan for reading some of the major writings of the Early Church Fathers throughout the season of Lent.  This is a great chance to go deeper in your understanding of the Church's tradition and theological heritage, which is an important guide for rightly interpreting Scripture (see last week's post for an example of why this is so important).

Or, getting even more foundational, you may want a deeper familiarity with the Scripture itself.  How about reading the New Testament through the season of Lent?  There is a 40-day New Testament reading plan here.

In either case, Lent begins today and goes until Easter, but these reading plans do not count Sundays.

Reading the Fathers through Lent:

2014 Date	Day in Lenten Season	Reading
3/5	1	Didache: complete
3/6	2	Epistle to Diognetus: 1-6
3/7	3	Epistle to Diognetus: 7-12
3/8	4	Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians: complete
3/10	5	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Ephesians: complete
3/11	6	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Magnesians: complete
3/12	7	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Trallians: complete
3/13	8	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Romans: complete
3/14	9	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Philadelphians: complete
3/15	10	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Smyrneans: complete
3/17	11	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to Polycarp: complete
3/18	12	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 1-11
3/19	13	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 12-23
3/20	14	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 24-35
3/21	15	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 36-47
3/22	16	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 48-59
3/24	17	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 60-68
3/25	18	St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): 1-9
3/26	19	St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): Secs. 10-18
3/27	20	St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): Secs. 19-21
3/28	21	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 1-10
3/29	22	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 11-20
3/31	23	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 21-30
4/1	24	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 31-40
4/2	25	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 41-50
4/3	26	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 51-60
4/4	27	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 61-70
4/5	28	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 71-80
4/7	29	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 81-94
4/8	30	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XIX
4/9	31	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XX
4/10	32	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XX1
4/11	33	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XXII
4/12	34	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XXIII
4/14	35	St. Ambrose of Milan: Concerning the Mysteries: 1-4
4/15	36	St. Ambrose of Milan: Concerning the Mysteries: 5-9
4/16	37	St. Leo the Great: Letter XXVIII (called the "Tome"): complete
4/17	38	St. Leo the Great: Sermon XXI (On the Feast of the Nativity I): complete
4/18	39	St. Leo the Great: Sermon XLIX (On Lent XI): complete
4/19	40	St. Leo the Great: Sermon LXXII (On the Lord's Resurrection): complete

If you don't own a set of the Early Church Fathers' writings, you can find them online here or here, or you can web-search individual titles (note the first reading, The Didache, is an anonymous document, and may be further down some lists, even though it is extremely early - probably composed not long after St. John the Apostle died).