Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that Moscow would step back from its last remaining major nuclear-arms-control treaty with the US. He also vowed to continue his military campaign in Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden responded: “Our support for Ukraine will not waver, NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire. President Putin’s craven lust for land and power will fail.”

As the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine comes this Friday, many are asking if this is a new Cold War or even the beginning of World War III. After a year, what do we now know about the conflict? What can we predict for the future?

One of the most insightful responses to these questions I have found was written for Foreign Affairs by Sir Lawrence Freedman (DPhil, Oxford University), the Emeritus Professor of War Studies at Kings’ College London. Dr. Freedman notes that Russia and Ukraine have been pursuing two very different war strategies and shows how this fact explains much about the conflict.

In reading his article, I was struck by the degree to which it is also relevant to our cultural challenges in America and to the urgency and promise of spiritual awakening.

“Classic warfare” vs. “total warfare”

According to Dr. Freedman, Ukraine has employed the “classic warfare” approach, while Russia has adopted the “total warfare” strategy. In the former, “victory [is] decided by which army occupied the battlefield, the number of enemy soldiers killed or captured, and the amount of equipment destroyed.” In this approach, “battles determined the outcome of wars.”

The latter views the opposing nation as an appropriate battlefield, not just its army. The rationale for targeting population centers is that armies draw on civilian infrastructure to fight. In addition, munitions factories depend on a civilian workforce. Citizens suffering under incessant bombardment might be turned against the war to the point where they demand their nation’s capitulation. To many strategists, bombing cities is a far simpler route to victory than winning battles.

In the decades after the Cold War, Russia has continued to follow the “total warfare” strategy. For example, they deliberately attacked rebel hospitals in Syria and applied brute force to civilian areas and cities in the Chechen Wars.

Ukraine, by contrast, has understandably avoided civilian areas and infrastructure in the present conflict since the war has been waged on Ukrainian soil.

One might think that, given Russia’s enormous size and resource advantage (it is about twenty-eight times larger than Ukraine), its “total warfare” strategy would overwhelm Ukraine and force it to capitulate. However, the opposite has been the case. Once Ukraine survived Russia’s initial onslaught, Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian civilians have made Ukraine all the more determined to liberate its areas and cede none to Russia. The humanitarian consequences of Russia’s brutality have also strengthened Western support for Ukraine.

In addition, Russia’s total-war aims have reinforced Ukraine’s belief that there is no obvious “compromise peace” available. Nor have Russia’s total-war tactics impeded Ukraine’s military operations.

“A car is made to run on petrol”

As evangelical Christians view our secularized society, it seems that our cultural opponents are following a “total warfare” strategy. Every dimension of our lives is now dominated by relativistic ethics and postmodern subjectivism. Popular media constantly reinforces LGBTQ ideology and unbiblical morality. It is easy to feel like Ukraine standing up to Russia’s overwhelming size and force.

But the opposite is actually the case.

We have been discussing recently the outbreaks of revival on college campuses now reaching historic proportions. They are occurring among a population group for whom unbiblical morality is assumed to be especially popular and pervasive.

But we should not be surprised.

The psalmist spoke for us all when he testified, “As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God” (Psalm 42:1). “Pants” translates a Hebrew word meaning to yearn passionately and deeply. The author added, “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?” (v. 2). “Appear before God” translates the Hebrew which literally means “see the face of God.”

We were made by our Maker for a personal, intimate relationship with him. No amount of cultural secularizing can fill the God-shaped emptiness that resides in our souls.

In one of my favorite statements in Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis observed: “God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on petrol, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on himself. He himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from himself, because it is not there.”

“God’s sudden, calming presence”

You and I can capitulate to the culture’s “total warfare” aggression against our faith. Or, like the Ukrainians, we can double down on our resolve to stand fast with courage. For believers, this means that we live in the power of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), manifest the character of Christ (cf. Galatians 5:22–23), and trust that our King will win the victory for all of eternity (cf. Revelation 19:16).

In his inspirational book In the Eye of the Storm: Jesus Knows How You Feel, Max Lucado writes: “The supreme force in salvation is God’s grace. Not our works, nor our talents, not our feelings, nor our strength. Faith is not born at the negotiating table where we barter our gifts in exchange for God’s goodness. Faith is not an award given to the most learned. It’s not a prize given to the most disciplined.”

The fact is, “We are great sinners, and we need a great Savior. Salvation is God’s sudden, calming presence during the stormy seas of our lives. Death is disarmed, failures are forgiven, and life has real purpose. And God is not only within sight, he is within reach.”

Why do you need such grace today?

Denison Forum

President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Kyiv today ahead of the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Pictures emerged this morning of the president walking alongside Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky as they inspected a memorial wall dedicated to those killed fighting Russian troops since 2014.

Mr. Biden’s visit to Ukraine comes on Presidents’ Day and highlights the power of his office to make global headlines.

Today’s federal holiday was established in 1885 in recognition of President George Washington (whose birthday is on February 22) and was later expanded to include Abraham Lincoln (whose birthday is on February 12) and eventually all presidents. However, presidential historian Alexis Coe claims in the New York Times that our first president “would hate Presidents’ Day.” I will summarize her argument into three assertions.

The first is ironic: while we celebrate our presidents today, no president was actually born on February 20. The second is more practical: several states don’t recognize this day at all and many do so only sparingly, with Southern states typically omitting Lincoln from their observances. A third assertion is especially relevant, however: “The president, senators and representatives . . . serve at the American electorate’s pleasure, and not the other way around.”

In other words, the more we depend on a single person to lead and protect our nation, the more we slide from democracy into demagoguery. As we will see, this is a principle of special relevance to evangelical Christians today.

Jimmy Carter has entered hospice care

On one level, we all know that our presidents are mortal.

As a recent example, the Carter Center announced on Saturday that former President Jimmy Carter, at ninety-eight years old the longest-lived American president, has entered hospice care at home in Plains, Georgia. The news followed reports that a small lesion was removed from President Biden’s chest during his latest physical exam, though he otherwise was pronounced “healthy” and “vigorous.”

On another level, however, it is human nature to seek and then trust those who can do things for us we cannot do for ourselves. This starts as children who depend on our parents and older siblings. As we grow older, we come to appreciate soldiers who defend us abroad and police who defend us at home. We become grateful for doctors whose medical expertise exceeds our own and supports our health. We learn to trust counselors who can advise us in areas of finance and relationships and mentors whose wisdom can guide our path.

This tendency to trust our leaders is especially central to evangelical Christianity. Unlike those whose faith story began with the collective sacraments and catechisms of the church, many of us came to Christ through the influence of a pastor, youth minister, or Bible teacher. Unlike churches whose worship centers on the collective liturgies of church tradition, ours focuses on the “preaching of the word” and thus the preacher who delivers that word to us.

Many of our churches place the pulpit or lectern at the center of the platform and thus the preacher at the center of the service. In many evangelical churches, the pastor announces our faith to the congregation, baptizes us, marries us, and buries us.

This is all well and good unless we forget the example set by our first president.

“The greatest man in the world”

After leading America to victory in our Revolutionary War, George Washington voluntarily chose to resign his military commission. When King George III of England was told of Washington’s intent to step down from power, he said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” Over the years, Washington refused numerous attempts to make him more a monarch who would rule the people than a president who would serve them.

His popularity could have made him president for life, but he feared that if he died in office, Americans would view the presidency as a lifetime appointment. Accordingly, he chose to step down following his second term.

His example is especially relevant for evangelicals at this cultural moment.

In Celebrities for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits Are Hurting the Church, Katelyn Beaty defines “celebrity” as “social power without proximity.” She means that in large churches and ministries, leaders wield enormous influence but without the restraints and accountability of smaller churches in which pastors are known much more personally by those they serve.

Beaty wisely warns: “To have immense social power and little proximity is a spiritually dangerous place for any of us to be.” Many of the clergy scandals she discusses in her book have their origin in this fact.

“Attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric”

Two conclusions follow.

One: We must daily surrender our lives and influence to the Holy Spirit so he can manifest his servant love for our Lord and our neighbor in and through us (Galatians 5:22; Matthew 22:37–39).

Jesus set the example when he washed the feet of his followers and commanded us to do the same (John 13:14). I heard a preacher say: “When you stand before the Lord, he will not examine your title but your towel.”

Two: We must pray for our leaders to live and lead by biblical truth and morality (1 Timothy 2:1–2). The more they deviate from God’s word, the more they need the intercession of God’s people.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington made this clear and prophetic pronouncement: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Who, indeed?

Denison Forum