Tolstoy – The Kingdom of God is Within You

Welcome to Summer Book Club 2013

Summary:

            Tolstoy develops an argument out of Matthew 5:39: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” This is the premise, the argument, and the conclusion for Tolstoy – Christians are to be non-violent. Tolstoy then argues against a number of rebuttals levied against this assertion. He concedes that Church history largely does not point to a belief in non-resistance, but claims a minority always have believed it. Tolstoy then sets up Jesus as the moral Ideal that all humans are to strive towards and the infinite expansion of the sphere of love as the goal. This ideal will inevitably lead to dissonance between intent and actions - a constant inconsistency; which people try and resolve by changing their consciences rather than actions. This should lead to rebellion and revolution but we have enslaved ourselves to our own laws and have become oppressed by them. Military violence is then the authority that ensures this continued oppression. Therefore, Christianity as a new conception of life must inevitably be accepted; only this gift of a higher theory of life will emancipate humanity from misery. This emancipation destroys the state and is brought about by individual choice (from within), which will eventually reach a tipping point. Tolstoy concludes by  recounting some stories of how violence is perpetuated and how this individual choice is the means out of such violence.

Greg:

Impression:
           If there was one thing that was accomplished through my reading of Tolstoy's book, it was the discovery of two opposing forces within my own psyche. I found that - to his detriment - Tolstoy was writing to two very different audiences; those of Christian faith and those who are not of Christian faith (who he calls "men of science"). In my opinion, Tolstoy's argument could have been strengthened with sticking to the former audience. 
           I was pleased to hear his critiques of the institutionalized church and his identification of the hypocrisy of Christians who participate in systems of oppression. Although these are far from new critiques, they are ones that cannot be repeated enough. I believe that it is ludicrous for followers of a martyr for peace could themselves be involved with political, economic, and belief systems that rely on the institutionalization of violence, the systemization of oppression, and the embodiment of self-indulgence. If this is not ludicrous, it is at least disappointing to see apathy and lack of action to which Christians have subscribed themselves to. Tolstoy's often scathing critique of this hypocrisy pleased and invigorated the inner optimistic believer within myself.
           Tolstoy is also writing in order to bring the whole world into a Christian worldview which he believes will bring an end to human suffering. In fact, he is so optimistic in his argument that he believes that a global realization of "true Christianity" is inevitable and is already evident. I have a number of problems with this idea, two of which standout drastically. The first is that Tolstoy appears to deny his own fallibility while asserting that his conception of Christianity is universally true. However, Tolstoy is only a humyn who is writing from a very western point of view with what appears to be a limited conception of other belief systems that may claim - valid or otherwise - a similar claim to Truth. This leads me to my next point which is something that Silas touches on in his impression. That is, Tolstoy reduces his conception of Christianity to simply a moral code. Furthermore, I do not believe that this moral code is exclusive to Christianity. Perhaps it is the ex-missions student in me - the one who became fed-up with the neo-colonial attitudes of global evangelists - but Tolstoy's desire and expectation for a universal understanding of "true Christianity" sent the skeptical-Christian in me running. 

Importance:

           I was drawn to this book for two reasons; I have been increasingly captivated by the ideas of Christian Anarchists and because I had heard that this book was quite influential in the development of theories of non-violence. While reading, it became quite evident how influential Tolstoy was in both of those areas. His critiques of the institutionalized church, christians' participation in the state, and emphasis on the beatitudes are evident in the works and writings of figures such as early as Dorothy Day and as late as Shane Claiborne. Even the writings of the past couple of decades from more moderate (read "less-anarchist) and post-evangelist emergent authors  - those who call us away from the mega-churches and towards the intentional spiritual communities with their emphasis on social justice - echo the ideas of Tolstoy. The ideas of non participation in violence and using non-compliance as a tool for social change propagated by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other social activists of the 20th century are clearly evident in Tolstoy's writing. It is clear that the ideas contained within The Kingdom of God is Within You had and still have a far reaching impact in both our religious and political thinking today. 

Favourite Quotes:

           As I mentioned already, I really enjoyed Tolstoy's critiques of the institutionalized church. Here he (ironically) critiques the Church's claim to Truth:

"The follower of Christ, whose service means an ever-growing understanding of his teaching, and an ever-closer fulfilment of it, in progress toward perfection, cannot, just because he is a follower of Christ, claim for himself or any other that he understands Christ's teaching fully and fullfils it. Still less can he claim this for any body of men." P. 60

           Tolstoy goes on to show the ways in which the church enforces certain useless and silly rituals and practices in order to justify its existence and legitimate the profession and salaries of priests, monks, and other holy-persons. Here is his view on the rituals surrounding marriage. 

"If a man and woman want their physical union to be sanctified they must go to the church, put on metal crowns, drink certain potions, walk three times round a table to the sound of singing, and that then the physical union of a man and woman becomes sacred and altogether different from all other unions." P. 65

           Later, Tolstoy writes about the uselessness of international arbitration, treaties, and peace talks. He points out that although governments may show support for these endeavours, it is done insincerely. Governments are not at all interested in keeping the peace and when their sovereignty is threatened, all talks of peace are abandoned and replaced with actions of war.

"In the same way they pretend to support temperance societies, while they are living principally on the drunkenness of the people; and pretend to encourage education, when their whole strength is based on ignorance; and to support constitutional freedom, when their strength rests in the absence of freedom; end to be anxious for the improvement of the condition of the working classes, when their very existence depends on their oppression; and to support Christianity, when Christianity destroys all government." P. 130

           Finally, this quote is not actually from Tolstoy, but from his citation of Alexander Herzen. I found it particularly inspiring.

"If you are content with the old world, try to preserve it, it is very sick and cannot hold out much longer. But if you cannot bear to live in everlasting dissonance between your beliefs and your life, thinking one thing and doing another, get out of the mediavel white sepulchres  and face your fears. I know very well it is not easy."

Silas:

Impression:

            I had a difficult time entering into this book. It was not a page-turner and I had to force myself to keep reading. I think there were a few reasons for this: 1) The idea of non-resistance is not new to me. 2) I read it at the end of a semester and it was a little too similar to the material I had been reading for the past four months. 3) I picked up Game of Thrones again, finished book 4 and started book 5, so reading Tolstoy seemed liked work compared to easy fantasy reading. 4) The book starts a little bit slowly in my opinion and it does not really hit its stride until page 100 or 150.

            The book has left a bland taste in my metaphorical reading mouth. On the one hand, I appreciate what Tolstoy is attempting to do; on the other, I think he is uncritically reductionist in his Christianity. He ends up leveling Christianity to morality, that is primarily played out in politics and economics (these are elements I really appreciate, but he needs to say more). He ends up sounding like Kant, that religion is ethics, and all men need to do is follow the moral law (he takes a shot at Kant for this, but I feel like he ends up disturbingly close to Kant’s ethical commonwealth). I wish he had kept a little more wonder. I think this is evident as we are on the other side of the world wars and the spirit of optimism does not reign and we need a little more wonder to make pacifism and non-resistance tenable. So in addition to his Kantian moralism, he needs some Scleiermacher adding the sense and taste of the infinite into acts of non-resistance something to draw/lure/woo the actor into otherwise it is too bland a concoction no matter how exquisite his logical deconstruction of state and personal violence is in the second half of the book.

Importance:

            The most enjoyable part of reading this book for me was reading it in light of its historical context. I found myself continually reminding myself of when it was written and the context in which Tolstoy is situated. This is hard not to do as Tolstoy often cites political developments and recent history, current to his time. In this light, I think the true prophetic nature of this book can be appreciated. Writing pre-WWI the spirit of optimism that pervaded his context is evident. Tolstoy sometimes seems to partake in this spirit of optimism and sometimes criticizes it. It is a time heavily influenced by Hegel and the notion that the Nation State can do no wrong; in-fact, for Hegel, the State is what propels history forward. It is against this notion that Tolstoy’s work portrays and alternative path forward. He is eerily predicable at points as he foresees the militarization, posturing, and brinkmanship leading to the inevitable ends of war. War that eventually played itself out in WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, and then again in WWI. Despite all of this, I found Tolstoy to be Ideologically elusive, which is probably to his credit (although it could also be interpreted as his position being slightly illogical). At points there are echoes of Marx, then of liberalism, then of biblical charity, as possible ways forward, yet at other points all of these are critiqued at one point or another (so I am left slightly confused as to what Tolstoy envisioned as the economic route forward – if you have it figured out please tell me in the comments below).

Favourite Quotes:

            I appreciated Tolstoy’s sarcasm against the objections against non-resistance that it is against the culture of the industrial age, “It is just as though drunkards when advised how they could be fought to habits of sobriety should answer that the advice is incompatible with their habit of taking alcohol.” P.41 I thought it captures that radical nature of non-resistance appropriately.

            I enjoyed when Tolstoy pit the Sermon on the Mount against the creed (though I think he misunderstands the creed) – “People who believe in a wicked and senseless God – who has cursed the human race and devoted his own Son to sacrifice, and a part of mankind to eternal torment – cannot believe in a God of love.” P.67

            Regarding the use of force, “In America there are fewer soldiers than in other states. That is why there is nowhere else so little oppression of the working classes, and no country where the end of the abuses of government and of government itself seems so near.” P.152 – A fascinating snapshot into Tolstoy’s historical moment.

            The self-defeating nature of violence, “Governments assert that armies are needed above all for external defense, but that is not true. They are needed principally against their own subjects, and every man, under universal military service, becomes an accomplice in all the acts of violence against the citizens without any choice of his own. P.156

Questions:

Did Tolstoy persuade you?

Were there new perspectives/arguments/ideas you had not encountered before?

Favourite quote?

Finally, if you did read the book PLEASE leave a comment (at least a small one) so we know that you were reading with us. We are curious as to who is reading which books.

Up Next: Post-Scarcity Anarchism – Murray Bookchin