Tolstoy: The Kingdom of God and The Religion's of Man

O, space, blank and black. May we speak for but a moment? These words ravage my soul lingering to be released from their prison. Along moist, gravel paths they flow outwards. I see them as they fly, tiptoeing step by step, across the curtain of the sky. Too long, too long, I have waited too long to whisper in your ear, and partake of those images with a desperate stare.

I’ve been away on a vacation the last two weeks and was unable, more like unwilling, to post anything during that time. After reviewing my last post, I realized I sort of got off topic and ventured into a territory that I didn’t really plan on going into. So please bear with me and my incessant ramblings. Now let’s get back to Tolstoy.

It seems that I have ventured into an argument towards an inclusive view of the kingdom of God, and it would be correct, to a certain extent, to state that Tolstoy was indeed inclusive in regards to other religions besides Christianity. However, it would also be correct to say that he was very critical of the religion often peddled by churches and countries, and thus was very narrow on how he viewed the Kingdom of God. Before going off into how he viewed the kingdom of God, we must first explain Tolstoy’s categorization of the world into three separate religions.

Tolstoy separated all of man’s beliefs, philosophies and religions into three distinct categories. These categories ranged from the primitive first stage to the divine third stage, where the Kingdom of God would be realized. The three categories are 1) the self-serving, individualistic religion, 2) the social, political religion, and 3) the God-centered religion. These categories might seem quite evident to most Christians, and I have little doubt, that many would probably place themselves securely within the third category without hesitation. However, for Tolstoy the majority of so called “Christians” would be placed within the second category, the social, political religion, and in many ways, I would concur with him.

The reason for this placement of modern Christianity into the second category stems from these Christians paradoxical dual-allegiance to the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of this world. Let’s unpack this statement further, since I have little doubt that this appears to be a confusing statement. First, let us identify the rules that govern each Kingdom and by doing this, identify the corresponding kingdom for the majority of Christians. For Ana-Baptists this will already appear quite evident, but let’s do it nonetheless.

First, what are the rules of the Kingdom of God according to Tolstoy? These rules are given by the Sermon on the Mount. With this Sermon, Tolstoy hinges his entire Religious convictions. These rules, as interpreted by Tolstoy, are peace (Mat 5:9), Non-resistance to evil (Mat 5:39), love (Mat 5:44), focus on the present (Mat 6:33), celibacy (Mat 5:28) and non-allegiance to authorities (Mat 5:34). One could also include the relinquishing of private property as well (Mat 6:24, Acts 2:45). These rules are not laws in the same sense as the Ten Commandments, but an outline of the Kingdom of God, a better way to life and happiness. By these rules a Christian, God -fearing society ought to be fashioned. Needless to say, it does not take much mental effort to see how these rules or guidelines contrast to the rules that govern the Kingdoms of this World. To Tolstoy the primary factors that separate these two Kingdoms are the use of force to ensure compliance to the authorities and the corresponding fear that is generated by this use of force.

                Tolstoy believed that most Christians are relegated to the second category of religions because of how they mistakenly intertwine the two naturally opposed kingdoms. This begins by Christians swearing allegiance to a government that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. This means that either the Kingdom/Authority is fully in line with the Kingdom of God and will never call upon the individual to forsake his obligation to God, unlikely at best, impossible at worst, or that the oath will inevitably be broken, with either God or the government on the short end of the stick. However, since all breaking of oaths are considered sinful, this results in a lose-lose situation for the individual that pledges allegiance to a government in any way shape or form. Tolstoy takes this to the extreme by condemning every support of the government, including paying taxes, using of the courts, obeying laws, and partaking of government aid. Since Tolstoy’s system of theology revolves primarily around the Sermon on them Mount, he can avoid those passages that seem to contradict his ideas (Mark 12:17, Romans 13:1-7).

This intertwining of kingdoms, in my opinion, limits the Christian’s ability to affect our world for the good, because they are drawn invariably in two directions. On one hand they must take care of the poor, while on the other they must look after the power of the state and the nation as a whole. This appears to me to be quite evident in the ongoing discussion of immigration reform. On one hand we are called to care for those less fortunate regardless of boundaries, while on the other we must look out for the interest of the state and the maintenance of its power. We as Christians speak of reform, but limit our discussion by discussing something less than the whole. By speaking of countries and nations, we create an us vs them ideology, where the needs of us are put over and above the needs of them, meaning those that are not a part of us. We are adamant on reforming our country and instilling it with Christian ideals, not understanding that secular power, greatness and wealth are opposed to the Kingdom of God. To govern a country by Christian ideals would mean the country’s imminent destruction. It is not only unlikely it is impossible. It would entail the coercion of all its citizens to the faith professed by the government, and would result in the bodily harm of all those who resist. This is not of Christ, who was a proponent of peace. The country would also limit the Kingdom of God, which is borderless and timeless, to a specific location and time. Since Christians often try to use the Kingdoms of this world to bring about change and, as a result, expand the Kingdom of God, Tolstoy was not wrong in placing the majority of Christians in the second category.

Next post, I will try and clarify the unclear sections of this post while also bringing in the first post dealing with salvation, which I believe stems from this us vs them ideology. I will also try to create a simple view of the Kingdom of God in line with Tolstoy’s thought. While I don’t agree with everything Tolstoy espouses, I do think he offers a refreshing view of the Kingdom of God.