I try to include classics in my reading regiment and this time I decided on “The Kingdom of God is Within You” by Leo Tolstoy which was published in 1893. Frankly, I believe the book gets more attention than is warranted.
Tolstoy was well-versed in the injustices and inequities of his day and throughout history. He obviously spent a great deal of time thinking about them. He considered the ideal vision of the Kingdom that Jesus promoted in the Sermon on the Mount and postulated how the world could accomplish those ideals.
That contrast between the Kingdom of God and the world we live in is the most important and notable part of the book. This is especially true for the followers of Christ who espouse belief in the Bible yet live short of its values. It is this tension that causes even Tolstoy’s most ardent critics to pause and reflect on their faithfulness.
Sadly, this is largely where the positives end. Tolstoy was not in the least interested in struggling with the tensions and finding common agreement. Instead, he demeaned everyone who disagreed with him, past and present, and refused to consider anything beyond his own opinion, simply brushing away well-grounded disagreement as rebellion to God. His opinion was the belief that the Kingdom of God could be achieved with absolute non-violence.
Many argue that while there are many thoughtful points to Tolstoy’s arguments, they simply go too far and lose sight of other biblical values. The scriptural admonition for a man to provide for his family, for example, ends where non-violence begins. Tolstoy would agree that a man should work, provide food, housing, clothes, etc., but if someone rapes your wife and kills your children you are to submit and not raise a hand. He argues that love for your family cannot be fulfilled in the unloving act of violence against an aggressor.
Tolstoy does not approach scripture to learn and develop his doctrine. Instead, he brings his doctrine to scripture to extract evidence for his presuppositions. He ignores anything, and anyone, in scripture that does not validate his point of view. Here are a few examples:
- Selective use of Scripture:
Tolstoy elevates the Sermon on the Mount while ignoring large portions of the Bible. He didn’t like the Apostle Paul and thought that his writings led to many of the problems with the established church. He had little regard or concern for the Old Testament except to point to its inadequacies and even brushed away portions of the Gospels including the miraculous. He effectively reduced Christ to a philosopher and moral teacher. - Internal Inconsistency with Gospel Narrative:
He quickly dismisses Jesus’ command to the disciples to take swords, Jesus’ violent cleansing of the Temple, and the discussion of the “sword of the state” found in Romans 13. - Inconsistency of History and Ignoring Reality:
Tolstoy believed that if all Christians would adopt absolute non-violence that the world would eventually be transformed into the Kingdom of God as violent men would be so moved by the example. This removes all moral responsibility to Christians to physically protect the oppressed. It diminishes the role of Christians to stand forcibly against the aggressors of genocide, violent assault, and child abuse. - Neglect of Justice in Favor of Purity
In holding to his views of the values found in the Sermon on the Mount, Tolstoy’s philosophy paves a path for real-life suffering to continue unabated. - Overly Pessimistic View of Institutions
While Tolstoy points to many sad realities of the Church, Government, and other institutions, he yields no room for the good they do. He gives no credit for the restraint of evil, maintaining order, and enabling human flourishing. Anarchy has never worked and even the eternal Kingdom will be one of rule – albeit a perfect one. - Naïve Social and Economic Vision
Tolstoy’s ideal of a simple, non-coercive, agrarian life does not scale to complex societies. He provides no realistic path to sustaining large populations, technological systems, or modern economies. That said, his belief that technology would further alienate our relationships is too often true. - Dismissal of Christian Thought
Tolstoy largely rejects centuries of theological reflection. (e.g., Augustine (especially just war tradition), Aquinas, and others.) He assumes that he alone has recovered the “true” Christianity, which is historically and intellectually suspect.
In addition to the above, there is a modern connection to Tolstoy’s arguments that is worth considering. While Tolstoy did not originate the modern anti-church/anti-establishment movement, a common mindset can be seen:
- There is a presupposition that institutions are inherently corrupting and have betrayed Christ’s true teachings. It is believed that they are irredeemable.
- Individual revelation and moral intuition are prioritized above tradition, clergy, or doctrine. “My truth” becomes more important than inherited frameworks. Authority is suspect and authenticity is valued over doctrine.
- There is a common belief that power is not neutral but tends toward exploitation and therefore must be morally challenged. State violence, economic inequality, and religious complicity are all working against the freedom and prosperity of individuals. This is found in discussions of systemic injustice, wealth inequality, and institutional hypocrisy.
- Rejection of accountability and community responsibility. There is a belief that Faith should be direct and personal. Intermediaries are unnecessary or even harmful. This is evident in the large number of unaccountable “ministries” each preaching their own view of Jesus and the Bible.
- The underlying idea that right actions are more important than right belief. (Ethics over doctrine.) Theological claims are less important than moral consistency and social impact. Sadly, moral rightness becomes subjective and is in the eye of the least objective minds – the individuals themselves.
- The belief that hypocrisy invalidates authority. Advocates point to scandals, moral inconsistency, and perceived double-standards. “You claim to follow Christ but…” is the refrain that “proves” their point. However, if hypocrisy is a valid test of truth, can anything survive the evaluation?
- There is idealism concerning personal transformation. Both Tolstoy and modern day “independent believers” believe that societal transformation begins as grassroots or bottom-up. The problem is that this can never happen from the emergence of multiple visions (division). Imagine if the transformation of Israel had required the concerted efforts and agreement of the people rather than conformity to the transcendent law coming down from Mt. Sinia and the following of the prophetic leader, Moses.
Tolstoy is renowned for his writings and deserves credit for causing us to reflect on the harmony of faith and actions. Still, I am unconvinced that a similar book today would achieve comparable notoriety. The tomb provides an argument without balance, foundational credibility, or moral consistency. I applaud the author for his tenacity; I just wish more of it were expressed in a faithful hermeneutic than in his personally evolved worldview.