The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy

Published 1894

"I love this book so much that I'm posting it just to say so, more content coming soon," that was in 2019. Call me the Tolstoy Tortoise. Here's the rest; keep in mind I read this book in 2008!

Tolstoy's religious period has been considered an unfortunate aberration by some of his admirers, such as the French biographer Romain Rolland, but I see it as an extension of a lifelong search for Truth he could no longer satisfy through his literature. We see this search intensify in his novel, Anna Karenina, published one year before he started writing A Confession (1879), a personal questioning of how life can have any meaning if God does not exist. I like reading philosophical discussions regarding Truth, and I like questioning.

In The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy calls out the hypocrisy of Orthodox Church practices, which he had come to consider contrary to the teaching of Christ. His attitude resulted in ex-communication. Here is a key quote from the Church decision (edited and commented by Boris Ivanov):

"In his writings and letters,.. he preaches, with fanatic zeal, the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian Faith. He rejects the individual living God - the glorious Creator and Provider of the Universe. He denies the Lord Jesus Christ - the God-Man, the Redeemer and Savior of the world, who has suffered for the sake of people and has risen from the dead. He denies the seedless conception of Christ the Lord and virginity before and after Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He does not recognize the afterlife. He rejects all the Sacraments of the Church and the blessed action of the Holy Spirit in them. He curses at the most sacred Doctrines of faith of the Orthodox people. And he even dares to mock the greatest of the sacraments, the Holy Eucharist. Count Tolstoy preaches all these things continuously, in word and in writing, to the temptation and horror of the entire Orthodox world. And in so doing, openly, consciously and intentionally, he himself rejected himself from any communion with the Orthodox Church."

In his public reply, Tolstoy agreed with pretty much everything that he was accused of. He really was against most of the Chruch dogmas and teachings. He was a believer, but not in the Christian Holy Trinity.

- Boris Ivanov

Back in 2008, my brother Kevin and I exchanged several letters on Tolstoy’s beliefs. Here is our correspondence.

Letter 1 from Kevin

Kellie, I've read about a third of the book as well as "What I Believe." It's possible that some of my disagreements will be addressed when I read the rest of the book, but so far I find things on almost every page that I find to be, from my point of view, misinterpretations of what Christianity is. The problem that I see is that Tolstoy decides that when Jesus said "Resist not evil," he meant that force was not to be used in any manner by any individual or state in any circumstance including states, courts of law, police, or circumstances where others were in danger (helpless children, for example) He makes a very good point that Rome became a Christian state not by force but by non-resistance and love. This is true. He also says that at this point, when Rome became Christian the church became entangled with the power of Rome and at this time began to hide the true message of Jesus. Both of these things are convincing arguments for his point. The biggest problem I see is that he views "resist not evil" as the overiding message of Jesus and then looks at the rest of the Bible and the rest of Jesus's teaching through that prism. It's as if I found that what really made sense to me is when Jesus told the parable of the talents and decided that anyone who didn't see that this was the main point of Jesus's teaching was misguided. I also think that he views Christianity as a philosophy which if followed will one day lead to the Kingdom of God being ushered into the world. If you look at all of Jesus's words you can't come to that conclusion. Jesus said that all of God's laws could be summed up with these two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. I'm not sure that opposing evil men with force neccesarily goes against these commands. What do you think of these radical ideas? (April 1, 2008)

Letter 2 from Kellie

Hi, I think Tolstoy means that if you "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind," and "love your neighbour as yourself," then that covers all the other "laws" of Christ, including (and to him especially) "resist not evil." I agree Tolstoy seems to see the "resist no evil" aspect of Jesus' teaching as the key to the coming of the Kingdom of God. He says nothing about the idea of redemption (or seems to think the church has so perverted that idea along with others that it is harmful and not good). At the end of the book he says, "The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to the establishment of the kingdom of God, which can only be done by the recognition and profession of the truth by every man." Which kind of brings us back to everyone interpreting this in his own way, if it were just a sentence not in Tolstoy's book. But for him, this means following Jesus' words about how to treat each other very literally. Why should some of his words be taken more literally than others? Tolstoy is also coming from a Greek Orthodox background, and was a wealthy landowner, and he is rejecting both. He ended his life living in a little hut, in poverty, I guess maybe living out what he was saying (but I haven't had time to read much about that). I'm starting to ramble, so I guess for now I should separate this little talk into 2 aspects: religious and social (which it seems Tolstoy is not separating). As far as religion, what I thought you would most disagree with is what we already mentioned, the philiosphy of Jesus as religion, rather than the redemptive nature of salvation. (Is this related to faith vs. works? I don't know, I think to live Tolstoy's way would take tremendous faith, but in what, God or man, or both? There are different kinds of faith). Although I am attracted to the way Tolstoy looks at things, and agree that it would be better if everyone refrained from all evil, and even that to some degree resisting evil can have results and change things (Gandhi, Matin Luther King, Jr.), the sad truth is that it is idealistic. I even wrote in the margin while reading the book, "what about WWII and the holocaust"? Tolstoy lived before that, and thought things couldn't get worse, and that therefore the time when man would pass into the phase of living as Christ said was at hand (although he may have meant at hand as in sometime in the next few thousand years). But what would he have said about "resist not evil," in relation to the things that have gone on since his time, and about the possibility of man acting like Christ anytime soon, regardless of if they come from a Christian or any other type of society? So, following that point we could say that, Since Man can't achieve any kind of perfection on his own, he needs God, he needs to be redeemed. One last thought on this part, is on "the truth". I think the truth is very important, but have come to feel that the truth exists independently of man. Maybe someday we will come to it, but not by our own efforts, and not because we believed the right thing, but just because it's the truth. Well, I have to think more about that, but it may be related to a thought which came upon me when I was at Wheaton, which I think I told you before. I suddenly just saw it this way: for me it didn't make sense Christ would have died so that only some people could have eternal life. If he died for people, it was all people. Otherwise, to me it doesn't make any sense. The social aspects of the book, which interest me more: I often feel that the way we all live is all wrong, the materialism, the underlying assumption that in the end it is normal for each man to be out for himself, and yet I also feel the huge difficulty of changing anything?* What if you have a family and not everyone agrees, where would you go, what would you prove? Haven't you felt this in some ways? Maybe you would feel it in different terms, like you should do God's work, and I would feel it like, I should help other people, but in the end, isn't it the same thing? * As an example of this, last year when I decided to help an immigrant, by simply letting her stay in an empty room in our house, while of course people thought it was nice, there was a definite feeling too that it was a little too crazy, a little too nice. "People should fend for themselves," "you might regret it" or HEAVEN FORBID, "you might get Taken Advantage Of," etc. However, to be honest, I've also noticed through helping people, that in the end, we are all responsible for ourselves. Well, my dear brother, I have gone on long enough, especially considering I wasn't really sure what I would say at first. The problem with me is I have too many ways of looking at things, and it can become confusing, and undoubtedly annoying to other people. Still, underneath it all is an interet in truth. love, Kellie PS Is it worth getting What I Believe, is it pretty much the same stuff as Kingdom? I guess I should get with the program and check the internet.

Letter 3 from Kevin

Kellie,

I haven't read anymore but I wanted to respond to your email. In a way this is better than a verbal conversation because it gives me time to think through what I want to say. Usually when I talk with someone I think of 100 things I should have thought of an hour after the conversation takes place. On the other hand, I type slower than an arthritic sloth, so I don't have time to say what I want to. If this gets boring or irritating to you, let me know. I think you unlocked the reason for Tolstoy's emphasis on the "resist not evil" portion of Jesus's teaching. You said you think he sees it as the key to the coming of the Kingdom of God. That made me think that if his belief is that the bringing in of this Kingdom, that is, a state of peace on earth when men finally live according to His teaching, then it would make more sense for him to see that the best way to achieve this would be non-resistance. I don't think it would work, but I can see more easily now why he placed so much importance on it. I don't think it would work because I believe that if bad men are not restrained, you end up with Hitler. I think there are and were many men who could have done what he did if given the chance. He was unrestrained because he had absolute power over a powerful state and if he were not stopped he would have gone further. I believe that God has condoned the exsistence of states for the purpose of restraining evil in a fallen world. This topic could be discussed for a long time but I'll stop now. There was one thing this non resistance issue made me think of. The idea that we've gotten it all wrong for a long time. From time to time I will start thinking that in light of Jesus's words, we are a long way from what he taught (when I say we, I mean me too). Even taking into consideration that He forgives us for our shortcomings, sometimes it seems like there is just about no one who really follows Him. When I think of faith, I now realize that it's more than just intellectual acceptance. Can we say we believe in Him if we don't do what he says? The faith and works thing isn't really a difficult question to me. Although it's not our works that bring us salvation, they will be there if we have faith. Jesus said,"If you love me you will do what I command." So I go back and forth from thinking that the gate is so narrow that many people are fooling themselves, to being amazed and thankful for his grace. Jesus said, "He who would give up his life will find it and he who saves his life will lose it." That's the kind of statement that makes me wonder if we are living up to it. So far I seem to be bumbling along, I will continue. You asked "Why should some of His words be taken more literally than others?" I think the whole Bible needs to be taken for what it says. What it says depends on, among other things, who the audience was, what form of writing is being used (poetry, historical narrative etc.), context in terms of the surrounding text and in terms of the rest of scriptures and many other things that I'm too tired to think of right now. For example, when Jesus said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood" we don't take that literally. And when he says "resist not evil" we must take this literally but we have to determine what he meant. A total literal reading of this phrase would have to include all forms of resistance including nonviolent resistance and maybe even would include not resisting temptations. We know this literal interpretation to be faulty because it disagrees with the rest of scripture. What did you mean when you said,"I think the truth is very important but that it exists independently of man"? And how does it relate to your question about Christ having only died for some people.? This is a tough question for me as well. The best explanation I've heard is that he did die for everyone and salvation is available to everyone as a choice, and that he allows us a real choice. But it's still hard to imagine why he would create some people who would not make the choice to accept His salvation. The only way I've gotten past this (mostly), is to believe that God is good and whatever happens will be just. (That and the hope that there's some loophole that I've missed that will allow everyone to be redeemed.) When you said you have a problem looking at things in too many ways it reminded me of a part of one of my favorite books. "I suppose there are two views about everything," said Mark. "Eh, two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." The What I Believe Book is very short. The Kingdom book seems to be an expansion of it. I think you could go through it online if you wanted to in about 20 minutes. Like I said, let me know if this exchange gets too time consuming or irritating. I appreciate your willingness to talk about these things and your respect for what I believe. Love, Kevin

Letter 4 from Kevin

Kellie, I finally have a minute to continue our discussion. I'll try to respond to your insertions and add any that I think of. Hopefully you still have a copy of the insertion laden email to follow along with. (What do you think heaven is or might be?) I think that a heaven on earth, as commonly thought of, is pretty much ruled out according to biblical teaching in that the Bible talks about a new heaven and a new earth, the present earth being destroyed. Again this is a topic that we could talk about for hundreds of pages. In Revelation, John talks about a New Jerusalem which is a cube 1500 miles in all three directions. I'm hoping we don't have to stay there but can explore the whole universe. Jesus talks about going to prepare a place for us. It's all sort of ambiguous. I always think of it as the way things were supposed to be, like before the fall. I'm not really sure. (He thinks Christ commanded it) I agree that's what Tolstoy thinks, but to some degree I think he came to this conclusion, (not that Jesus commanded it, but that it was meant for all situations and that it was His main purpose for communicating with us) due to his view that we are ushering in God's kingdom. (What would Tolstoy think if he were writing after all the genocides after his time?) As I understand, he had first hand experience of war. I'm sure he also had a pretty full knowledge of history. I don't think it would have changed his thinking too much. (The word Christianity should mean more of Christ and what he said, but it doesn't always seem that way.) This is a point that I have been thinking about. The portion of what He said that we have been talking about, that is, the sermon on the mount and in particular "resist not evil," is all part of what can be called His moral teaching. I think of it as an explaination of how we can love one another. From my point of view, Jesus's moral teaching is true, and is therefore the best of all the great religions, although they all contain mostly the same ideas of right and wrong, (how couldn't they?) But His moral teaching doesn't account for all of his words. I read the section in Tolstoy's book about how the church misunderstands Christianity. I agree with many of his assertions, but many of the problems he has with Christian belief are beliefs that spring directly from Jesus's words. I don't think we can look at the gospels and say that we have to listen to Jesus's words and then edit half of them out. If Tolstoy thought that Jesus's moral teaching was the best way to improve mankind, that's fine, but he should say,"here are some good ideas, let's try them." He shouldn't say that Jesus didn't say or mean the rest of it. All the words come from the same source. (Eucharist) Lutheran theology also holds that communion somehow literally imparts the blood and body of Christ to us. I'm a little fuzzy on the whole thing. My point was that literal interpretation can bring differing conclusions.

Your next insertion is the one that interested me the most. In your other email when you said that you think that truth exists independently of man, I thought that the idea you explained in the insertion was what you meant, but I wasn't sure. I think this is an important idea because it seems that most modern thinking runs counter to this idea in that many people think that truth is defined by the individual. If there is any truth, it seems impossible that it could be defined by an individual, otherwise there would be conflicting truths. (Hitler thinking it is true that Jews must be killed, others thinking Jews must be saved.) This is why I've always liked that quote I included. If you substitute the word truth for the word answer, it makes sense. Your thought that there is a truth, but that it may be unknowable would be right if there was a God who chose not to reveal himself to us. This is exactly what I believe Jesus to be. God revealing Himself to us. I had a hundred other thoughts, but I can't type fast enough or remember them all. Maybe we can think of a way to focus this a little. If not, this is fine. It's fun. Talk to you soon. Love , Kevin

Letter 5 from Kellie

Hi, I thought the last point in your mail summed up all our conversations in some way, or somehow touched on exactly what it all boils down to, in our discussion so far anyway. Either you believe God revealed himself to us in a certain way (i.e., biblical Christianity, or would it be more precise or right to say ie Christ died for our sins and if we believe that and accept it we can have eternal life?, how would you state it in a nutshell?), or you don't believe that, at least not for sure. For me, I do think there is probably some universal truth, but don't think anyone can find it, I think it unrolls, it is what is (which is not actually very cheerful). Or, maybe the truth is even that there is no truth, that everything is random. Or maybe it is exactly what you believe. For me, I just don't know. I remember my friend Ruth getting upset at me when I said, "I don't know." She said, "Well, you can't just say you don't know." But you can, you have to be honest with yourself, and I just don't know. Another friend once said to me, "why worry about other people's condition, since all that matters is their soul." (i.e., let them starve as long as they're saved). This didn't hit me right. Sometime, if you want, I would like to hear what you think about serving (i.e., when you thought of being a missionary, for example) but not being able to do certain things because of life constraints. Well, more soon! love, Kellie

Letter 6 from Kevin

Kellie, I got your latest email. First, I wanted to say that not only have I enjoyed having this discussion, but it has reminded me of many of Jesus's teachings that I have not so much forgotten but taken for granted. I guess it does all boil down to whether or not God has revealed Himself to us or not. If He has, the question is how? Without getting into countless apologetic arguments, I believe the accounts of Jesus to be true. I also believe He reveals Himself through His creation. You said, "Either you believe God revealed Himself in a certain way (i.e., biblical Christianity) or you don't." As far as salvation is concerned, there are a few caveats. Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me" So, many Christians have taken that and said "This means that you have to ask Jesus into your heart and accept Him as your personal savior." This is never stated in the Bible. I think there are people who honestly seek God and die before they ever hear the name of Jesus and are saved through Jesus. He said "Seek and you will find," like the people who died before He was born. But I do believe it's harder for these people and I do believe we can't reject Him.One thing that has always bothered me, (I don't mean bothered like you have offended me or something, I just mean bothered in the sense that I wish it were different), is that I always think of you changing your mind about Christianity at such an early age. I think of all I have learned about it since I was that age and I wish you could have seen all that before you made up your mind. (I do realize that I don't know the extent of your knowledge when you changed your mind or what you have learned since, I'm only imagining based on my own experience.) I'm having a little trouble knowing where to go with this email, so I better get back to responding to your email. When you say "I just don't know" (concerning the truth) I would never be upset about that as your friend was. I would say that you shouldn't let "I just don't know" be equal with "I never can know." How many times have you come to understand something that had before seemed impossible? Your other friend who said not to worry about feeding people because only their souls matter must have forgotten that we are physical and spiritual beings (and that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves). Your last question about serving despite life constraints is one I think about a lot. I often think that if I didn't have a family I would go here or there and do this or that. There are a lot of things I would like to do. For example, I just recently heard about a project to build a house and a clinic for a guy up in Alaska who wants to work with the people up there who have all kinds of problems. If I didn't have a family, I would be up there right now. Then again, our church has missionaries in Chad, Camaroon and other places with bigger families than mine. I guess the test isn't what would you do if you had no restraints, it's what are you doing right now. In theory it's "Do all things as to the Lord." We should serve him wherever we are as well as being willing to go. Sometimes going is not an option as we would be breaking his commands in order to keep them. Jesus has some pretty tough words on this subject. Anyway, that's more than enough for now. Love, Kevin