Knyga parašyta 19 amžiaus pabaigoje.

Autorius kviečia išpažinti tikrąjį Kristaus mokymą ir nesipriešinti pykčiui pykčiu. Didelė knygos dalis paskirta aiškinimui kaip tai turėtų atrodyti, kaip tam yra nusižengiama, ir kad Bažnyčia to nemoko, bet yra tapusi valstybės ir valdžios ištroškusiųjų įrankiu.

Tada einama prie valstybės ir visko ką ji reiškia, ant ko ji pastatyta aiškinimo. Vėlgi gausu pavyzdžių kaip valstybės jungiama visuomenė kiekviename žingsnyje tiesiogiai ar netiesiogiai nusižengia anksčiau aprašytam Kristaus mokymui. Ir žmogus yra kviečiamas atviromis akimis matyti tą prieštarą tarp žmogiškosios moralės ir to ko iš jo prašoma. Kaip pavyzdys dažnai pasitelkiama tuometinė Rusijos kariuomenė, jai pavedami valstiečių tramdymo uždaviniai ir pan. Autoriaus tonas šioje dalyje yra gan niūrus ir jokios gerovės, kurią neša valstybė jis nemini. Todėl skaitant dažnai kildavo noras pasiginčyti su autoriumi apie šiuolaikinės valstybės vaidmenį žmogaus ir bendruomenės gyvenime iškeliant ir gerąsias tokios santvarkos puses.

Turint omenyje, kad palyginti greitai pasaulį sudrebino 2 pasauliniai karai, ši knyga ir joje skiriamas dėmesys globaliniam kariniam ginklavimuisi, priverstiniam jaunuolių ėmimui į kariuomenę ir jos reikšmę valstybėms siekiant išlaikyti galią prieš išorinius ir vidinius priešus atrodo labai savalaikiai.

Ar tai tebeaktualu šiandien?
Skaitant tiesmukai - mano nuomone, labiau ne - daug kas yra pasikeitę ir ta pati kariuomenė (bent jau mūsų šalyje), tarptautiniai susitarimai nekankinti ir pan. yra kitokio paveikslo dalis nei prieš šimtą metų.
Bet skaitant tarp eilučių susimąstyti yra apie ką.
Daug ką buvo sunku priimti ar norėjosi neigti vis primenant sau, kad tai apie tada, o ne apie dabartį. Nors to barbariško brutalumo, kaip pvz. mirties bausmių nukirsdinant, valstiečių engimo, plakimo rykštėmis, nebėra, bet tenka pripažinti daug amoralių dalykų šiandienos pasaulyje yra gražiai užmaskuota ir paprastam piliečiui nekyla minčių kelti klausimų ar tai moralu.
Autorius pabrėžia, kad nebūtina pačiam daryti blogą, kad būtum kaltu, pakanka naudotis to blogio suteikta gerove ar nutylėti matant kito blogą elgesį.
Ir čia prasideda gilus kapstymas ir svėrimas kas iš kur atsiranda ir iš kieno kančios susideda kiekvieno iš mūsų dabartinė gerovė. Galima nagrinėti apimant tik pastarąjį šimtmetį, galima nagrinėti einant atgal iki Kristaus nukryžiavimo. Taigi knyga sukelia vidinius apmąstymus apie dabartinę pasaulėtvarką kurią sritį bepaimtume.

"Kalbama apie tai kas nutiks ... kai visi bus sotūs ir apsirengę, kai visus žemės gyventojus susies telefonai, telegrafai, kai jie galės susisiekti oro balionais, ... ir visi žmonės bus išsilavinę, visi skaitys laikraščius, išmanys visus mokslus.
Tik kas gero ir naudingo gali nutikti dėl visų šitų patobulinimų, jei žmonės nekalbės ir nedarys to, ką mano esant teisinga?"

""Tuo, ką turi, dalykis su kitais, nekaupk turtų, nesipuikuok, nevok, nekankink, nežudyk, nedaryk kitam to, ko nenori, kad tau darytų", - pasakyta ... prieš 5000 metų, ir, jei nebūtų veidmainystės, ... žmonės taip ir elgtųsi ar bent jau pripažintų, kad taip elgtis privalu ir kad tas, kuris taip nesielgia, yra neteisus."

I very much enjoyed this challenging book as part of my adult ed class at our church. Tolstoy is not brief and often circular in his arguments but you are not left wondering where he stands. I have always appreciated people absolute in their philosophy and approach to life. There is something pure and consistent in it. Coming from the extreme end of libertarianism of my college years, Tolstoy's absolute distrust of authority and power resonated strongly with me. He filled in a gap that was always nagging me in my more libertarian ways. I always felt strongly that a no/severely limited government would only work if people were loving and generous to others (not exactly a sentiment you find with writers like Rand). Tolstoy believes that following in the ways of Christ eliminates the need of government and authority and, in fact, necessitates the elimination of this authority. One can't see what's happening in this country with systemic and government-fueled racism, police brutality, and abuse of power wherever you look and not think twice about what Tolstoy is saying here. Power begets more power. Power leads to abuse. More power, more abuse, ever growing.

Where Tolstoy loses me, and the reason I ultimately moderated from my more extreme views, is that Tolstoy thinks that by following in the steps of Christ that it will spread contagiously throughout all of the people once the straightjacket of authority is lifted. Perhaps I'm more cynical than is necessary, but I just don't see enough people being good and honest and TRULY following in Christ's steps to make this work. But as he concludes, at least working in this direction and doing our own part is still part of Christ's journey.

"All State obligations are against the conscience of a Christian, the oath of allegiance, taxes, Law proceedings, and Military service.” “ ..taxes are spent on Deeds of violence, on the pay of men violence, soldiers, on the construction of prisons, fortresses, and cannons.” THIS was the point of the book, and a BETTER title for the book would have been: "Christianity is incompatible with government." He asks “what is the difference between monarchies and republics?” They all support war. He also threw in there for a second that churches aren't good because they deceive children.

Five stars for content, Leo Tolstoy wrote a clear message for Russian men of power: landowners, judges, priests, military, government and Tzars. No wonder it got banned! He called out the hypocrisy, much like Christ did in the temple. However, the themes in this book are universal: how does a Christian REALLY behave? Do we pick and choose what we will practice? Do we justify disobeying some teachings when we shouldn't? Goodreads rating is ok, like, love, I'm torn because when he said something good, I loved it, and when he said something repetitive, I was bored and thought it was just ok.

I don't think the title matches the content. It was really an anti-military book where for 85% he is arguing that governments shouldn't have a justice system, a military, declare war, defend itself, have no weapons, and no recourse for any attacks. Christ taught us to love our enemies, and to turn the other cheek. Tolstoy is applying this to government. No weapons, no death penalty, no cops. It was an interesting philosophical perspective, and I agreed with so much of what he said, and on other things, I didn't.

I didn't love this book because of how repetitive he was. He made the same point, with the same evidence, over and over. However, he was really persuasive! Honestly, his entire book could have been cut down to an essay once the redundancy was removed. I think this book was heavily influenced by his time in history, and his country, but the writing could have been more broadly directed in terms of his audience of readers, but anyone reading it could make applications themselves.

I definitely recommend this book, but more specifically the beginning and the ending around page 340. Even the preface in my copy acknowledges that most people skip a lot in the middle.

If only we as a human family could be true Christians and be perfect, like Christ was. How would that revolutionize our societies and governments if we actually developed policy around Christian teachings?! I know Tolstoy would be disgusted by the United States: military, weapons, GUNS!, violent police force, war, Christian hypocrisy, nationalism, division, intolerance, the death penalty...

He gave some EXCELLENT quotes, and if you don't read the book, at least read these:

"But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non-resistant, can it always be put into practice? It can be put into practice like every virtue and joined by the law of god. A virtue cannot be practiced in all circumstances about self-sacrifice, probation, suffering, and extreme cases loss of life itself. But here it seems life more than fulfilling the will of God is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he loses it."

"We kill the criminal that society may be rid of him, and we never know whether the criminal of today would not have been a changed man tomorrow, and whether our punishment of him is not useless cruelty."

"The Protestants of every kind: Lutheran's, reformed church, Presbyterians, Methodists, Swedenborgians, Mormons, assert that the holy Ghost is only present in their communities. Every branch in a tree comes from the root in unbroken connection the fact that each branch comes from the one root, does not prove it all that each branch was the only one. It is precisely the same with the church. Every Church presents exactly the same proofs of the succession, and even the same miracles, in support of its authenticity, as every other period."

"To let go the requirements of the ideal means not only to diminish the possibility of perfection, but to make an end of the ideal itself. The idea that has power over men is not an ideal invented by someone, but the ideal that every man carries within his soul. Only this ideal of complete infinite perfection has power over men, and stimulates them to action. A moderate perfection loses its power of influencing men's hearts."

"The Christian doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is love that his happiness depends not on loving this or that object, but on loving the principle of the whole God, whom he recognizes within himself as love, and therefore he loves all things and all men."

"The Christian religion is not a legal system which, being imposed by violence, may transform men's lives. Christianity is a new and higher conception of life. A new conception of Life cannot be imposed on men, it can only be freely assimilated. Some people -a minority- by a kind of prophetic instinct Divine the truth of the doctrine, surrender themselves to it and adopt it. Others -the majority- only through a long course of mistakes, experiments, and suffering are brought to recognize the truth of the doctrine and the necessity of adopting it."

“The sole means of uniting men is their union in the truth. And therefore the more sincerely men strive toward the truth, the nearer they get to unity.”

"Every man during his life finds himself in regard to truth in the position of a man walking in the darkness with light thrown before him by the lantern he carries. The life of a man and of humanity is nothing but a continual movement from Darkness into light, from a lower stage of Truth to a higher, from a truce more allied with errors to a truth more purified from them."

"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."

Loved iT

"Christ's teaching is no use, because it is inconsistent with our industrial age," says Ingersoll namely expressing in this utterance, with perfect directness and simplicity, the exact notion of Christ's teaching held by persons of refinement andculture of our times. The teaching is no use for our industrial age, precisely as though the existence of this industrial age were a sacred fact which ought not to and could not be changed. It is just as though drunkards when advised how they could be brought to habits of sobriety should answer that the advice is incompatible with their habit of taking alcohol.

The question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's disputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good, and VICE VERSA? And to reply that that is evil which I think evil, in spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a solution of the difficulty. There can only be two solutions: either to find a real unquestionable criterion of what is evil or not to resist evil by force.

The chief and most pernicious work of the Church is that which is directed to the deception of children--these very children of whom Christ said: "Woe to him that offendeth one of these little ones." From the very first awakening of the consciousness of the child they begin to deceive him, to instill into him with the utmost solemnity what they do not themselves believe in, and they continue to instill it into him till the deception has by habit grown into the child's nature. They studiously deceive the child on the most important subject in life, and when the deception has so grown into his life that it would be difficult to uproot it, then they reveal to him the whole world of science and reality, which cannot by any means be reconciled with the beliefs that have been instilled into him, leaving it to him to find his way as best he can out of these contradictions.

Let the Church stop its work of hypnotizing the masses, and deceiving children even for the briefest interval of time, and men would begin to understand Christ's teaching. But this understanding will be the end of the churches and all their influence. And therefore the churches will not for an instant relax their zeal in the business of hypnotizing grown-up people and deceiving children. This, then, is the work of the churches: to instill a false interpretation of Christ's teaching into men, and to prevent a true interpretation of it for the majority of so- called believers.

But the man who loves humanity--what does he love? There is such a thing as a state, as a nation; there is the abstract conception of man; but humanity as a concrete idea does not, and cannot exist.

The necessity of extending the sphere of love is beyond dispute. But in reality the possibility of this love is destroyed by the necessity of extending its object indefinitely. And thus the insufficiency of personal human love is made manifest. And here the advocates of Positivist, Communistic, Socialistic fraternity propose to draw upon Christian love to make up the default of this bankrupt human love; but Christian love only in its results, not in its foundations. They propose love for humanity alone, apart from love for God.
But such a love cannot exist. There is no motive to produce it. Christian love is the result only of the Christian conception of life, in which the aim of life is to love and serve God.

With the Christian conception of life, love is not a necessity and is confined to no object; it is the essential faculty of the human soul. Man loves not because it is his interest to love this or that, but because love is the essence of his soul, because he cannot but love.
The Christian doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is love--that his happiness depends not on loving this or that object, but on loving the principle of the whole--God, whom he recognizes within himself as love, and therefore he loves all things and all men.
In this is the fundamental difference between the Christian doctrine and the doctrine of the Positivists, and all the theorizers about universal brotherhood on non-Christian principles.

And however men may try to conceal it, one of the first conditions of Christian life is love, not in words but in deeds.

We are all brothers--and yet every morning a brother or a sister must empty the bedroom slops for me. We are all brothers, but every morning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such things, which my brothers and sisters have been wasting their health in manufacturing, and I enjoy these things and demand them. We are all brothers, yet I live by working in a bank, or mercantile house, or shop at making all goods dearer for my brothers. We are all brothers, but I live on a salary paid me for prosecuting, judging, and condemning the thief or the prostitute whose existence the whole tenor of my life tends to bring about, and who I know ought not to be punished but reformed. We are all brothers, but I live on the salary I gain by collecting taxes from needy laborers to be spent on the luxuries of the rich and idle.We are all brothers, but I take a stipend for preaching a false Christian religion, which I do not myself believe in, and which only serve's to hinder men from understanding true Christianity. I take a stipend as priest or bishop for deceiving men in the matter of the greatest importance to them. We are all brothers,but I will not give the poor the benefit of my educational, medical, or literary labors except for money. We are all brothers, yet I take a salary for being ready to commit murder, for teaching men to murder, or making firearms, gunpowder, or fortifications.
t
The whole life of the upper classes is a constant inconsistency. The more delicate a man's conscience is, the more painful this contradiction is to him.
t
A man of sensitive conscience cannot but suffer if he lives such a life. The only means by which he can escape from this suffering is by blunting his conscience, but even if some men succeed in dulling their conscience they cannot dull their fears.

But we all know how our laws are made. We have all been behind the scenes, we know that they are the product of covetousness, trickery, and party struggles; that there is not and cannot be any real justice in them. And so modern men cannot believe that obedience to civic or political laws can satisfy the demands of the reason or of human nature. Men have long ago recognized that it is irrational to obey a lawthe justice of which is very doubtful, and so they cannot but suffer in obeying a law which they do not accept as judicious and binding.

Men look at the subject from different points of view, but all alike talk of war as though it were something absolutely independent of the will of those who take part in it. And consequently they do not even admit the natural question which presents itself to every simple man: "How about me--ought I to take any part in it?" In their view no question of this kind even exists, and every man, however he may regard war from a personal standpoint, must slavishly submit to the requirements of the authorities on the subject.

Such is the attitude of certain learned men to the contradiction under which our society is being crushed, and such are their methods of solving it. Tell these people that the whole matter rests on the personal attitude of each man to the moral and religious question put nowadays to everyone, the question, that is, whether it is lawful or unlawful for him to take his share of military service, and these learned gentlemen will shrug their shoulders and not condescend to listen or to answer you. The solution of the question in their idea is to be found in reading addresses, writing books, electing presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries, and meeting and speaking first in one town and then in another.

"Peace will soon be arranged, thanks to alliances and congresses, to books and pamphlets; meantime go and put on your uniform, and prepare to cause suffering and to endure it for our benefit," is the government's line of argument. And the learned gentlemen who get up congresses and write articles are in perfect agreement with it.

There is the law of evolution, and therefore there is neither good nor evil, and one must live for the sake of one's personal existence, leaving the rest to the action of the law of evolution. This is the last word of refined culture, and with it, of that overshadowing of conscience which has come upon the educated classes of our times. The desire of the educated classes to support the ideas they prefer, and the order of existence based on them, has attained its furthest limits. They lie, and delude themselves, and one another, with the subtlest forms of deception, simply to obscure, to deaden conscience.

For the man who submits, the advantages will be that, after exposing himself to all the humiliation and performing all the barbarities required of him, he may, if he escapes being killed, get a decoration of red or gold tinsel to stick on his clown's dress; he may, if he is very lucky, be put in command of hundreds of thousands of others as brutalized as himself; be called a field-marshal, and get a lot of money.
The advantages of the man who refuses to obey will consist in preserving his dignity as a man, gaining the approbation of good men, and above all knowing that he is doing the work of God, and so undoubtedly doing good to his fellow-men.

Every savage has something he holds sacred, something for which he is ready to suffer, something he will not consent to do. But what is it that is sacred to the civilized man of to-day? They say to him: "You must become my slave, and this slavery may force you to kill even your own father;" and he, often very well educated, trained in all the sciences at the university, quietly puts his head under the yoke. They dress him up in a clown's costume, and order him to cut capers, turn and twist and bow, and kill--he does it all submissively. And when they let him go, he seems to shake himself and go back to his former life, and he continues to discourse upon the dignity of man, liberty, equality, and fraternity as before.

For he cannot know what at any time will be required of him by that Christian law of love, obedience to which constitutes the meaning of life for him. The Christian, in promising unconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the future, would show plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does not constitute for him the sole law of his life.

There is something sickly in this dread, which is essentially dependent on the artificial conditions in which many of us live and have been brought up.

How can we tell whether it is far to the goal which humanity is approaching, when we do not know how men are going toward it, while it depends on them whether they go or do not go, stand still, slacken their pace or hasten it? All we can know is what we who make up mankind ought to do, and not to do, to bring about the coming of the kingdom of God. And that we all know. And we need only each begin to do what we ought to do, we need only each live with all the light that is in us, to bring about at once the promised kingdom of God to which every man's heart is yearning.

The recognition of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only basis of all ethics.

It is principally through this false idea of inequality, and the intoxication of power and of servility resulting from it, that men associated in a state organization are enabled to commit acts opposed to their conscience without the least scruple or remorse. Under the influence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no longer simply men as they are, but some special beings-- noblemen, merchants, governors, judges, officers, tzars, ministers, or soldiers--no longer bound by ordinary human duties, but by other duties far more weighty--the peculiar duties of a nobleman, merchant, governor, judge, officer, tzar, minister, or soldier.

But, strange to say, it is precisely those people who profess most anxiety for the amelioration of human life, and are regarded as the leaders of public opinion, who assert that there is no need to do that, and that there are other more effective means for the amelioration of men's condition. They affirm that the amelioration of human life is effected not by the efforts of individual men, to recognize and propagate the truth, but by the gradual modification of the general conditions of life, and that therefore the efforts of individuals should be directed to the gradual modification of external conditions for the better. For every advocacy of a truth inconsistent with the existing order by an individual is, they maintain, not only useless but injurious, since in provokes coercive measures on the part of the authorities, restricting these individuals from continuing any action useful to society. According to this doctrine all modifications in human life are brought about by precisely the same laws as in the life of the animals.

But the sophistry of hypocrisy reasons that the merchant can pass for a virtuous man without giving up his pernicious course of action; a religious man need only have faith and a liberal man need only promote the modification of external conditions--the progress of industry. And so we see the merchant (who often goes further and commits acts of direct dishonesty, selling adulterated goods, using false weights and measures, and trading in products injurious to health, such as alcohol and opium) boldly regarding himself and being regarded by others, so long as he does not directly deceive his colleagues in business, as a pattern of probity and virtue. And if he spends a thousandth part of his stolen wealth on some public institution, a hospital or museum or school, then he is even regarded as the benefactor of the people on the exploitation and corruption of whom his whole prosperity has been founded: if he sacrifices, too, a portion of his ill- gotten gains on a Church and the poor, then he is an exemplary Christian.

At the same time they continue to persuade themselves and others that they are all much concerned about the welfare of these working classes, whom they have always trampled under their feet, and on Sundays, richly dressed, they drive in sumptuous carriages to the houses of God built in very mockery of Christianity, and there listen to men, trained to this work of deception, who in white neckties or in brocaded vestments, according to their denomination, preach the love for their neighbor which they all gainsay in their lives. And these people have so entered into their part that they seriously believe that they really are what they pretend to be.

A horse harnessed with others to a cart is not free to refrainfrom moving the cart. If he does not move forward the cart will knock him down and go on dragging him with it, whether he will or not. But the horse is free to drag the cart himself or to be dragged with it. And so it is with man.
Whether this is a great or small degree of freedom in comparison with the fantastic liberty we should like to have, it is the only freedom that really exists, and in it consists the only happiness attainable by man.
And more than that, this freedom is the sole means of accomplishing the divine work of the life of the world.

Whatever names we dignify ourselves with, whatever uniforms we wear, whatever priests we anoint ourselves before, however many millions we possess, however many guards are stationed along our road, however many policemen guard our wealth, however many so- called criminals, revolutionists, and anarchists we punish, whatever exploits we have performed, whatever states we may have founded, fortresses and towers we may have erected--from Babel to the Eiffel Tower--there are two inevitable conditions of life, confronting all of us, which destroy its whole meaning; (1) death, which may at any moment pounce upon each of us; and (2) the transitoriness of all our works, which so soon pass away and leave no trace. Whatever we may do--found companies, build palaces and monuments, write songs and poems--it is all not for long time. Soon it passes away, leaving no trace. And therefore, however we may conceal it from ourselves, we cannot help seeing that the significance of our life cannot lie in our personal fleshly existence, the prey of incurable suffering and inevitable death, nor in any social institution or organization.

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.
"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke xvii. 20, 21.)


t

A 3.27. Tolstoy does not make for light reading, but this was a thought-provoking tome, even if I slogged my way through for our adult ed Sunday school class. To boot, this reading made me far more interested in Tolstoy as a writer and in his fiction.

I believe the core message of this book can be found within this quote: "Christianity in its true meaning destroys the state… Christ was crucified for this very reason, and thus it has always been understood by men who are not fettered by the necessity of proving the justification of the Christian state… the teaching of humility, of forgiveness of offences, of love — is incompatible with the state, with its magnificence, its violence, its executions, and its wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing the state but even destroys its very foundations" (pg.242)

This text connected my religious ideologies with my political leanings in a profound life-changing way. I was an anarchist before I was Christian and often had trouble understanding how the two could be reconciled. Jesus teaches us to "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and God what belongs to God." (Matthew 222:21). I have always interpreted this as respect for the state. But, after reading this masterpiece, I'm convinced that Christianity and the State are incompatible, and Christianity is more compatible with Anarchism. The state implores violence while Jesus teaches us to love our neighbor. Everything belongs to God, and inside us lays the Kingdom of God, the foundation for all goodness in the world. This internal goodness within humanity is incompatible with the State. The mental gymnastics we as Christians go through to justify murder is deplorable.

Tolstoy is clear in his words: you can't be a Christian and a soldier, nation states must be abolished, violence is not the answer. In his manifest Tolstoy goes hard on the rich capitalists who feed from the oppression of the lower classes and argues that humanity must evolve to the next stage of our existence without states in a common understanding and love. Tolstoy's radical ideas are as true today, when we are facing a global climate catastrophe and as the richest 1% owns more of our common property than ever, as they were in his time.

Tolstoy's 'Kingdom of God is Within You' is a sequel to his book, 'What I Believe'. The philosophical premise of this book is derived from Mathew 5:39-'... But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil'. In ‘What I believe’, Tolstoy listed five commandments he adapted from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, namely; 1. Do not get angry with anyone; 2. Be completely chaste, even in thought; 3. Do not swear oath 4. Resist not evil 5. Do not partake in war; love your enemies. In this book, he focused on just one aspect of Christ’s sermon…resist not evil.

Tolstoy took a swipe at virtually every institution that surrounds human life. He refuted the institutions of the Government that forces people to indulge in war, to swear oath of allegiance. He referenced several authors to suggest that non-violence is not alien to Christianity. Tolstoy made allusions that the church adapted the supernatural to the life of Christ to arrest man's loyalty. He refuted the notion of the trinity; he refuted the notion of ‘the scriptures by divine inspiration’; he refuted the church, the infallibility of the Pope; he refuted science, art and literature of the civilized world; he refuted the hypocrisy that surrounds every facet of the civilization.

Tolstoy made allusions that suggest that our inability to heed the voice of our consciences is responsible for misery and suffering that surrounds human life. He advocates that every man should attune his lifestyle in harmony with his conscience, the voice of God within, to make progression towards salvation and bring down the Kingdom of God to the World. In his words, “Revolutionary enemies attack the government from without. Christianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it destroys all the foundations on which government rests.
Tolstoy took a swipe at the hypocrisy of the so-called Christians of the modern world. To understand the truth, to acknowledge our wrong ways is to embrace freedom…” And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”…“Progress towards progression is more significant (to our Lord) than stationary righteousness.

Tolstoy touched at the foundation of every question raised by Dostoyevsky in his book, The Brothers Karamazov. The conclusion of this book is a direct response to the queries of the Grand Inquisitor. When the Dostoyevsky, through the Grand Inquisitor declares, “the Church struggled with that freedom (which you gave it), corrected the error and founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority”. Tolstoy responds in the Kingdom of God is Within You, “the liberty of man does not consist in the power of acting independently of the progress of life and the influences arising from it, but in the capacity for recognizing and acknowledging the truth revealed to him…”

I was excited when I started this book, as I am both a Tolstoy fan and an advocate of biblical non-resistance. Tolstoy made some excellent points and many of his arguments are irrefutable if we are take Jesus' teachings at face value. However, I confess I was a bit disappointed by Tolstoy's overall belief/assumption that society is progressively evolving into a more "Christianized" form. I think if Tolstoy were to see where things are at today, over one hundred years later, he would be compelled to admit his theory did not pan out too well.

While Tolstoy maintained what I feel is a healthy distinction between the church and the state, and did not hesitate to criticize the church for its hypocritical (and unbiblical) entanglements with the state, I feel he departed from some key historic Christian positions. He de-emphasized the need for a personal salvation experience (the new birth) and instead continually came back to the need for each individual to apply themselves diligently to Jesus' teaching. The latter sounds good, but apart from the foundation of faith in Christ's finished work and the subsequent Spirit of God working in a man, there is no hope of redemption--either for the individual or society.

So I give it three stars. It was worth the read, but not what I'd anticipated. However, if you are interested in the practical application of non-resistance, Tolstoy will definitely offer you something to chew on.

It's been a while since I read this ... I do remember there are some long, tedious parts, as Tolstoy tries to make sense of things. Things pick up in his final chapter (12), where he walks through a situation he witnesses while on the train, assessing the motive and exploring psychological factors at work in these soldiers who are going to push some poor people off a piece of land where they are living, and doing no harm... what would drive them to use violence in such a situation, all of them being reassured by their bishops, etc. that such actions are fine for Christians.

Although this book was the major influence for Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., I retired it after about 150 pages. I agree with Tolstoy about non-violence. And I agree that Christians, for the most part, have failed in living this principle, but I'm just not sure that anyone could fully live the 'true Christianity' that he discusses. I didn't finish the book primarily because Tolstoy rambled on and on about the same things. (Not to be too hard on Tolstoy...I love his fiction works!)