Chapter 2 of The Kingdom of God is Within You: Why Religion has Rejected Non-Resistance

Chapter 2: CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF UNBELIEVERS.

As discussed in the post on Chapter 1, much of the early part of the book is an answer to the critiques of What I Believe in which Tolstoy lays out how Jesus directs Christians to reject violence and become non-resisters.

The critics upon my books, both the Russian and the foreign critics, can be divided into two classes: into the religious critics, — people who consider themselves to be believers, — and lay critics, who are freethinkers.

This chapter is mostly about the answer given by those of a religious background with the focus turning to the secular arguments late in the chapter going into the next chapter, as well as the difference between Russian and non-Russian critics.

The first, the rudest way of answering, consists in the bold assertion that violence does not contradict Christ's teaching, and that it is permitted and even prescribed by the Old and the New Testament.

Using the Old Testament and what Tolstoy often calls "obscure verses" to contradict the teachings of Jesus or to justify violence is a rather standard move that is still used today.  It takes no effort to find justifications for violence in the Bible, so though those who use the Bible to justify violence and state power are most likely being disingenuous and are more conservative than they are "Christian", it really doesn't take much effort to find violence in the text, which is why Tolstoy focuses on Jesus's teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.

These men have, in consequence of their intoxication with their power, for the most part to such an extent lost the concept of what that Christianity is, in the name of which they occupy their places, that everything of a

          Christian nature in Christianity presents itself to them as sectarian

Those that defend the churches are considered by Tolstoy to be intoxicated with power. They defend the present order because they benefit from it and wish to continue to do so. The churches, especially in Tolstoy's sociological context and post-Constantine, have power and continue to fight for their political power and thus they are much less likely to support any measure that dramatically transform society in a forward direction, which is why, in our time, white evangelicals are almost always on the wrong side of civil rights and racial issues.

The second method is a little less rude. It consists in asserting that, although Christ really taught to offer one's cheek and give up a shirt, and this is a very high moral demand, there are malefactors in the world, and

           if these are not curbed by the exercise of force, the whole world and all good men will perish.

And this is the most common argument and the one that Tolstoy constantly combats in his work: Jesus's teachings about non-violence are very nice, but they are not to be taken literally, and even if they are, they can't be expected to be followed because they are too demanding and they would allow those who would take people's shirts and abuse others to do so with no consequences, causing the innocent to suffer. And this latter argument is clearly the argument that pacifism has to deal with the most and for many people, the argument that pacifism does not quite have an answer for. How can pacifism prevent the most violent members of society from overrunning not only those who choose pacifism or non-resistant Christianity, but the neighbors that the Christians are supposed to love, and the people that the pacifists care about?

in the third place, because even if it were possible unerringly to tell malefactors from those who are not malefactors, it would still not be possible in a Christian society to execute, or maim, or lock up these malefactors, because in Christian society there would be no one to do this, because every Christian, as a Christian, is enjoined not to use violence against a malefactor. The third method of answering is still

shrewder than the previous one. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of non-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil is directed against him personally, it ceases to be
obligatory when the evil is directed against his neighbours, and that then a Christian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but is also obliged in the defence of his neighbours, contrary to the
commandment, to use violence against the violators. This assertion is quite arbitrary, and in the whole of Christ's teaching no confirmation of such an interpretation can be found.

For Tolstoy, just as with his view of fatalist view of history, pacifism arises from an epistemological problem. How can we determine who is acting in bad faith and not only who is acting violently, but who will continue to act violently? The doctrine of non-participation also arises here, as Christians are not to take part in the prosecution of those who are subject to criminal charges, so they cannot be the executors, so on a personal level, they cannot, beyond the epistemological problems, have anything to do with judgement, despite evidence or personal opinions. One can see how this plays out in the short story "The Forged Coupon" as well as the significance of Ivan Illyich's position as a professional judge, who decides the fate of people without moral qualms and then goes home to his family and the life he tries to create for himself.

We lock up a man whom we suppose to be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with to-morrow this man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile. I see that a man whom I know

to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and I have a gun in my hand, — I kill the robber and save the girl ; the robber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to me what would happen if that were
not the case.

This has some radical implications for the justice system (which Tolstoy of course argues should not be participated in at all) and what we do with those who are considered dangerous or do something wrong (it also raises the practical problem of what society tries to accomplish through sentencing and the varying lengths of sentences. Most likely, pre-set sentences, with parole and good behavior opportunities, attempt to set standards to help prevent crime, making people not want to do the crime so they do not have to do the time that they are vaguely aware they would probably have to serve, and to encourage rehabilitation once they are entered into the prison system. The actual mechanics and efficacy of the system probably does not match these aspirations and the purpose of sentencing is probably not reflected on by society very often). Not surprisingly, considering his antipathy towards doctors and the science of medicine, Tolstoy was extremely skeptical and against diagnoses of mental illness and the labeling of people which might lead to their incarceration (this gets really complicated today with the proliferation of pharmacology, in which on a seemingly indisputable positive note, pill regiments for certain individuals allow people who would have been, in previous generations, incarcerated in some form or another, to live what many might call a "normal life"). But most importantly, acts of violence to prevent acts of violence cannot really be justified because the positive effects of the preemptive acts of violence cannot be known, just as the assumed act of violence cannot be known (a clear rejection of Utilitarianism by exposing the problems Utilitarians face most often: epistemology and measurability. The Utilitarian, on the other hand, might argue that non-action has its own consequences and it is impossible to live with any certainty and each person must act in the way they believe to be best. A Utilitarian could come to embrace pacifism in almost every situation, though the problem of false justification for actions can eat away at Utilitarianism, with people consistently claiming to act in a way to reduce violence while actually contributing to it). To know what will come of my actions when I choose to act violently to prevent violence is impossible, and thus it is better not to act or act non-violently than act violently since it is impossible to know if I will be causing more harm or preventing harm.

The fourth, still more refined answer to the question as to how a Christian should act toward Christ's commandment of non-resistance to evil consists in asserting that the commandment of non-resistance

to evil is not denied by them, but is accepted like any other; but that they do not ascribe to this commandment any special exclusive significance, as the sectarians do.

So while Tolstoy and the counter-culture societies mentioned by Tolstoy in Chapter 1 put an emphasis on Jesus's command for non-violence, the churches can claim that it is one of many commands and thus cannot be emphasized in the way that the pacifists emphasize them. This whole discussion is hopeless, just as most intra-Religious arguments are. Obviously putting more emphasis on the words of Jesus Christ (though Tolstoy rejects the divinity and miracles as we'll see) would make sense, but the counter-argument is that for some Christians, the entire Bible, as well as, for some, extra-biblical texts, have divine authority, and thus anyone of them can be used to determine direction in life.
Tolstoy puts emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount, others put emphasis on other sections or religious texts, showing the problem of making religious authority arguments, especially when approached from outside, seeming incomprehensible and, probably, based on politics and power dynamics.

This subterfuge is very clever, and men who wish to be deceived are easily deceived by it. The subterfuge consists in reducing the direct conscious negation of the commandment to an accidental violation

          of the same.

Again, Tolstoy assumes a lot of uncharitable things about his opponents, but that is not to say that they are wrong assumptions. While Tolstoy would agree with many religious thinkers is claiming that "all sin is sin" and all wrong doings are equal, the way he does so is different than those who justify violence or state participation. In What I Believe Tolstoy puts a lot of emphasis on the literal interpretation of the commandments of Jesus and how they are expected to be followed. The churches couch the language of commandments, especially the political ones (and even more so when these political conceptions challenge current political systems) in figurative terms, but they are inconsistent in doing so. And when doing this, the churches are able to say that when Christians consciously reject Jesus's teachings on non-violence to support violence, they are doing the same thing others do when they have a momentary moral lapse or failing,

They actually recognize the commandment against fornication, and so never, under any condition, admit that fornication is not an evil.

While Tolstoy essentially agrees the churches conception of sexual non-freedom (notice that his avocation of freedom has certain limits and excludes things like sexual liberation), and even going further, especially in abominations like The Kreutzer Sonata, Tolstoy sees the churches as not extending this literalism and strictness to commandments that have a more political nature (sure, sexual freedom and liberation is political, but not in the context of this book).

The fifth method, the most refined, most popular, and most powerful one, consists in begging the question, in making it appear as though the question had long ago been decided by some one in an

          absolutely clear and satisfactory manner, and as though it were not worth while to speak of it.

Ironically, this is something Tolstoy tends to be guilty of, but more importantly, this hearkens back to the previous chapter's emphasis on how the state and the churches keep Christian pacifism as a secret or refuse to deal with it in an honest manner. But of course Tolstoy believes that the answer is found in the texts themselves, which the churches prefer their followers not to read.

The only way out for them is the hope that, by using the authority of the church, of antiquity, of holiness, they may be able to confuse the reader and draw him away from the thought of reading the

          Gospel for himself and of considering the question with his own mind.

The applicability of this last bit to today is debatable, as churches and church-people today are more likely to just cherry-pick, as with the fornication example above, than to discourage people from actually reading the texts. The true problem of today in this respect is probably threefold: 1. Many people just choose not to read the texts but still have firm opinions on them 2. Those that do read the texts fixate on the truly horrible found in the texts with the support of church leaders (which I think Tolstoy admits there is inside the texts many things that are bad in themselves and unhelpful to today's society) 3. Those who do read the texts come at them with a bias that church leaders have given them and see what they want inside the texts, just as all kinds of people do when viewing any kind of text at all. Most importantly, as seen as the example below, the dominant interpretations of the religion reign, and society has no time or use for interpretations that run counter to the societal machine.

A young man steps out. He is poorly and dirtily dressed and looks frightened, and the muscles of his face tremble, and his fugitive eyes sparkle, and in a faltering voice, almost in a whisper, he

says : " I — according to the law I, a Christian — I can not— " "What is he muttering there?" impatiently asks the presiding officer, half-closing his eyes and listening, as he raises his head from
the book. " Speak louder ! " shouts to him the colonel with the shining shoulder-straps. "I — I — I — as a Christian — " It finally turns out that the young man refuses to do military service,
because he is a Christian. " Talk no nonsense ! Get your measure ! Doctor, be so kind as to take his measure. Is he fit for the army?" "He is." " Reverend father, have him sworn in." No one is
confused ; no one even pays any attention to what this frightened, pitiable young man is muttering. " They all mutter something, but we have no time : we have to receive so many recruits."

Individual people and their beliefs are discarded for the good of the main machine, making a good argument for the necessity of multiculturalism and the rejection of a national ethic or mandatory governmental service, which is not necessarily Tolstoy's argument since he bases so much of his argument on Christianity, but at the same time it isn't hard to get that argument from Tolstoy's arguments. On the other hand, the opposition to the arguments for non-violence can be and are combated from both sides of the political aisle.

The whole significance of Christ's preaching presented itself to the Russian critics as though maliciously interfering with a certain activity, which was directed against what they at a given

moment considered to be an evil, so that it turned out that the principle of not resisting evil with violence was attacked by two opposite camps, —by the conservatives, because this principle
interfered with their activity of resisting the evil which was produced by the revolutionists, and with their persecutions and executions; and by the revolutionists, because this principle interfered
with the resistance to the evil which was produced by the conservatives, and with the overthrow of the conservatives.

The applicability today can clearly be seen here, as the left in the United States is somewhat mired in a discussion about the ethical nature and efficacy of violence as a political tool, with some arguing that violence is necessary to protect the most vulnerable and cause social change. Can the conservatives be brought down by non-resistance or must violence be a necessary part of life to foster the change necessary to expand freedoms and quality of life?

Besides, the Russian critics pointed out that the application to life of the commandment about non-resistance to evil would turn humanity away from the path of civilization, on which it was

marching now; but the path of civilization, on which the European civilization is marching, is, in their opinion, the one on which all humanity must always march. Such was the chief character
of the Russian criticisms. The foreign critics proceeded from the same bases, but their reviews of my book differed from those of the Russian critics not only in a lesser degree of irritability
and a greater degree of culture, but also in the essence of the matter.

While grand narratives and providential forms of history are less prominent now than in Tolstoy's day (and yes, Tolstoy's fatalism in both War and Peace and this book recognizes a progression in history that is beyond not only our immediate control but humanity's control as a whole), technocrats, neo-conservatives, progressions, dispensationalists, and even some forms of environmentalists, leftists, and Marxist holdovers see history as progressing to something and civilization marching on some kind of path, whether positive or negative. Non-resistance and non-participation disrupts the flow of society. It rejects the idea that we are living in the end of history or that society can keep progressing the way it is progressing. It most importantly, disrupts the flow to states having more control and power and the progression of technological advances. Non-resistance brings simplicity when society appears to be inevitably becoming more complex. For pretty apparent psychological reasons, running towards this simplicity can be very comforting and help us understand the world. It is not hard to see why Tolstoy would want society to race back into the country (though population explosions would not allow it) and away from the state and technological controls into a more simple societal construction. And considering what happened in history the next fifty to sixty years, maybe Tolstoy wasn't wrong. But, the advancing culture has no time for this message.

the foreign critics asserted...the doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount is only a series of very charming, impracticable reveries " du charmant docteur," as Renan used to say, which were

good enough for the naive and half-wild inhabitants of Galilee, who lived eighteen hundred years ago, and for the Russian peasants, Syutaev and Bondarev, and the Russian mystic,
Tolstoy, but can in no way be applied to the high degree of European culture.

Culture has the tendency to mistake is for ought, understanding that the way things are, or what they traditionally have been (and Tolstoy's rejection of traditional power structures are what separates him, despite his primitivism, from conservatism), are what they should be.

The teaching is no good for our industrial age, as though the existence of the industrial age is something sacred which must not and cannot be changed. It is something like what

drunkards would do, if, in response to advice about how to get themselves into a sober state, they should reply that the advice is out of place in connection with their present alcoholic
state.

The Industrial Revolution brought with it intense suffering, just as technological advances in our time have come with intense social dynamic disruption and intense suffering in developing countries. To accept this and participate in it is of course a moral choice and cannot be simply dismissed as "that's the way things are". We have to decide if the way things are are indeed worth it and decide if we should accept them and participate in them, or reject them and try to change them.

Christ's teaching is useless, because, if it were put into practice, our life could not continue; in other words, — if we began to live well, as Christ has taught us, we could not continue

to live badly, as we live and are accustomed to live. The question of non-resistance to evil is not discussed, and the very mention of the fact that the demand for non-resistance to evil
enters into Christ's teaching is considered a sufficient proof of the inapplicability of the whole teaching.

And I think this is the heart of Tolstoy's teaching on Jesus. It is not a "spiritual" thing. It is not something that has to do with inner peace or happiness (happiness, a key thread throughout Tolstoy's work, especially his fiction, pops up in Chapter 4 and will be discussed there). Non-resistant Christianity requires an entire uprooting of the follower's life. Of course, this does not prove or disprove it, just as, by itself, the current order of things are not necessarily good or bad.

It may be found that Christ's answer is not correct: it may be possible to put in its place another, better answer, by finding a criterion which would indubitably and simultaneously for

all define the evil; we may simply not recognize the essence of the question, as it is not recognized by the savage nations, — but it is impossible, as the learned critics of the Christian
teaching do, to make it appear that such a question does not at all exist, or that the relegation of the right to determine the evil and resist it with violence to certain persons or assemblies
of men (much less, if we are these men), solves the question; whereas we all know that such a relegation does not at all solve the question, since there are some people who do not
recognize this right as belonging to certain people or to assemblies of men.

The problem of violence is epistemological, just as it is political, since we do not know who should be allowed to be violent and in what situations they should be allowed to be violent. This cannot be decided, according to Tolstoy, through traditional political means because of the problem of political recognition and the fact that there are always going to be groups that do not recognize the authority of the majority or those who claim to represent the majority. Unless this can be solved, there can be no justified state violence (or indeed any state action).