Posted by Eliza on: 01.18.2007 /
This week, because of Martin Luther King Jr Day, I’ve been poking around on the Internet for information about MLK and nonviolence. I’d read before that MLK was influenced by Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, and that Gandhi was influenced by Jesus.
Turns out, if Wikipedia and other sources are correct, both King and Gandhi were influenced by Leo Tolstoy’s 1893-94 book The Kingdom of God is Within You. “The Kingdom…” is about the principle of nonresistance taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-42) and exhibited by Jesus at his arrest (Matthew 26:50-52) – and how Tolstoy thought the church was ignoring this and other teachings by Jesus from the gospels.
There are some more comments, and links to the text of this and another book by Tolstoy, and a quote from one of his books, for those who want to read on.
For discussion, feel free to comment on any aspect of this that strikes you. I’m intrigued by these questions:
I wasn’t suprised that Jesus was a role model for 2 great men of the 20th century who used nonviolence to achieve social and political change in countries on opposite sides of the globe – but learning that Tolstoy had a hand in inspiring them was news to me. (I’d taken Russian Literature in college & remember hearing the professor say something about Tolstoy becoming a ‘crackpot’ in his later years, quitting fiction and turning to religion.)
The book “The Kingdom of God is Within You” is available online as an e-book at several sites, including kingdomnow.org and nonresistance.org. The nonresistance.org site also has “What I Believe”, Tolstoy’s 1884 book on a similar theme (also relating how he went from being a “nihilist” – a non-theist – to Christian). It also has other 19th century pacifist writings; all can be downloaded and printed for free. Tolstoy’s first book was apparently censored in Russia & the second one was banned there…maybe because of how he criticized the Orthodox Church, thought the Church should oppose military action, and thought Christian believers shouldn’t be drafted into the military, could that have been it? ;-)
I read a few chapters of each of the books by Tolstoy online this week. Well, he didn’t pull any punches, & he definitely had a bee in his bonnet, but that doesn’t make him a crackpot. (Curmudgeon, yes.) Tolstoy didn’t have a high opinion of the church – any church – because of what he saw as the focus on ritual about Christ over following Christ’s teachings. (He phrases this in somewhat less complimentary ways, throughout both books.) He saw the teachings on nonresistance, nonviolence, as being the most egregious & important example of this discrepancy. The second book starts off by addressing responses he’d gotten to the first book, none of which he felt came close to adequately addressing the concerns he expressed. He might have found a better fit with a liberal Protestant church in the U.S. – in fact, he read Quaker & other pacifist literature between these two books, quoting some of it in the second.
Here’s an example of his ideas, from “What I Believe”:
What perplexed me most of all was that all the evil things that men do, such as condemning private individuals, whole nations, or other religions; and the inevitable results of these condemnations — executions and wars — were justified by the Church. I saw that the doctrine of Christ, which teaches us humility, tolerance, forgiveness, self-denial, and love, was extolled by the Church, but that at the same time she sanctioned what was incompatible with such teachings.
Could the doctrine of Christ be so weak and inconsistent? That I could not believe. Besides, it had always perplexed me to find that the texts upon which the Church has grounded her dogmas are of an obscure character, whereas those that teach us how to live are the most simple and clear. While the Church specifies the dogmas, and the duties derived from them, in the most forcible manner, the practice of the “doctrine’ is urged only in obscure, dim, and mystical expressions. Is it possible that this was what Christ desired for His teaching? I could only find the solution of my doubts in the perusal of the gospels, and I read them over and over again. Of all the gospels, the Sermon on the Mount was the portion that impressed me most, and I studied it more often than any other part. Nowhere else does Christ speak with such solemnity; nowhere else does He give us so many clear and intelligible moral precepts, which commend themselves to everyone. If there are any clear and definite precepts of Christianity, they must have been expressed in this sermon; and, therefore, in those three chapters of St. Matthew’s gospel I sought the solution of my doubts.
Many and many a time I read over the sermon, and every time I felt the same emotion on reading the texts about “turning my cheek to the one who strikes me,’ “giving up my cloak to him who takes my coat,’ “being at peace with all men,’ and “loving my enemies,’ — and yet there remained in me the same feeling of dissatisfaction. The words of God were not as yet clear to me. They seemed to enjoin an impossible self-denial that annulled life itself, and therefore it seemed to me that such self-denial could not be the requirement on which man’s salvation depended.
But, then, if that were not the express condition of salvation, there was nothing fixed and clear! I not only read the Sermon on the Mount, but the rest of the gospels, and various commentaries upon them. Our theological explanations tell us that in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount an indication is given of the perfection after which man must strive; that man, being full of sin, cannot attain this perfection by his own unaided strength, and that the salvation of a man lies in faith, prayer, and the gifts of the grace of God; but these explanations did not satisfy me.
Why should Christ have given to us such clear and good precepts, applicable to us all, if He knew beforehand that the keeping of them was impossible by man in his own unaided strength?
On reading over these precepts, it always seemed that they applied to me, and that I was morally bound to obey them. I even felt convinced that I could, immediately and from that very hour, do all that they enjoined.
I wished and tried to do so, but as soon as any difficulty arose in the way of my keeping them, I involuntarily remembered the teaching of the Church, that “man is weak, and can do no good thing by himself,’ and then I became weak.
I had been told that it was necessary to believe and to pray, but I felt that my faith was weak and that I could not pray. I had been told that it was necessary to pray for faith — for that faith without which prayer is of no avail. I was told that faith comes through prayer and that prayer comes through faith, which, to say the least, was certainly bewildering. Such statements commended themselves neither to reason nor experience.
After much useless study of the works that have been written in proof of the divinity or non-divinity of this doctrine, and after many doubts and much suffering, I was left alone with the mysterious Book, in which the doctrine of Christ is taught. I could not interpret it as others did, I could not abjure the Book, and yet I could not find a new and satisfying interpretation. It was only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and criticism, and after laying them all aside in obedience to the words of Christ (Mark 10:15), that I began to understand what had until then seemed incomprehensible to me. It was not by deep thought, or by skillfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the gospel, that I came to understand the doctrine. On the contrary, all grew clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere interpretations. The text that gave me the key to the truth was the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, “You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist evil…’ The simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon me; I accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose before me in all its solemn importance.
Comment by: joe
1I can’t get into Tolstoy, personally, it all being a mite too depressing. But he was a bit of a crackpot, if I recall correctly, he had a stormy relationship with his wife when he decided to sell off the family silver and give the money to the peasants.
To attempt an answer to your questions:
1. No. Christians have always found reasons to ignore very direct commands from Christ when it suits them.
2. Well, I think it is basically because Church has become an institution – and within any institution you get to the point where the original aim of the organisation is lost behind the need to ‘keep things going’. We are now at the point where some outside of the faith have a better understanding of what it says than those inside it. The novelty has worn off and we’re unable to hear beyond what we think it says. Which is often nothing resembling what it actually says.
3. I think Christ is advocating a better world. He is calling for a revolution – but not one where the strongest survive or certain ‘others’ are destroyed, but where all are valued and embraced. Up to and including our enemies. And for this world we are called to build, we are asked to give up everything.
OK, there is a lot of spiritual language I have missed out here, but essentially, Christ is a radical figure.
Comment by: JG
2I see a difference between:
1) individuals and groups choosing nonviolence as the approach they will adopt for themselves and
2) the position of people who have responsibility for others.
And on point 2, the question arises, who am I responsible for or perhaps, who is my neighbour? The question asked of Jesus which led to the parable of the good Samaritan.
If you see someone attacking your child or someone else’s child, do you seek to intervene? What is a non violent (meaning here non physical, no touching the person)response to someone you find in the course of committing rape?
Comment by: Eliza
3joe, in my limited experience it does seem that many churches keep the same message going, & the church going, with a focus on ritual & keeping things “nice”, & without delving into how radical Jesus’s teachings were. It’s probably hard to create a stable institution around radical egalitarian ideas. It’s interesting to read about street churches – they seem closer to this message, but also each seem to be “homegrown” & independent. (BICBW – I don’t know that much about them.) I wonder, too, how the street churches approach violence – their attendees probably have more need to defend themselves against physical assault than most church members across the country, so it seems like self-defense, whether to fight back or “turn the other cheek”, could be a frequent, practical topic of discussion in those churches.
About Tolstoy, I didn’t find what I read of the 2 books linked above depressing – he clearly felt strongly that there was a “wrong” being perpetuated in the name of Christ, that needed to be addressed. (I read some of his plays in Russian in college – given the work it took to translate it into something I could understand, I don’t remember whether or not they were depresssing!)
joe said about Tolstoy:
I don’t know about his relationship with his wife, but about the silver & peasants – that sounds like he was taking seriously Jesus’s message about giving away wealth. (Too seriously? His wife probably thought so!)
Comment by: joe
4Re: depressing, I was meaning Anna Karenina (which I quite enjoyed) and War and Peace (which I’ve never got into). Tolstoy was primarily a novelist, don’t forget…
Comment by: Eliza
5May be a Russian trait – the writings of Chekhov and Solzhenitsyn are pretty downbeat, too. (It was actually Chekhov’s plays we read in Russian Lit – my bad, for confusing him with Tolstoy.)
Comment by: NCxian
6Tolstoy asked, in the quote above,
I am struck that the answer may have something to do the very thing we are talking about in this discussion thread. Tolstoy had access to other thinkers before him about how to understand and put into practice what Christ said about how best to be human. Ghandhi and King read and learned from Tolstoy. The answer may be that it is impossible for man to keep the precepts in his own unaided strength, but we are not all starting from scratch. We have the collected wisdom, locally and way beyond local as we see with these three guys, to figure out how to do it.
Which I guess is also a shot at the answer to your question #2, Helen. King went to Tolstoy and Ghandhi because that’s the way it works best. We grow, we mature, not just individually but as, I guess, a species. This communication thing is a big advantage to us.
Comment by: Helen
7NCxian – I’d like to take credit but in fact this was a post by Eliza :)
Comment by: Seren
8“he had a stormy relationship with his wife”
all three of these men had very, ah, icky relationships with women. it’s always been a bugbear for me.
Comment by: Heather Flanagan
9I think you would be interested in this video about Bernie Meyer who has traveled the world portraying Gandhi:
http://pugettown.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/
Comment by: Eliza
10NCxian wrote:
That’s a really interesting observation, NCxian. We process ideas, try things out, see what works, learn from each other, & grow as a people over time. Will be interesting to see who next uses nonviolence in such a big way…
Seren wrote:
Seems not an uncommon pattern among men well-known in one arena, to have difficulty in marriage or home life. For some men in leadership positions, it seems like charisma, self-confidence, & a position of power may increase the opportunities to stray from their marriage. Or, maybe those are just the ones we hear about, or the ones that catch our attention – ?
Comment by: Rachel
11In the area of Christianity and nonviolence, I think that things really started to deteriorate when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in AD 312. Prior to that Christians were almost universally pacifists. They took Christ’s teachings quite literally and refused to perform military service or participate in the Roman legal system, since the state meted out capital punishments.
Everything changed with the conversion of Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. This created the concept of Christendom, a “Christian kingdom” which could be advanced and protected using violence, a concept which previously would have been completely foreign to Christ followers.
Senator Mark Hatfield, who some might remember for his strong opposition to the Vietnam War, wrote about this in his book “Between a Rock and Hard Place” (1976).
The Empire itself was not transformed by the reported conversion of its Emperor. It was not suddenly committed to seek the justice taught by Christ, but still sought the ends of its own self-preservation and prestige, frequently at a bloody cost. In no way had the Roman Empire suddenly become a “Christian” Empire, molded by the teachings of Christ or committed to judging or fashioning itself according to the qualities of biblical justice.
The Christ following community gradually gave up its radical message and lifestyle of peace, forgiveness and nonviolence in exchange for political power and wealth. They were so relieved that the terrible persecution they had suffered had ended and so enamoured with their “Christian” emperor that they did not challenge his use of violence and domination.
Comment by: Helen
12Regarding what Rachel wrote, I think the church has struggled not to take advantage of power and wealth ever since it became powerful and wealthy enough that that was an option.
I think we see that struggle in the US today and I think it’s one reason why Americans who visit Christians in countries where the church has no power or wealth are struck by something which moves them, which they don’t feel here.
I think the presence of that ‘something’ is directly related to the church not having the option of being corrupted by power and wealth, since they don’t have any.
I’ve heard US Christians say they wish they could bring this ‘something’ back – but I’m not sure they can as long as the church here continues to have the option of getting its way because it has power and wealth.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
13Thanks for posting this Helen. I think nonviolence actually gets to the heart of the Christian faith. To me it’s one of the central messages of the cross.
Anyhow, you all really, really need to download and listen to Rob Bell’s December preaching series. It’s called “Calling all Peacemakers” and it’s all about non-violence and the Kingdom of God. He’s just an amazing speaker. You can download his sermons here.
Comment by: Helen
14Mike, thanks for the link. (Btw Eliza posted this, not me.)
Comment by: Rachel
15I agree, Helen. I think Sunil Sardar who spoke at the OTM conference really embodied that “something” you are talking about. Sunil’s talks were so moving and powerful and so different from the typical affluent Westerner. I kept thinking of Jesus’ mission statement for his ministry:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that the captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come.”
It seems like that declaration just doesn’t mean as much to us in our comfortable American churches. But when Sunil proclaims it to the Untouchables, it is powerful and joyful and very, very subversive.
Comment by: Helen
16Rachel – yes, the power of Jesus’ mission statement, in fact of much of his ministry, is lost on people who are comfortable in their current lives (and complacent that others aren’t).
Comment by: Micky
17bout 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole — four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months — I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away — but the hospital staffs were very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 — 17].
Peace Be With You
Micky
Comment by: Helen
18Micky, I reposted your story here:
Micky’s experience