Leo Tolstoy and the War on Terror: A Radical Christian Response to Violence

Political Studies Association Annual Conference 4-7 April 2005, University of Leeds Session 2, Panel 11 Arts and Politics 1 (16:00-17:30, Tuesday 5 April)

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos (ajmc2@kent.ac.uk) Department of Politics and International Relations Rutherford College University of Kent Canterbury Kent CT2 7NX United Kingdom

1
CopyrightPSA 2005

Abstract

The twenty-first century, especially but not only due to the war on terror, has so far witnessed a revival of the old debate on the role of religion in politics and international relations, a question on which Tolstoy wrote extensively during the latter part of his life. He considered Jesus to have clearly spelt out some very rational moral and (hence) political rules for conduct, based on faith in God, the most important of which was non-resistance to evil. Reinforced by Jesus instructions to love one another and not to judge one another, non-resistance suggests a radically different method to respond to (whatever gets defined as) evil. In the war on terror, therefore, Tolstoy would disapprove of both sides readiness to use violence to reach their aims; and he would call for Christians in particular to courageously enact the rational wisdom contained in Jesus Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy would further argue that religion cannot be successfully excluded from political affairs for very long, because religious values carry clear political consequences. Tolstoys exegesis of Christianity may, in truth, be somewhat fundamentalistic and lead to an exceedingly utopian political vision, but this article seeks to show that he nevertheless deserves a place among the political thinkers that are studied in the universities and the political circles of our times.

2
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

Introduction
The war on terror, we are told by Western politicians, is a war that it will take time to win; but eventually, thanks to the sheer power of Western forces, freedom and democracy will prevail over these evil enemies of civilisation. If Leo Tolstoy would hear this, however, he would be incensed, because according to him, the essence of the teaching of Jesus the very same Jesus who with Plato (Socrates) could be argued to be one of the two most central figures that shaped Western civilisation is about non-resistance to evil, about Christian love and nonviolence. Tolstoy would call for Westerners to pay better and more honest attention to Jesus words, and to seriously consider the wisdom embodied in them. In other words, Tolstoy would elaborate a radical Christian response to the war on terror. But before Tolstoys view can be outlined, the return of religion in international politics in the twenty-first century will first be very briefly sketched in an admittedly simplified and succinct analysis, the only purpose of which will be to locate the relevance of Tolstoys voice in todays war on terror. After that, a summary of Tolstoys exegesis of Jesus teaching will point out some of the plain moral rules that he drew out of his understanding of Christianity, in particular the commandment never to resist evil. This will then provoke a discussion of the war on terror seen through Tolstoys challenging view of Christianity, whereby the use of any form of violence would be denounced. Given the obscurity of Tolstoys thought today, as an aside, a fourth section will allude to Tolstoys approach to religion and his Christian anarchistic vision of society, and will then mention a few potential shortcomings of his way of thinking. And finally, the paper will conclude by reaffirming the relevance of Tolstoys radical voice in the twenty-first century.

1. Religion and Politics in the Twenty-First Century

During most of the Cold War, religion was largely left out of international politics. The ideologies behind the two superpowers were essentially secular: communism explicitly censured religion, and democratic liberalism tolerated it but only as private opinion, as subjective belief. Even though the world was painted in terms of good and evil, politicians on either side avoided framing their discourse on openly religious ideals and values. In their academic assessment of this apparently secular, bipolar world, therefore, scholars seldom explored the interface between religion and politics. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism appeared to emerge as the ideology that, over a few centuries, had finally defeated theocracy, fascism and communism. For many Western observers, (market) freedom and liberal democracy were proving themselves to be the universal values of the future, a future in which religion did not seem to have any serious political role to look forward to anymore.1 And yet, religion has made a dramatic comeback in international politics, most visibly since the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Hence al-Qaeda, the group blamed for most of the international terrorism that has recently plagued the world, claims to be motivated by the need for a Muslim jihad against the West. The term
1

Francis Fukuyama, The End of History? The National Interest 16 (Summer 1989): 3-18.

3
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

jihad, it should be emphasised, means a struggle of the soul towards God, a striving in the cause of God; this defensive effort can take place both internally, within the believer, or externally, against outer evil or temptation and does not necessarily entail the martial element usually associated with the interpretation of jihad as holy war. But it is precisely as holy war, however, that al-Qaeda uses the term: the terrorist organisation considers its religious duty to be the waging of a defensive war against the sinful depravation and corrupting influence (through political, economic and military interference) of the West. At the same time, religious language and values have enjoyed a steady revival within the political discourse of certain Western societies. By far the most striking example is of course the U. S. A., where several politicians have, as the twentieth century progressed, appealed ever more strongly to potential Christian voters with notions such as faith and morality, good and evil, or the solemn role of apostle for freedom that many see God as having blessed their country with. The phenomenon is not completely new, and indeed religion always played an important role in Americans political opinions whatever the wishes of their founding fathers. Even so, the political engagement of (especially but not only) evangelical Christians, for example, has been steadily growing (along with their numbers) throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, so that by the twenty-first, their political clout was important enough to largely contribute to the election of a President that is one of theirs. Thus at the onset of the twenty-first century, faith and morality have become essential dimensions of the electoral map of the most powerful nation on earth. By contrast, most Western European societies have, on the whole, been slower to accept the return of religious concerns into political realms in fact several countries are eager to make sure that religion does not resume its political intrusions all over again. Nonetheless, the relationship between religious values and political affairs has certainly stirred several lively discussions, as demonstrated by, for example, the disputes around the banning of (ostentatious) religious symbols in French public schools or the debate on the inclusion of a reference to God in the proposed E. U. constitution. But anyway, beyond this, European countries obviously also interact with the wider world, where they have been invited to determine their stance in the context of a so-called war on terror(ism) whose discourse betrays plenty of religious terminology. In such wider context of a global war in which the prominent leaders of both factions explicitly appeal to religious values and principles, it would seem unwise, if not self-harmful, to continuously deny of the role played by religion in the (at least, international) politics of the twenty-first century. And yet for many academics, citizens and politicians, religion should really continue to be kept out of politics. Many observers today, who in fact may or may not describe themselves as believing in God, certainly feel very uneasy about getting caught in the middle of a war between Islamic fundamentalists on one side and (what some perceive as) equally fundamentalist Christians on the other. It took centuries of religious wars to finally separate religion and politics, so many want neither to see this diplomatic partition reneged, nor to be then forced into choosing between two antagonistic political factions that are, in their eyes, both prejudiced by religious zeal. But regardless of the war on terror, religion and politics have in fact, in many countries, never really been fully separated in the first place, as no doubt many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus would keenly point out. Religion may have been brushed aside from the international scene and its academic discourse during most of

4
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

the twentieth century, but in the meantime, within many countries, religious values have continued to be major forces shaping local (and regional) politics. Besides, even in many of the countries where religion and politics have been constitutionally separated, religious movements have lived on and continued voicing their political concerns. So all things considered, it would have been surprising if religious issues had not eventually reappeared, one way or the other, in the realm of international relations. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, therefore, it appears that politicians and scholars in particular ought to start examining the interface between religion and politics more seriously and academically than they did during much of the twentieth century. Indeed, if religious facades are not to be misused by opportunistic politicians for populist propaganda, then an honest, open-minded, and profound examination of religious traditions and their political implications cannot be avoided. The widespread presumptions that democratic liberalism, scientific positivism or post-Enlightenment philosophy had finally done away with the embedding of religion into politics seem to have been premature, if not completely mistaken. These traditional arguments certainly appear to have become ineffective in the context of the twenty-first century. Therefore the relationship between religion and politics still (if not more than ever) demands the devotion of careful, tolerant academic attention. And precisely on this relationship, and more specifically on the political implications of Christianity, Tolstoy, of all people, raised several points that could offer interesting (albeit radical) first steps on pathways for further thinking.

2. Tolstoys Exegesis of the Gospel

Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) is more famous today for his celebrated novels than for his critical essays on religion and politics. Yet for the last thirty years of his long life, after a traumatic period of growing existential questioning that culminated in his conversion to Christianity, Tolstoy concentrated his writings on elucidating the true meaning of Jesus teaching and its consequences for the way a Christian is to approach political affairs.2 Still, his understanding of Jesus was a bluntly rationalistic one. Tolstoy deliberately disregarded the superstitious, supernatural elements of Christianity, which he considered to have been deliberately inserted into Jesus message by malicious political manipulators. Miracles, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of Original Sin or the Redemption of mankind through Christ were all fantastic stories designed to hypnotise the masses into submission.3 According to Tolstoy, the existence of God can be established rationally,4 and Jesus was simply

For comprehensive biographical information on Tolstoy, see eminent works such as Derrick Leon, Tolstoy: His Life and Work (London: Routledge, 1944); Aylmer Maude, The Life of Tolstoy (London: Humphrey Milford, 1930); Henri Troyat, Tolstoy, trans. Nancy Amphoux (Garden city, New York: Doubleday, 1967); A. N. Wilson, Tolstoy: A Biography (New York: Norton, 1988). 3 Leo Tolstoy, What I Believe [trans. Fyvie Mayo?] (London: C. W. Daniel, n.d.); Leo Tolstoy, Church and State, in On Life and Essays on Religion, trans. Aylmer Maude, (London: Humphrey Milford, 1934); Leo Tolstoy, A Reply to the Synods Edict of Excommunication, and to Letters Received by Me Concerning It, in On Life and Essays on Religion. 4 Leo Tolstoy, A Confession, in A Confession and Other Religious Writings, trans. Jane Kentish (London: Penguin, 1987).

5
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

the highest representative of [humanitys] wisdom5 so the essence of Christianity was therefore not some mysterious Resurrection but the very rational teaching that Jesus personally shared with his followers. Having thus extracted from the Gospel all these irrational additives, what Tolstoy was left with was a set of moral, clear, and comprehensible rules,6 the best summary of which was to be found in Jesus Sermon on the Mount, chapters five to seven of Matthews Gospel. More specifically, Tolstoy regarded the second part of the fifth chapter as presenting five new, clear, and definite commandments7 that clearly supersede the old Mosaic Law.8 The five commandments were for Tolstoy to become the basis of his social, political and economic views. But of all five commandments, one plainly stood out and revealed, according to Tolstoy, the absolute essence of Jesus teaching the rest of the Gospel was just further detailing of this key instruction.9 In the King James Version of the Bible, this crucial directive reads as follows: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.10 Tolstoy therefore understood Jesus as spelling out a completely new and wiser method for human beings to deal with evil: when coerced, do not retaliate, but obey, and do so exemplarily even if you get crucified for it! Tolstoy further reflected on this startling, lucid command, and realised that truly, the whole history of mankind displayed repeated and yet ultimately disastrous endeavours to resist evil with evil, to respond with violence to threats of violence, to go to war to prevent another war.11 But violent resistance only aggravates any given problem: it grieves the relatives of those who have been wronged, and worse, it can then be used to legitimise the other sides use of violence in reply. The parties are then caught in a brutal game of tit-for-tat that spreads into a universal reign of violence.12 Thus, when the oppressed grow stronger and eventually take control, they resentfully avenge themselves and in turn become the new oppressors.13 In the end, an eye for eye can only make the whole world go blind.14
Leo Tolstoy, Patriotism and Government, in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (New Delhi: Rupa, 2001), 507. 6 Tolstoy, What I Believe, 13. 7 Tolstoy, What I Believe, 67. 8 For a more detailed explanation of why, for Tolstoy, Jesus commandments actually replace Moses Law, see Tolstoy, What I Believe, chap. 5. 9 Tolstoy, What I Believe, chap. 1 and 2. 10 Matthew 5:38-42 (King James Versions italics removed). 11 George Kennan, A Visit to Count Tolstoi, The Century Magazine 34/2 (1887): 252-265. 12 Tolstoy as quoted in Kennan, A Visit to Count Tolstoi, 259. 13 Leo Tolstoy, The Law of Love and the Law of Violence, in A Confession and Other Religious Writings, chap. 3. 14 These words are usually ascribed to Mohandas K. Gandhi, but their precise reference is actually never given and anyway, Gandhis philosophy of nonviolence was actually influenced by his reading of Tolstoy.
5

6
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

But now, it had become clear to Tolstoy that this old approach to evil is both irrational and unchristian. It is irrational because in the long run, it does not guarantee that the end for which violent means are used will be satisfactorily secured. And it is unchristian because Jesus blatantly condemned it. In Tolstoys words, Jesus said to mankind: You think that your laws correct evil; they only increase it. There is only one way of extirpating evil to return good to all men without distinction. You have tried your principle for thousands of years; try now mine, which is the reverse.15 Tolstoy then proudly nailed his point: It may be affirmed that the constant fulfilment of this rule is difficult, and that not every man will find his happiness in obeying it. It may be said that it is foolish; that, as unbelievers pretend, Jesus was a visionary, an idealist, whose impracticable rules were only followed because of the stupidity of his disciples. But it is impossible not to admit that Jesus did say very clearly and definitely that which he intended to say: namely, that men should not resist evil; and that therefore he who accepts his teaching cannot resist.16 An honest Christian, according to Tolstoy, cannot deny that Jesus called for men not to resist evil. So for Tolstoy, whoever describes himself as a Christian and yet is caught resisting evil would have to be, quite frankly, a hypocrite in other words one of those who Jesus pointedly condemned as blind fools who appear righteous but are in fact full of iniquity.17 The implications of this commandment for how Christians are to conduct international relations are obvious: if resistance to evil is rebuked by Jesus, then war is a patently unchristian act. That so many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity does not prove war to be compatible with it; but what it does show, however, is that Jesus teaching has been (for Tolstoy, intentionally) evaded for so many centuries. Besides, apart from the whole Gospel in general which he felt confirmed the commandment of non-resistance, Tolstoy further pointed to two other specific passages within the Sermon on the Mount that corroborate, from a different angle, the Christian rejection of war. The first such passage is one that Tolstoy incorporates in his broader exegesis of the commandment not to resist evil, since it is alluded to in the same breath when Jesus refers to being sued at the law. Later in the Sermon, in the beginning of Matthews seventh chapter, Jesus further states the following: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thou brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.18

15 16

Tolstoy, What I Believe, 41. Tolstoy, What I Believe, 18-19. 17 Tolstoy, What I Believe, chap. 5. (Matthew 23; Luke 11.) 18 Matthew 7:1-5 (King James Versions italics removed).

7
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

Tolstoy additionally remarks that the order not to judge one another is further reiterated by several of Jesus parables, by his response to the proposed stoning of the adulteress, as well as much later in the New Testament by James and by Paul.19 And again, the instruction, says Tolstoy, could not have been much clearer. Human beings are fallible and hence unqualified to judge one another, let alone punish any perceived wickedness. Since men are all blind to some degree, only hypocrites will pompously judge one another. Judgement is not mans but Gods prerogative. Therefore this instruction does indeed reinforce the above rule of nonresistance: being unable to correctly discern what is evil from what is not, acting upon such judgement is bound to produce further harm. One cannot resist evil if one is unable to accurately assess evil in the first place.20 The other passage that leads Tolstoy to conclude that war must be unchristian is actually the commandment that immediately follows the one of nonresistance to evil, wherein Jesus calls his followers to love even their enemies: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.21 Here, however, Tolstoy felt this instruction to be an exaggeration of the command not to resist evil.22 How could one actually love ones personal enemy? Not resisting evil would be very hard but could be done, yet bringing oneself to genuinely love ones enemy sounded strictly impossible. And then Tolstoy realised there was another oddity: while in the previous four commandments, Jesus quotes the exact words of the old law, here, he appears to be misquoting it.23 Why would Jesus calumniate the old law? Tolstoy uncovered the appeasing answer to both questions in a lexicon. That is, as many other passages from the Bible indeed confirmed, neighbour in Jewish simply meant a fellow Jew. Similarly, enemy, in the Gospel is usually used not to denote a private enemy, but a public or national one. This would then make sense of the commandment: first, Jesus does not calumniate the old law, but he simply brings together the many ancient orders to oppress other nations into one single saying; second, again according to Tolstoy, Jesus is not asking his followers to love their personal enemies, but simply to consider foreigners with the same love and respect as fellow countrymen. In other words, Jesus calls his disciples to disregard national boundaries and to treat all nationalities in the same loving way. Patriotism is thereby rejected, and so are all actions that are based upon, or that further stimulate, national distinctions such as war or military preparations for it.24 So from yet another angle, war is, for Tolstoy, a most unchristian activity.
19 20

Luke 6:37-42; John 8:1-11; James 4:11-12; Romans 2:1-4. Tolstoy, What I Believe, chap. 3. 21 Matthew 5:43-45. 22 Tolstoy, What I Believe, 88. 23 Tolstoy, What I Believe, 89. 24 Tolstoy, What I Believe, 90-92.

8
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

Tolstoys idiosyncratic exegesis of the Bible, therefore, understood Jesus teaching in a very literal and rational manner. He stripped away all elements of supernatural mystery and was thus left largely only with an ethical system, a set of moral rules for conduct that he considered to be best expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. Whatever some may see as the shortfalls of such hermeneutical approach, he did draw out Jesus very eloquent condemnation of any form of resistance to evil. The implications for the realm of international relations are fairly selfexplanatory: war or terrorism, the most extensive forms of resistance to (whatever gets defined as) evil, are, at least for Tolstoy, clearly unchristian activities. So while justifications for resistance may be freely fabricated, they cannot coherently be then rooted in a Christian perspective of the world. And anyhow, resistance is in fact an irrational method in the face of evil, because violence breeds further violence. The beauty of the Christian message is thus that there can be no difference between means and ends. The means are the ends. Or, to use a more Christian framework, only love can bring about love. War cannot bring lasting peace; resistance can only bring more resistance further down the line. If one wants peace, one must act peacefully. Terrorising ones neighbour guarantees terrorism in return; loving ones neighbour is the only way to realistically expect love in return.

3. A Radical Christian View of the War on Terror

Thus the first, most imperative and radical comment that Tolstoy would make on this war on terror would obviously be to point out the dangerous delusion that both sides entertain by thinking that their end justifies whatever violent means. For Tolstoy, Jesus rationally establishes that whether the other is truly evil or not, the only sustainable reaction is non-resistance it is the only long-term solution.25 This does not mean that one ought not to react at all, to remain hopelessly passive when attacked. Jesus describes what action to take when he calls for turning the other cheek, for instance, whatever the consequences. This is an active response, one that embodies an ultimate act of love. Presumably, such powerful demonstration of love is bound to eventually soften the heart of the enemy, of evil. After all, Jesus sacrifice did ultimately enchant many disbelievers; and Gandhi, who was influenced by Tolstoy and considered him one of the clearest thinkers in the western world,26 did succeed in overpowering the mighty British Empire. Gandhi in turn inspired Martin Luther King and the peaceniks of the 1960s, both of which also achieved some success in the causes they were campaigning for. In other words love, as a tactic, can work. Nonresistance does not imply the victory of the enemy; on the contrary, it can ultimately win him over, and do so in a non-coercive and reputable way. But here, an ambiguity arises: Tolstoy, and even more so his indirect followers, would seem to have somewhat innocently misread the non-resistance to
25

Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays; Leo Tolstoy, Reason and Religion: A Letter to an Inquirer, in On Life and Essays on Religion; Tolstoy, What I Believe. 26 Mohandas K. Gandhi, introduction to A Letter to a Hindu, by Leo Tolstoy, in Recollections and Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Humphrey Milford, 1937), 414; Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi Letters, in Recollections and Essays.

9
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

evil of Matthews chapter 5, verse 39, as non-resistance to evil by evil. That is, it would seem that Tolstoy genuinely misinterpreted the injunction to mean that no physical force should be used to resist evil in other words that nonviolent resistance could be tolerated.27 Indeed, to George Kennans question whether resistance to oppression was justifiable, Tolstoy replied: That depends [] upon what you mean by resistance; if you mean persuasion, argument, protest, I answer yes; if you mean violence no. I do not believe that violent resistance to evil is ever justifiable under any circumstances.28 Did Tolstoy thereby misapprehend Jesus commandment? Did Jesus, in fact, never ever resist? In all fairness, Tolstoy probably estimated that Jesus did sometimes resist to the extent that he spoke out, argued with his detractors and tried to persuade them of their wrong. Does this mean that Jesus did not abide by his own instruction? The answer depends on how much one focuses on the letter rather than the spirit of the Sermon. In the end, the highest principle and ultimate reference on which all Christian guidelines are based is love Jesus frequently repeats that love of God and of ones neighbour are the two most fundamental commandments on which the whole law subsequently hangs.29 So then, if strict non-resistance for instance implies the transgression of the ultimate Christian principle of love, in that case this obedience would presumably have to be proportionally restrained. Tolstoy for example called for men to protest against their conscription into the army, and for citizens not to pay taxes, both in order to deny the State its chief instruments of violent oppression.30 Yet he also said that nevertheless, following the command of non-resistance to evil, men should yield what goods and labour the authorities may demand.31 Thus one should not automatically obey in anticipation, as it were, of a future threat of violence but only when eventually pressed should one then yield (or not resist). Even so, Christian love should still remain paramount. So for example, if forced into a military campaign, then one should still not kill fellow human beings, in other words not fire back when shot at. Love of God and of ones neighbour should always remain the supreme benchmark for all action. In short, there is apparently no easy, nicely predefined answer to any given situation where one may feel like resisting. For sure, violent resistance would still clearly be at odds with Jesus command. But whether nonviolent resistance could sometimes be tolerated, however, remains unclear. When faced with evil, some response is certainly called for; but this reaction, coming from an honest Christian, could never be violent. Tolstoys reaction was to spread his gospel in various essays, plays and novels his protests were largely verbal. Gandhi applied the principle of nonviolence much more confrontationally; King and later pacifists pushed it even further into tactical political activism. Either way, violence and violent resistance stand plainly condemned by Jesus teaching. If one must resist because, say, not doing so would demand a worse transgression of the spirit of Jesus teaching further down the line, then one should at least not use violence in such resistance. Even better and certainly more Christian, however, would be non-resistance with the turning of the other cheek. In the war on
27

Aylmer Maude, editors note to The Gospel in Brief, by Leo Tolstoy, in A Confession and the Gospel in Brief, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Humphrey Milford, 1933), xv; Aylmer Maude, The Life of Tolstoy: Later Years (London: Humphrey Milford, 1930), 250. 28 Kennan, A Visit to Count Tolstoi, 256. 29 For example, Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:30-31; John 13:34-35. 30 The next section will further explain why Tolstoy considered to State to be evil. 31 Tolstoy, The Gospel in Brief, 288.

10
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

terror, therefore, Tolstoy would be eager to remind Christians that any use of violence would stand condemned by Jesus, and that the spectrum of possible Christian responses to al-Qaeda would range quite narrowly from non-resistance to nonviolent resistance anything less would reveal a disobedience of Jesus commandments. At any rate, whether the correct interpretation is closer to strict nonresistance or to a more ambiguous non-violent resistance, following either method remains an extremely difficult task. Yet Jesus warned, as Tolstoy reminds us, that he who has not taken up his cross cannot be his disciple.32 The path showed by Jesus is a difficult one that can only be treaded by true martyrs. A martyr, etymologically, is he who makes himself a witness to his faith. And it is the ultimate testimony of ones faith to be ready to put it to practice even when ones very life is threatened. Yet the life to be sacrificed, it should be said, is not the enemys life, but the martyrs own life killing others is not a testimony of faith, but of fear. For Tolstoy, therefore, a true martyr to Jesus message would neither judge nor resist (or at least not use violence to resist), but take up his cross and love, however hard. Such would be the only way to win hearts and minds of the other camp in the war on terror. And for that matter, the expression war on terror is unhelpful, really. For one thing, any war is terrifying, and therefore terrorises both camps so to that extent, war is terrorism, only with more conventional tactics. Thus the problem is not terrorism but war, of which terrorism is just another (admittedly particularly shocking) method. Hence terrorism will not be resolved by war; it will spread. In his own era, Tolstoy condemned both the States violence and the revolutionaries that tried to violently overthrow it (using methods akin to terrorism), because both used violent means to achieve their aims, and so by their acts, both would only aggravate the situation.33 The real problem, according to Tolstoy, is anyones readiness to use violence in attempting to resist the other. Evil will not be defeated by violence: violence is evil. In other words, the harmful element in us versus them is not them, but us inasmuch as we see the situation as a fierce versus. To the extent that both sides of the war on terror are ready to use violence either in alleged self-defence or in open crusade against one another, by that very act they embody the evil they claim to be trying to eliminate. And until both sides grasp this, Tolstoy would expect the war on terror to painfully linger on. Therefore Tolstoy would call for both antagonists in the war on terror not to use violence against one another. Surely, he contends, human beings must be able to devise better means of improving the conditions of humanity than by killing people whose destruction can be of no more use than the decapitation of that mythical monster on whose neck a new head appeared as soon as one was cut off?34 Back in his own time, Tolstoy had tried to warn about the terrible cycle of violence that was likely to engulf both his country and the world at large if Jesus advice was not heeded.35 And for a time, his fellow Russians did seem to be carefully
Tolstoy, What I Believe, 18. (Matthew 16:24-28; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-27.) Leo Tolstoy, Whats To Be Done? in Recollections and Essays; Leo Tolstoy, I Cannot Be Silent, in Recollections and Essays; Leo Tolstoy, Thou Shalt Not Kill, in Recollections and Essays. 34 Tolstoy, Thou Shalt Not Kill, 197. 35 Leo Tolstoy, Christianity and Patriotism, in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays; Tolstoy, Whats To Be Done? Tolstoy, I Cannot Be Silent; Tolstoy, Thou Shalt Not Kill; Tolstoy, Patriotism and Government.
33 32

11
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

listening to his voice; Tolstoy certainly became a very influential figure in Russia a commentator indeed reports that there were, at the turn of the century, two powers in Russia: Tsar Nicholas II and Leo Tolstoy.36 But in the end, Tolstoys message was not to be heard amid the voices calling for violent revolution and war, and shortly after his death in 1910, the world entered perhaps the darkest ages of its history so far. Various heads of the mythical monster were cut off, both nationally (the Bolshevik Revolution) and internationally (the First World War), only for new ones to promptly replace them. Now that the world is entrenching itself into yet another global war, Tolstoy would once again call for the moderates from both sides to seriously ask themselves whether the path their are choosing can really lead them to the place they are aiming to arrive at. Above all, he would enjoin Christians to enact the moral rules clearly spelt out by Jesus. For him, both Jesus and reason itself would suggest that violent resistance cannot and will not work in the long run.

4. Tolstoys Extremist Philosophy

Indeed for Tolstoy, this radical prescription for non-resistance could be reached by both religion and reason, because for him, reason naturally leads into religion.37 Tolstoy had concluded that the existence of God can be rationally established, and in fact it was this conclusion that eventually got him over his serious existential crisis in the first place.38 And he further believed that all rational, thinking human beings would be bound to eventually find themselves in the same existential torment as him, until they reached the same rational conclusion that proved that God must necessarily exist. Moreover, since God truly existed, proper morality had to be therefore based on God. Politics without religion would be, quite simply, irrational and senseless. Thus Tolstoy spent considerable time criticising what he perceived to be modern sciences corrupting influence on Western society, because for him, modern science does not answer the most important question of all: the question of how to live.39 If the rational moral rules that unfold from a proper relationship to God are not reified as the most important guidelines for social interaction, for Tolstoy, society can only relapse into depravity and immorality. Hence a moral system that is not based on a proper relationship to God is groundless and irrational. For Tolstoy, the political implications of religion could not be avoided. Hence he would agree that those who say that religion and politics do not mix do not know the true meaning of religion.40 Thus Tolstoy would not have been surprised to witness an eventual return of religion into politics politics without religion cannot survive coherently for very long. So long as religion exists, it cannot be omitted when

Jane Kentish, introduction to A Confession and Other Religious Writings, 9. Leo Tolstoy, Religion and Morality, in On Life and Essays on Religion; Leo Tolstoy, What is Religion, and Wherein Lies Its Essence? in On Life and Essays on Religion. 38 Tolstoy, A Confession; Tolstoy, What is Religion? 39 Leo Tolstoy, Modern Science, in Recollections and Essays; Tolstoy, What I Believe, chap. 11. 40 This is another famous quote that is usually associated with Gandhi, but whose precise reference is also never cited; nonetheless, once again, it sums up Tolstoys position rather well.
37

36

12
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

considering political affairs. In fact, only religion can provide a sound morality on which to base ones life, hence proper politics must be guided by religious morality.41 Furthermore, he claimed that all religions and all the wise teachers of mankind all come to this very same conclusion. Tolstoy studied many religious and philosophical traditions, and concluded that they all amount to the same moral teaching they all teach the same, delightful Law of Love. After all, since a proper relationship to God has to be founded upon reason, it is quite logical to conclude that all sensible religious traditions must propose the same moral guidelines for human conduct. And for Tolstoy, the most articulate expression of such divine morality is to be found, quite predictably, in Jesus Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy reached the radical conclusion whereby Christianity, properly understood, presents the most complete summary of all religions and with it the best illustration of the ideal relationship between religion and politics.42 Yet is Tolstoy really justified in extending Jesus commandments into other metaphysical traditions? For instance, would a Muslim scholar truly identify with the essence of Tolstoys interpretation of Jesus? Can Tolstoys understanding of Jesus really help transcend the differences among major world religions? Or could it, at least, bring moderates on the two sides of the war on terror to open a peaceful dialogue where new ways to tackle the problem of terrorism could be explored? Besides, can a religious perception of the world really be reached by pushing reason to its limits? Tolstoys answers may be radical, and arguably overoptimistic, but at least he raises questions that ought to be addressed for humanity to evolve beyond the war on terror. At any rate, the political ideal that Tolstoy subsequently found himself left with was arguably even more radical than his understanding of religion. That is, Tolstoy ultimately rejected the very institution of the State as unchristian and wrong. His understanding of Jesus commandments (including the one not to take oaths, here omitted) led him to conclude that since the very existence of the State was based on the threat of violence, as embodied in the army, in prisons, in the police, and so on, the State was therefore transgressing the instruction not to resist evil and was hence an unchristian institution. Moreover, the States judicial system judges and punishes, again a contravention of Jesus message. Also, a State actually defines itself against other States, thereby reinforcing distinctions between countrymen and foreigners and thus disobeying the commandment to treat all men as equals. What's more, that the Church has historically cuddled with the State does not in any way redeem the State for Tolstoy, it only further condemns the Church. Already guilty of (deliberately) misinterpreting Jesus commandments, the Churchs association with the State simply provided further proof of its unfaithfulness to the essence of Christianity. Both State and Church were fundamentally unchristian, both had systematically manipulated the masses for their own advantages, and hence both would ultimately have to be done away with by humanity.43 So Tolstoy extracted some clearly anarchistic (but nonviolent) implications from his understanding of Christianity; a more elaborate analysis or a critical assessment of these ideals, however, extends beyond the scope of this article.
41

Tolstoy, Religion and Morality; Tolstoy, Reason and Religion; Tolstoy, What I Believe; Tolstoy, What is Religion? 42 Tolstoy, What I Believe; Tolstoy, What is Religion? 43 Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You; Tolstoy, What I Believe.

13
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

Still, for sure, Tolstoy disapproved of any imposition of any law, divine or manmade, by humans upon humans what we today miscall justice, Tolstoy anyway remarked, is merely brutal tit-for-tat revenge.44 For him, Jesus clearly commanded human beings never to resist evil or judge one another; and this could only imply that the political system that we are still based upon today would have to be replaced by some (perhaps perilous) anarchistic ideal. Yet whether or not Tolstoy was correct in defending such utopia, it is difficult to deny that Jesus did clearly say that we should never use violence against one another. Violence, Tolstoy emphasised, is not only irrational, but is also obviously unchristian. It could of course be said that Tolstoys philanthropic radicalism must have been driven by a private political agenda. E. B. Greenwood thus remarks that Tolstoys doctrine of non-resistance indeed contains in its hostility to state functionaries a large element of that aristocratic pride, independence and intransigence which Tolstoys relatives and friends observed in him.45 Tolstoy the aristocrat did not like to be told what to do and hence disliked the repressive Tsarist State out of a more egotistic than altruistic craving for freedom. But such criticisms are unfair and probably unfounded. Tolstoy developed his radical doctrines out of a sincere concern for the welfare of all human beings, and especially the poor. He had always been troubled by the screaming injustices of the system he grew up in, and he reached his radical political prescriptions at least as much out of a genuinely charitable desire to improve society as out of a private aristocrats rebellion against having his freedom curbed by a meddlesome State. Where Tolstoys radicalism may well have been affected by private considerations, however, is in the restless torment of the existential questioning that had led him to reassess Christianity in the first place. Tolstoy had been ever more severely haunted by the apparent meaninglessness of his life during most of the 1870s, and for a time seriously contemplated suicide.46 What eventually appeased him was his new and idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity its reasonable essence that, as he saw it, had hitherto been hidden beneath several veils of hypnotic superstition. His rationalistic Christian metaphysics then naturally informed his extreme political views. But the point is that his political radicalism was the inevitable conclusion of an intense, crudely systematic and rationalistic questioning of the meaning of life. Once he had overcome his existential torment and constructed a reasonable morality that gave meaning to life, he would not forego this cherished conviction for anything in the world. The initial anxiety of his truth-seeking quest would hence seem to potentially explain some of the intransigent stubbornness of his ultimate political prescriptions. The most serious of his shortfalls, however, the one that does to a degree threaten the validity of his political philosophy, has more to do with his hermeneutical approach than with the political context in which he wrote or the anguish that initially instigated his search for meaning. That is, Tolstoys exegesis of the New Testament was possibly too rigid in its literalism, too narrow-minded in its rationalism and in that sense (of support for a literal explanation), he is just another example of (albeit non-violent) religious fundamentalism. He did not consent that religious scriptures
44 45

Tolstoy, What I Believe, 99. E. B. Greenwood, Tolstoy: The Comprehensive Vision (London: Methuen, 1975), 3. 46 Tolstoy, A Confession.

14
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

embody elements of myth and mystery perhaps precisely because the essence of what such texts address cannot be reached by too literal a mindset. Unlike the traditional (certainly medieval) approach to hermeneutics, he did not believe that religious manuscripts contain a symbolic or mystical dimension that transcends whatever literal or moral interpretation one can ascribe to them. For Tolstoy, the four Gospels are just competing biographies of the life of a wise and rational man, biographies that were then cunningly peppered by superstitious fibs. The only true meaning of the Bible was hence to be found in the rational, moral set of guidelines for action most movingly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. Christianity, for him, was about ethics, not mysticism or theology. Many Christians may well object to that, yet for them to prove him wrong, however, a less literal and more symbolic reading of scripture would first need to be justified, and then a less narrow reading of the Sermon would then have to be posited. Undeniably, Tolstoy can indeed be accused of a somewhat fundamentalist reading of Christian scripture; but this could work as a call for more moderate Christians to fully spell out their alternative exegesis. And whatever Tolstoys weaknesses, he does invite a meditation on forgiveness and non-resistance at a time when these ideals are obscured by retribution and pre-emptive strikes. In any event, Tolstoy was anyway not alone in his utopian reading of the New Testament. But it was only after he reached his political conclusions largely by his own that he discovered that other individuals and sects had believed similar things before him. Thus in The Kingdom of God is Within You, he explains that it was only after he had written What I Believe that he was made aware of the similar political views of William Lloyd Garrison, Adin Ballou, Peter Chelcicky and the Quakers.47 And there are others that would also sympathise with Tolstoy up to a point: some early Christians such as Origen and Tertullian, and several late medieval sects such as the Hussites, the Taborites, the Anabaptists or the Mennonites also read the Gospel as implying non-resistance to evil, and, for some, as questioning the legitimacy of certainly Church but also sometimes State authority.48 And indeed after Tolstoy, people like Dorothy Day, Vernard Eller or Jacques Ellul have also interpreted Christianity as abolishing the need for a State.49 So for all his apparently unique radicalism, Tolstoys reading of Christianity has been at least partly shared by many Christians before as well as after him. Where Tolstoy is fairly unique, however, is in that he wrote the most systematic explanation of how Christianity leads to non-resistance and, from there, to the needlessness of both Church and State. In other words, of all these radical movements and thinkers, Tolstoy was probably the one who most resembled a methodical political theorist.

Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, chap. 1. Peter Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972); Peter Brock, Pacifism in the United States: From the Colonial Era to the First World War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968); Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: Fontana, 1992), chap. 6 and 7. 49 Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness: The Autobiography of the Legendary Catholic Social Activist (New York: Harper and Row, 1952); Vernard Eller, Christian Anarchy: Jesus Primacy over the Powers (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987); Jacques Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991).
48

47

15
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

5. Tolstoys Contemporary Appeal

The political system that Tolstoy elaborated from his exegesis may be too radical for humanity today. Still, would he be here now, he would be calling for those who define themselves as Christians to actually follow Christ and not resist evil, even against al-Qaeda. What allegedly gave al-Qaeda reasons for being in the first place were acts of violence thoughtlessly committed by the West in the past; so responding to terrorism by further violence, for Tolstoy, can only guarantee a worsening cycle of violence for the future of mankind. He would therefore implore the Christians involved in the war on terror to listen more carefully to Jesus words. For Tolstoy, only those who do this and who then struggle to live out the radical instructions of the Sermon on the Mount really would have God on their side. For a war to end and not be likely to recur again, either one camp must be comprehensively annihilated by the other, or some sort of dialogue must establish a bridge between the moderates of both sides. Tolstoys exegesis of Christianity may be able to lay down the first bricks of such a bridge. By reminding Christians of those frequently overlooked instructions of the Sermon on the Mount, in a way, what Tolstoy is provocatively calling for is a sort of Christian jihad within the West. That is, he is encouraging those who define themselves as Christians to actually take on the challenge and follow Christ, whatever the likelihood of being crucified. By doing so, apart from presumably winning over the world with the beauty of their action, they would speak a language that all religions understand and that Westerners could at least historically relate to. Moderate Muslims and Christians could perhaps then find a common platform upon which to establish a religious and political dialogue that could demonstrate that combinations of religion and politics do not necessarily lead to selfrighteous and violent antagonisms. If that is too ambitious, at least Tolstoys provocative view does highlight issues that scholars across the world would do well to consider seriously. The war on terror is a conflict of beliefs, and these beliefs are rooted deep into each camps philosophical understanding of the world. Some say God exists and has a primary role in politics. Others say religion is a dangerous illusion that should not be brought (back) into politics. Tolstoy says that social morality and hence politics cannot escape the question of religion; and that, moreover, whatever conclusions one reaches on this relationship, one must never impose them upon others. Human beings must individually choose whether or not to abide by the moral guidelines they consider laudable, but what is not permissible is to impose any morality upon others. Likewise, whatever the metaphysical disagreements, one should never retaliate when coerced. Tolstoy would thus plead for the non-religious moderates of both sides to reflect on the wisdom contained in Jesus moral vision. Tolstoy believed that reason itself shows how violence can only beget further violence, that for violence to disappear, some other method is needed to tackle it. And he saw in Jesus Sermon on the Mount the proposal of a very reasonable alternative. Do not resist the enemy, and eventually, the enemy will have no more reasons to resist you in the first place. Or at least, do not use violence, and the enemy will run out of justifications to use violence against you. Tolstoys political and religious views were certainly very radical indeed. But at a time when religion and politics are once again being carelessly combined into a frighteningly explosive mix of sanctimonious zeal and barbaric brutality, his voice still remains worthy of being heard by Christians, by academics, or by pretty much anybody caught in the middle of the twenty-first centurys war on terror.

16
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

Tolstoys radical appeal in the twenty-first century, therefore, would consist in questioning both how long religion can be excluded from international politics (both in political practice and in academia), and whether violent resistance can be a sustainable method in any conflict, let alone the paradoxically named war on terror. For him, politics without religion is reckless and violent resistance irrational. His exegesis of the Gospel may have been too literal and rationalistic; but in his defence, at least he did not call for his reading to be coerced upon others. He was, however, convinced of the utter validity of his reading: for him, Jesus offers to humanity the only path that can conclusively rid it of evil once and for all. That is, in Tolstoys own words, Jesus basically says: You wish to destroy evil by evil, but that is unreasonable. That there may be no evil, do none yourselves.50

50

Tolstoy, What I Believe, 87.

17
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

Bibliography
Brock, Peter. Pacifism in Europe to 1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. Brock, Peter. Pacifism in the United States: From the Colonial Era to the First World War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Day, Dorothy. The Long Loneliness: The Autobiography of the Legendary Catholic Social Activist. New York: Harper and Row, 1952. Eller, Vernard. Christian Anarchy: Jesus Primacy over the Powers. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987. Ellul, Jacques. Anarchy and Christianity. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History? The National Interest 16 (Summer 1989): 3-18. Leon, Derrick. Tolstoy: His Life and Work. London: Routledge, 1944. Grant, Robert M. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1965. Greenwood, E. B. Tolstoy: The Comprehensive Vision. London: Methuen, 1975. Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Fontana, 1992. Maude, Aylmer. The Life of Tolstoy: First Fifty Years. Vol. 1 of Tolsty Centenary Edition. London: Humphrey Milford, 1930. . The Life of Tolstoy: Later Years. Vol. 2 of Tolsty Centenary Edition. London: Humphrey Milford, 1930. Tolstoy, Leo. Christianity and Patriotism. In The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, 422-500. . Church and State. In On Life and Essays on Religion, 331-345. . A Confession. In A Confession and Other Religious Writings, 17-80. . A Confession and the Gospel in Brief. Translated by Aylmer Maude. Vol. 11 of Tolsty Centenary Edition. London: Humphrey Milford, 1933. . A Confession and Other Religious Writings. Translated by Jane Kentish. London: Penguin, 1987. . Gandhi Letters. In Recollections and Essays, 433-439. . The Gospel in Brief. In A Confession and the Gospel in Brief, 113-302. . How to Read the Gospels and What is Essential in them. In On Life and Essays on Religion, 205-208. . I Cannot Be Silent. In Recollections and Essays, 395-412. . The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, translated by Aylmer Maude. New Delhi: Rupa, 2001. . The Kingdom of God is Within You. In The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, 1-421. . The Law of Love and the Law of Violence. In A Confession and Other Religious Writings, 151-230. . A Letter to a Hindu. In Recollections and Essays, 413-432. . Modern Science. In Recollections and Essays, 176-187. . On Life and Essays on Religion. Translated by Aylmer Maude. Vol. 12 of Tolsty Centenary Edition. London: Humphrey Milford, 1934.

18
CopyrightPSA 2005

Tolstoy and the War on Terror

. Patriotism and Government. In The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, 501-529. . Reason and Religion: A Letter to an Inquirer. In On Life and Essays on Religion, 119-204. . Recollections and Essays. Translated by Aylmer Maude. Vol. 21 of Tolsty Centenary Edition. London: Humphrey Milford, 1937. . Religion and Morality. In On Life and Essays on Religion, 168-198. . A Reply to the Synods Edict of Excommunication, and to Letters Received by Me Concerning It. In On Life and Essays on Religion, 214-225. . The Teaching of Jesus. In On Life and Essays on Religion, 346-409. . Thou Shalt Not Kill. In Recollections and Essays, 195-203. . What I Believe. [Translated by Fyvie Mayo?] London: C. W. Daniel, n.d. . What is Religion, and Wherein Lies Its Essence? In On Life and Essays on Religion, 226-281. . Whats To Be Done? In Recollections and Essays, 384-394. Troyat, Henri. Tolstoy. Translated by Nancy Amphoux. Garden city, New York: Doubleday, 1967. Wilson, A. N. Tolstoy: A Biography. New York: Norton, 1988.

19
CopyrightPSA 2005