This is a complex and compelling text. The first respondent should try to summarize Tolstoi’s approach and arguments. All subsequent comments must revise and refine that summary until we reach the final agreed upon summation. Comments should be from 200-250 words.
17 thoughts on “What I believe.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tolstoy used “‘What I Believe” to publicly express how he adopted his beliefs and the reasoning behind his beliefs. It is possible to think of “What I Believe” as a sort of manual, or Tolstoy’s offer of guidance to the world. As Garrett wrote, “Tolstoy humbly views himself as the first to discover the true sense of this doctrine,” and if that is true, his aim is really to get his word out there. In addition to “What I Believe” being a manual for the readers, I also think that “What I Believe” can be used to analyze some of the plot in his earlier novels and figure out what Tolstoy’s goal was in writing certain scenes.
With a main focus of rejection of society and a “turn the other cheek” philosophy, it is interesting to look at the two novels we read of his and see where we see those themes coming out and think about what Tolstoy’s thoughts were about those themes when he was writing those. War and Peace and Anna Karenina both focus heavily of society and doing what is socially acceptable, and we see many characters seeking vengeance. I think in these novels, Tolstoy was beginning to think about these ideas a lot, and was not quite sure how he felt about them and used his novels as a forum to clear his thoughts. Either that, or he was already completely mocking the hypocrisy and shallowness of human nature.
Although the comments posted here provide an accurate synopsis of the work, I will attempt to add some critical responses to the work. The Orthodox Church rebuke Tolstoy’s view of the Church and the Gospels for a couple of reasons. Traditional Orthodox claim that Tolstoy, by attempting to rationalize Jesus’s teachings, eliminates the importance of tradition, mystery and rituals within the Orthodox Christendom. Moreover, They criticize Tolstoy for depicting Christ as dreamy and irresponsible. When discussing this work with Professor Hatjigeorgiou, the religion department’s expert on Orthodoxy, she said of Tolstoy, “He is not a heretic, but he’s close.” Others still have accused Tolstoy of molding the image and message of Christ to justify his own metaphysical.
Despite the harsh response from within the Orthodox Church, others have greatly appreciated Tolstoy’s religious treatise. The most notable of these is the renowned 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein regarded Tolstoy’s account of the gospels, which was published posthumously and closely follows the views outlined in What I Believe, as the most inspiring response to the Gospels ever written. He even famously carried a copy throughout his time as a soldier in the first world war.
As evident from the contradictory responses to the work and Tolstoy’s conception of Christianity, it was a highly controversial work. Of course, this level of controversy surrounds all of Tolstoy’s writing, and adds to his legacy as a thinker and a writer.
I didn’t have time to read all of “What I Believe,” but here are some preliminary thoughts. I’ll post again once I’ve caught up over break.
Although this work is an essay and focuses on Christianity, it seems closer in message to Anna Karenina than it is to A Confession. Christian messages are present, not for giving purpose to life, but for explicating the doctrine of love. Confession almost seemed selfish in its presentation of religion: the reason for being religious is that it makes your own life bearable. But now Tolstoy seems taken with Christianity for its focus on love. It doesn’t seem like he’s accepting the Christian scriptures because he has already accepted Christianity as a whole — especially since much of the work is a struggle with what to make of the Church. He has determined that to love is what we must do, and there is therefore much value in the Christian scriptures.
Confession was a submission to religion (as I took it) but here he is accepting it for a reason more than that he cannot live without it. Maybe all we can say is that he accepts it because it teaches what he thinks we cannot live without, but that kind of acceptance of religion is not as full and unqualified as what we get in Confession.
More:
Upon finishing “What I Believe,” I am beginning to see how I was wrong to contrast the primacy of love in Anna with the role of religion in Confession. Love and Christianity are equivalent to Tolstoy. The question of whether it is religion or love that makes life bearable is meaningless. Tolstoy’s correct Christian will be consistent with Levin. Or at least that’s what he seems to think.
But it still looks like this account of religion is different from where we leave Levin at the end of Anna Karenina. There Levin conceded all the difficulties and absurdities of life, but insisted that love and religion made it possible and enjoyable to live with them. Here, there are laws to be followed, there are duties, there are straightforward answers to the questions that tortured Levin. Levin had accepted that religion lets him live without such answers, but now Tolstoy seems to be trying to find them again.
“Christ has revealed to me that love toward all men is not only a duty that we must all strive after, but that in it lies true happiness.”
It seems like Tolstoy’s reasoning has gone: there are no easy answers; therefore, I must accept religion to make it bearable; therefore, I can also accept the answers provided by religion; therefore, religion provides me with answers that will make me happy. I wonder whether this makes Tolstoy any different from Vronsky who accepted religion because it let him escape death instead of because it made the reality of it bearable.
All right, so there is nothing really to add to a good, concise summary, I think we can all agree we are pretty much good in that area, I would just like a add perhaps a small side note. I think it is very interesting to put all of this summary in context of the last chapter, when Tolstoy notes that Moses gave the law, while Christ gives happiness and truth. All that Tolstoy mentioned before – about living Jesus’ commandments of nonresistance, peace, love, etc., are important because they are a way to happiness, a happiness “as natural to men as it is to children” (I personally find this odd because the amount of effort involved in following Christ’s teachings seems a bit contrary to happiness, but I suppose it gives somewhat of an infantile happiness when you don’t have to concern yourself with thinking about what is right, and simply doing what you are told). Tolstoy writes that he needed to share what he had learned about faith, truth, and morality with the general public because he felt it would help all people find a happiness. Therefore, Tolstoy sought a societal happiness that would only come by destroy institutions which contradicted Jesus’ teachings as well as any hypocrisy within ourselves regarding Christian teachings and our actions.
It seems we’ve got a pretty good summary of “What I Believe” together at this point. If I were to add anything, it would be to address a point Jack raised, Tolstoi’s discussion of Christ’s instruction to “non-resistance to evil”. Tolstoi relates a discussion with a Rabbi which revealed to him that he had ignored parts of Christ’s teaching, here his instruction to turn the other cheek, that seemed to him impractical or superfluous. In other words, he was only ready to accept the Gospel insofar that it maintained the convenience and rationality of his life within society. He came to realize that the true Christian must submit absolutely to Christ’s word. From this understanding, I believe, emerges his stance on non-resistance to evil. In order to lead a Christian life, one must pursue a path that conforms to Christ’s word, not a path that aims to resist evil. The false social institutions which Tolstoi denounces, the legal systems, the church, the military, are all formed in the name of combatting evil, and they pursue that end without complete devotion to Christ. That, in Tolstoi’s view, will always be a doomed pursuit. Non-resistance to evil means not submitting to it, but rather in allowing the words of Christ to guide you away from evil.
This summary is pretty darn good. As what Luke and all of you have said, Tolstoy understands that to live a Christian life is to not resist evil and conform to Christ words. The symbolic Christianity—in which Tolstoy had experienced going to the Russian Orthodox Church—actually compromised Christianity. I agree with Alexandra. As Tolstoy writes, “I was taught to resist evil . . . I was taught to condemn and to execute. I was taught to make war” (5). These ideas showed that the mixture between the church and the state polluted the teachings of Christ. Christ did not teach people to resist evil; he told them to turn the other cheek and give others our cloaks. Christ taught people to follow the Lord and serve Him, not to submit to the laws of man—the military code. Therefore, as most of you have written, Tolstoy found his answers about Christ’s teachings in the Gospel. He did not, as what most people still do today, obtain his knowledge from dilly-dallying three hours every Sunday in Church listening to a pastor’s monotonous voice. Yet, to me, the most impactful part of this reading is the simplicity—follow thy Commandments, which will aid in your resistance of evil and be closer in faith to God. A Christian should have complete devotion to Christ and share that good news with the nonbelievers around them, not to instigate violence and warfare.
It seems to me that the piece has been well summarized at this point, so I’d like to raise a few issues that may or may not add something new to the conversation. I find it difficult to get over some of the incongruities in this work, particularly in its final chapter. Some of them are small yet jarring, like Tolstoi’s claim that he has overcome the “snare” that is “standing aloof from others” by invoking Christ’s idea of humility, with its paradoxical assertion that “he who humbles himself before others…is the only one who stands above the rest. I know this is nitpicky, and that the phrase is not only theological but also rhetorical and so should be pithy and clever, and that the teaching itself is fairly unassailable (it’s hard to argue against being humble and altruistic,) but this exemplifies to me a weakness in Tolstoi’s argument that derives not so much from the disconnect between idea and action, but from the weird relationship he has to his own ideas and actions. While the struggle to reconcile fundamental Christian beliefs and their practical applications is incredibly difficult and the end to which Tolstoi seems to be striving, his literal interpretation of scripture sometimes does not make sense given his ability to understand subtlety and practical manifestations of ideas. The confident simplicity of some of Tolstoi’s statements here do not jibe with the complexity of the issues he is tackling, nor with his own fluid and self-admittedly tenuous understanding of how to enact his vision of ideology. Like Weyland and others, I see an insistence on finding an overarching worldview by which to summarize a tangle of ideas that seem to resist that act. Tolstoi is capable of incisive introspection, interpretation, and—to a degree—objectivity, but he shelves these powers, choosing instead to recite scripture as if it speaks for itself.
I, too, understood Tolstoy’s work as a set of revelations about the Christ’s teachings that instead of leading mankind towards salvation in the afterlife intended to help achieve happiness on earth. Throughout this work Tolstoy emphasizes that Christ never wanted men to make painful sacrifices or to suffer for the sake of suffering (and by doing so, Tolstoy rejects the idea of Messianic vision of Russia and the notion of the Third Rome). Similarly, in Tolstoy’s understanding Christ never asserted that the key to happy living lies in poverty or asceticism, although the writer blames the misery of people, both rich and poor, on materialism and greed resulting from the ‘teachings of the world’. Christ, on the other hand, “teaches us a life in which […] there will be less suffering and more joy […], even here on earth”. In fact, many of Tolstoy’s observations rationalized Christian mysteries, presenting them as set of moral guidelines for humanity to follow in order to obtain such joy in this life. For example, his definition of earthly happiness relies on 5 essential conditions, none of which require observing Christian rituals or doctrines. These conditions are: (1) closeness to nature, which entails freedom; (2) congenial and free physical labor; (3) family life; (4) free, friendly communication with all people”, and lastly, (4) health and a painless death.
What I believe is Tolstoy flushing out his ideas of what the doctrine of Christ truly is. As previously stated, Tolstoy explains that he believed he knew the major ideas of Christianity throughout his life, but has now realized that he has been looking at the entire religion incorrectly. Tolstoy claims that the symbolic Christian religion that most people think of actually leads to something that does not accurately reflect man’s true life or ambitions. Tolstoy argues throughout the essay that the ordinary doctrine that we think of is contradictory to what the actual doctrine of Christ tells man to do. By the end of the piece, it seems as though Tolstoy has gotten to the ‘bare bones’ of the argument and has finally surpassed the parts of the argument that create confusion among men.
Upon figuring out what he believes the doctrine of Christ to really mean, Tolstoy claims that the major statements that define christianity are to turn the other cheek, to resist no evils, and to love one’s enemies; after making this claim, Tolstoy finds examples throughout the society, culture, and world that do not follow these ideas yet call themselves Christian. He concludes that the entire religion is being practiced incorrectly because of the violations of the teaching.
Tolstoy’s “What I believe” is an analysis of the Christian religion, as Tolstoy understands it to be. Tolstoy begins by stating that he has been perplexed by religion, knowledge, and faith throughout his life, but that he is now beginning to understand it and would like to share his knowledge with his readers. Tolstoy was first a nihilist, later became a Christian and has now drifted from Christianity after thoroughly analyzing the workings of the Church and its teachings.
What seems to bother Tolstoy about the Christian religion is the number of people who claim to follow Christianity, yet contradict its inherent teachings of being good and moral. Tolstoy explains that throughout his life he was taught to act contrary to the Christian doctrine, by not resisting violence and allowing evil to continue its presence in the world. Tolstoy essentially believes that the Church has become corrupt as a result of the interactions between the Church and state.
Despite his criticism of the Church, Tolstoy points out that although some believe it to be true, Christians are not solely concerned with personal salvation. Essentially, Tolstoy’s understanding of Christianity is that it has become the basis of social existence and has become corrupt due to a social and political violation of its fundamental teachings. He concludes that the Church will live forever.
With “What I Believe” (written in 1883) Tolstoy offers his own gospel of sorts, one that addresses and even amends the false and even “delusive” interpretations of the Church. As noted by the previous respondents, Tolstoy’s whole theology stems from the Sermon on the Mount of the Book of Matthew. Namely, the idea of nonresistance in the face of evil (a notably subversive thought, given how virtually all modern society is based on the resistance of evil). He seems deeply concerned with the fact that, although Christ’s words are so clear and simple, they have yielded such “erroneous” interpretations. The other respondents have largely addressed his arguments and not his approach. Much of Tolstoy’s approach involves interpreting scripture literally, e.g., for him “Do not judge, and you shall not be judged” not only applies to mankind condemning and disparaging one another, but also to the establishment of Courts and the judicial system. He also employs a sort of historicist reading of scripture and uses etymology to grasp the original meanings and intent behind Christ’s words. His knowledge, application, and criticism of various early Christian theologians is impressive and lends greater credibility to his argument. Ultimately, Tolstoy attempts to offer a means of accomplishing his Utopic vision of the Kingdom of Heaven being established on earth. True happiness is accessible only, in the author’s eyes, to those who fully commit to Christ’s teachings (an “easy burden”) and to the establishment of this Kingdom.
Sam captures quite well Tolstoi’s criticism of the disconnect between the evangelical Gospels and the (often collaborative) workings of the Church and State. I would, however, like to mention why Tolstoi began to seek truth in the doctrine of Christ five years before the publication of this work, as well as augment Sam’s summary of the Tolstoi’s reflections upon the Sermon on the Mount.
In the opening chapters of “What I Believe”, Tolstoi claims that he renounced nihilism and turned to the church because he sought “a knowledge of good and evil beyond the animal instincts”. As he began to explore Christian doctrine further, he found the “very essence of Christianity” in the three statements, “turn the other cheek”, “love your enemies”, and “resist not evil”, which he interprets to mean “never do anything contrary to the law of love”. Indeed, he finds in Christ’s sermon the “key to the whole mystery” of life, and spends most of the work criticizing societal, political, and ecclesiastical institutions for divorcing from these teachings, as well as explaining how these teachings serve empower happy lives among those who truly enact them.
I’m interested in the apparent contradiction between Tolstoy’s discouragement of the Church’s message “that it was necessary for salvation to blindly believe” and emphasis on finding truth in the gospels, and the recurrent theme of happiness outside of rational understanding. Although it is likely that a contemporary reader would be disturbed by the idea of blind belief in the Church’s teachings, this is a form of faith for which a precedent appears, for instance, in Alyosha’s allegiance to his Elder, Father Zosima, in the Brothers Karamazov. Obviously Tolstoy and Dostoevsky differed fundamentally on many issues, but apparently in the Orthodox spiritual tradition this idea of a sort of ‘blind faith’ existed, and may be connected to the sort of faith peasants have, who are illiterate and can’t even consult the Gospels for spiritual insight. On the other hand, we have the irony of Tolstoy’s intellectual seclusion, parsing out the Gospels looking for minute details that may lead to an apprehension of truth.
Once again, although Tolstoy’s criticism of the society’s, and the Church’s, violation of central Christian tenets such as ‘turn the other cheek’ is accurate and valuable, his desire to tie his observations into a comprehensive worldview exposes the valuable part of his thought to a great degree of irony and ridicule.
Tolstoy wrote “What I believe” in 1885, five years after he began to believe “in the doctrine of Christ.” This work is, at its core, an explication of the author’s Christianity, in which he stresses a need to return to the “direct and simple” words of Christ that church and state (among other social power structures) have done so much to corrupt over the years.
In the opening chapters of this work, Tolstoy explains how throughout his life he was perplexed and angered by the Church’s hypocrisy– namely their preaching of the doctrine of Christ and their simultaneous justification of the evil perpetuated by nations that contradicts that very message. Tolstoy realizes that it is the Word of Christ found in the evangelical Gospels and not the preaching of the Church that provides man with a philosophy through which he can live happily and attain spiritual fulfillment. Of particular interest to Tolstoy is the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ preached the doctrine of “turning the other cheek.” Christ’s message of nonviolence and never resisting evil with evil is the fundamental core of Tolstoy’s Christianity. Notably, it is this very message, according to Tolstoy, that society has distorted more than any other of Christ’s teachings.
Tolstoy concludes with the belief that “The Church, whose members tried to unite men by persuading them that it was necessary for salvation to blindly believe that the truth was in her, is no more” but that the Church comprised of those men, no matter how few in number, whose actions and lives follow the commandments and words of Christ “lives and will live forever.”
As Sam has said, “What I believe” is Tolstoy’s personal relation of how he found the “key to the doctrine of Christ”. It is directed against organised religion which essentially transforms Christ’s doctrine of non-violence and love into an ideal that is incompatible with man’s life. Explicating, and subsequently debunking, this conflict between the law of God and the law of man is a main theme of the essay. The fact that Tolstoy considers believers and non-believers alike to not follow the word of God is an indication the Church is no different from other human institutions.
Christ’s doctrine, illuminated largely in the Sermon on the Mount, differs from the harsh so-called justice of the Mosaic code. Tolstoy humbly views himself as the first to discover the true sense of this doctrine and understand that it completely replaces the Mosaic code. The major pillars are: do not resist evil, the sanctity of marriage, do not swear oaths and love your enemies (that is, not personal enemies but strangers).
In the latter part of the essay the idea of living rationally emerges and the observation that men ruin their own lives by thinking of eternal bliss as a reward for their actions in life. Tolstoy posits that man must live for humanity and that their works must support their professed faith. Christ’s doctrine would seem easier to follow if the teachings of the world (including those of the Church) were not contrary. In reality, Christ’s doctrine will save man from the majority of suffering and man is only deluded in thinking that his current state of life where men force men to care for each other is preferable. In short, there will be heaven on earth if all men would follow what Tolstoy has discovered and the true church will be made of men who follow Christ’s doctrine in word and deed. Tolstoy considers it his moral duty to share his view.
I love your summary of “What I Believe” Sam. I think it adequately expresses the ways in which Tolstoy perceived the church and religion in general, but also depicts Tolstoy’s spiritual nature. I completely agree that this is an explanation of Tolstoy’s Christianity.
It’s interesting to see how Tolstoy manages to debunk the churches original view of religion and yet chooses to transform Christ’s original doctrine of non-violence and love. Like my classmates have inquired – this appears to be a little contradictory. The way I understood it, Tolstoy simplified Christ’s doctrine to its barest (arguably purest) form in order to wash away the greed, corruption, and hypocrisy of the Church. Based on his changes, Tolstoy managed to create a new doctrine that encompasses Christ’s originally teachings in such a way that they feel applicable to man both then and now. I think this is important because it allows for fluidity and – like all his other works – can withstand the test of time.