The Kingdom of God Is Within You

Jun 19, 2007 Kristen rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Pacifists of all kinds

Mhatma Ghandi said of this book, "Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You overwhelmed me. It left an abiding impression on me. Before the independent thinking, profound morality and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me...seemed to pale into insignificance." This was lovingly written in the cover of the book when I picked it out of pile of books destined for recycling, where the hard covers would be ripped off and the pages put through the recycling bin. I could not toss this...more

like 9 likes · see review

Sep 13, 2008 Tyler rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: revolutionaries, George Bush, peaceful warriors

Recommended to Tyler by: A friend

Recommended by a friend. Just started it today.

I can't make up my mind whether I am in love with or outraged by Tolstoy's emphatically constructed case for pacifism. It makes me want to strangle the man.

UPDATE:
I skimmed over a lot of Tolstoy's polemics. I enjoyed his critiques of Christianity more than his case for pacifism. My caveat is personal: I prefer a more nuanced argument.

If you don't mind the polemic style, Tolstoy actually lays out a good case for pacifism especially based upon a Chris...more

like 2 likes · see review

May 30, 2007 wes Goertzen rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: those who can take a hard and ridiculously literal reading of the sermon on the mount

Shelves: alreadyread, thought

i read this after reading Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew. He suggested it...its always why i read The Brothers Karamazov. Tolstoy's black and white uncompromising take on the Sermon on the Mount is frought with problems (as his life showed) but it was a good kick in the ass for me. The uncompromisingness of the book has stuck with me and really, for better or worse, informes the way i look at the issues of justice and our part in combating it and the church and its constant compromising nature.

like · see review

Aug 11, 2012 G.d. Brennan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"The Kingdom of God is Within You" is at once flawed and necessary, a critical look at how human institutions have interpreted (or misinterpreted) the Gospel message.

In it, Tolstoy focuses on what's perhaps Jesus' most often overlooked statement--the admonishment to offer no resistance to evil. It's an admirable task, to take a clear look at a statement that many pretend is blurry, to simplify a message that is complicated in spite of its clarity. And Tolstoy's passion and originality make for a...more "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is at once flawed and necessary, a critical look at how human institutions have interpreted (or misinterpreted) the Gospel message.

In it, Tolstoy focuses on what's perhaps Jesus' most often overlooked statement--the admonishment to offer no resistance to evil. It's an admirable task, to take a clear look at a statement that many pretend is blurry, to simplify a message that is complicated in spite of its clarity. And Tolstoy's passion and originality make for an unforgettable read, even as his sweeping generalizations make it easy to put down in frustration.

He claims, for instance, that there are only three ways to view life--the animal, the pagan, and the divine. In the former, one is only looking for fulfillment of one's own desires; most societies recognize this as potentially harmful, and set out laws so as to corral the human animal. But, as Tolstoy puts it, this still leads to allegiance to "the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation," and that ultimately leads to conflict. The answer, as he sees it, is for human society to keep evolving towards the divine ideal set down in the Gospels, wherein one treats everyone well, regardless of (and even in spite of) their past behavior.

In looking at the middle level--that of human society--Tolstoy latches on to something Chairman Mao would later express far more cynically: political power ultimately rests on force. Laws that aren't enforced are basically just suggestions, so no matter how noble-minded the government, or how good its intentions, it ultimately must either use or threaten violence--the very word "enforcement" acknowledges this. So, for instance, pacifists who are waiting for governments to renounce the use of war will be waiting forever. As Tolstoy points out, "One might as well suggest to merchants and bankers that they should sell nothing for a greater price than they gave for it, should undertake the distribution of wealth for no profit, and should abolish money, as it would thus be rendered unnecessary." For war is but the extreme end of an ill-defined spectrum of force that starts at a much lower level, that of police and criminals; no government will (or can) ever give that up, so once one acknowledges and buys into the implicit relationship between political power and force, the question of its upper limit is a matter of quibbling. As Tolstoy mentions, only the weaker nations will suggest with a straight face that international matters should always be subject to arbitration. The stronger countries have nothing to gain by limiting themselves, and no one to compel them to do so.

Tolstoy uses Jesus' words amply. He points out that many believe that Jesus' teachings "can have no other significance than the one they attribute to it." But that only adds to the irony elsewhere, when he suggests that Jesus' words against resistance should be used as an excuse to stop paying taxes. Jesus was quite clearly of a different mindset, and said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" to those who asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes. The point's pretty simple, and it's one Tolstoy completely ignores: the government literally makes the money in the first place, so if the government wants part of their money back, that's their business.

Elsewhere, too, Tolstoy's generalizations invite argument, not agreement. "We do know by prolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals have been successfully suppressed by force," he says, obviously speaking without the benefit of World War II as a historical example, although one ends up surprised that he didn't make more reference to Napoleon's defeat, a topic which he obviously covered at far greater length elsewhere. A better argument, perhaps, would rely on the moral consequences to the victors, rather than the physical outcomes. (Perhaps the best illustration of this, oddly enough, was near the end of "Return of the Jedi," where Luke finds himself transformed by the mere act of resisting the Emperor.) It's hard to claim that resistance is wrong because it doesn't work; there are those who will always argue that it does. The bigger issue, perhaps, is that it makes you similar to what you're resisting.

Tolstoy's long-winded. He departs from the Gospel message in at least one key regard. He relies on evidence for some assertions but also makes plenty of unsupported allegations and blanket generalizations. (Some of these do seem oddly timeless and apropos of our current age, as for instance when he says that scientists see Christianity "as a religion which has outlived its age" and that "[t]he significance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the Church, from unbelievers by Science.") Yet the many areas where he amplifies Jesus' teachings make for a thought-provoking read that also might cause some soul searching, whatever one's religious or political persuasion. (less)

like 3 likes · see review

Dec 31, 2010 Bryan rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Theologians, Philosophers, Bibliophiles, Russian Linguists

Recommended to Bryan by: Gandhi

Shelves: christianity, theology, religion

I think this book has a lot of great merits, yet I cannot rate something such as this higher when it has so strange a premise:

Tolstoy postulates that Christ didn't live, that we don't need a living Savior, and that Christianity is two-thirds deception, and then he says that the principles which Christ taught are going to save the world.

It's a remarkable example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If there is any reason to live the gospel of Christ at all, it is because Christ lived, an...more

like 1 like · see review

Aug 25, 2010 Tom McKone rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Tolstoy is my favorite writer.
'The Kingdom of God Is Within You' is a book that heavily influenced Gandhi in his epic battle for justice and compassion within and, then, against the British Empire.

It is not what you might think though. It is heavily censorious of prevailing assumptions in Christianity as they were practiced in the 18th century.

Tolstoy is a radical and allows Christians no wriggle room. You are either a believer and follow the spirit and teachings of Jesus or you are not. It i...more

like 2 likes · see review

Jun 20, 2011 David Lentz rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I have read two of Tolstoy's other masterpieces in "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina." For all the brilliant prose in these two works of penultimate genius, to really understand the heart of the novelist writing about his society, these essays lend powerful insight. The essays begin as Tolstoy rides a train with soldiers sent to beat Russian peasants who have lodged a complaint against a rich landowner bent upon cutting down a forest, with which serfs had always enjoyed common rights, for the p...more I have read two of Tolstoy's other masterpieces in "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina." For all the brilliant prose in these two works of penultimate genius, to really understand the heart of the novelist writing about his society, these essays lend powerful insight. The essays begin as Tolstoy rides a train with soldiers sent to beat Russian peasants who have lodged a complaint against a rich landowner bent upon cutting down a forest, with which serfs had always enjoyed common rights, for the profit in the timber. After a judge's unjust verdict in favor of the landowner, after the serfs send packing the men who appeared to cut their timber, the landowner requests government troops to enforce the unjust verdict by beating the serfs to death with rods packed onboard the train. Tolstoy examines this great chain of injustice from the rich landowner's arrogance and greed, to the government judge's feeble acquiesence to power, to the soldiers' blind obedience to administer the famished serfs' inhumane punishment and asks why any of this must play out as it does. How often has this great chain of injustice perpetuated itself upon humanity? Does this chain not define and insitutionalize the greatest instances of inhumanity in the course of history? Tolstoy asks earnestly why each of the players in the administration of this injustice just doesn't try to make a true "moral effort." Why doesn't the rich landowner recognize his own arrogance and greed and duty to the serfs? Why doesn't the government intercede and stand up to the landowner's will to power? Why don't the soldiers refuse to administer mindlessly this injustice? Why must famished, diseased and half-dead peasants be beaten to death as they simply try to survive? Who wins in this oft repeated scenario? Not a dead soul. Tolstoy's argument is that we have the ethical wherewithal at every level to stand-up to such injustice and he makes the argument as a wealthy Russian landowner, former soldier and provincial adminsitrator with great influence upon the tsar. In other words he is fully qualified by virtue of experience to argue this case and he makes it with a profundity and simplicity which is inspiring. "There is one thing, and only one thing, in which it is granted to you to be free in life, all else being beyond your power: that is to recognize and profess the truth." Tolstoy's thesis is that the Power to do this exists within every person and that it is the divine responsibility of each of us to exercise this power for the good and happiness of humanity. Tolstoy sees a threefold relationship of man to truth: "Some truths have been so assimilated by them that they become the unconscious basis of action, others are just only on the point of being revealed and a third class, though not yet assimilated by him, have been revealed to him with sufficient clearness to force him to decide either to recognize them or refuse to recognize them." Tolstoy urges mankind simply to make a moral effort and he advises that the happiness open to mankind is available only if and when we do so. Why don't we make more of a moral effort? There is great wisdom in this work which I urge you, despite the daunting title, to read as it is wisdom from a century and a half ago, that no generation of humanity may need more than our own right now.(less)

like 5 likes · see review

Jun 15, 2012 John rated it 3 of 5 stars

In this book, Tolstoy uses Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to makes a brave, impassioned argument for pacifism and the abolishment of all governments. He makes some great points, but his argument is utterly lacking in nuance. For example, the Bible commands us not to lie, but polite society would undoubtedly break down if, every time we said "nice to see you" to someone, we had to stop a moment and ascertain whether such was indeed actually the case. We can also reasonably assume that "turning the ot...more In this book, Tolstoy uses Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to makes a brave, impassioned argument for pacifism and the abolishment of all governments. He makes some great points, but his argument is utterly lacking in nuance. For example, the Bible commands us not to lie, but polite society would undoubtedly break down if, every time we said "nice to see you" to someone, we had to stop a moment and ascertain whether such was indeed actually the case. We can also reasonably assume that "turning the other cheek" wasn't meant to apply in the event you come face-to-face with a serial killer who wants to make you his next victim; and we can suppose that "Thou shalt not kill" goes out the window if you have a chance to take out a terrorist about to detonate a nuclear weapon. However, for Tolstoy, every Biblical imperative is rendered in complete black and white, and there is no such thing as mitigating circumstances regarding their implementation. Jesus' words were certainly the ideal by which to live, but, in the case of the terrorist, who do you apply the golden rule to--the murderer or the potential victims? Because, obviously, if you were the terrorist, you would want something completely different than if you were the victim. Tolstoy would say that, in such case, "do unto others" applies to the terrorist, and we, as a society, would best try to just absorb the damage as best we could. Tolstoy believes that there should be no government, no prisons, and no law enforcement of any kind, because such would violate Christ's call for us to be forgiving. But the idea of forgiveness doesn't always necessitate freedom from punishment, and forgiveness was never put forth as a licence to act with impunity. I think you can forgive someone for crashing into your car and yet still expect them to pay for the damages. Tolstoy argues that, through non-violent resistance, we can bring about heaven on earth (thus the title of the book, "The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You"). But Tolstoy is taking this verse out of context, and, in reality, humanity has little hope for true world peace until Christ returns. That's not to say we shouldn't try, and Tolstoy's book best serves as a wake-up call to remind us of our duty to our fellow man.
Then there's the presentation of the book itself, which is badly in need of a good editor (as noted in the introduction by the translator, who states that Tolstoy was much more careful about structuring his novels than his non-fiction works) and, in the case of my copy, a much better proofreader. It's fatally repetitive and a complete slog to get through, but parts of it are rewarding enough to make it worthwhile--though just barely so. (less)

like 1 like · see review

Oct 13, 2009 Melissa rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: to those who want to hear it from the horses mouth

Recommended to Melissa by: Philip Yancey's book The Jesus I Never Knew

Shelves: 2009-mybooks

Some of what Tolstoy argues is legitimate and certainly his descriptions of the church as an institution are valid in many if not most cases. However, I cannot easily swallow a book that kicks out one of the primary tenets of Christianity; the doctrine of grace.

Tolstoy writes about grace “And what is most important of all--the man who believes in salvation through faith in the redemption or the sacraments, cannot devote all his powers to realizing Christ's moral teaching in his life.

The man who...more

like · see review

Aug 13, 2007 Rob rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction-for-humans

this is an amazing book. i'm not a religious person and i can't say i believe in god, but this book sort of made me believe in jesus. not the supernatural aspects of him, but in his philosophy. tolstoy rips into the Church and gives no quarter, saying that the clergy are no better than gangsters. his elucidation of the profound madness involved when "christians" march off to war made me jump out of my chair and say, "yes!" read this book.

like 4 likes · see review

Aug 07, 2012 Nick Skiles rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Do not mistake my low rating as an outright dismissal of all of the contents of this work. I am sympathetic to Tolstoy's political persuasions and read this book during a period of time when I identified as being a "Christian Anarchist." I will, in fact, when forced to give a description of my views, still identify as something of an anarchist.

I would even go so far as to say "Christian Anarchism" is a somewhat redundant term since we are taught in the scriptures that simultaneous service to God...more

like 1 like · see review

Mar 15, 2010 Valarie rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: educational, in-translation, europe-north-america

This is a great book to read before you go to sleep. I gave it three stars because it gave my brain a bit to think about, not because it is a well-written book by any stretch of the imagination. Tolstoy has a lot of great ideas, but this book is more of a collection of ramblings than a comprehensive work. Each chapter begins with a summary of its contents, which can be up to two pages on its own, and then proceeds to restate those ideas in even clumsier prose. Tolstoy's short stories were works...more

like 1 like · see review

Nov 30, 2011 Rick rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: theologians, historians, any one who thinks about governments and religion

Shelves: philosophy, theology

It's easier to go along with the flow of life than it is to stand firm on eternal truths and thus to oppose political and religious paradigms. Sure enough Tolstoy can find dozens of ways to state his case that Christianity is good and organized religion is not. And every way is relevent and true. Church complicity with worldly authorities, ready to support the violence of war and the oppression of the weak is quite at odds with the messages of Jesus Christ himself.

Read this (p. 317): "...it is...more

like 2 likes · see review

Apr 06, 2008 Eric rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I have considered this since I read it probably 6 years ago to be my favorite book, or at least the book that has challenged me the most. It's as powerful of a testament to Christian nonviolence as I imagine has ever been written. Probably it's most well-known claim to fame is that Gandhi cites it as the book that influenced him most in his life, even though he was a devout Hindu.

like 2 likes · see review

Jun 27, 2011 Nick Klagge rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: christianity

Three stars means "liked it," and I did like it, but this book was definitely a disappointment. I had been tracing nonviolent Christian thought back through a few works, from Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" through King's "Strength to Love" and Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj," and I was excited to read the thoughts of the great Leo Tolstoy, who had been a direct inspiration for Gandhi.

Unfortunately, KG was a dry and mostly uninspiring work, with none of the power that graces the writing of Yoder or King....more Three stars means "liked it," and I did like it, but this book was definitely a disappointment. I had been tracing nonviolent Christian thought back through a few works, from Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" through King's "Strength to Love" and Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj," and I was excited to read the thoughts of the great Leo Tolstoy, who had been a direct inspiration for Gandhi.

Unfortunately, KG was a dry and mostly uninspiring work, with none of the power that graces the writing of Yoder or King. It is essentially Tolstoy's articulation of why nonviolent resistance should be paramount for Christians. Yet Tolstoy, despite his obvious approval of the teachings of Jesus, comes across as quite non-religious--a doubting Thomas Jefferson who would strike all reference to Jesus' divinity, if he could, and consider him only as "a great teacher." This, I think, is the drain that robs the book of power.

To argue for Jesus' teaching without recognizing Jesus' divinity, Tolstoy is forced into the awkward position of arguing that the way of nonviolent resistance is a rational optimum that should be adopted by any thinking man, Christian or otherwise, because of its obvious superiority to the pro-violence logic of the world-as-it-is. The problem is, there is not much empirical evidence supporting this (and particularly there was not at the time Tolstoy was writing, pre-Gandhi and pre-King). I think that adopting non-violence must require a great deal of religious faith that it is truly the right thing to do and consistent with the Kingdom of God (I say probably because I cannot claim to have adopted it myself, given that I still pay taxes to the U.S. government). King (along with Jesus, I'd say) is more rhetorically powerful because he faces head-on the fact that being non-violent is very likely to cause you immense hardship and, if you achieve any success in it, is very likely to lead to your death. Tolstoy loses my trust by trying to deny this reality.

This brings me to another criticism of Tolstoy's book, which is that it is completely individualist. He is highly critical of all Christian churches (and I would imagine all organized religion), and focuses his entire argument on what an individual ought to do on the strength of his own conviction. This approach has merit in that it denies excuses based on collective action problems, but again it is weak because it does not take seriously the extreme hardship involved in adopting a way of life that is in direct opposition to the logic of the world. I can only see this being successful in the context of a strong community of believers supporting one another and coming together for regular spiritual renewal.

I also see Tolstoy's single-minded focus on individualistic nonviolence as a narcissistic vision of Christianity, focused excessively on essentially legalistic individual purification. By focusing so strongly on this one aspect of Christianity, he neglects other parts, and gives the impression that if only you'll refuse to serve in the army and refuse to pay your taxes, you've checked the box and are a certifiably successful Christian--no matter how you live your life in any other way. I'm not sure that Tolstoy meant it to come across this way, but it does.

Tolstoy's arguments in general come across as a bit dated. Writing in Russia at the end of the 19th century, he talks at length of the horrors of forced conscription, blatant exploitation and regular physical torture of peasants. I do not want to argue at all that modern society has solved the problems that are at the root of Tolstoy's critique, but it does a much better job of papering them over or making them appear less egregious. If Tolstoy were writing today, I think his argument would have to look much different. Perhaps this is part of why I find King much more compelling than him.

At the end of the day, though, I feel mostly convinced by the argument (advanced by Tolstoy as well as others such as Jacques Ellul) that Christianity is fundamentally anarchistic. This does not mean that Christianity actively works toward the abolition of governments, but rather that it is simply inconsistent with pre-committing to allegiance to any earthly power--even, I would emphasize, if this power were a nominally Christian theocracy. It's like Orwell's rules for writing: The state may have rules that seem broadly consistent with Christianity, but one must always be prepared to "break any of these rules before doing something barbarous."

(Note that my feeling convinced by this argument is not the same as my conforming my life to it. The fact remains that I am simultaneously quite horrified at the idea of not paying my taxes.)(less)

like · see review

May 29, 2009 Charles Fernando rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: theology, politics

The anarchist Tolstoy was a post-emergent christian before the emergent christianity appearance in america.

Ex-Orthodox catholic, he has a strong anti-institucionalist view of the church. He is the man that make Gandhi and Martin Luther King exists. Gandhi says about this book:

"Was the few type of book that can change a man immediately"

His political view is anarchist, or libertarian, instead of agression and terrorism from mostly know anarchists, he opposes this idea with the gospel, and prayed...more

like 2 likes · see review

Jul 24, 2012 Neil rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

[I wrote the stuff below as I was still reading it. Now, from the vantage point of the book's end, I'd say the book itself is a bit of a mess in its narrative insistence, arguing both that we are on the precipice of unprecendented mass destruction (right about that one) while also and unrelatedly the precipice of true Christianity blossoming, arguing that Christianity has always been perverted while simultaneously that this is sort of a good thing because now that it's so widespread the kingdom...more [I wrote the stuff below as I was still reading it. Now, from the vantage point of the book's end, I'd say the book itself is a bit of a mess in its narrative insistence, arguing both that we are on the precipice of unprecendented mass destruction (right about that one) while also and unrelatedly the precipice of true Christianity blossoming, arguing that Christianity has always been perverted while simultaneously that this is sort of a good thing because now that it's so widespread the kingdom of heaven will blossom, insisting that capitalism benefits no one and is beneficial only to the oppressors of the poor when I think most relatively unbiased observers would say it's been instrumental in the advances of the past hundred years, insisting that if we adopt non-violence others will too (which, post-MLK, hasn't really gone anywhere) while suggesting, but not as passionately, that to do so is worthy in itself. There is also what I'd say, in my huge ignorance, is a recurring Tolstoyan thing where he seems to believe both that peasant class in general is both the only noble beings and also the greatest savages. Still: the book made me think a lot about a lot of things.]

[I would also like to note two other things, obviously for my own sake since no one reads these things. The first is that I found out about this book from some weird hipster who I drunkenly and randomly invited over to my house when I saw him at a Tedeschi's at 1 AM, who turned out to be incredibly well read and open-minded and was one of those people for whom reading is like breathing and has read every damned thing ever and makes you suddenly understand the vague sense of shame everyone else conveys when they find out you read at all. I told him I liked Tolstoy and he asked if I'd read this, and I said no and he insisted I read it, and he told me that he'd gotten into an argument with someone in Harvard Square about Christianity itself with some random guy who was preaching about it and he went into the Harvard Bookstore and bought this book and handed it to the guy. I can't help but think that this guy who was yelling about Christianity was probably a bit more on the mentally ill side, but this kid seemed so intent on living what he believed at the moment and encountering other people as people that I admired it. And now I've forgotten what the second thing I'd like to note was.]

I'm no philosopher -- I'm not even a theologian -- but this book's interesting. I'm only halfway through, but I think about it some. Lectures on my naivete -- theological, philosophical, hermaneutical -- are welcome, if anyone ever stumbles upon this rambling bit of fun.

I accept Tolstoy's contention that Jesus preached non-violence and people immediately perverted his teachings. At the very least, I think there's a better version of Pascal's Wager. I often see bumper stickers like "If you think there's no God, you'd better hope you're right." But I think it's more like "If you think Jesus was Lord but his admonition to turn the other cheek meant something other than its most obvious interpretation and he actually was perfectly happy with us blasting strangers to bits of skull and viscera, you'd better hope you're right." Seems to me, between the Sermon on the Mount, the whole live by the sword die by the sword thing, the love thy enemies stuff, etc., the safest hedge to a Christian heaven is non-violence. I know people have other verses (the Moneylenders) that contradicts this. I tend to think that's a hugely tendentious reading of the New Testament and that in that case there is nothing to Jesus but superstitious metaphysical logistics. Either way, I am more concerned with reckoning with non-violence in a world in which we are dubious of God's existence.

When I was in high school an English teacher sort of introduced us to the idea of consequentialism or utilitarianism or whatever, and asked us to write an essay on whether actions are right in and of themselves or in their consequences. My response was in and of themselves; using the classic example of Hitler, I thought, well, if the Jews, in some weird science-fictiony turn, had turned out to somehow be specifically susceptible to some disease which they could spread and their eradication saved the rest of humanity, Hitler would nonetheless have been evil. That response is pretty silly, I guess, because that is not the consequence Hitler was striving for. As I make my way through this book from the late 1800s, I get a better sense of the idea of what that teacher was asking. War will destroy us, Tolstoy cries out prior to the two World Wars; violence is inhuman. And so I sit here and I think, well, I bet more of us are happy, more of us are safe because the Allies won a war and America made efforts to impose themselves on the world. But, in that same obtuse 9th grade way, I sit and think: what if, in some alternate Fox News Universe, in the early 1970s Vietnam gives in and we impose a capitalist government, but then the next day a comet hits, and so in sum of happiness, we have killed more people than we made life better for; does it only become an evil action after the comet hits? I suppose that's absurd and perhaps a bit naive since one could not rightly have included it in their predictions, but it still illustrates the arrogance of the various calculations and predictions we have to make about values of individual human lives versus the effects of capitalism on prosperity and happiness in other countries versus percentage chance of success versus whatever. Meanwhile, in that whole Omelas way: what if states reduce violence specifically with scapegoats and shared hate, and that makes life better for everyone? That doesn't make it okay; consider the notion with the Jews in Germany and the thought makes me ill. But the notion of that being allowable does not seem that categorically different from the "collateral damage" that we accept in wars. To just distance ourselves from actual actions, to treat them as statistics in a predictive Excel model, seems to me like a decent vision of hell.

I guess that's what's most interesting to me about the book is a conception of Jesus Christ on the Cross as a kind of glorious moment in itself for Jesus himself, not as a moment only glorious for everyone else because of those nonsensical theological logistics -- all that medieval stuff like how everyone agreed that he descended into hell and then he ascended into heaven and opened the gates of heaven but couldn't decide whether Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father or instead sits in front of him and slightly to the northwest and so various armies went to war. Instead the idea that he strove to achieve a higher level of love, a love of his torturers, a love of Barabus, and in that way he felt in that moment a higher existence, a deeper sense of something ("happiness"?) than the men who dominated him. That they were him but for a few different bits of DNA, that they hated him from their own insecurities, insecurities which we all share and know, that they were just men who accepted orders unthinkingly like we all do, but that they were men nonetheless.

Easy for me to say. I mentioned this stuff to my roommate when he asked what I was reading, and he goes "You ever get the shit beat out of you?" and I said no, and he said "Shit hurts" and walked away. Forgive the mixed testaments, but if you're the lamb and you endeavor to lie down with the lion but the lion eats you, you may achieve contentedness, get closer to God, but what if you don't? What if you just get eaten? That lion's probably gonna get some momentary contentedness, too, and maybe, absent God, the only true measure of contentedness is the number of lambs one can devour. There's "forgive them Father they know not what they do," but there's also "My God why have you forsaken me?" Mostly, perhaps, there's "Today you will be with me in Paradise."(less)

like · see review

May 08, 2011 David rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: social-issues, christian-life-and-spirituality

Tolstoy calls on all people to live by the Law of Jesus, primarily set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. For Tolstoy, living like this is what it means to be a Christian. Early on he makes it clear he has no love for the rest of the New Testament outside the Gospels. He finds the whole idea of sin and salvation by grace as really part of the problem. Thus, his view of being a Christian is quite different than the traditional view as he simply says - live like Jesus.

Of course, this begs the ques...more Tolstoy calls on all people to live by the Law of Jesus, primarily set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. For Tolstoy, living like this is what it means to be a Christian. Early on he makes it clear he has no love for the rest of the New Testament outside the Gospels. He finds the whole idea of sin and salvation by grace as really part of the problem. Thus, his view of being a Christian is quite different than the traditional view as he simply says - live like Jesus.

Of course, this begs the question - why should I live like Jesus? He was executed as a criminal and in the very same text where we find the Sermon on the Mount, we find him saying all kinds of crazy things. It makes me think of Lewis' famous argument that Jesus is either lunatic, liar or lord. Tolstoy takes Jesus as a teacher, arguing that we follow Jesus because he taught truth. But how do we separate the truth of what he taught, which Tolstoy likes, from the error?

That said, Tolstoy's work is extremely challenging. Too many Christians explain away some of Jesus' more challenging statements. Tolstoy will have none of this. For Tolstoy, when Jesus says love your enemies or forgive those who persecute you, he meant it. At one point Tolstoy asks why Christians have no problem literally accepting other parts of the sermon on the mount (such as the call to not look at a woman lustfully) but then explain away the nonviolent parts.

His critique of the church for its near unquestioning support of the state at times made me forget he was writing in 1890s Russia and not 2000s America.

So Tolstoy is challenging in this book. The problem is, other writers are equally challenging without sacrificing the rest of the Christian tradition. You can find people who put forth this radical ethic of following Jesus along with orthodox theology from the church fathers on to people like John Howard Yoder.

Finally, Tolstoy seems way too optimistic about human nature than he should be. In the 200s AD Origen wrote Against Celsus, replying to the criticisms of one of the great Roman writers. Celsus said that if everybody became like Christians, laying aside the sword, no one would be left to defend the empire. Tolstoy, like Origen, provides an answer to this question. For Tolstoy, if everyone became lived like Jesus the world would be at peace. Further, Tolstoy believes this will inevitably happen, he has a sort of postmillenial vibe at points, with the idea the world will get better and better. But does the reality of human sin and depravity allow such optimism? Tolstoy wrote at the end of the 19th century, leading into the bloodiest century humanity has known. The reality of human corruption makes it clear to me that we cannot hope everyone will simply live like Jesus.

Now, traditional Christianity, with trust in the indwelling and work of the Holy Spirit, can hope for these future things. But it is a bit more complex then humans simply living it; we need help.

Overall, I recommend this book as a classic of Christian ethics, despite the many shortcomings I see. I look at it this way: most Christians have no problem lifting up Calvin as a model of Christian orthodoxy despite his ethical failings (such as his role in the execution of Servetus) so why can't we lift up a Christian ethic despite its other theological failings?
(less)

like 1 like · see review

Mar 28, 2009 Benita added it · review of another edition

Shelves: book-club

I will admit that the last 10-15 pages of the book were pretty good. I still don't appreciate the first 200 or so, but his concluding pages were pretty well reasoned and thought-provoking. I could divorce his logic from nonviolence and apply it to many other things. "What will become of humanity if each of us performs the duty God demands of us through the conscience implanted within us?" I think that's a good question to personalize. Also his idea that we are free to choose our motivations, eve...more

like · see review

Mar 28, 2013 Conrad Johnson rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Reportedly, this book changed Ghandi's life and helped solidify his philosophy regarding nonviolence. You would expect from the title that this is a 'preacher's book' and is apologetic in nature and attempts to convert the reader to Christianity but it does no such thing. What it does do, however, is offer an insular, social commentary on the pervasiveness of war, military conscription and servility to the 'all powerful' state which most people on the planet contribute to willingly because eithe...more Reportedly, this book changed Ghandi's life and helped solidify his philosophy regarding nonviolence. You would expect from the title that this is a 'preacher's book' and is apologetic in nature and attempts to convert the reader to Christianity but it does no such thing. What it does do, however, is offer an insular, social commentary on the pervasiveness of war, military conscription and servility to the 'all powerful' state which most people on the planet contribute to willingly because either of fear of retribution or lack of not knowing any better. What amazed me most about this discourse is that, although it was published at the end of the 19th century, many of the author's observations remain truisms today. Tolstoy was a keen observer of social behavior but had the privilege of commenting on faults from a protected vantage point as a member of Russia's privileged class. Any other person who wrote such a blistering critique of his own government at that time would have probably been taken out and shot or thrown into a dungeon.

My favorite concept from this work (and I paraphrase) is that so called Christian society views all forms of sex outside of marriage as clearly being wrong and sinful. However, war and state sanctioned executions are judged upon different standards even though the most fundamental law of Judeo-Christian principles clearly states: Thou shall not kill.

Tolstoy repeatedly refers to Christ's Sermon on the Mount throughout this narrative and provides adequate references from that memorable speech that violence in any shape or form against another human is clearly not the Christian way, although 'Christian' nations have sanctioned wars for centuries and still continue to do so in the name of God. However, what is unpalatable to me is that he suggests that self defense, even at the personal level, is unscriptural and that if someone were to invade your home and plan to butcher yourself or your family, you should just surrender and forgive them for the evil they are about to commit. Because of this ridiculous notion stated by a man who probably had an entire posse of bodyguards protecting him, I find his argument flawed and his theory being as contradictory as those that he takes great pains to expose as contradictory. He is, what many call, 'cherry picking' suitable passages from the bible that support his premises and ignore others that dismiss his convictions. For example, in the Gospel of Luke, when Christ was about to be captured by Roman soldiers and led to his crucifixion, he said to his disciples: "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then he said unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me. And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end." And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, "It is enough." Luke 22:36-38 KJV.

Clearly, Christ was telling his followers to be ready to protect themselves with force if necessary. This is often referred to by theologians as the Doctrine of the Sword of Just Defense. Obviously, just like almost everything else that Christ said, it has been misconstrued, misinterpreted and taken to such extreme levels of fanaticism that has resulted in countless 'holy wars' throughout the centuries. Tolstoy does an excellent job of pointing out these absurdities, particularly within the social milieu of his time, and even though they still exist today, I doubt that anyone who is armed and faces the threat of violence from a rapist, murderer or madman against himself or his family would simply lay down his weapon, embrace his potential killer and say, "Jesus told me to love you and forgive for what you are about to do."

In summary, The Kingdom of God Is Within You is an extremely well written and carefully thought out social commentary about the incompatibility of nation states that profess themselves to be officially Christian yet unceasingly rely upon force to maintain the status quo of the powerful and the elite who run governments and the military, but, in the end his argument, at least for me, lacks practical substance in a society filled with increasingly random acts of violence where most of the time law enforcement does nothing more than clean up after the fact if they even bother to show up at all.(less)

like 3 likes · see review

Apr 05, 2011 ☽ Moon ☯ 佛月球 Будда Луны rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorite-books-of-all-time

If Dostoevsky triggered the awakening of my consciousness...Somehow Tolstoy put words into it with this sublime book. Dostoevsky's philosophies enabled my mind to plunge deeper into the depths of my soul, the wisdom was attained yet it was difficult to articulate it into words, not until I came across this book, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You by Tolstoy. It reflects Tolstoy's belief that a society of peace, harmony and love is possible and only in our midst, if only we could learn to live in...more

like 3 likes · see review

Oct 13, 2012 Alwen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Just discovered this in the free section on my kindle. Picked it up without any knowledge of it, and am now riveted. Not too far in, yet, but I am inspired by Tolstoy's understanding of what it means to live in the world as a Christian who resists evil peacefully. It is challenging me to think through what it means to peacefully resist the various forms of violence the shore up the U.S. way of life through exploitative and violent foreign policy, a legacy of exploitation of laborers and slavery...more

like · see review

May 29, 2011 Naum rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Confession time: I have never read War and Peace (though I have read most of Dostoevsky, his Russian rival for the age), and stumbled across this title in serendipitous style, scrolling through a library (yes, of the real life brick & mortar type) aisle seeking another title. I started reading and was quickly captivated, in some part due to the discovery that this text was a source of inspiration for Gandhi.

I was surprised how lucid most of the book was, given that it is an ~120 year old boo...more Confession time: I have never read War and Peace (though I have read most of Dostoevsky, his Russian rival for the age), and stumbled across this title in serendipitous style, scrolling through a library (yes, of the real life brick & mortar type) aisle seeking another title. I started reading and was quickly captivated, in some part due to the discovery that this text was a source of inspiration for Gandhi.

I was surprised how lucid most of the book was, given that it is an ~120 year old book. And while the title is not inaccurate, it is not reflective that most of Tolstoy's words are centered on Christian nonviolence, even as I suspect that English word had not come to be known, as yet. Sure, there were lots of redundant parts where it seemed that the author banged a drum into dilapidated submission, but that is easily outweighed by the shining passages just as relevant today as they were back in the 1890s. In fact, a good bit of it seemed prophetic, given how history played out in Europe (and in all of Christendom) during the next 50 years.

Basically, Tolstoy contends that Christians have been in denial, in both creeds and deeds, of Jesus admonition against prescriptive violence to riddle the world of evil. Like I stated, in many pages, Tolstoy keeps hitting the same notes over and over, but in other sections, the narrative is so vivid and cries out to a modern reader. Here are a few brief instances: (1) Tolstoy depiction of evolution of humankind Christian consciousness -- from self focused Christ-less to family/tribe/nation centric God infancy to adolescence of Christ flowering in the "opinion" of all Christian brothers and sisters. That it is an arc measured in thousands of years, with final conclusion inevitable… and (2) In the end of the book his wrenching words on Russian authorities carrying out flogging and torture of those who bumped against the rich ownership class. How self-confessed, proclaiming Christians could engage in such conduct totally at odds with the edicts of Christ.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Apr 23, 2012 Jeff rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Many people are aware of the connection between Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, but few are aware that Gandhi got most of his ideas from a man named Leo Tolstoy who was himself inspired to write this book by the teachings of Jesus, specifically what is often called the Sermon on the Mount in the Biblical book of Matthew chapters 5-7. Gandhi was working for the British Gov. and believed in the "empire" until he read this book by Tolstoy and begin his journey becoming the "Gandhi" history has m...more

like · see review

Sep 09, 2012 Fred rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Tolstoy had a good grasp of Christ's teachings but clearly did not understand the Bible or the context in which Christ taught. While much of what he says is true, his denial of the supernatural, the foundational principle of the Bible in that there is no eternal salvation without believing that Christ was God in the flesh, that He rose from the dead, and that all believers are justified by what He did not what they do, makes his argument quite hollow. Christians can follow Christ's example becau...more

like · see review

Feb 03, 2011 La pointe de la sauce rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites thee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."

I have always said that Jesus Christ is one of the greatest humanists there has ever been and the starting point of many revolutionary ideas. Here Tolstoy attempts to disassociate Christ's teachings from the church and Christ...more "Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites thee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."

I have always said that Jesus Christ is one of the greatest humanists there has ever been and the starting point of many revolutionary ideas. Here Tolstoy attempts to disassociate Christ's teachings from the church and Christianity. I'll let the man speak for himself:

'The conventional positions, established hundreds of years, recognized for centuries and by everyone, distinguished by special names and dresses, and, moreover, confirmed by every kind of solemnity, have so penetrated into men's minds through their senses, that, forgetting the ordinary conditions of life common to all, they look at themselves and everyone only from this conventional point of view, and are guided in their estimation of their own actions and those of others by this conventional standard.

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

It's worth mentioning that it's this same book that inspired Ghandi to pursue non-violent protest which led to India's independence, this further inspired the civil rights movement in the U.S with off-shoots all across the world and all because Tolstoy, despite the strangeness of the concept of 'turning the other cheek', firmly believes that it is the only way to emancipate man and return the reign of truth on earth. He is vindicated in every respect.

I expected this book to be preachy but its actually a brutal attack on the Roman Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the state, the Czar and indeed all institutions that feign acceptance of Jesus' teachings whilst engaging creative ways of sanctioning war or robbing the poor. In his commentary he sites other thinkers who have reached the same conclusion about Christianity one of which I thought was strikingly concise:

'War, too, is a Christian duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill hundreds of thousands of one's fellow-men, to outrage women, to raze and burn towns, and to practice every possible cruelty? It is time to dismiss all these false sentimentalities. It is the truest means of forgiving injuries and loving enemies. If we only do it in the spirit of love, nothing can be more Christian than such murder. - Adin Ballou,

It has always struck me as strange that under the guidance of the religion, the state or certain institutions, people of upright character have been somehow deceived into committing the most heinous crimes. Like in the Milgram Experiment where people keep pushing that button because their ability to reason has somehow been transferred to a 'higher authority.' Im always disgusted by UK Judge's who give 7 years imprisonment to pedophiles who have managed to rape their victims because it's written in some book that that is the right response. And on another level bankers take huge bonuses because it's somehow their right and just recently the government increasing student fees three fold and cutting NHS services to deal with the deficit and in the same week advancing millions to save UK Banks in Ireland. I digress but you get the point. (less)

like 1 like · see review

Mar 13, 2011 James R rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is essentially an extensive defense of a previous book that Tolstoy wrote which apparently was pretty much ignored or dismissed without much comment. Some reviews I have read say that Tolstoy's ardent passionate defense of the non-violent resistance to evil influenced Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. Tolstoy insists that non-violent resistance to evil is the defining ethic of Christianity. He insists that living the ethic of the Sermon of the Mount is more important to Christianity than ad...more

like · see review

Jun 07, 2011 Harrison rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites

What does a nation established in Christ’s principles look like?

Does it wage war?
Does it maintain a standing army?
Does it manufacture nuclear weapons? Landmines? Assault rifles? Hand guns?

Does it torture people?
Waterboard people?
Imprison people?

Are there poor people in a Christian nation?
Are there rich people in a Christian nation?

Does a women die from hunger in a Christian nation?
Does she die from preventable disease?

Does anyone aspire to wealth in a Christian nation?
Does anyone aspire to power...more

like 3 likes · see review

Mar 29, 2013 Josepha rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: activism, religion

This book was written as a sort of manifesto of Tolstoy's religious and political views of the necessity for nonviolence (Jesus' position of resist not evil). Mahatma Gandhi was greatly inspired by this work in the forming of his own doctrine of non violent civil disobedience. When I read Gandhi he mentioned "The kingdom of God is within you" several times so I knew I had to read this book to understand Gandhi and his positions more.
What surprised me was the tendency of Tolstoy in this book to...more This book was written as a sort of manifesto of Tolstoy's religious and political views of the necessity for nonviolence (Jesus' position of resist not evil). Mahatma Gandhi was greatly inspired by this work in the forming of his own doctrine of non violent civil disobedience. When I read Gandhi he mentioned "The kingdom of God is within you" several times so I knew I had to read this book to understand Gandhi and his positions more.
What surprised me was the tendency of Tolstoy in this book to act like a sort of liberal Ann Coulter; he wants to christianize the whole world, convert non-christians and civilize them by teaching them "christian" virtues like love, patience and brotherhood. The non-christians are characterized by Tolstoy as savage, violent and ignorant. The world savage is used quite dominantly throughout the book. For Tolstoy civilization is a christian invention and the task of the christian is to civilize the world according to their beliefs. I see this as a form of "the christian man's burden", comparable to the white man's burden that the genocidal western governments used as an excuse to rape, pillage and massacre in countries that the occupied, exploited and colonized.
This baffled me since a non-christian like Gandhi apparently adored this filth and used it to further his own ideas on "resist not evil".
Although Tolstoy maintains he wants a more equal society and denounces the rich as thieves, he constantly bashes socialism, communism and anarchism. His only solution to inequality is christianity. Especially not in the form of a revolution. I consider that highly naive - you want to pray the world into nongovernmental, peaceloving, antiauthoritarian, nonhierarchical, equal and sharing people?
All in all, I think if the tea party was leftist they would have this as their manifesto. And continue to discriminate against all that is not radically christian.
It had a couple of nice quotes that can be used for anticapitalist purposes like the following:
"All the advantages the rich have over the poor are based on nothing but flogging, imprisonment and murder."
"As a landowner or manufacturer you rob the poor of their toil, basing your life on this plunder of workers."(less)

like · see review

Aug 23, 2012 Stas Sajin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

you will feel yourself better and more truth-loving after having read this.

"We are all brothers—and yet every morning a brother or a sister must empty the bedroom slops for me. We are all brothers, but every morning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such things, which my brothers and sisters have been wasting their health in manufacturing, and I enjoy these things and demand them. We are all brothers, yet I live by working in a bank, or mercantile house, or shop at making all goods...more

like 3 likes · see review

title link	preview: The Kingdom of God Is Within You
avg rating	preview: The Kingdom of God Is Within You Goodreads rating: 4.12 (1202 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/790642.The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348996717l/790642.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/790642.The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Kingdom of God Is Within You by Leo Tolstoy[/url]

The Kingdom of God Is Within You

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (52)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Leo Tolstoy

Books by Leo Tolstoy

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Kingdom of Go...

Quotes from The Kingdom of God Is ...