Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

he is. If a man is chaste, let him not destroy his chastity; if he is married, let him remain faithful to his wife; if he goes with many, let him continue to live in the same way, without inventing non-existent occasions for sin. Let him not change his position and not increase his sin of impurity. If people would do this, most of their sufferings would be abolished. If a man has reached the point of not committing new sins, then let him work to diminish that sin of impurity in which he is." ("Christian Teaching").

Finally we may close this exposition of Tolstoy's "Christian" teaching with a prediction as to the form of marriage in the new conditions which are coming in the modern world. "Marriages may be temporary and after the birth of the children, they may end, so that both husband and wife after the birth of the children may separate and remain chaste; the children may be reared by society." From this attitude to the socialization of women reported as practiced by the Bolsheviki is an easy step.

4. Fundamental Principles.

After this short summary of Tolstoy's ideas as to the duty of a man toward his family and society, let us glance at some of the general principles on which he erected his ethical system.

Despite Tolstoy's scorn of modern culture, he is at one with the most enthusiastic adherents of progress in believing that human nature has greatly changed and has improved over what it once was, or rather he believes in the increasing spirituality and Christianity of the world which is coming with the downfall of orthodox and conventional organized Christianity and the recognition by the entire world of the failure of most of our boasted civilization. Today, after four years of war, we may be less easily con

vinced that patriotism and faith, nationality and family are outworn symbols, despite the efforts of the Bolsheviki who are attempting to put into execution these advanced ideas.

In close connection with this is Tolstoy's dislike for personality, human and divine. He objected to the Personality of God and the personality of man. Reason became a fetich with him and he objected to giving the name of human "life" to that animal existence which exists in human beings prior to the development of reason and the recognition that God is love.

For the natural human being Tolstoy seems to have had little care or affection. He can conceive of a man as an animal loving his family and even his nation, but not humanity. Thus he declares, "I am as sorry for this twolegged animal as for the ichthyosaurus," etc., and he contended that if the human race would develop its chastity until the race died out by approaching the divine ideal, the result would not be evil, and the essence of "human life" would still remain, as a man after death lives in the influence which he radiated in life.

This denial of personality together with the belief that judgment is forbidden, both human and divine, ultimately destroys all appreciation of values. Thus he says: "There are no bad people, but all people are the children of the one Father and all are brothers, and all are equal-no person is better or worse than any other." This view is very similar superficially to the Christian view that all men are sinners and equal in the sight of God and are "unprofitable servants," but the difference is very great, since the Christian sees the sin projected against the sinlessness of God, while Tolstoy lacks that background and groups all together with a total disregard of what is usually called justice and

standards.

The unfortunate result of such a doctrine is that while it may serve as a cause of kindly forbearance when held by a benign man, it can be perverted to be a palliation of the most ghastly and outrageous crimes with little or no difficulty. The annihilation of judgment even in the hereafter leaves no incentive save love for proper and peaceful conduct, and opinions may differ as to the potency of such a stimulus.

At the same time we must remember that Tolstoy took a resolute and bold stand against many of the evils of modern society. His fearless opposition to "art for art's sake" being advanced as an excuse for the justification of indecency in art, and his uncompromising statements to advocates of Birth Control that they were ordinary murderers, are but two examples of the boldness with which he attacked the evils of the day. He was frankly opposed to modern civilization and his aim was constantly to exalt the toilsome and simple and often dirty life of the peasant above the luxurious and idle life of the wealthy and intellectual classes of society. At the same time the question of the maintenance of civilization is too lengthy to be discussed here, since the Tolstoyan system argues for the annihilation of all laws save that of love.

There can be no doubt that Tolstoy was sincere in his advocacy of this system of ethics and any failure of his to live up to it should not be imputed to him as a reproach. He demanded the reformation of society by a gradual process and so strict a manner of life that no human being at the present day could perform it. In this respect Christianity demands the same, since even the greatest saint would believe that he had not yet attained unto perfection.

What then is the relation between the ethical system of Tolstoy, and Christianity as the Church has taught it

throughout the centuries? Superficially considered, Tolstoy's teaching is a literal following of certain precepts of the Gospels, but it differs radically in some fundamental principles. The spiritual in the usual sense of the word is eliminated, and also the idea of sin as an offence worthy of chastisement and punishment is dropped. Sin is a failure to live on the spiritual plane and with a knowledge of a man's duty if living merely for the service of God, and through Him of a man as a part of God. Tolstoy looked at sin coldly and rationally and decided that all the ills of the world could be abolished by the abolition of violence and excessive individuality. Of that sense of sin which could see the need of God Himself acting to save mankind, Tolstoy had no appreciation. Penitence, remorse, all were unnecessary, and a man should persevere in his struggle against sin, not increasing it, until he had become able not to increase his sin, and then he could take steps to reduce it. And why? Because Christianity was a prophecy. Christ did not expect the mass of the people of his day to accept his teaching. They were not prepared for it, and now after 1900 years, that prophecy is being fulfilled. The events of the last few years surely have taught us that the same principles that prevailed ages ago still exert a powerful influence upon the present, and that the Christian cannot yet rely too much upon the speedy approach of that time when sin shall be no more.

Tolstoy is to be ranked among those Christians of every age who have broken with the Church in their desire to adopt a stricter rule of life than that which the Church teaches. Unfortunately it is the almost invariable rule that these attempts have ultimately reacted unfavorably and led to the success of even lower standards.

This is necessary with a system like that of Tolstoy's because it immediately removes from the world all of its adherents who, it would be fair to say, would include some of the most conscientious classes of the community. Then by separating life, i. e., the service of God and the recognition that He is love and does not punish, from that animal existence lived by the other members of the human race, it definitely gives up the hope of exerting any control upon the latter. By one of the illogical perversities of the human mind, the result would almost certainly be that that state would be reached in which people talk as if they had no bodies and live as if they had no souls.

What then should be the attitude adopted toward Tolstoy by the Christian Church? It must pierce beneath the surface and recognize that Tolstoy was a sincere moral reformer and an enthusiast for the abolition of abuses, but that the principles which he proclaimed were utterly at variance with the traditional ideas of Christianity, and by this I mean not the formal dogmas but the very heart of Christianity. Of course it seems hard to condemn a moral reformer who appeals to the Gospels as the source of his teaching, but the divergences in spirit are so great that there are really presented two systems, Christianity and Tolstoyanism. The one, proclaiming a doctrine of love and freedom from judgment, submerges the individual in God and preaches deliverance from sin, when the human race achieves the necessary stage of perfection in the future. The other, proclaiming that God is love no less energetically, has a message for the individual and proclaims the need of repentance and announces the forgiveness of God won for men by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This it promises to the individual and it does not refer him to any future perfection of the human race, which is and must be

« AnteriorContinuar »