Church and State, Leo Tolstoy
Church and State
Church and State by Leo Tolstoy
Faith is the meaning given to life; it is that which gives force and direction to life. Every living man finds this meaning and lives upon its basis. If he does not find it, he dies. In the search after it, man makes use of everything worked out by humanity. All that is worked out by humanity is called revelation. Revelation is what helps man to understand the meaning of life. Such is man’s relation to faith.
What a remarkable thing! There appear men who do their level best to get people to make use of this, rather than of that, form of revelation; they cannot rest until others accept their particular form of revelation; they curse, punish, and kill all the dissenters they can reach. Others do the same: they curse, punish, and kill all the dissenters they can reach. Others again do the same. And thus they all curse, punish, and kill one another, each demanding that all should believe just like them. It turns out that there are hundreds of faiths, and they all curse, punish, and kill one another.
At first I was startled and I marveled how it was that such an obvious absurdity, such an obvious contradiction, did not destroy faith itself. How could believing people remain in this deception?
Indeed, it is incomprehensible from the general point of view, and it proves incontestably that every faith is a deception and that all this is a superstition, as is proved by the now reigning philosophy. Looking from the general point of view, I, too, arrived incontestably at the recognition that all faiths are human deceptions. But I could not help but think, in spite of the very stupidity of the deception, its obviousness, and the fact that all humanity submits to it, that there was something that was not deceptive at the base of this deception. Otherwise, everything was so foolish that no one could be deceived by it. Even the submission to the deception, a submission common to all humanity living a true life, made me recognize the importance of the phenomenon that served as a cause of the deception. In consequence of this conviction, I began to analyze the Christian teaching that served as a foundation for the deception of the whole of Christian humanity.
This was the result from the general point of view. From the personal point of view – from the one in consequence of which every man and I, too, in order to live, must have faith in the meaning of life, and does have faith – this phenomenon of violence in matters of faith is still more striking in its absurdity.
Indeed, how, why, and for whom is it necessary that another should not only believe, but also profess his faith like myself? A man lives; consequently he knows the meaning of life. He has established his relation to God, he knows the truth of truths, and I know the truth of truths. Their expression may be different, but the essence must be one and the same since we are both men. How, why, and what can compel me to demand of anyone that he shall express his truth precisely as I do? I cannot compel a man to change his belief by violence, by cunning, or by deception (false miracles).
Faith is his life. How then can I take his faith from him and give him another? It is the same as taking his heart out of him and putting in another. I can do so only when his faith and mine are words, and not what he lives by – an excrescence, and not a heart. This also cannot be done because it is impossible to deceive a man or make a man believe in what he does not believe – impossible, because he who believes, he who has established his relations to God and so knows that faith is man’s relation to God, cannot wish to establish the relation of another man to God by means of violence or deception. This is impossible, but it is done, and has been done everywhere and at all times. It could not be done because it is impossible, but something has been done which resembles it very much. What has been done is that men foist upon others a semblance of faith, and the others accept this semblance of faith – the deception of faith.
True faith cannot be foisted upon anyone and cannot be accepted on account of anything – violence, deception, or advantage – and so it is not faith, but a deception of faith. It is this deception of faith that is an old condition of the life of humanity.
In what does this deception consist and on what is it based? By what is it evoked for the deceivers, and by what does it maintain itself for the deceived? I will not speak of Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Islam, in which there appears the same phenomena, but not because it would be impossible to find the same deception. To anyone reading about these religions, it will be clear that in these faiths the same happened as in Christianity, but I will speak exclusively of Christianity because it is a faith known, necessary, and dear to us. In Christianity, the whole deception is built upon a fanciful conception of the church, which is based upon nothing and which from the beginning of the study of Christianity startles one by its unexpected and useless absurdity.
Among all the impious conceptions and words there is not a conception or word more impious than the conception of the church. There is not a conception that has created more evil than the conception of the church. In reality, the word means an assembly and nothing more, and is in this sense used in the gospels. In the languages of all the modern nations the word ecclesia signifies a house of prayer.
Beyond these meanings this word, in spite of fifteen hundred years of the existence of the deception of the church, has not penetrated into any language. From the definitions given to this word by the priests who need the deception of the church, it is evident that it is a preface that says, “Everything which I am going to say now is the truth, and if you do not believe it, I will have you burned, and will curse and in every way offend you.” This conception is a sophism that is necessary for certain dialectical purposes, and it remains the possession of those who need it. This conception does not exist at all among the people, either among the masses, or in society and in the midst of cultured people, although it is taught in catechisms. This definition (it is really a shame to have to analyze it, but it has to be done, because so many people give it out so seriously as something very important) is absolutely false. Nothing is really said when it is said that the church is an assembly of true believers because, if I say that an orchestra is an assembly of all the true musicians, then I have said nothing if I do not also say what I mean by true musicians. But according to theology, it turns out that the true believers are those who follow the teaching of the church, that is, those who are in the church.
To say nothing of the fact that there are hundreds of such true faiths, the definition does not say anything and, it would seem, is as useless as the definition of the orchestra as an assembly of true musicians. However, one immediately sees the motive behind all this. The church is true and one, and in it are the pastors and the flock. The God-ordained pastors teach this true and one doctrine: “Upon my word, everything we are going to say is the truth.” There is nothing else. The whole deception is in the word and the conception of the church. And the meaning of this deception is only that there are people who are dreadfully anxious to teach their faith to others.
Why are they so anxious to teach their faith to other people? If they had the true faith, they would know that faith is the meaning of life, the relation to God established by every man, and that, therefore, it is impossible to teach a faith, but only the deception of faith. But they want to teach. For what? The simplest answer would be that the pope needs cakes and eggs, and the bishop needs a palace, fish pie, and silk vestments. But this answer is insufficient. Such, no doubt, was the inward, psychological impulse for the deception, an impulse that supported the deception. But, analyzing in this manner, how could one man (an executioner) have decided to kill another man, against whom he has no malice? It would be insufficient to say that the executioner kills because he is given whiskey, a white loaf, and a red shirt. Even so, it would be insufficient to say that the Archbishop of Kiev with his monks fills bags with hay, calling them saintly relics, only for the purpose of having an income of thirty thousand rubles. Both actions are too terrible and too contrary to human nature for such a simple, coarse explanation to be sufficient. Both the executioner and the archbishop will, in explaining their acts, adduce a whole series of proofs, the chief foundation of which will be
