Not long ago, I encountered an article posted on social media entitled, “Orthodox Christian Destroys Satanic Temple Display in New Hampshire.” The comment section was of interest, in it there were a fair amount of even Orthodox Christians commenting, in basic, “I don’t agree with the actions of this person.” They claimed it is, in fact, not a Christian act to destroy a statue of Satan. Rather, it should be tolerated because we have to do to others as we would have them do to us. Although, there were also a lot of people who agreed with the action.
This reminded me of an instance I heard about through the grapevine on a local level, an Orthodox men’s group was meeting at a local Pub and on an “announcement board,” in the entryway, was a flier for a “Satanic club.” One of the fellows ripped it down and threw it away. This action caused a stir, some agreed while others said Christians should not do things like that.
The folks that feel such actions are not “Christian” seem to base their convictions in a pacifism that takes as its justification “resist not evil.” They seem to indicate that the Gospel calls us to be tolerant of all things, even the most blatantly evil, such as Satanism.
So, the basic question is, should Christians resist evil?
This question is addressed by the holy Archbishop of the past century, Averky, in a book by him, entitled, “The Struggle for Virtue, Asceticism in a Modern Secular Society.” In this book, he dedicates a whole chapter to the topic of “Resisting Evil.” Ven. Father Seraphim (Rose) testifies of him that he was “In the genuine Patristic tradition as few other Orthodox fathers.”
Archbishop Averky opens up the chapter with a quote from the Gospel of Matthew, 5:38-42. In this passage the phrase, “I tell you not to resist an evil person” is found.
The patristic minded Averky says, “It is common to consider the fundamental thought of this part of the Sermon on the Mount to be the expression of ‘resist not evil.’ From this, people come to the unexpected and hasty conclusion that Christians should not resist evil at all, that they should resign themselves to every kind of evil and be patient. Built upon this idea is the systematic, thoroughly worked-out teaching of our well known and talented writer Count Leo Tolstoy, On Non-Resistance to Evil. Based upon the words of the Savior, ‘But I say to you, that ye resist not evil,’ Count Tolstoy maintains that any resistance to evil, any suppression of evil in human society, except by means of verbal persuasion, is contrary to the Gospel and, therefore, unacceptable in a Christian society. Consequently, it would seem to follow that every evil person can freely do all that he wants– cheat, rob, steal, rape,– and we should calmly accept this and let such a person do all that he sees fit. Some people genuinely believe that the Gospel preaches such a complete ‘nonresistance to evil.’”
In Imperial Russian, Leo Tolstoy was the founder of his own religious movement and one of the fundamental precepts was a total nonresistance to evil. Although he was a talented writer, he developed a very humanistic religion in which he denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection, among many other things. His views were most likely influenced by currents of the European Enlightenment.
In this instance, Archbishop Averky credits the very misguided understanding of “nonresistance to evil” to the very confused religious mind of Tolstoy. The misguided understanding that Christians just tolerate evil is based not in Christian teaching but rather in ideas like Tolstoyism.
The Archbishop continues, “In actuality, the Gospel’s teaching is not as Count Tolstoy or as advocates of the theory of ‘nonresistance to evil’ interpret it. For a Christian, if he is truly a Christian and not a charlatan, can never indifferently and calmly observe the triumph of evil and cannot accept evil in whatever form it may appear. It is not in vain that the Church of Christ on earth is called ‘militant’ nor every Christian called a ‘warrior of Christ.’ The struggle against evil in all its forms is the principle task of every Christian. A Christian is worthy of his name only if he, with every possible means and possible measure, battles with evil for the triumph of good, for the triumph of God’s one eternal truth in this world.”
It is very clear that the struggle against evil must start within the Christian person, yet this personal struggle does not negate the external struggle against evil in the world. Archbishop Averky writes, “It is true that the primary and fundamental task of a Christian is to battle with evil in his own soul and to suppress all evil impulses and yearnings therein. However, at the same time, we should battle with evil with all possible means when it manifests itself. We Christians can never remain indifferent to evil wherever and in whatever form it appears.” The false pacifism of Tolstoy and its various manifestations, even today, is but a tragic indifferentism dressed up in religious garb. St. Theophan the Recluse spoke against the spirit of indifferentism in these terms, “They possess a special kind of vain wisdom called ‘Indifferentism’ by which they reason say: believe as you like, it makes no difference – just love everyone like brothers, be charitable to them, and have a good influence on them” (On Truth and Love).
Archbishop Averky teaches that the command “to resist not an evil person” relates to personal offenses. “Without referring to the battle with evil in the general, these words only warn us against vindictiveness, against striving to take revenge for ourselves for a personal offense.” Taking personal offense is generally rooted in pride. In such cases, actions and words, most of the time very trivial in the grand scheme of things, are taken personally and offensively. Retribution against the “offender” is sought in various ways, frequently through petty means. It is this that the Lord Jesus calls His followers to be on guard against. “How can we avoid the increase of evil?” asks Archbishop Averky, “There is one measure that is offered in the Gospel: the forgiveness of personal offenses, the battle in one’s soul against the feeling of vindictiveness.” Through this the Christian finds peace within, and then is able to move from the foundation of peace.
“However,” he continues, “by no means is all peace pleasing to God, nor is it necessary to cherish all peace. The Holy Fathers, instructors in the spiritual life, say that there can be ‘glorious discord’ as well as ‘most disastrous unanimity.’ We should love only good peace, one that has a good purpose and unites with God.” The authentic virtue of peace is not “peace at all costs.” Indeed, a Christian cannot have peace with the spirit of the fallen world; St. James the Apostle calls such a “peace,” in reality, enmity with God (cf. James 4:4). In such a manner, Archbishop Averky instructs, “A Christian cannot be at peace and have friendship with thieves, murderers, rapists, nor perverts.” Of course, he is speaking of those persisting in unrepentance. “In principle, a Christian cannot live in peace and friendship with all of those people who clearly and boldly break the Law of God, harm the peace and welfare of human society, who prevent people from drawing close to God, and introduce discord and disorder into the soul.”
When the Gospel speaks of forgiveness of offenses, it is speaking of personal ones. Those that surpass the personal and intrude into the corporate are a different matter. The Archbishop states that in the modern prideful world this reality is reversed, most people of the progressive spirit are ready to forgive anything but personal offenses. “You can be both an atheist and a blasphemer and that is fine, only don’t touch me. You can be a thief and murderer, just leave me alone. You can be a scoundrel, but if you don’t do anything bad to me personally, especially if you do something pleasing to me, then you are already a good person. The opposite is true: if the best possible person in some way, even unintentionally, wounds our pride, then there’s trouble: enmity between us is unavoidable, and he immediately becomes our mortal enemy.”
And so, it happens even in Christianity today that “The one who indulges our self-assertive human pride, the one who pleases our passions is good and our best friend, but the one who speaks to us even one word of reproach, even if it contains salvific truth, immediately becomes our enemy.”
“Therefore, all the liberals of our times, beginning with Leo Tolstoy, themselves being quite evil and prideful by nature and completely unable to forgive personal offenses, nevertheless love to speak eloquently about Christian ‘forgiveness of all,’ altogether incorrectly understanding such forgiveness.”
This false understanding is also a potent weapon in the emasculation of Christianity. For those who seek to completely obliterate all Christian influence, this false pacifism is a vital tenet to promote. The enemies of Christianity are the only ones who profit long term from the indifferentism of Christians. The fallen world delights when Christians believe that spinelessness is a virtue.
But the authentic Christian teacher instructs, “When a gentle word of persuasion has no effect, when people are so steeped in evil that they do not yield to any admonishment and continue doing evil, a Christian cannot and should not take refuge in this teaching of forgiveness of all, sit indifferently with his arms crossed, and apathetically watch as evil abuses good, as it increases and destroys people, his close ones. To indifferently watch the ruin of a close one who has lost his senses and become a bearer of evil is nothing other than the breaking of the commandment of love for one’s neighbor. Every type of evil should be immediately thwarted with the most decisive measures, even sacrificing oneself in an unequal struggle … to sit indifferently, passively and watch as masses of people perish is contrary to the spirit of Christian love for one’s neighbor.”
And so, should Christians resist evil? The clear teaching is, yes. Yes, Christians are called to stand against evil in the world. When very explicitly evil things like Satanism, for example, attempt to pervert society, it is the Christian’s job to firmly oppose it.
The holy Archbishop resoundingly concludes, “The words of the Lord, ‘resist not evil,’ are directed exclusively against vindictiveness and the desire to avenge yourself for offenses and in no way forbids the struggle against evil in general. We not only can but should incessantly battle against evil as true soldiers of Christ.” Yet, in authentic Christian manner, he also leaves faithful Christians with this vital understanding, “In battling with those who perform evil, we should always remember that we are not fighting against the people in and of themselves, but with the evil that comes from them.”
And so, dear soldiers of Christ Jesus, let us fight the good fight and battle against evil.
The Inkless Pen 
Father bless.
Fr. Lynch,
Blessed Feast!
I have read Blessed Archbishop Averky’s “The Struggle for Virtue”[and continue to refer to it for counsel]. Are you familiar with the review ‘Regarding Ivan Ilyin’s book Resisting Evil By Force’ by Blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)? It’s rather long, and I’m not sure it would fit. I can try to send it, or try to find it’s link online; I’ll get back to you.
By the by, here’s a prayer written by Ivan Illyin:
“Teach me spiritual freedom! Remove from my chest cowardice and faintness of heart! Help me find my path – the path that does not lead me away from Your Face! Send me the fullness of love that does not harden in my wrath upon Your enemies! Give me the strength of love capable of laying down everything, the strength to confess You at the deathly hour! And stamp out within me by the fire of Your love my human hate! May it not burn through my heart! And let me not die embittered in wrath and retribution!”
Shall I only lay down my life? No, not only my life, but the life of my life – tenderness of heart, the candor of a guileless will, the child-like purity of good cheer…Will I restore them? And how shall I recover them?
“Send me the strength of silent but ceaseless prayer! Send me the ineffable sighs of Your Spirit! Send me the gift of tearful purification!…”
And thank you again, for your words of encouragement in these times of “…an age of false teachers as this pitiful twentieth century, [& 21st C.] so rich in material gadgets and so poor in mind and soul” so aptly seen, and foreseen by our Saint Seraphim of Platina.
Doxa to Theo, John
Father bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May the Lord bless you! Thank you for sharing this, and yes, I would be very interested in the work by Met. Anthony.
LikeLike
Father bless.
Fr. Lynch,
I hope this finds you and yours well. Thank God.
Here are the articles I referenced in my prior email.
Doxa to Theo, John
LikeLike
Christ is Born! Thank you, dear Fr., for increasing the truth count on the internet!
This is a topic dear to my heart and which confuses many people. The misunderstanding you are highlighting leads to great harm and is used to justify permitting great evil against innocent people, especially children.
I am happy to hear about the removal of the Satanists’ advertisement you saw,, and admit that it’s a but terrifying to ponder. People who are willing to do evil of one type are usually willing to indulge in various other sorts of evil as well, especially when it serves their interests. So, when you actively oppose these people, you can uncover a dangerous opponent. This might be another major difference between personal and general offenses. When someone personally offends us and we respond badly, we are often in afraid to exact revenge, feeling bold. But the presence or absence of fear in ourselves might help us discern the truth in a given situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glorify Him! Yes! And our Lord says woe to those who cause the little ones to stumble!
LikeLike
Pingback: Links for 15 Jan. 2025 – Just the Links
Father bless.
Fr. Lynch,
Please forgive my last posting; I thought I could send information via my PC, which, obviously I wasn’t.
Here is the article I referenced and Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky’s “The Christian Faith and War.” See link below.
The below is a little “fuzzy” as to where Met Anthony’s review starts and the author of the article… I’ve included the web source for it.
May God grant us the courage to resist, and to root out the evil in our hearts, and our world.
Doxa to Theo, John D.
Father bless.
Regarding Ivan Ilyin’s book Resisting Evil By Force Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)
https://www.rocorstudies.org/2016/06/16/regarding-ivan-ilyin-s-book-resisting-evil-by-force/
The founder of the Russian Church Abroad never was lukewarm and always fought for his position.
The front line of the Civil War divided the Russian Orthodox Church. This division continued outside Russia and was basically overcome in 2007. Finding themselves as immigrants in 1920 Russian hierarchs continued shepherding the military units of the White Movement, who were dispersed throughout the whole world. Militarily, they were united by the Russian All-Military Union and ecclesiastically by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).
Their situation as immigrants was conducive to reflections regarding the “Russian catastrophe,” the World War, the Revolution, and the subsequent political resistance. In certain ways these reflections continued the pre-revolutionary polemics in the framework of the Religio-Philosophical Society.
O soprotivleniiu zlu siloi (The Resistance to Evil By Force) written by Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin (1883-1954) in 1925 was dedicated to the White Army warriors and their leaders. On the basis of the thesis advanced in the title, Ivan Ilyin polemicizes with Leo Tolstoy’s teaching on the non-resistance to evil by violence, basing this not only on the possibility but also on the religious necessity and the moral truth, of resisting evil by way of the “sword”. Noting a certain casuistry and rationality in the book’s construction, Archpriest V.V. Zenkovsky, the historian of Russian philosophy, noted at the same time its authenticity and profundity: “It contains a particular and severe honesty.”
The polemics around this work, which was published a year before the start of the church schism among Russian immigrants was, to a significant degree, in keeping with the political aspect of the division, which had already taken shape, into Orthodox Christians who were either “ultra” or simply conservative, to use conventional terminology. A rebuke to Ilyin that was harsh and polemically sharpened on the part of another Russian philosopher, N. A. Berdyaev, in the 1926 issue of the journal Put’ (“Koshmar zlogo dobra”), clearly delineated both the theological-philosophical and ecclesiastical-political limits of this resistance. On the other hand, as is evident from the following opinion, Ilyin’s worldview was very much in line with the ROCOR First Hierarch, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galicia, who, maintaining Orthodox imperial positions, spoke out in favor of continuing armed struggle with Bolshevism, comparing this with the struggle against foreign interventionists during the Time of Troubles and bestowing written blessings upon both Russian White terrorists (the Brotherhood of Russian Truth) and upon Fascists (Anastassii Vosnyatsky’s party)
It cannot be said that a philosophical treatise, expounded not in the most accessible manner, could be extremely popular among most of the ROCOR parishioners. However, it appears to me that this work turned out to be on the whole in keeping with the attitude of ROCOR’s flock since under all of the anti-Communist military regimes (Germany, South Africa, and Chile) those of ROCOR’s posterity have felt comfortable. On the other hand, this work presents to us, the current generation of ROCOR members, a complex philosophical dilemma — doesn’t good become evil, destroying its enemies by force?
I read this thoughtful and interesting book about a month ago and simultaneously wrote a number of notes on the margins, although I was unable to pick up a pen sooner in order to write this requested review, overwhelmed as I was by a multitude of pressing matters. Besides this book four more authors are awaiting my opinion.
The subject treated by the esteemed philosopher I. A. Ilyin is congenial to me. Back in the eighties I gave public talks on resistance to evil in opposition to L. N. Tolstoy, and subsequently I published a book entitled O voine s khristianskoi tochki zreniia (On War from the Christian Viewpoint), which, by the way, was boycotted by the Baptists and other dark powers who were propagandizing “non-resistance” precisely in 1914.
The saddest thing in this propaganda was the totally unreligious and insincere attitude toward the subject which is very successfully applied among our people in all issues touching upon Christian teaching, for in the propagandizers’ favor were the recent disinclination of society toward religion in general and especially toward Orthodoxy, and, even more so, the utter ignorance of teaching of the Holy Bible. Our public has no idea of the breadth of this book and imagines that only the Old Testament is called the Bible. “And what about the New Testament?” “Well, that’s another matter. The New Testament is the same as the Gospels.” “What about the Book of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse?” “Oh right, I forgot about them.”
A similar attitude toward Holy Scripture was displayed by the wretched hired critics of Mr. Ilyin’s book regarding his reference to the Apostle Paul’s words, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). They demanded a reference to “the original source of the Revelation” ─ Christ’s words ─ and gloatingly warned that it was impossible to find corresponding words, since Christ said “Thou shalt not kill.”
My semi-literate friends! This was said not by Christ Himself, but by Moses, i.e. by God through Moses’ mouth, and earlier he said it aloud for all the people (Ex. 20) As for Christ the Savior, He said to the rich young man, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments,” and to the question “Which?” He listed the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth ones (Mt. 19:16-25, Mr. 10:18-22). But you, of course, are ignorant of the fact that Our Lord, having given the Ten Commandments, immediately presents retribution for their violation. Whoever speaks evil of father or mother should be given unto death, and so on. The Lord stipulates similar punishment in the same Book of Exodus, and later in Deuteronomy, for blasphemers, adulterers, and finally to any owner who keeps an ox known to gore — if he gores a man or a woman.
“But Christ (it’s a nasty habit to say ‘Christ’ instead of ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Christ the Savior’ — this sign alone can identify an unreligious person) said nothing of the kind!” the semi-literate critic shouts to you in response. No, He did! Open up Mt. 15:3-6 and read His words: “Why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ’Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ’He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ’If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father or mother. So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.” So you see that the Savior not only cited the commandment but also joined to it God’s words not found in the Ten Commandments and acknowledged this order regarding execution for those speaking evil of father or mother as God’s commandment, uttered by God Himself.
“So this means — capital punishment? Torture, the Inquisition?” the non-resisting hack writers shout. Here is our response: “We will say what follows for us Christians from these words in due time, and would you kindly shut your stupid mouth when you wish to say that Jesus Christ did not confirm the words of the Old Testament regarding punishments and war.” Unfortunately, I. A. Ilyin did not cite this utterance of Our Lord in his book.
But the main value of the latter is not in its explication of God’s law but in its clear and definite indication of the falseness and hypocrisy of the non-resisters, who are able to continue their existence only thanks to the presence of an army and police in any cultured nation and which are consequently responsible for those punitive laws which are in force in their country. Not all citizens are executioners and not all of them are in military combat, but without an army and executioners they could not live in safety and, consequently, if war and execution are sins, they are everyone’s sins. It is this truth that I. A. Ilyin determines with all clarity ¾ if unrepentant evildoers aren’t executed they will execute peaceful citizens. The non-resisters know all this, having lived through the recent Revolution.
The author supports this totally clear idea with philosophical and psychological evidence, proving justifiably that a person is not just an individual subject but is connected to everyone in good and evil. “Neither good nor evil possess in human life a purely personal or private character. Each good person, independently of even his outward actions, is good not only to himself but also for others. An angry person, even if he keeps his angry thoughts to himself, is bad, harmful, and caustic for all humanity.” ( p. 147) This is why in living relations among people each person carries everyone in himself, and, while ascending, he pulls everyone along, and, falling down, he drops everyone behind him (p. 148). These ideas were, of course, expressed by the Apostle Paul and the Church Fathers, and in recent times by Dostoyevsky, but Tolstoy rejected them without substantiation, and asserted confidently, but without basis, that he is not obliged to defend victims of an evildoer by force because he is responsible for his own activity.
Our author does not regard the forceful prevention of evil deeds as a panacea against all evils. As he says, “The negative task of coercion or prevention is to cut off the paths to evildoing, leaving open the path to unity. This is still far from creating paradise, but it is the elimination of hell” and so on. (p. 166)
Evading such a duty by a citizen and a Christian out of fear of sinning by anger or of offending the evildoer “would be just as realistic, smart, and justifiable… as it would be for a person mired waist-deep in a swamp to deliberate about returning home without allowing a single damp spot to appear on his clothes.” (p. 172} For there are certain life situations which obviously require neither righteousness nor holiness, but, we can add, evil is already a given in those instances when struggle against it is possible only by applying physical force. The author goes on to cite a passage from the Gospels {actually from the First Epistle of John, 3:16}: “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer,” even if he hasn’t killed anyone physically. (p. 176).
Killing is a sin (we say this personally) that is an expression of anger and hatred that is opposed to God or unruliness that God forbids. But killing in war might not contain either element, and thus the Church, in the Canonical Epistle of St. Athanasius the Great to the Monk Ammoun does not considered participation in war to be a sin. This epistle is cited on page 180 in a footnote, but unfortunately he does not emphasize its Church-wide significance as a categorical Church-wide teaching, since this epistle is a canonical declaration of the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. However, he gives his own justifiable clarification at the beginning of the book that two totally identical actions can have totally different, and perhaps absolutely contradictory, moral and religious values, such as in the case of two contributions, two signatures under one document, two admissions to a regiment, or two deaths in a battle. It would seem that a Christian consciousness should not require such almost axiomatic clarifications. (p. 19)
However, while considering them axiomatic, the author stretches them out for 220 pages, into which he brings in totally inappropriately, but in conformity with contemporary fashion, the kinds of tables used in genealogy or mathematics.
Actually, this deficiency is relative, while the indisputable merit of this book is that in certain human situations it brings a minimum of inevitable evil nearer to positive good, and it sharply condemns the avoidance by hypocrites such as Tolstoy of disclosing the duty of a member of human society to defend the institution which protects not only his welfare but his very existence on earth.
The author is really correct in asserting that “throughout all of human history, in various eras and in various societies the best people would perish in violence perpetrated by the worst ones, and this would continue until the best would resolve to give a systematic and organized rebuff to the worst ones.” (p. 161) And if “not everyone is capable of taking up the sword, fighting with it and remaining on a high moral level in this struggle,” it is clear that “for this not the worst but the best people are needed, combining in themselves nobility and strength, since the weak will not bear this burden, while the evil ones will betray the very intent of the sword.” (p. 208) This is not the way it works in Tolstoy’s moral teaching, since only “for a hypocrite and a blind person do St. George and the dragon he slew have equal rights.” (p. 112)
The best moralizer among our older contemporaries was St.Theophan the Recluse (?-1894). To a question from one of his correspondents as to whether he would bless sending his son to military school in accordance with his wishes or (I believe) to engineering school in accordance to his mother’s wishes he responded that he should be a warrior, since that was a noble and worthy service for faith and the fatherland. This bishop and doctor of theology, who had previously been rector of the capital’s academy and who had written a whole mountain of scholarly theological works, while confining himself in absolute seclusion in a provincial monastery, cannot be accused of opportunism even by such zealous prosecutors as Ilyin’s opponents.
Thus we welcome his ideas and his book, since he deeply and thoroughly understands Christian teaching on the degrees of perfection and tells it like it is.
It is somewhat regrettable that he didn’t do enough to elucidate his issue from the viewpoint of duties between members of human society. True, he does say that “monks, scientists, artists, and contemplators are fortunate compared to statesmen, but they should understand that their hands are clean for pure activity only because others have come up with clean hands for impure activity. They should remember that if all people turned out to have a fear of sin that was stronger than love for good (and for one’s neighbor) life on earth would be impossible.” (p. 209)
Such a bright and powerful idea! Only this doesn’t indicate the ecclesiastical-social principle according to which the division of labor among the bearers of various occupations takes place.
Also not indicated are the limits of applying active force in struggling with evil, as in the case of a conquering king, a punitive squad, a federal investigator, and, finally, an inquisitor, if such would turn up on earth again (and, of course, they will). And it is necessary to indicate these limits, for even to this day, in Europe for example, there is no nation in which torture during interrogations and terror during revolts are not practiced/
Actually, this issue is so complex that treating it in the same book which tries to establish only the most general agreement between virtue and societal order, and between the Kingdom of God or the Church as a free union and the state as a forced union. It would have been sufficient to indicate only the presence of such a moral necessity.
I cannot resist just one mild rebuke to the author. As someone who is more talented than most contemporary writers, he could have refrained from the unfortunate contemporary habit of fashioning new words, such as spiritually–mental, world-rejecting religion, spiritual vision (?), loving acceptance of a compelled soul, etc.
Translated by Fr Alexis (Lisenko)
• Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev and Galich, “The Christian Faith and War”
https://www.rocorstudies.org/2016/11/16/the-christian-faith-and-war/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Father for your excellent piece, as usual. I hope it’s not felt as intrusive but this is something I wrote on Tolstoy, which you might find interesting, particularly in relation to his rationality/spirituality:
https://wwwinabstentia-andrewk.blogspot.com/2021/01/tolstoy-and-cynic.html
LikeLike
Not at all! Thank you for sharing.
LikeLike