Leo Tolstoy and Holy Patriarch Tikhon were contemporaries. There was much heretical in Tolstoy’s views, and here St. Tikhon thoroughly addresses one of these heresies—the claim that true Christian marriage precludes physical relations.
Regarding Count Leo Tolstoy’s False Views
In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry (1 Tim. 4:1–3)
St. Tikhon (Belavin) In his recent works (The Kreutzer Sonata, Postscript to It; and Julius and Pamphilus), Count Leo Tolstoy permits only such a marriage in which the husband relates to his wife solely as to a sister. According to him, this constitutes genuine Christian marriage. “As for the church teachings that unlawfully call themselves Christian, they have lost the true ideal of chastity given by Christ, and instead have attempted to establish a marriage in which carnal love is also recognized as lawful; but this is merely a church marriage, not a Christian one; a Christian marriage understood in this sense cannot exist, for it is contrary to the teaching of Christ” (Leo Tolstoy).
The present article aims to demonstrate that the Holy Church’s teaching on marriage is immeasurably higher than Count Tolstoy’s, proving that the Church’s perspective—not Tolstoy’s—is the true Christian view.
The All-bountiful God generously endowed the first man with the gifts of His goodness. Adam possessed a mind that was pure, bright, sound, free from prejudice and error, and capable of comprehending things with the greatest ease; morally, he was pure and innocent: his will was uncorrupted, and his heart was untainted by sin. The body of the first man was clothed in strength, possessed fresh, unimpaired vigor, bore not the slightest disorder, and was a stranger to all disease and suffering. He lived in Paradise, or, in the words of St. John Damascene, “in body he resided in a blissful and beautiful land, while in soul he dwelled in an incomparably higher and more glorious place, where he enjoyed the sweetest contemplation of God.”
However, despite such bliss, Adam was lacking something: And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him (Gen. 2:18). Without this helpmeet, even the very bliss of Paradise was incomplete: endowed with the capacity to think, speak, and love, the first man sought another thinking being with his thought; his speech resonated mournfully in the air, with only a dead echo serving as his answer; his heart, full of love, sought another heart, close and equal to his own; his whole being yearned for another being like himself; but no such being existed. The creatures of the visible world surrounding him stood far below him and therefore could not be his helpers, while The Supreme Being, the invisible One Who had granted him life, was immeasurably above him. Then the All-Good God, caring for the bliss of man, satisfied his need and created a helpmeet fit for him—a wife. He created her from Adam’s rib so that, through such unity of nature, they might cleave more strongly to one another, feel their mutual love more deeply, and live an inseparable life, constituting, as it were, one person and one flesh (cf. Gen. 2:24).
Thus, the first purpose of marriage is the mutual assistance of the spouses in journeying through life. This is the moral and spiritual side of marriage. Yet, it also possesses a physical aspect, just as man himself is a spiritual-sensory being. It also has another purpose—the procreation of the human race. The Church teaches, in accordance with the Word of God, that “God, being good and most gracious, created the world so that other beings, by glorifying Him, might partake in His goodness.” Desiring that as many creatures as possible might enjoy this bliss, God blesses them to multiply. He bestowed the very same blessing on the first humans: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen. 1:28).
Such was the purpose of marriage before the Fall; yet, even after the Fall, its meaning and significance remained the same.
Even before the Fall, marriage had as its purpose the mutual assistance of the spouses. After the Fall, man’s need for a helper grew all the greater: if he required one in the land of bliss, how much more did he need one in this vale of tears and sorrow? It is the wife who serves as such a helper for her husband. Living predominantly through her heart, the woman, with the traits inherent to her heart—tender love, submissive devotion, meekness, compassion, and long-suffering—is the finest companion, friend, comforter and helper to the man, who is uniquely characterized by intellect, firmness, courage, and strength of character. The husband draws replenishment for his own strength from the gifts of female nature; in his wife he finds support and aid.
“A sovereign who has been insulted in his rights and vexed by resistance to his will, or by human vices, and breathing anger and vengeance, grows calm and finds peace at home; having reconciled himself to human weaknesses, he returns to his people with clemency and mercy. Here, the honest toiler, exhausted from struggling against obstacles, receives encouragement and steps forth to his endeavors with renewed courage and strength. There, the unfortunate man, driven to despair by failures, finds solace in the love of his devoted wife, and heartened by that faith in Providence which uniquely dwells in the woman’s heart, returns to his affairs with hope for a better future. There is no social standing so offensive, no labor so arduous, no lot so bitter, to which a loving and virtuous wife could not reconcile her husband.”1 Such is a husband’s need for a wife, and so vital is the significance of marriage as a moral union!
Leo Tolstoy Count Tolstoy accepts marriage as a moral union between a man and a woman, but he fails to understand it in all its depth and fullness. In Christianity, marriage is not only a moral bond, but also a grace-filled union and a sacrament; This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32). The union of the husband and the wife in Christianity is an image of the mysterious, grace-filled union of Christ and the Church. Tolstoy, however, refuses to recognize marriage as a sacrament. In his view, the “old foundation” (that is, the belief in marriage as a sacrament) “has worn out and a new one must be found.” In any case, “whether you believe or do not believe in the Sacrament is unimportant.” On the contrary, we think and maintain that believing in marriage as a sacrament is very important and that there is no need to replace this old foundation, since all salvation from debauchery lies in adhering to the Christian ideal of marriage as a sacrament—and abandoning this ideal leads to debauchery and crimes, as Tolstoy himself showed in The Kreutzer Sonata.
It is often said that the bonds of marriage are a heavy burden; indeed, the duties of spouses are profound and demanding. We are not even speaking of the fact that spouses must live in each other and for one another, serve as a source of mutual help and support, share joys and sorrows, and never part until death. Yet, no matter how strong the love between spouses may be, as human beings, they cannot avoid causing each other some trouble and distress. To heal these wounds, they must absolutely possess patience and forbearance; otherwise, mutual grievances can quickly take root, which at first only cool their love, and later completely wither it away. The golden rule of married life is to endure and forbear. Of all qualities, a good disposition is the most useful and productive in family life. When combined with self-control, it breeds the patience to endure without complaint, to listen without replying or getting irritated, and to wait out an angry outburst meekly.
Such patience is absolutely essential for both the husband and the wife.
Physically, the woman is characterized by greater tenderness, weakness, and fragility, while morally, she is defined by meekness, modesty, and sensitivity. In accordance with these typical qualities, Christianity refers to her as the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7).
Because a wife is a weaker being than her husband, the latter must treat her with utmost care and patience. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word (Eph. 5:25–26). Once, humanity was impure, depraved, and unsightly; yet Christ did not turn away from its uncomeliness. Instead, He remade and restored it, redeeming its sins; He not only washed away its impurity but shaped the Holy Church from it. He did not achieve this through violence, condemnation, or threats, but through profound care and self-sacrificing love for mankind. He extended His care for their purity, holiness, and blamelessness to the point of sacrificing His very life.
Such is the ideal of Christian relations between the husband and the wife. Having loved her sincerely, with all his heart, he does everything for her benefit; there cannot be even a shadow of violence or humiliation in his relations with her. A wife is weaker than her husband, but for him, her weakness serves as a greater incentive to help, support, and protect her—treating her with greater love, meekness, patience, and lenience toward shortcomings such as frivolity, extravagance, and vanity.
A wife needs no less patience. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing (Eph. 5:22–24). For such submission is unthinkable without patience. A wife often has to endure the self-will, rudeness, whims, and bad desires of her husband. Through her prudence and tenderness, she must patiently and subtly re-educate her husband without his noticing, taming his passions and impulses, and guiding him toward all that is good and holy. Sometimes a wife is abandoned by her husband, becoming a living widow; after just a few days of joy, her life is poisoned by coldness. She is like a delicate flower torn from its soil supposedly to be transplanted into better earth; but in reality, she is cast onto the road under the burning rays of the sun! The happiness of being loved has been taken from her, but she still retains the right to love, and she exercises it. She follows in the footsteps of Christ, Who was likewise unrecognized and to Whom people were equally cold and unjust. She continues to be a helper to the one who ruthlessly insults her; She drinks without complaint the cup offered to her every day by her husband’s cruel hand. For his ingratitude, she repays him with double love, deeper devotion, and greater sacrifices. She remains silent and humbles herself in the hope that her husband’s heart will eventually be returned to her, conquered by her love. For how do you know, perhaps she will save her husband (cf. 1 Cor. 7:16)? But suppose he remains unjust to the very end; yet the wife endures to the end, holding the image of the crucified Christ in her heart; through her patience, she attains salvation (cf. Lk. 21:19).
Here is a faint image of lofty and difficult duties. The matrimonial union is an image of the union between Christ and the Church. But is this ideal achievable by the natural, corrupted powers of man alone? Are the high demands placed on married individuals fulfillable? If without God’s help we cannot do full and true good (cf. Jn. 15:5), if all our sufficiency is from God (cf. 2 Cor. 3:5), and if God works good actions in us (cf. Phil. 2:13), do spouses not then need the grace of God to fulfill their lofty duties in holiness?
The need for this Divine help had been seen earlier by Count Tolstoy himself: Levin, one of the characters of his novel Anna Karenina, said, “What can I do in this terrible business of marriage without help? It is precisely help that I need now.” And to Christian spouses, such help is granted. Christian marriage is not only a moral union, but also a union of grace—a mystery, a sacrament in which the grace of God is bestowed, sanctifying and elevating the marital union in the image of the union between Christ and the Church, and assisting the spouses in fulfilling their high duties. This is why a Christian cannot be satisfied with a civil marriage alone, without a church wedding; for although it may be a moral union, it remains without the highest Christian sanctification. This is because God bestows His grace only on a marriage blessed by the Church, this treasury of grace. As for civil marriage, it does not base the foundation and defense of married life on religious and moral principles or the spiritual, grace-filled power of God, but merely on legal obligations and external force, with which spouses will not go far on the path of moral perfection.
The other aspect of marriage is physical. Count Tolstoy attacks it with utter ruthlessness; he recognizes only the moral side of matrimony as a unity of ideals, deeds, and spiritual affinity, whereas carnal love should have no place in it. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Mt. 5:28)—according to Tolstoy, these words of the Savior apply not just to some other unrelated woman, but primarily to one’s own wife. A chaste, authentic marriage is supposedly one in which the husband looks on his wife solely as a sister. Through this, passions will fall silent—including the strongest and most wicked among them, carnal love—and as a result, the isolation of humanity will ensue, through which people will fulfill the law given to them to attain the good. However, this will ultimately bring the human race to an end, since it cannot continue without natural birth. But the point is that it has no reason to continue. Why live? After all, the Schopenhauers, the Hartmanns, and all the Buddhists assert that the ultimate good lies in not living. To this, Tolstoy also appends Christian Church teachings that preach the end of the world and of mankind.
It is true according to Christian teaching that the world will end and the procreation of the human race will cease, but when and where will this be? Christ the Savior once said to His disciples, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power (Acts 1:7). Therefore, it depends on the will of the Lord, and not on our own will, to establish the Kingdom where they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven (Mt. 22:30). This will take place on a new, renewed earth. Under the conditions of our present earthly existence, where people remain human and are not like the angels of God, procreation will continue, and marriage, in its physical aspect, will serve as a means for this. Not only did God bless the first humans to multiply before the Fall, but even after the Flood, when the human race had long been in a fallen state, He repeated His blessing to Noah’s sons, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen. 9:1).
And this is because, from the Biblical perspective, although man introduced corruption into nature and life through sin, neither possesses absolute evil, as pessimists—and Tolstoy after them—claim. The Christian view of life is foreign to the extremes of optimism and pessimism; it successfully combines the core elements of both.
The world was created beautiful, and harmony reigned in it, but through sin, evil entered. It became a world of sin, death, and corruption. Yet, it remains God’s world, in which destructive forces find constant opposition from a creative and sustaining power, and in which—even apart from redemption—God’s goodness and mercy are revealed in countless ways. It is, of course, deprived of the supreme good and, in this respect, represents a realm of imperfection and deficiency; nevertheless, it contains many relative goods, relative virtues, and moments of happiness—genuine treasures which, albeit by no means absolute, are not devoid of a certain value. Therefore, although life contains a great deal of suffering and calamity, these cannot destroy its entire worth or make existence worse than non-existence.
Life is not one continuous evil: an unbiased mind and an unclouded moral sense will always approve of those rationally moral manifestations of life that fulfill the inner demands of goodness. Life holds many joys and bright aspects that balance, and even outweigh, suffering. In any case, suffering and displeasure do not make life worse or inferior to non-existence. A living person experiences suffering, but also experiences joys and pleasures that make him forget his misfortunes, whereas the concepts of pleasant and unpleasant are absolutely inapplicable to non-existence. By ceasing to exist as feeling and conscious individuals, we would admittedly gain absolute liberation from all displeasure and suffering. However, we would also deprive ourselves of all joys and pleasures. Will there be any gain in the end? None at all.
Generally speaking, a pessimistic attitude in the sense of a complete aversion to any form of life is neither a normal nor a universal feeling: By nature, all living things love life and recoil from death. Good is found in life, certainly not in self-destruction. This is why even the Old Testament writer, who depicted the utter vanity of this present life, said: Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which He hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labor which thou takest under the sun (Eccl. 9:7–9).
And with the coming of Christ to earth, there came even greater reason for a bright outlook on life. The life and Passion of Christ provide the path and the means to restore the broken harmony, opening the gates of Paradise to us once again. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Pet. 1:3); In Him was life; and the life was the light of men (Jn. 1:4); in Him, we have gained more than we lost in Adam. Therefore, Christianity is not a tomb for the human race, nor is it a desolate and lifeless wilderness; on the contrary, it imparts a new life to its adherents. Thus, if life is not an evil, then bringing new beings into existence—or procreation of the human race through marriage by means of childbirth—contains nothing bad or sinful in itself. This increases the number of beings who glorify God, for which very glorification people are called from non-existence into being. Therefore, the physical aspect of marriage is legitimate, and whoever denies it, recognizing marriage solely as a spiritual and emotional bond, according to the Apostle Paul, gives heed to seducing spirits (1 Tim. 4:1).
Yet the same apostle, while permitting physical intimacy between Christian spouses, commands that their marriage be honorable and the bed undefiled (cf. Heb. 13:4). And the Holy Church requires of spouses not only the fulfillment of their vow of marital fidelity, but also chastity—that is, that in their relations with one another they strive to restrain their sensual desires and know how to possess their vessel in sanctification and honor; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God (1 Thess. 4:4–5).
In Christian marriage, natural attraction is placed under the dominion of the spirit, and its intimate aspect—although not displaced or annihilated by the moral side, as Tolstoy falsely believes—is nevertheless subordinate to the latter. In marriage, as in any other relationship, the task set before you is not to deny your nature, but to direct it to the service of the spirit, which is enlightened and sanctified by the grace of God. Marriage, on the one hand, touches on physical nature; but, on the other hand, that which is physical in it must be the threshold of a higher principle. According to the Apostle Paul, the wife is saved through childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15); however, not through childbearing alone, but if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (ibid). That is, it is not childbearing itself that serves for the salvation of the wife, but abiding in faith and love, in which she raises her children. The wife is saved through the birth of children and faith.
Thus, in Christian marriage, the physical aspect (carnal love) is viewed primarily as a means to achieve one of marriage’s main purposes: the bearing and raising of children. Where this means is turned into an end in itself, where the moral principle does not govern, and where the physical aspect is not only insubordinate to the spiritual but overrides and consumes it, the Church forcefully condemns such a state as one that degrades and insults the very concept of marriage. Therefore, it is not only Tolstoy, but also the Church, that condemns a honeymoon spent by young spouses in the unrestrained indulgence of their lust. Not only Tolstoy, but any true Christian would never condone a marital lifestyle where, for the sake of pleasure, the husband continues physical relations with his wife despite her pregnancy, or the wife destroys the fetus. In such a course of events, marriage loses all moral significance and reduces to a purely sexual union; The sensual aspect comes to the forefront—a position it has no right to hold—and the woman is viewed merely as an instrument for pleasure.
Although people today frequently turn to divorce to indulge in “free love,” the Church maintains a strict approach to the issue—though a more prudent one than Tolstoy’s. Divorce is permissible only in the case of adultery, when the marriage has already been violated in its very essence. The guilty party thereby demonstrates that he views marriage merely as a means to satisfy sensuality, and therefore seeks new pleasures outside of the former union. In all other cases, marriage cannot be dissolved: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mt. 19:6). A spouse’s lack of physical appeal, incompatibility of characters, mutual dislike—all of this must be sacrificed for a higher moral purpose. All clashes and misunderstandings must yield to the power of moral love; dissatisfaction rooted in surface-level dislikes must fall silent before true moral attachment; discord shows only a lack of love. It should prompt spouses to strive for a spirit of love.
Here is the Holy Church’s lofty view on marriage—a view undoubtedly rising above Tolstoy’s perspective. As in other cases (for example, regarding the question of “What must we do?”), this time too, the primary strength of Tolstoy’s teaching lies in its negative side: critique of our life and pointing out the debauchery that has penetrated the family. Here he exhibits a good deal truth from bitter life. But when it comes to the positive aspect, Tolstoy proposes something unattainable and unfeasible. Between his theory and reality, there lies a whole gap, which is further widened by the fact that Tolstoy has in mind the pure spiritual nature of man.
Perhaps many among us look on marriage solely as a means for satisfying sensual desires. However, as shown above, both Christian morality and the Church—its interpreter—directly and resolutely condemn such views, yet they do not sacrifice marriage itself because of them, nor do they arrive at the absurd conclusions to which Tolstoy came. Historical, ecclesiastical Christianity—as held by the Church—differs from and surpasses all dreamy, utopian theories (including Tolstoy’s theory) precisely because it clearly distinguishes between the ideal and reality; while pointing human aspirations toward the ultimate goal in the ideal, it never loses sight of the actual reality. And in this very reality, under the conditions of man’s present earthly existence, the full realization of the ideally chaste marriage suggested by Tolstoy—a marriage in which the husband would relate to his wife only as to a sister—is simply impossible.
In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry (1 Tim. 4:1–3). For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets... Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, He is in the desert; go not forth: behold, He is in the secret chambers; believe it not (Mt. 24:24,26).
Here also is Count Tolstoy, who in denying church marriage, now calls us into a wilderness of “grass widowhood” and passes his view off as truly Christian—as if Christianity, with its Gospel tidings, belonged entirely to a deserted and lifeless void. But we have our own guides whom we follow, for they, and not Tolstoy, point the way, the truth, and the life (Jn. 14:6). True, they teach that It is good for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor. 7:1) and that he that giveth her [his virgin daughter] not in marriage doeth better (1 Cor. 7:38). However, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given (Mt. 19:11); every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that (1 Cor. 7:7). Accordingly, to those who are able to contain it, Christianity offers the podvig of complete chastity; and to those to whom it is not given to contain it, it offers a lesser podvig—marriage—but a Christian podvig nonetheless. Therefore, according to the Apostle Paul, he that giveth her [his virgin daughter] in marriage doeth well—that is, morally, in a Christian manner. And if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned (1 Cor. 7:38,28). To be sure, true virginity is higher than marriage; but does it follow, says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, that because we have gold, we should strip silver of its value? Far be it from us!
