Tale of the Anti-Christ by Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The Coming Man

All doctrinal religions have the same problem: the Eternal Word of God is indistinguishable from the rather more transient words of Man. Put another, more practical way: if morality is divinely directed, we are all in deep trouble because when morality is derived from doctrine, the devil may well be speaking. If morality isn’t applied to the voices of revelation instead of vice versa, evil appears as good. Morality subservient to revelation provides the opening for The Coming Man, that slick talking, best-selling, inspirational huckster with a self-proclaimed direct link to heaven.

Mystics like Solovyev know this as a fundamental if unspoken principle. They mistrust language, and the responses that language elicits. They understand that language is defective, that it cannot represent reality much less divinity. Whenever language is used to claim ‘truth,’ it is always used falsely. The Coming Man may make a plausible argument; he may touch hearts; he may unify constituencies. But he can only do this through the abuse of language as something more than it is.

The message of the mystic is always simple and simply behavioural: be kind. But even this primitive message is trapped by language. Those who are unkind point out that we don’t know what kindness means in specific circumstances, that we must define and codify its essentials and apply these intelligently to the problems at hand. So as soon as the mystic’s message is discussed rather than acted upon, it is lost. The Coming Man can dispose of him with a glance.

When morality is subject to divine revelation, it quickly degenerates into economics. The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith is a presumption not a conclusion. As Max Weber suggested, it is not accidental that capitalism arose out of Protestant Christianity. If God is beneficent, his will should not be anticipated or impeded by commercial restraints. Each individual has an absolute duty to listen to the voice in his head. God will ensure, as Leibniz theorised, that the voices are coordinated. The result is not just the greatest good for the greatest number; it is the Good tout court. This is what The Coming Man preaches so effectively.

Many read Solovyev’s story as a prediction of forthcoming events in the 20th century, and marvel at his prescience. This is misdirected, if not downright silly. The fact that he is wrong as a seer as often as he is right is conveniently ignored. Like all mystics, he read his times not the future. And he read his times in terms of what he knew of the past. And what he knew of the past was the co-optation of primitive Christianity by the decaying Roman State. His is a tale of what could have been not what would be. What could have been was a Christian religious community not only independent of the state, but even more importantly independent of divisive doctrine.

The Coming Man is an avatar of Constantine the Great (although he could well be confused with Trump). It is he who calls together a Council of the various Christian sects at Jerusalem in Solovyev’s tale. And it is he who decides upon the language by which they will all be unified under his leadership - just as Constantine had done in the 5th century. With his direction doctrinal conformity triumphs over ethical solidarity. What matters is not kindness as expressed in the Beatitudes, but correctness of religious confession in the manner of St. Paul.*

The rebellion against the The Coming Man for Sol0vyev comes not from Christians, who laud his linguistic achievement in uniting their sects, but from the Jews, who recognise his bad behaviour (among other things The Coming Man is uncircumcised). Judaism, of course, is an ethical religion of behaviour not of doctrinal faith. It is a religion in which ethical and spiritual concepts emerged together. It is also a religion whose mythical heroes are mystics not theologians. One such mystic, Job, makes it clear that Judaism stands firmly against The Coming Man, even if he claims to be divine. Job argues with God; he doesn’t passively accept what he has to say. Neither does Solovyev.

* Interestingly, even the confession of the ‘name of Jesus’ results in supernatural action to strike down the confessors. Although they are later found to be alive, Solovyev is ambiguous about the spiritual worth of even this linguistic expression.

View all my reviews