STEPAN DANIELYAN

Post-Soviet competition between the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) and other churches, while no longer openly aggressive, has intensified due to an increase in different religious groups.1 The Armenian Apostolic Church regularly turns to state authorities appealing for additional restrictions on the activities of rival religious bodies.2 For the purpose of giving the AAC exclusive rights, a number of legislative initiatives have been undertaken, some of which have become law. Others, to date, have failed in the Armenian parliament because of opposition voiced by local civil society and international organizations.3 Due to the active propaganda of the AAC and conservative political circles,4 other religious organizations are accused of “not being national” and “being a sect.” This frequently leads to the marginalization and isolation of those communities.5

The 1991 Religion Law 

The 1991 religion law limits the activities and rights of religious organizations.6 Despite Armenia’s obligation to protect freedom of conscience under the terms of international agreements it has signed, attempts to pass legislation that provides for genuine religious freedom have been blocked by the Armenian Apostolic Church. 

Under the current 1991 law, the AAC enjoys numerous monopolies, including the exclusive right “to preach and disseminate its faith freely throughout the Republic of Armenia,” “to take practical measures which enhance the development of moral standards of the Armenian people,” and “to expand benevolent and charitable activities.”7 At the same time, the 1991 law states that “proselytism” is prohibited within Armenia, although no clear definition exists for the term in the law. The 1991 law’s formulations on the “Definition of a Religious Organization” appear to be taken from medieval theology: “A religious organization is one that is based on historically recognized Holy Scriptures,” “its doctrines form part of international contemporary religious-ecclesiastical communities,” and “it is free from materialism and is intended for purely spiritual goals.” 

Attempts to Revise the 1991 Law

 Three projects have attempted to revise the 1991 law, all of which contain very broad definitions of “proselytism.” The first project was drafted by four parliamentary factions in 2009,8 while the second and third attempts were drafted by the government in 2010 and 2011. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, non-AAC religious organizations, and Armenian civil society have criticized all three projects.9 

Each of these three attempts at revision proved controversial. In particular, the second project attempted to exclude the recognition of religious groups that did not affirm the Trinity. Apparently, the purpose was to prevent the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (Mormons). According to the third project, all religious organizations would be required to register with the state, which would continue to have very broad powers in controlling religious organizations. In addition, registered groups would be obligated to submit detailed reports to the authorities, including personal information on their members. Criminal penalties, administrative fines, and loss of state registration would follow failure to provide the required information.10

Further Threats to Freedom of Conscience 

Amendments to the Armenian Constitution proposed in 2015 and a legislative package proposed in 2017 by Armenia’s Ministry of Justice raise serious concerns regarding freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.11 The proposals in effect merge the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian state, and discriminate against all religious groups other than the AAC. For example, laws dealing with the military, police, rescue, and national security services place religious restrictions on all personnel working in these agencies. They may only be members of the AAC, which contradicts United Nations and European human rights agreements to which Armenia is a signatory. 

The leaders of the above-mentioned agencies take part in AAC religious ceremonies and publicly declare that they are members of the AAC. During the 20th anniversary of the Armed Forces Religious Service [Chaplaincy] celebration in December 2017, Minister of Defense Vigen Sargsyan emphasized that 

The church cannot be separated from either the state or the army. It is in our Constitution, legislation, and most importantly, in the heart of every Armenian. (. . .) This Religious Service was established under Catholicos Garegin I [head of the AAC, 1994-99], and it is getting stronger under Catholicos Garegin II. It is the force which should make our army unique; it is the force that should become an important means of forming a national spirit and a new environment in our armed forces.12 

Clearly, the purpose of the “reform projects” is to provide the AAC with special privileges and monopolies while limiting the functioning of all other religious organizations as much as possible. In June 2017 five Evangelical churches and denominations (“Unity” Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith of Armenia, the Evangelical Church of Yerevan, the “Word of Life” Church, the Union of Churches of Evangelical Faith of Armenia, and the Evangelical-Baptist Church of the Shirak Region) expressed profound concerns about the proposed legislation on religion.13 In June 2017 the Armenian government submitted its draft legislative package on religion for public discussion. After this “discussion,” a state press release claimed there was a consensus on the major issue of separating the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) from [other] religious organizations, thus making it another legal category with a number of exemptions from limitations (such as preaching  at [sic] schools, reporting to [the] state revenue committee, oversight by the state, restriction on foreign financing and state financing, etc.) introduced by the draft law [legislation].14

Many religious communities and NGOs in fact withdrew from the “discussion” because of provisions in the draft that discriminate against non-AAC religious bodies. These include limitations on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the rights of children, restrictions on charitable activity, burdensome reporting to state revenue bodies, and a limitation of one month placed upon public discussion of the draft legislation. Expressing their grave concerns, the Yerevan-based Collaboration for Democracy Center and the Eurasia Partnership Foundation compiled their objections to the draft law and sent them to the Armenian Ministry of Justice.15 

At the same time, the AAC appears incapable of presenting to the public the church’s position on ethical and social issues facing the nation. In 2001 the AAC established a working group to prepare a “social concept” for the Church, which in 2013 was designated “The Office for Church Concepts.” This office’s first executive, Bishop Bagrat Galstanyan, stepped up efforts to draft an AAC “social concept” document. However, as far as the author could ascertain, the office’s activities are currently frozen. 

The Historical Context

The many centuries of threats to Armenia’s survival as a people and the Apostolic Church’s role in preserving Armenia’s existence help to explain—but not justify—Armenia’s present failure to protect the freedom of conscience of non-AAC religious groups. 

Confusion exists concerning proper definitions for the terms “nation” and “ethnos” in the Armenian language. After Armenia lost its statehood in late antiquity, it endured centuries of Islamic rule, in particular at the hands of the Ottoman Empire and Persia, which defined Armenians as part of a “religious community.” In traditional Islamic law such “religious communities” (“millets”) were considered identical to ethnic groups, therefore ethnic and religious identities were the same. Armenians were officially considered “Christian Armenians,” not just Armenians. Another important concept is “selfpreservation.” As far back as the Middle Ages, the Armenian Church considered the primary objective of the public life of Christian Armenians to be the preservation of the nation, which consequently reduced the spiritual development of its adherents to a secondary concern. Even today, according to Armenian Apostolic Church representatives and the content of school textbooks:

• Armenia was the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity at the state level; 
• The objective of the Armenian Church is “the preservation of the Armenian nation;” 
• The primary mission of the nation is the preservation of its existence;
•  The Armenian Apostolic Church is the national church;
• Anyone who is not part of the Armenian Apostolic Church cannot be Armenian; and 
• The Armenian state and its people owe the preservation of the Armenian nation through the ages to the Armenian Apostolic Church.16

Official Statistics on Religious Adherents 

Today the true religious landscape in Armenia is in fact far from such homogeneity. As of 2017, 65 religious organizations were officially registered in Armenia, the list of which can be found on the website of the Armenian government.17 According to the Armenian Constitution and the country’s international obligations, registration should not be compulsory in order to conduct religious activities. At present numerous religious organizations and communities operate legally in Armenia without being officially registered, precluding an accurate accounting of their numbers.

 The Armenian census of 201118 recorded 2,796,519 adherents of the AAC; 29,280 Evangelical Christians; 25,204 followers of the Sharfadin faith practiced by the Yazidi minority; 13,843 Catholics; 8,695 Jehovah’s Witnesses; 7,532 Orthodox Christians [the AAC is not in communion with Russian and other Eastern Orthodox due to fifth-century disagreement over the nature of Christ]; 5,434 pagans; 2,872 Molokans; and 7,888 “others.” Those who did not identify themselves as followers of any faith numbered 34,373 people, while 87,214 either did not state a religious belief or refused to answer.19 

It should be noted, however, that a certain distrust exists among the population toward the census process, compromising the credibility of census data in the minds of a considerable part of the public. As the 2011 census did not require citizens to answer questions regarding religious affiliation, this author believes many non-AAC Armenians avoided giving an answer to such a politically sensitive question. The census taker who visited the author’s family did not carry out any survey of religious beliefs or affiliation.

Unofficial Estimates of Religious Adherents

The following alternative figures for religious affiliation are based on the author’s personal estimates and meetings with representatives of various religious organizations. Despite the fact that 96 percent of the Armenian people identify themselves with the Armenian Apostolic Church according to census data, this figure is highly questionable since the population is very secular. Church attendance appears low, even though the AAC has a strong focus on liturgical performance. Another difficulty with Armenian Apostolic totals is that atheists and agnostics often identify themselves as followers of the AAC because they conflate religious and ethnic affiliations. 

Followers of the Armenian Catholic Church, which follows the same worship rite as the AAC but acknowledges papal primacy, are estimated to number approximately 120,000. It is worth mentioning that these believers are Catholic primarily in regard to their background. Their affiliation with the Catholic Church is often displayed symbolically, and, if they move to nonCatholic neighborhoods, they most frequently regard themselves as followers of the AAC. Regular attendance in this church is approximately 20 to 25 thousand.20

Actual Protestant church membership is an estimated 100 to 150 thousand, with believers frequently moving from one Protestant community to another. One of the oldest Protestant churches in Armenia, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, once had two to three thousand members. Today, however, its membership is reduced to about 300, mainly because of emigration and a lack of emphasis upon missionary activity. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses, according to the 2011 census, number 8,695. Armenian Witnesses themselves report nearly 10,000 adherents, while the Brooklyn, New York, international headquarters places its Armenian membership at nearly 25,000.21 Similarly, while the 2011 census documented 773 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the church itself reported a figure to the government in 2013 of approximately 3,200. The large disparities between state census and non-governmental figures for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons raise further doubts as to the reliability of official census data. The remaining smaller religious groups together have a membership of approximately three to five thousand. 

Ethnic minorities should also be taken into consideration, as they also represent religious communities. The census data for 2011 registered 35,308 Yazidis, 11,911 Russians, 2,769 Assyrians, 2,162 Kurds, 1,176 Ukrainians, 900 Greeks, and 617 Georgians. Armenia is also temporarily home to thousands of citizens of Iran and other countries in the Middle East whose presence should further be taken into account to give a clear picture of the country’s religious mosaic. This lack of exact and credible statistical data is not the only factor posing difficulties in presenting an accurate religious picture for Armenia; the extremely high level of emigration also alters the statistical picture almost daily. 

The Status of Protestant Churches 

As noted, the AAC believes it has historic rights to perform an exclusive role in the religious life of the Armenian people. It also believes that all other churches that function in Armenia should be regarded as “sects.” Bishop Mikayel Ajapahyan, who heads the Shirak Diocese, defends AAC’s privileged status as follows: 

We see our identity, our ethnic self-consciousness in the Armenian Apostolic Church. So if we split into 50 different parts, we will become 50 different nations. That is blatantly clear. And in this case others will reap the benefits, not us. That is why they wish to tear our homogeneous country apart. That is why they want to tear our homogeneous spiritual territory into pieces (. . .). The Armenian people is the field of the Armenian Apostolic Church’s activity. Our Church belongs to our people, and our people belong to our Church. Any infringement of our centuries-old rights and duties goes beyond any kind of moral law. It is a breach of morality to consider our nation as a field for missionary activity and proselytism. Our nation has a leader, a mother, a parent (. . .). We don’t want even one fragment to break off and join something else. The Armenian Apostolic Church is the foundation of our unity. Churches that do not have such a sense of ethnic belonging can never understand our stance or mentality.22

Bishop Ajapahyan’s words clearly represent the AAC’s attitude towards other religious organizations. As a result, relations between the Armenian and Evangelical churches have always been and still are very tense. However, these tense relations relate to the domestic context and do not apply to relations between the AAC and non-Armenian Evangelical churches outside Armenia. With the latter, the AAC generally has good neighborly relations. Yet historically, the AAC has always tried to hinder the charitable activities of Evangelical churches in Armenia, including Evangelical summer camps for children, seeing them as attempts at proselytizing. But unlike the period 1991-95, when the AAC and Evangelicals displayed their mutual hostility in public, today the AAC does not go beyond attempts at hindering Evangelical charitable programs, and occasionally the AAC and Armenian Evangelicals actually engage in dialogue. 

Recommended Reforms

How could the dominant Armenian Apostolic Church improve the religious freedom climate in Armenia, as well as its own standing in society? From the author’s perspective, the AAC would do well to take the following steps:

• Disavow its obsolete teaching that the nation and the church are synonymous, interchangeable entities;
• Develop its social concept, clearly expressing its support for social justice, property rights for all religious groups, and legislative protection for the rights of families and single mothers;
•  Commit itself to financial transparency by making available detailed church budget reports, records of annual expenditures, and an accounting of Church property, possessions, managed structures, bank accounts, and donations, in order to restore public confidence in the church. (Some AAC church hierarchs have been reported in the press as leading a luxurious life shameful for monastics.)
• Declare its support for the right to religious freedom for all Armenian citizens, in accordance with the Armenian Constitution and international human rights accords to which Armenia is a party; and
• Initiate a dialogue with non-AAC religious communities locally to establish an atmosphere of domestic solidarity and mutual support. 

Notes:

1. “Freedom of Religion in Armenia” (Yerevan: Helsinki Committee of Armenia, 2010), 188-91.

2. Ditord #1 (70): Human Rights in Armenia Report (2015), 22; http://armhels.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Ditord-2016- 01English.pdf.

3. See the Opinions of the Venice Commission (Council of Europe) on draft amendments to the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations as of 17 June 1991; http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?opinion=643&year=all, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?opinion=603&year=all, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(2009)066-e.

4. Stepan Danielyan, Vladimir Vardanyan, and Artur Avtandilyan “Religious Tolerance in Armenia,” Collaboration for Democracy Center (CFDC) with the assistance of the Yerevan office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 31-37; http://www.osce.org/yerevan/74894?download=true.

5. Interview (in Armenian) with Rhema Church Senior Pastor Karen Khachatryan, 8 June 2017; http://religions.am/interview/; Stepan Danielyan, “Coverage of Religious Issues in the Armenian Media 2010,” 12 April 2011; http://www.v1.religions.am/eng/articles/coverage-of-religious-issues-in-the-armenian-media-2010/. 

6. Danielyan et al., “Religious Tolerance,” 40-45.

7. “The Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations,” 1991; http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=2041&lang=eng.

8.  Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), Prosperous Armenia Party, Rule of Law Party (RLP), and Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF).

9.  Opinions of the Venice Commission.

10.  In three legislative drafts the term “soul hunting” was translated from Armenian into English as “proselytism.” It is probable that this was why the Venice Commission referred to only the definitions of the term and did not pay attention to the fact that such a term was used in the legal document.

11. Stepan Danielyan, “The Constitutional Amendments and the Freedom of Religion or Belief,” 28 June 2016; http://religions.am/en/article/the-constitutional-amendments-and-the-freedom-of-religion-or-belief/.

12. “Armed Forces Religious Service marks 20th anniversary,” 9 December 2017; http://www.mil.am/en/news/5058.

13.  “Remarks and Recommendations of the Commonwealth of Churches of Evangelical Family of Armenia,” 5 July 2017; http://religions.am/en/article/the-remarks-and-recommendations-of-the-commonwealth-of-churches-of-evangelical-family-of-armenia/.

14.  “Public Discussion on the Draft Law on Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, and Religious Organizations,”16 June 2017; http://www.epfarmenia.am/public-discussion-on-the-draft-law-on-freedom-of-thought-conscience-and-religion-and-religious-organizations-june-2017/.

15.  “Opinion on the Draft Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations of the Republic of Armenia,” 17 July 2017; http://religions.am/en/article/opinion-on-the-draft-law-on-the-freedom-of-conscience-and-on-religious-organisations-of-the-republic-of-armenia/.

16. Stepan Danielyan, Ara Ghazaryan, Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, and Arthur Avtandilyan, “Issues of Religious Education at Public Schools of the Republic of Armenia,” 12 June 2013; http://religions.am/en/article/issues-of-religious-education-at-public-schools-of-the-republic-of-armenia/; Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, “Introduction to Teaching Specifics of the Subject ‘Armenian Church History’ in the Public Schools of Armenia,” 3 October 2016; http://religions.am/en/article/eng-introduction-to-teaching-specifics-of-armenian-church-history-subject-at-public-schools-of-armenia/; Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, “Teachers of the Subject of ‘Armenian Church History’ in the Public Schools of Armenia,” 22 August 2016; http://religions.am/en/article/teachers-of-armenian-church-history-subject-at-public-schools-of-armenia/.

17.  (In Armenian); http://www.gov.am/u_files/file/kron/Kron%20 cank/Tsutsak2-%20herakhos%20gov_am2017.pdf.

18. “The Results of 2011 Population Census of the Republic of Armenia (Indicators of the Republic of Armenia);” http://www. armstat.am/file/doc/99486108.pdf. 

19. “Population (urban, rural) by Ethnicity, Sex and Religious Belief;” http://www.armstat.am/file/doc/99486278.pdf.

20.  Representatives of the Catholic Church provided this estimate to the author during private discussion.

21. A representative of the Jehovah’s Witnesses provided this figure in 2011 at the plenary session of the “Human Dimension Implementation Meeting” of OSCE ODIHR. 22 Danielyan et al., “Religious Tolerance,” 34.

Stepan Danielyan is founding editor of the web portal www.religions.am and chair of the Collaboration for Democracy Center, Yerevan.