The noise around registration of the "Jehovah Witnesses:" religious
organization may cause the society or, at least, its capable to think part,
which continuously becomes a decreasing minority, to consider this issue from
the main standpoints.

Questions can be formulated in the following way:

-Which clauses of the church ideology justify the concept of the Armenian
Apostolic Church as a national religion?

- What is the mission of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the Republic of
Armenia?

- How the Jehovah Witnesses or other "anti-national sects" "destroy" the
national portrayal, and in general, what can be considered as a national
description of Armenians?

- Is the concept "Armenian" a religious, genetic or political category, and how
it relates to the concept of "citizen of the Republic of Armenia"?

Answers to these questions are associated not only with the church but with our
self-identification, in general: our vision of the world, perception of the
world, and, consequently, what we see as our future.

Our historiography links up adoption of Christianity with political reasons.
Today the Church considers itself as a "national" structure. It engages in
"preservation of Armenians" and avoids explanation of its positions from the
religious standpoints. Therefore, the role and tasks of the church should
be looked for in the field of politics.

The Emperor’s questionnaire, about which historians do not talk much

At the decree of Napoleon Bonaparte, in the beginning of the 19th century, an
assembly of Jews was held and a questionnaire was disseminated among them.
No long discussions were planned. The questionnaire was around a point whether
the French Jews perceive themselves as French of Judaic religion (after the
French revolution, all citizens regardless their ethnic or religious originality
were considered as the French) or as a separate nation (i.e. not French).
Do they lend money for interest only to non-Jews or to Jews also? The main
reason of this action was that the Emperor wanted to clarify whether the Jews of
the country are ready to become representatives of the contemporary, modern
nation, and dutiful citizens of France. The French Jews comprehended that
the time of ghetto (closed and self-sufficient communities of religious Jews)
has ended, and emancipation (collapse of ghettos and start of public
participation) began penetration in their communities, and they would not
granted for any longer to live a double standard life and, at the same time,
enjoy universal political rights. The Jews were entrapped and had to
respond to the Emperor. The answer was consistent with the spirit of that
time, and, definitely, the communities did not support it unequivocally.
As a result, a significant part of the Western Jews (shepherds) took the path of
diffusion. The Eastern Jews (Ashkenazi- mainly the Russian Jews) underwent
emancipation much later: in the end of the 19th century Russian ghettos
became to dissolve too. The danger of diffusion hanged over the
Eastern Jews as well.

It was not occasional that at that time the Jews started active discussions on
the idea of creation of Jewish statehood, which would save the Jews from the
danger of diffusion. The major opponents of the of building the Jewish
statehood (even now there are some religious organizations, which do not accept
the state of Israel and demonstratively do not respect its state symbols) were
the Jewish religious fundamentalists. They did not wish to change their
old ideas, to accept challenges of profess of civilization and to give up their
role of governors and leaders.

Emancipation of Armenians

Ghettos were a result of free choice of the European Jews, but for the
Eastern Christians this style of life was compulsory. In the beginning of
the 19th century, Armenians lived in religious communities, and political
thought, diplomacy, culture and education was represented by the religion
officials. These responsibilities were handed over them by Islamic
community leaders, for whom a nation, according to Islam, is defined by the
religion. Khans and Sultans of the Ottoman Turkey, Iran and other Muslim
states provided the status of a "Christian Armenian" (millet), governed by the
church leaders. The formula "Armenian Christian" fully corresponds to Islamic
notion of "the nation". The mission of
"protection of the nation" was to the advantage of the Armenian church leaders.

However, the values of the European civilization, new order of the world,
enlightenment and humanism put some obligation on the people and tyrants of the
East. The clergymen were another cast of bureaucrats, and they felt that
current civilization would force them out of the scene, and remove their
privileges. In the East, a national movement has started, and it was also
a process of secularization of society. At the beginning it was a cultural
movement, headed against the clergy, and later it became a nationalistic
liberation movement. Naturally, "modern" social and political international
ideologies have also influenced the ideology of the national liberation
movements The church represented the old order, old world, old vision of
"Armenians", old political perception of the "nation", old moral principles and
old "portrayal" of the nation. Concepts "nation" and "faith", formed
during the last centuries, were the ideals, which the Armenian church,
intentionally or unintentionally, wanted to revitalize. This perception of
the world was leading to the point that Armenians should just "survive", and
people, who were marching in step with the time and self-improvement and chose
the path of development, found themselves out of the community. The human
potential of the nation, which had to move from the "preserved values" and melt
in the modern society, thus leaved their motherland to passive, rigidly
"preserved" masses. As a result, the societal development became a monopoly of
clergies. Every generation repeated this path of self- sublimation.
The time went against the church, although emancipation of Armenians occurred in
the tragic times and atmosphere.

Defeat of the Western Armenian

The Ottoman Turkey was under pressure of the West in the 19th century. It
was regularly forced to keep the path of reforms and de-secularization. As a
result, the Ottoman Empire should ruin and revitalize as civil modern national
state. Mustaffa Kemal completed the process. This was requirement of the
civilization and the new world order. Nations, viable and with necessary
human and cultural potential and favorable geo-political conditions, obtained
independence. Armenians living in Turkey had to make a choice to
become Turks (Armenians by origin, Christians by religion and citizens of
Turkey), or rebel and, as Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians, try to create their own
state. The time of religious communities’ rule ended and this was a demand
of the civilization. Armenian revolutionists were weakly opposed by
clerical conservators, who believed that it would be possible to live as
religious communities. The most politically active minority of Armenians
chose the first option and this decision obliged the others. Here I do not
have a task to analyze this period, causes of weak immunity of Armenians,
including standpoints of the "Armenian Christians". As a result, the
Western Armenians defeated. The mission of the Armenian Apostolic Church to
preserve Armenian nation in the Armenians-populated regions ended. The
fate of the Eastern Armenia did not develop this way.

Soviet Period

In the Tsarist Russia religious communities did not have the same role as in
Islamic countries. Their existence was not encouraged by the state.
In the 20th century the Armenian Aposto lic
Church did not have any valuable role in the life. In the Armenian
communities, especially in the Muslim countries (where national affiliation is
decided by the religious communities) the church was busy with gratified work:
preservation of the nation. In the Soviet Union, where religion was persecuted,
and internationalism was the essence of the state politics, the Church was
forced to inactivity, which can be justified by objective reasons.
Moreover, the Church started to be perceived as a national
structure, to which we were obliged for
our existence. The society has already forgotten about
discussions happening in the 19th century. Currently, the Church tries to
justify various shortcomings of its activity as a result of persecutions of the
Soviet time. Nevertheless, it is that period, when the Church received moral
rehabilitation and renewal of its image in the public
consciousness. However, the Armenian Church did not pass through numerous
stages of the institutional development of the Christian Church, and it is
natural that it had to try to revitalize its former and already outdated role.

Independent Armenia: one step forward, two steps back

In total, the origin of the Christian world is also result of the
"globalization". Christian world started to form 2000 years ago and declared
common values, common culture and, as the Armenian Apostolic Church likes to
repeat, "all our national", and this was a result of the globalization. The
alphabet was created, numerous translations were done, the literature was
created, and the historical memory and self-perception began. The most part of
religious officials were Greeks, Assyrian and Persians. We became "historic
nation" due to the Christianity. However, due to political reasons, the Church
chose the way of self-isolation. The world developments stopped to concern us.
Nevertheless, from time to time the civil power, for state interests, required
coalitions with Arabs, Khachakir, Mongols, Orthodox, and as a result we received
additional energy for our "survival". In parallel with activation
of the new world "sect", cultural movements also activate, new values start to
develop, and they later became national and a matter of proud for the next
generations.

Collapse of the Soviet Union and creation of independent Armenia followed the
logic of the world developments. The decision of the new leadership to support
Russian democratic forces was not trouble-free. The famous message of the
Catholicos Vazgen I "I will damn and be silent" demonstrated lack of
preparedness of the Church to new developments. Due to the third republic’s
leadership, the victory in Karabakh and international positive attitude towards
Armenia was achieved. However, the following developments happened in
accordance with the already known from the history scenario. For a moment
our way coincided with the world developments’ hand, and then it again started
to deviate towards self-isolation, and this is attempted to be justified by the
notions of preservation of nation, not clarified national values, national
portrait, and the nation-preserving Church. Human rights, civil society
and other values, which are important attributes of the modern world, are
declared anti-national and a broad-spectrum propaganda against them began.

The Church as an important element of civil society

The Armenian Apostolic Church carries an important role, which it does not
play. Today, the world undergoes through new developments and a new challenge
faces us: we are to accept it and continue developing, as it happened in the
4th -5th centuries, or we will choose the option of self-isolation. At those
times, our ancestors chose the first option- to develop in harmony with the
world and, based on it, to develop their own ways. That was a political
decision. The second option is a bog. Preservation of the past
without development perspectives is a dead-end.

What is the role of the Chirch in the public life? In our country
often human rights are violated, cases of injustice and immorality are publicly
discussed, and the Church has to speak out about these cases. The Church
has to substantiate its positions about a right on property, notions of justice,
moral norms, and express its opinion about social and political phenomena,
grounded on the ethics of Christianity. If the Church speaks about
competing churches, it has to ground it by the theosophical and ethical norms.

Numerous cases can be brought up, when the Church if demonstrated active social
position, could had a positive influence. Every church formulates its
system of social attitudes. Thus, the Church should become an important
element of the civil society. The Church should accept that human rights
as result of the development of the Christian culture and the main constituent
of the modern Christian world. The Church may not preach religious and
national intolerance, and may not obviously go against the Constitutional
rights.

Numerous cases can be brought when the Church could have positive influence
regarding many negative phenomena. The Church carries out moral responsibility
for the current atmosphere of amorality and permissiveness.

The Church demands from the state a special status and special privileges,
justifying it by its historical role, cultural influence and its "national"
content. We have to clearly understand that Christianity, as a religion, cannot
be "national", and it is impossible to find any religious justifications for
it. Another issue is that the Armenian Apostolic Church as structure can be
national and take a national role, which cannot contradict interests of the
Republic of Armenia, legislation, international obligations and has to promote
development of the country.