Living Between Two Worlds

In order to understand the ecclesiastical situation and the theological milieu in which the Armenians came to reject the Council of Chalcedon we must bear in mind the political situation of the country.

The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, by Karekin Sarkissian

When I first came to this section, I thought I would likely skip over it as my initial reaction was that it was outside of my purpose in reading this book and also outside of the purpose of this blog.  However, as I read through it, I came to one of those “duh” moments: no matter how hard we try, we cannot separate the religious from the political.  The idea is a modern notion, not grounded in any historical and anthropological reality.

There is no such possibility of the separation of Church and State.  Any common group of people will have something outside of and above them to unite them.  It won’t be an “idea,” such as liberty or whatever.  It will be something more that binds them, how they act, how they live, how they interact with each other.  Call it a common culture.  This common culture helps to distinguish one group from their neighbors. 

So, with this said, I will try to be brief and will remain high level.

Armenia was, in fact, an independent kingdom during the first four centuries of Christian history. … More precisely, Armenia had been an independent, autonomous country from the second half of the first century to the very end of the first quarter of the fifth century.

It was during this period, in the year 301 (at least as commemorated) that Armenia became officially a Christian nation – the first to do so.  Yes, it was a decree of the king, but just as in Rome later, it was a decree that reflected the consciousness of a large portion of the people.  The king could not disregard this. 

This official change marked a break from the religion held in common with Persia (Mazdeism or Zoroastrianism) to a religion held in common with Rome – yet, Armenia retained its independence.  Of course, this did not mean that the traditional pagan religion went away quietly.  There remained elements sympathetic to the old, therefore sympathetic to Persia.

Following this period – and as has been true for much of Armenian history – Armenia is marked by a reality of living between two empires, and even divided between the two empires.  Armenia was on the eastern edge of the Roman Empire.  To the east of Armenia was Parthia, also a great empire.

Rome would become Byzantium; Parthia would become Persia.  In any case, Armenia remained divided, between both, on the edges of each empire.  Armenia had to learn how to live with both.

This twofold basis of Armenian culture is a very important fact which played a prominent part in the subsequent development of Armenian Christian culture.

Rome would aid Armenia against Persia; Persia would aid Armenia against Rome.  This was the situation in the several decades leading up to Chalcedon.  All the time, Armenia remained politically divided between the two empires.  

The Church could not stand apart from these changes and troubles.  The official authority of the Church supported naturally the Romanophile side; but there were sections within it that sympathized with the Iranophiles.

In the meantime, princes in Armenia also had independent views, regardless of the wishes of the king – some Persia-philes, some Romanophiles. 

In the fourth century, Armenia can be likened to a boat beaten by the huge waves of the Persian and Byzantine Empires.  Apart from the perils of the waves themselves, the boat itself was not strong and safe, because the two main political orientations within it tried to navigate it in opposite directions.

The far larger portion of Armenia came under Persian rule, and it is on this portion where the key aspects of then-current Armenian history will be found – including the aspects relevant to Chalcedon.  Clearly, Persia held an anti-Byzantium position, and this was reflected in the intent to return Armenia to its Zoroastrian tradition.  The study of Greek literature was not allowed, only Syriac.  Church leaders were put in place who were sympathetic to the Syriac, not the Greek.

Out of this came the Armenian resistance movement, culminating in what is certainly one of the most celebrated and recognized battles in Armenian history.  A “holy war,” fought by the Armenians against the Persians, in May 451 – just a few months before Chalcedon was convened. 

…the Armenian forces were defeated by the huge elephant-built army of the Persian Empire.

Guerilla warfare followed this defeat for the next three decades.  Eventually, in 485, Persia would recognize the full autonomy of Armenia, still under the Empire.

During this entire period, Armenia never became one or the other – neither fully Roman or fully Persian; there remained a status of self-recognition and self-expression.  Even as Nestorianism spread into and around Persia (an alarmingly dangerous situation for Armenian Christianity), this independence ultimately served to defend and protect the orthodoxy of the Armenian Church. 

Conclusion

Whatever the reasons of the rejection of Chalcedon by the Armenian Church, which have already been touched on but will be examined in greater detail through this work, it cannot be said that it was done because of Persian influence or even force.  Nor was Chalcedon rejected in order to show loyalty to Persia.  All such claims stand contrary to the political history. 

Throughout this time, the Armenian Church maintained its connection with Constantinople and Alexandria.  The Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus were accepted and held firmly as the basis of orthodoxy. 

The Armenian Church did not accept Ephesus and thereby reject Nestorianism due to Roman pressure – they did not assimilate to Nestorianism even as it made gains all around them in Persia, Syria, and the east.

Through all of this period, it appears that the Armenian Church and people held to their Christian culture and tradition over and above any pressures from either empire between which they were sandwiched.  After this time, there was no question of the Armenian embrace of Christianity.

Epilogue

Perhaps an example even for us today.  This is what a strong common culture, one aimed at the good, can accomplish.