How did the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC) rise from the ashes of Soviet suppression to become a cornerstone of modern Georgian identity? From intense persecution to remarkable resilience, the GOC’s journey through decades of change reveals its enduring influence on Georgia today.
Soviet Strategies and Church Repression
The Soviet regime’s impact on the Georgia’s church began with significant changes aimed at aligning the Georgian church to the Soviet model. This included the seizure of church lands and the financial dependence of the clergy on the state. These actions were part of a broader strategy to ensure state control over all aspects of society, including religion. The suppression of the GOC was not an isolated incident but part of a systematic effort to eradicate religious influence that could challenge Soviet authority.
During the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921), the church faced significant challenges. Although it regained some autonomy in 1917, the government marginalized its leadership. Orthodoxy, previously a dominant ideology, was equated with other religions, and state funding for the church was cut off. This period illustrates the early stages of the church’s declining influence, setting the stage for more aggressive Soviet actions.
With Soviet control in 1921, the separation of church and state was formalized, and an aggressive anti-religious campaign began. Religious celebrations were outlawed, priests were ridiculed, and newspapers were filled with anti-religious propaganda. Despite these efforts, many Georgians continued to practice their faith, highlighting the deep-rooted religious fervor that persisted even under severe repression.
The suppression of the Church during the Soviet period had a paradoxical effect on the faith of ordinary Georgians. The state’s promotion of atheism and persecution of religious practices were designed to weaken the Church’s influence. However, this suppression often had the unintended consequence of strengthening the resolve of believers, as Christianity became a symbol of resistance and a marker of national identity. The Church’s association with Georgian ethnicity and historical identity provided a powerful counter-narrative to Soviet atheism, leading many Georgians to hold onto their faith more firmly as an act of cultural and national preservation. At the same time, the financial dependence on the state during the Soviet era significantly altered the internal power dynamics of the GOC. This dependence forced the Church to navigate a complex relationship with the state, often adopting strategies to maneuver within the constraints imposed by state atheism. The Church was compelled to reconcile the maintenance of its spiritual authority with the necessity of compliance with state regulations. This resulted in the emergence of a distinctive form of ecclesiastical economy, wherein local religious authorities assumed greater responsibility for the administration of church affairs. This flexibility enabled the Church to survive and adapt, but it also necessitated that its leadership be adept at negotiating with the state to safeguard its interests and maintain its influence among the faithful.
The Anti-Religious Campaign and Societal Impact
The Communist Union spearheaded the initiative to replace religious holidays with state-sanctioned celebrations, including the introduction of “Communist Christmas” and “Communist Easter.” These militant atheist initiatives initially enjoyed considerable success but eventually declined, becoming state-controlled. By 1922-1923, atheist organizations began to emerge in Georgia, reflecting similar developments in Russia. These efforts reflect the broader Soviet objective of supplanting religious identity with state ideology, thereby fundamentally altering the societal fabric.
“The Exes”. Carnival demonstration. Tbilisi, 1927. Tbilisi History Museum – “Karvasla”.
In 1927, the GOC was confronted with a pivotal moment in its history. Patriarch Kristofore Tsitskishvili attempted to demonstrate loyalty to the Soviet regime. Despite previous attempts to appease authorities, he convened the Fourth Church Council in Tbilisi, issuing a declaration of allegiance to the government. This declaration starkly contradicted earlier restrictions, claiming the Church now enjoyed full freedom under Soviet rule. This move was a strategic attempt to preserve the Church’s existence, illustrating the complex negotiation between survival and compromise.
By 1922-1923, circles and cells of “unbelievers” and “atheists” appeared in Georgia. The inaugural official atheist organization, which operated in the context of anti-religious propaganda and agitation, was established in the Russian city of Voronezh. In 1923, the “Union of the Godless of Moscow” was formed in Moscow, which united with the new magazine “The Godless Easel” (Silagadze, 2014, 67). In 1924, in Severdovin region of Russia, the “Atheist” society was formed (Silagadze, 2014, 68). On August 27, 1924, at a meeting in the editorial office of the newspaper “Ughmertos”, a charter was adopted, on the basis of which the organization was created: the Union of Fighting Ungodlys, whose chairman was appointed Emil Yaroslavsky (real name Minei Izrailovich Gubelman), a historian by profession, a member of the party and An experienced atheist, he was at the head of many newspapers. Earlier in Soviet Georgia, in 1923, the newspaper “.
“Against God” was founded against the church
Similar sentiments echoed in Russia, where Metropolitan Sergiy declared the Church’s loyalty to the Soviet state. This declaration sparked a fierce backlash, with many accusing Sergiy of betraying the Church. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the clandestine Catacomb Church declined to acknowledge Sergiy’s authority, characterizing it as the “Red Church.” This internal schism within the Orthodox community serves to illustrate the significant influence that Soviet policies have had on the unity and identity of religious communities. The fallout was profound. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the clandestine Catacomb Church, emerging within the Gulags, refused to recognize Sergiy’s authority, branding it the “Red Church.” They forbade their followers from partaking in the sacrament of communion with the official institution, denouncing it as a construct founded upon falsehoods and subservience to atheistic ideology. This schism persisted, with those opposed to Sergiy denouncing the continued dissemination of misinformation within the official church.
Stalin’s Shift and the Restoration of Church Influence
A pivotal shift occurred in 1943 when Stalin convened a meeting with three Russian Orthodox hierarchs. This meeting led to the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the establishment of the Most Holy Synod. This marked a significant policy shift, as Stalin sought to incorporate national symbols, including the church, into Soviet ideology. This move was part of a broader strategy to rally public support during World War II, reflecting the pragmatic use of religion to serve state interests.
The restoration of Eucharistic unity between the Russian and Georgian Churches occurred in October 1943, following Stalin’s directive. While officially attributed to the religious purity of the Georgian Church, Stalin’s influence played a significant role. His motivations were complex, aiming to win the hearts of believers during the “Great Patriotic War” and strengthen Soviet ideology. This period illustrates the nuanced relationship between state power and religious institutions, where political expediency often dictated religious policy.
The Legacy of the Soviet Anti-Religious Campaign in Georgia
The Soviet campaign to suppress religious beliefs in Georgia only partially succeeded despite its intensity. Public displays of faith and organized religious activities were severely restricted, and many churches were closed or repurposed. Religious leaders were persecuted, and religious education was banned. Private practice of faith became a common response to Soviet oppression. Many Georgians adapted by practicing their religion in private, maintaining rituals, prayers, and religious teachings within the family setting, away from the scrutiny of the state. This “domestication” of religion meant that while public expressions of faith changed, core beliefs and practices remained resilient, often becoming even more deeply ingrained as acts of resistance.
One of the most significant and unexpected consequences of the Soviet anti-religious campaign was the emergence and strengthening of an underground religious movement. Despite the prohibition of religious practices in public spaces, they were conducted clandestinely in private residences and secret assemblies. Women were particularly instrumental in this underground movement. Their actions ensured the continuation of religious traditions and the transmission of beliefs despite state repression. This underground movement fostered the growth of a resilient religious community and reinforced the association of religion with Georgian national identity. The contributions of women were of vital importance in the preservation of these traditions, laying the groundwork for the post-Soviet revival of the GOC. This period of clandestine worship ultimately served to reinforce Georgian culture and national identity, thereby demonstrating the profound impact of women’s roles in sustaining faith under conditions of oppression.
The changes brought about by the Soviet anti-religious campaign had a lasting impact on Georgian culture and traditions. The suppression of public religious practices and the subsequent shift to private, domestic religiosity reinforced the association between religion and national identity. Despite its marginalization, the GOC persisted as a symbol of Georgian heritage and identity. The durability of religious observances during this era fostered a robust sense of cultural continuity and resilience against Soviet assimilation policies.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the GOC experienced a significant revival. The underground religious movement laid the groundwork for this resurgence, having kept religious traditions and practices alive through decades of repression. This period of clandestine worship reinforced the Church’s role as a custodian of national identity and cultural heritage. Consequently, in the post-Soviet era, the Church emerged as a powerful societal force, instrumental in the revival of Georgian nationalism and the preservation of Georgian cultural and religious traditions.
Influence of the “Red Church” Phenomenon
The legacy of the “Red Church” phenomenon during the Soviet era continues to exert a profound influence on the GOC in the present day. The legacy of Soviet-era repression and the strategic compromises made by church leaders have had a significant and enduring impact on the internal dynamics and external positioning of the GOC. During the Soviet period, the Church’s alignment with state interests and the subsequent division between those who remained loyal and those who opposed the regime created a precedent for internal schisms and ideological conflicts. The present-day GOC is characterised by a struggle between moderate and radical factions, which can be seen as a continuation of the historical phenomenon. The radicalization of certain clergy and the promotion of anti-Western, pro-Russian narratives can be seen as a continuation of the historical tension between accommodation with state power and the preservation of religious integrity. The present-day internal power struggles and the ascendance of radical voices within the GOC mirror a complex legacy of historical compromises and ideological schisms.
In the contemporary context of Georgia, the relationship between the GOC and the government is characterised by a notable interdependence, rather than strict separation, despite the constitutional provisions that would suggest otherwise. This dynamic is situated within a historical context, including the resurgence of the Church following the repression by the Soviet Union and its subsequent role in the formation of Georgian society. In the political sphere, the Church exerts considerable influence, particularly in rural and traditionally conservative areas, where it can mobilize public opinion and influence electoral outcomes. This influence is reciprocal, as political leaders often seek the Church’s endorsement, recognizing its ability to bolster legitimacy and public support. This alignment is particularly evident in matters pertaining to national sovereignty, where the Church’s stance can have a significant impact on the political narrative and the formulation of policy decisions. Notwithstanding the constitutional stipulation for separation, the Church’s engagement in public policy and legislative discourse serves to illustrate its capacity to influence the contours of governance. The Church’s perspective on matters pertaining to family law and the educational curriculum, for instance, exerts considerable influence, reflecting a broader societal inclination to defer to religious authority in matters of morality and ethics.
Conclusion
The history of the GOC under Soviet rule and its subsequent evolution in post-Soviet Georgia offers valuable insights into the intricate relationship between religion and authoritarian states. Throughout the Soviet era, the GOC faced systematic repression aimed at undermining its influence and consolidating state control over societal values and institutions. This repression, including the confiscation of church property, harassment of clergy, and propagation of atheism, exemplifies the authoritarian regime’s strategy to curb dissent and mold public opinion through ideological dominance.
One of the most significant insights to emerge from this analysis is the resilience demonstrated by the GOC in the face of authoritarian suppression. Despite concerted efforts to diminish its influence, the Church adapted its strategies to survive, at times by aligning with state interests during periods of war or relaxing of restrictions. This is exemplified by its revival during World War II. This adaptability demonstrates how religious institutions can navigate authoritarian frameworks, at times utilizing moments of political opportunity to maintain their role in society.
Moreover, the GOC’s role evolved from a marginalized entity under Soviet rule to a central pillar of Georgian national identity in the post-Soviet period. his transformation demonstrates the potential for religious institutions to reassert themselves following periods of repression, frequently assuming a central role in the preservation of culture and national solidarity. The Church’s ability to influence public discourse and shape societal values in the aftermath of Soviet collapse underscores its enduring relevance and capacity to fill ideological voids left by retreating state structures.
The legacy of the “Red Church” phenomenon continues to influence the GOC’s contemporary dynamics, particularly in its relationship with the Georgian government and broader society. The historical backdrop of state-enforced secularism and subsequent religious revival informs ongoing debates about the separation of church and state, the extent of religious freedoms, and the role of religious institutions in public life. In navigating these complexities, the GOC faces challenges in balancing its spiritual mission with political pressures and societal expectations, reflecting broader struggles over identity and authority in modern Georgia.
This history offers insights into the broader role of religion in authoritarian states, illustrating how religious institutions can both challenge and accommodate state power depending on the political context. It highlights the complexities of religious-state relations, including the potential for collaboration, co-option, or conflict, and underscores the enduring influence of religious institutions in shaping societal norms and values even under restrictive regimes. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for comprehending the interplay between religion, politics, and identity in authoritarian contexts worldwide.
