Nikol Pashinyan’s imagination on church-related matters continues to generate ever more troubling “innovations.” The other day the individual occupying the chair of the prime minister of the Republic of Armenia proposed that the national anthem be performed before the Holy and Immortal Divine Liturgy, and that the state flag be displayed under the arches of the Mother See. “Since in 301 the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church (AAHC) was created by the state and by a decision of the state, it would be right for church choirs to perform the national anthem of the Republic of Armenia in churches,” Pashinyan wrote on his Facebook page. What lies behind this statement and what consequences it may entail deserve serious scrutiny.

In general, traditional churches reject such practices. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox churches perform national anthems or display state flags during the liturgy. The reason is obvious: the Catholic Church exists across continents and nations; introducing national flags and anthems into worship would inevitably fracture the Church along political and national lines, undermining the very unity of faith it is meant to uphold.

The same holds true for Orthodox churches, which likewise operate in multiple countries. There is no guarantee that churches with dioceses abroad—such as Russian, Georgian, or Serbian churches—would be permitted to display foreign state flags or perform foreign anthems within communities largely composed of citizens of the host state. In such circumstances, the Church, instead of uniting believers, would itself become vulnerable to political pressure and discrimination based on citizenship. Yet historically, the Church has been a supranational institution, uniting diasporic communities and serving as one of the most enduring pillars of national identity.

There does exist a limited precedent in certain Protestant denominations in the United States—such as Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian communities—where national anthems may be performed and flags displayed during services. However, this is a distinctive feature of specific Protestant traditions and cannot be mechanically or legitimately transplanted onto the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Pashinyan’s assertion that the Armenian Church was created by the state in 301 is not merely inaccurate—it is fundamentally misleading. In 301, Armenia became the first state to proclaim Christianity as its official religion. The Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, however, had already existed and had undergone a long process of formation. Ancient historical sources attest that the Armenian Church was founded through the preaching of the Lord Jesus Christ’s apostles, St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholomew, who also ordained the first Armenian bishops. To reduce this apostolic legacy to a state decree is a gross distortion of history.

The proposal to perform the state anthem in Armenian churches would also produce absurd and dangerous consequences abroad. It is difficult to imagine the Armenian national anthem being performed in Armenian churches in Constantinople, or the Armenian Tricolor being displayed there. Even more absurd would be the expectation that Armenian churches worldwide adopt the state symbols of their host countries.

If the national anthem were introduced in churches in the Republic of Armenia, consistency would demand the same practice elsewhere: the U.S. anthem in the United States, the French anthem in France, the Syrian anthem in Syria, and so forth. Under such conditions, the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church would cease to function as a guardian of Armenian national identity. The first and gravest damage would be inflicted upon the Armenian Diaspora, which would be left increasingly exposed to assimilation and, ultimately, to the erosion of its confessional and cultural foundations.

What is unfolding today around the Church bears all the hallmarks of an attempt at religious engineering—an effort to reshape the nation’s spiritual identity. In this endeavor, Pashinyan appears determined to enlist even those clergymen willing to align themselves with his agenda. The narratives cited above, along with the claims that the Catholicos should be elected by popular vote and that, until then, the locum tenens of the Catholicos should be a married priest, are not coincidental. They form part of a consistent pattern—one that reveals an obsession verging on ideological fanaticism.

“Hayatsk Yerevanits” Journal