Having reviewed the evidence demonstrating the existence of Christianity amongst the Georgians as far back as the Apostolic period, whether in the Roman provinces of Cappadocia and Pontus or in the Georgian kingdom of Iberia itself, we shall now turn to a description of the organisational structures that governed the life of the local Georgian Churches during the first three centuries.
As we know, in its external aspect—as a visible society with a legal order—the Christian Church underwent various periods of formation and development in its organisation. As a product of human agency, ecclesiastical organisation was shaped by the historical period, the geographical context, religious and moral, customary and canonical law, state legislation, and the needs of the respective community 1.
With regard to the organisation of the Ecumenical Church in the apostolic era, we note that we find no definitive principles established, apart from those laid down by the Founder Himself. Thus, the principles bequeathed by the Saviour through the Holy Apostles constituted the founding norms of the organisation of the early Church. Among the basic principles we list: a) the hierarchical principle; b) the synodal principle; c) the principle of autocephaly; d) the principle of autonomy; e) the ethnic principle; f) the principle of ecumenicity.
The hierarchical principle consists in the organisation and governance of the Church according to the order which the divinely established hierarchy of the clergy 2 imposes upon the whole of ecclesiastical life. As is well known, in order to carry out the work of sanctification, preaching and pastoral care of the faithful, the Holy Apostles ordained church ministers into the three ranks of the hierarchy – bishops, priests and deacons. The entire ecclesiastical life of the early Christian communities, comprising clergy and believers, revolved around these church ministers, led by the bishop. At the same time, the existence of the hierarchical principle in the organisation of the Christian Church during the first three centuries also entailed the existence of the two ecclesiastical offices – the diocese and the parish – which are indispensable to the organisation of any local church 3.
Thus, the organisation of the early Church was hierarchical, comprising three levels, and its governance was episcopal-synodal. The episcopate as a whole, as the direct successor to the Holy Apostles, held all ecclesiastical authority. Through the act of ordination, the bishop and the priest received the capacity to exercise ecclesiastical authority in its three aspects: a) teaching authority; b) sanctifying authority; c) governing power, with its three aspects: 1. legislative power; 2. judicial power; 3. executive power.
In fact, the very definition of the Church and its organic constitution include, first and foremost, the hierarchy. The Church cannot be conceived without a hierarchy. It would not have been called the Church had this hierarchical authority not been present within it from the very beginning, alongside the Apostles and subordinate to them. 4 Therefore, when speaking of the establishment and organisation of the first Christian communities in Cappadocia, Pontus or Iberia, we can state with certainty that this would have been inconceivable without the Holy Apostles’ establishment of a divinely ordained hierarchy for those communities—a fact, moreover, confirmed by numerous historical sources. For example, the History of Kartli relates the following: ‘The Holy Apostle Andrew first came to the city of Trebizond, which lies in the land of the Laz; from there he set out for a region of Iberia called Did-Aciara. For the Georgians there, he ordained priests and deacons (n.b.) […]. Leaving there, Saint Andrew the Apostle came to another province of Iberia, called Samtshe […]. Saint Andrew the Apostle, having taught the locals the entire Christian law, ordained a bishop, priests and deacons (n.b.) for them." 5
The synodal principle, or the principle of conciliarity, consists in the order whereby the higher governing bodies of the Church are not individual, represented by a single person, but are constituted in the form of synods, that is, as collegial or collective bodies 6.
The synodal principle characterised the entire organisation and governance of the Orthodox Church during the pre-Nicene period. Through the Council of Jerusalem (AD 51), the principle of synodality was established as the sole form of exercising central ecclesiastical authority. This principle is based on the equality of all the apostles, by virtue of the equal authority they all received from Christ the Saviour. By virtue of this equal authority, the Holy Apostles carried out their ministry independently, and the Churches they founded were governed in an autocephalous manner. In accordance with the order established by the Holy Apostles, the bishops of the early Church met in council to resolve matters of such importance that they exceeded the competence of a single bishop. As the administrative foundation of the local Church, the synodal institution constituted a kind of constitutional charter for the early Church. Synodal proceedings were governed and regulated by canonical norms. Apostolic Canons 34 and 37 constitute the earliest evidence regarding the regulation of the synodal system in the life of the local Churches. Adherence to this fundamental principle of the organisation of the early Christian Church contributed to the preservation of doctrinal, canonical and liturgical unity throughout the Church 7.
The principle of autonomy refers to the canonical order according to which the Church is autonomous, that is, self-governing in its religious affairs vis-à-vis any other organisation outside it 8. In a legal sense, ecclesiastical autonomy refers to the Church’s independence, legally expressed in relation to the state 9. The principle of autonomy is based on the Christian teaching that the Church’s origin is directly divine; it exists by divine right 10, which implies that the Church must act in accordance with its internal nature, as a divine-human body, and its sole purpose, which is the salvation of the faithful, independently of any secular authority.
Thus, the Church’s autonomy derived from the very essence of the Church as an institution of divine origin. It was a constituent element and a canonical institution specific to the pre-Nicene Church 11.
As regards the relations between the Christian Church and the civil state authorities in the Roman provinces of Cappadocia and Pontus, these are well documented. Throughout the Roman Empire, as Christian communities were regarded as associations prohibited by law – collegia illicita – relations between the Church and the State could only be negative. The policy of the Roman Empire, having no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of the Christian Church, was directed exclusively towards the destruction of the Church, organising numerous persecutions against Christians for this purpose.
In the case of the Georgian kingdom of Iberia, history has preserved few accounts from which we might deduce the nature of relations between the Church and the state authorities. However, we may assume that the reasons which led to the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire would also have applied in the case of Iberia. Thus, the History of Kartli tells us of the first persecution of Christians as early as the time of Saint Andrew the Apostle, a persecution organised by the King of Iberia, Aderk12).
The same source – The History of Kartli – recounts that the King of Iberia, Mirian (early 4th century), before his conversion to Christianity, had resolved to begin the persecution of Christians in his kingdom. 13
An underground church, discovered in the Muguti caves in Tetritskaro district, 14, is further evidence of the tense relations between the Christian Church and the state authorities in the Kingdom of Iberia during the pre-Nicene period.
However, we note that the History of Kartli records the King of Iberia, Rev, nicknamed ‘the Righteous’ (†243), who is said to have been familiar with Christian law, to have valued it, and to have observed Christian moral principles, although there is no mention anywhere of whether he was actually baptised as a Christian 15.
Therefore, with regard to the application of the principle of autonomy in Georgian Christian communities, we can say that during the first three centuries of Christianity this principle was observed. This was ensured, on the one hand, by the fact that the Christians of that time lived out the message of Christ with great fervour, and, on the other hand, because the states did not seek to interfere in the internal affairs of Christian communities; on the contrary, they sought to destroy them.
In the pre-Nicene period, every church community established within a well-defined ethnic-geographical framework was autocephalous, enjoying administrative and jurisdictional independence in relation to other church units with equal rights 16.
The autocephaly of the bishops in the early Church was a natural consequence of their equality in authority. All the bishops were equal amongst themselves, for such were the Holy Apostles, to whom the Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted the power to teach, sanctify and govern 17. The autocephaly of the local Church also stemmed from the fact that each community possessed all the elements necessary for its existence. These fundamental means and institutions were the same in every community, which, in turn, formed the basis for establishing and consolidating organic, indestructible bonds between the local Churches.
Thus, with regard to the Christian communities in Cappadocia, Pontus or Iberia—which were founded and organised directly by the Holy Apostles—the principles of conciliarity and autocephaly were certainly applied in the life of these Churches from the very beginning. Each bishop, within the boundaries of his diocese, was autocephalous in the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, in all its aspects and forms of expression. However, with regard to matters that exceeded the competence of a single bishop, several neighbouring bishops would gather in synods to resolve them, where they would reach joint decisions that became binding in the life of each local Church.
The principle of autonomy gave expression to the process of the indigenisation of Christianity amongst the various peoples of that time and, by extension, to the formation of local ecclesiastical traditions. Each ecclesiastical administrative-territorial unit was linked to a particular culture and a particular ethnic community, taking on various forms of expression as its organisation developed 18. The ethnic principle in the organisation and structuring of church life in the pre-Nicene era was rooted in the very words of Christ the Saviour, who, in sending His disciples out to preach, commanded them: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations’ (Mt 28:19).
From the very day the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost, the need for the Church of Christ to be divided into several units, yet organically linked to one another, was made clear. The Holy Apostles received the gift of speaking in different tongues, and each of them preached the Good News to the peoples in their own native language. The process of forming the first local and national Churches was completed towards the end of the apostolic period, that is, towards the end of the first century 19. Each local Church received from its Apostle its own national hierarchy, which was charged with shepherding the flock entrusted to them, taking into account the national character, mentality and social structure of the people.
In its organisation and governance, the early Church made use of religious and moral norms, specific laws and regulations, and legal statutes, which it found within the socio-political environment in which it came into being and developed. 20 Church law was another important instrument in the organisation of the early Church. Church law was, in fact, the norm that conferred canonicity upon all the organisational principles existing within the early Church 21. Church laws and regulations of a universal nature, which were drafted in the pre-Nicene period, were adopted, adapted and then translated by each local Church into its own national language 22.
Thus, the fundamental elements in the organisation of any early Christian community or local Church were derived from the religious, moral, canonical and legal legislation of the Universal Church and the canonical tradition of the Church in question, to which were added the custom of written law and the legal legislation imposed by the socio-historical framework within which that Church was formed 21.
In the case of Georgian church communities, owing to the fact that the Georgian people, many centuries before the Apostolic Age, were already established as a unified nation with their own language and culture, and possessed a centuries-old tradition of state organisation, and therefore, we can argue that the Christian Churches established in the pre-Nicene era in Cappadocia, Pontus or Iberia had their own distinct character, national liturgical language and traditions specific to the Georgian people.
However, the plurality of historical forms of organisation of church communities during the first three centuries did not lead to the dissolution of ecclesiastical unity, nor of the idea of order and organisation. What has always kept all local church communities closely linked was the principle of ecumenicity, which, in fact, is like the letter ‘α’ in the alphabet, in the life and organisation of all national Churches that preserve doctrinal, liturgical and canonical unity amongst themselves.
The principles established by the Saviour and His Holy Apostles also characterised the form of governance of each local Church in the pre-Nicene era. These principles have remained the primary criterion for understanding the canonical foundations and the efforts made by each local Church to preserve ecumenicity 23. Adherence to these principles of organisation and administration has been deemed fundamental because they were established from the outset in the light of the teachings of Christ the Saviour as unshakeable pillars underpinning the organisation of the Church, alongside dogmas, moral precepts 24 and liturgical life. These principles have become binding upon every Local Church and a condition for remaining within Orthodox ecumenicity.
Therefore, in conclusion to this chapter, we state that the Georgian Church traces its origins directly back to the Holy Apostles in the Roman provinces of Cappadocia, Pontus and the Kingdom of Iberia, possessing all the canonical forms of organisation and governance of the pre-Nicene era.
- 1
Assistant Professor Nicolae V. Dură, ‘The Christian Church in the First Four Centuries: Its Organisation and Canonical Foundations’, in Orthodoxia, vol. XXXIV, no. 3, 1982, p. 451.
- 2
Archdeacon Prof. Dr. Ioan N. Floca, Orthodox Canon Law: Church Legislation and Administration, Vol. I, Published by the Biblical and Missionary Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Bucharest, 1990, p. 195.
- 3
Assistant Professor Nicolae V. Dură, op. cit., p. 452.
- 4
Rev. I. Mircea, ‘The Organisation of the Church and the Life of the Early Christians’, in Theological Studies, vol. VII, 1955, nos. 1–2, p. 75.
- 5
The History of Kartli, vol. I, pp. 37–43.
- 6
Archdeacon Prof. Dr Ioan N. Floca, op. cit., p. 197.
- 7
Assistant Professor Nicolae V. Dură, op. cit., pp. 463, 464.
- 8
Archdeacon Prof. Dr Ioan N. Floca, op. cit., p. 199.
- 9
Rev. Prof. Liviu Stan, ‘On Ecclesiastical Autonomy’, in Studii Teologice, vol. X, 1958, no. 5–6, p. 279.
- 10
A.S. Pavlov, Handbook of Canon Law, Lani Publishers, Saint Petersburg, 2002, p. 346.
- 11
Assistant Professor Nicolae V. Dură, op. cit., p. 460.
- 12
The History of Kartli, Vol. I, pp. 37–43.
- 13
Ibid., p. 105.
- 14
Artanugi, History Journal, 1999, no. 8–9, p. 38.
- 15
The History of Kartli, Vol. IV, ‘Sabciota Sakartvelo’ State Publishing House, Tbilisi, 1973, pp. 68–69.
- 16
Rev. Prof. Liviu Stan, ‘Autocephaly and Autonomy’, in Mitropolia Moldovei, vol. XIII, 1961, nos. 5–6, p. 284.
- 17
Assistant Professor Nicolae V. Dură, op. cit., p. 464.
- 18
Ibid., p. 460.
- 19
A.S. Pavlov, Manual of Canon Law, Lani Publishers, St Petersburg, 2002, p. 170.
- 20
Assistant Deacon Ioan N. Floca, ‘The Origins of Written Law in the Romanian Orthodox Church’, doctoral thesis, in Mitropolia Ardealului, vol. XIV, 1969, nos. 1–3, pp. 40–48.
- 21a21b
Assistant Professor Nicolae V. Dură, op. cit., p. 456.
- 22
Assistant Deacon Ioan N. Floca, The Origins of Written Law in the Romanian Orthodox Church, p. 42.
- 23
Ibid., p. 452.
- 24
Prof. Dr Iorgu D. Ivan, ‘The Importance of Fundamental Canonical Principles of Organisation and Administration for the Unity of the Church’, in Mitropolia Moldovei și Sucevei, vol. XLV, 1969, no. 3–4, p. 154.