Sobornost in the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church: Reality and Perspectives
–Gleb Chistyakov
At the outset of my presentation, I would like to turn to the relatively recent past—the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was, without exaggeration, a romantic time when many believed that a truly free and genuinely equal society was just around the corner. Terms such as people’s power, pluralism, multiparty system, freedom of assembly, referendum, and the rule of law formed the common ideological lexicon of a significant portion of Russian society. Indeed, for a time, it seemed that the proclaimed slogans were the foundation of political reality. Recall the first elections of the early 1990s: no oligarchs, lobbyists, shadowy groups, or ruling elites.
However, times change. The past decade and a half have shown no significant progress in building a civil society. Today, for instance, it is difficult to point to the presence of multidimensionality or structural diversity in state and non-state institutions. It is even harder to acknowledge the free access of civil associations to the main political sphere or the accessibility of media to all societal layers. It is nearly impossible to recognize even traces of relative independence or societal autonomy from the state, or the existence of civic consciousness and culture that would enable citizens to self-govern. There is a clear absence of the main characteristic of a civil society—a developed economic, legal, and social space that accounts for diverse group and individual interests.
Today, almost no one denies that the development of civil society institutions is stagnating. Party-building is at an obvious standstill, and the independence of trade unions and other corporate structures is barely visible. The influence of public associations at the federal and regional levels is close to zero. Even during the ongoing housing and utilities reform, it has become clear that local populations are passive in creating housing self-management bodies and are unable to hire service organizations.
Some researchers conclude that the reason for this state of affairs lies in the worldview peculiarities of Russians themselves. Centuries of rigid rule by tsars and later general secretaries have made an authoritarian, command-administrative model of society both necessary and habitual. The average Russian prefers to shift the burden of decision-making to higher authorities, is incapable of self-organization, and avoids taking responsibility. Some authors even argue that the population of our country is “not ready” to build a civil society or a rule-of-law state, claiming it will take decades or even centuries before we can create a society with developed civic institutions.
However, let us leave such speculations to the conscience of those who voice them. Russian history provides a crucial example of a centuries-long existence of a developed civil society institution—one that existed without any state support, had no ties to so-called Western democracies, and pursued no political tasks or goals, yet united a significant part of Russian society and possessed all the necessary characteristics of a civic association.
I am referring to the conciliar-popular structure of the Old Believer Church. This phenomenon is a vivid example of a developed, stable, and traditionally rooted institution of civil society. As a form of conservative democracy, the Old Believer Church’s sobornost (conciliarity) refutes the notion that Russians are incapable of self-organization, free speech, free thought, or self-discipline.
It should be noted that ecclesiastical sobornost is not purely a Russian or Old Believer phenomenon. It is a fundamental and inseparable feature of Christianity. Sobornost is not merely the convening of councils, as one might assume from the etymological similarity of the terms, but a broader, universal concept encompassing not only practical-organizational aspects but also theological, philosophical, historical, and even everyday facets of church life. In this presentation, we will primarily focus on its civic and institutional aspects.
Among the characteristics inherent to both the ancient and Old Believer Churches are the freedom of Christian assembly, conciliar (i.e., delegated and accountable) management of church affairs and property, public and open election of hierarchical figures, and, finally, the equality of all Church members despite their different roles.
On the equality of all Church members, regardless of their roles, the Apostle Paul wrote: “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12). In the earthly Church, this body of Christ, all members are necessary: each performs its function. As the Apostle Paul writes, the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem weaker are all the more necessary. Thus, in the Church, as in a body, there are no unnecessary or superfluous members; all are needed, all are essential, all are interdependent, and each must care for the others. As the Apostle Paul states, “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.”
Church historians of the 19th and 20th centuries demonstrated that the structure of the early Church was based precisely on conciliar, self-organizing, and community-popular principles. It is no coincidence that, as all ancient records attest, the apostles stayed in newly established communities for only a few days. They appointed and ordained spiritual leaders, after which the communities developed through self-organization.
Subsequent church history confirms this thesis. Almost all ancient saints were elected by the church people. Among them were great church teachers such as Cyprian of Carthage, Cornelius and Fabian of Rome, Nectarius, Paul, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Meletius, Eustathius, and Flavian of Antioch, Basil the Great of Neocaesarea, Pope Leo of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, Athanasius the Great, and many others. The famous Ecumenical Councils, as well as many other councils of that period, were attended by bishops elected in their church regions, representing the will of the entire church people. As for councils held in church regions—dioceses—they were unthinkable without the participation of laypeople.
Sobornost continued to persist, albeit with some erosion, during the imperial period of history, when Christianity became the state religion. It is important to note a key fact: the closer the Church aligned with the state, the less pronounced its internal conciliarity became. Old Believers are far from idealizing any period of state-Church relations and are cautious about modern attempts to portray certain historical periods as an ideal “symphony” or equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between state and Church. In one of his speeches, the late Metropolitan Andrian (Chetvergov) characterized this issue as follows: “Looking impartially at history, we cannot identify periods of ‘symphony’ that led to unequivocally positive results. Even in the bright years of Emperor Constantine and other Christian rulers, Church-state cooperation introduced certain negative aspects. History shows that during such periods, people often became Christians for careerist reasons, simony and the purchase of holy offices flourished, pastors engaged in court intrigues, and monks acquired wealth.”
Ecclesiastical sobornost was naturally adopted by the Russian Church from its inception. In the pre-Mongol period, most bishops (except for metropolitans appointed from Byzantium) were elected by church councils of dioceses, which included clergy, monastics, and laypeople. The system of conciliar-popular election of archpastors persisted longest in the Novgorod and Pskov lands, known for their veche (popular assembly) traditions. The situation began to change with the rise of the Moscow Principality. Gradually, the grand prince gained increasing authority in selecting candidates for episcopal sees. This trend negatively affected the moral state of the higher clergy. For example, when Moscow Metropolitan Isidore signed the Ferrara-Florence Union with Catholics in 1439, most Russian bishops did not immediately oppose it. Only after Grand Prince Vasily Vasilyevich convened a church council was the union condemned. The dependence of the higher clergy on state authority became particularly evident in the early 17th century, when some bishops openly supported anti-national forces, and others, such as the second Russian Patriarch Ignatius, even betrayed Orthodoxy.
During the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, this dangerous trend began to dominate state-Church relations. The tsar not only single-handedly selected participants for church councils but also assumed the final word in ecclesiastical-canonical and theological matters. Mid-level clergy and monastics were excluded from participating in church councils, and the tsar not only approved episcopal candidates but also selected them according to his church-political agenda. As we know, this practice had tragic consequences for the entire Russian Church, culminating in the Church Schism. It is worth emphasizing that a key cause of the Schism was not only Patriarch Nikon’s liturgical and textual reforms but also the departure from the conciliar, canonical principles of the Church’s existence. This was noted by nearly all early Old Believer authors. Notably, the majority of parish clergy and a significant portion of monastics sided with the Old Faith, as sobornost in these church groups had not yet been eroded. The traditions of self-organized, conciliar monastery governance and the election of parish clergy persisted until the 1860s.
Following the Church Schism, two distinct trends emerged in the development of Russian ecclesiastical life. While the dominant, New Rite Church began to take shape as a state institution with all the characteristics of a command-administrative system (fully formalized in the Spiritual Regulation of 1721), the Old Orthodox, Old Believer Church embraced a conciliar, people-democratic principle.
Numerous works by Old Believer authors have been dedicated to the epistemology of sobornost. A prominent theme in these writings is the purpose, meaning, and composition of church councils. One of the outstanding Old Believer thinkers of the 19th century, Bishop Arseny of the Urals, articulated the necessity of councils as follows: “Sometimes, an individual cannot fully grasp the truth on certain matters. Therefore, those who study and preach the Word of God align their views with other preachers of the same salvific gospel. That is, they confirm the truth together, as it is written in the Gospel: ‘that every word may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’ (Matthew 18:16). And further: ‘For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them’ (Matthew 18:20). If Christ is present among two or three gathered in His name, it is evident that the more people are gathered in the name of the Lord, the more palpable Christ’s presence will be among them.”
Bishop Arseny posits that the institution of church councils is rooted in the divine economy of the Church: “Since the holy apostles did not personally encounter all the circumstances that the Holy Church faces throughout its existence, and thus could not predetermine all possible perplexities, each issue is more definitively resolved in its own time by the successors of the holy apostles and all Orthodox Christians. Therefore, it is clear that through them, until the end of the age, Christ will testify to the clarification of the truth of His divine economy.”
In his works, Bishop Arseny highlights a crucial aspect of a legitimate church council—its Orthodox existence and ecclesiological continuity: “Preference in the scope of councils is only recognized when neither the larger nor the smaller council distorts the true divine truth. The Council of Union declares: ‘Every council that follows the previous holy councils is holy; but one that does not follow them is not holy, but is defiled and rejected’ (Nomocanon, Chapter 71, p. 641). For this reason, the Holy Church sometimes accepts the rulings and decrees of many smaller local councils, while at other times it rejects even those councils that claimed to be ecumenical.”
Old Orthodox authors also paid significant attention to the representation that a council must embody. As early as 1654, Archpriest Ioann Neronov of Moscow’s Kazan Cathedral wrote to the tsar about the composition of a council: “It is not fitting for only bishops to gather, but also holy archimandrites, holy abbots, archpriests, holy monks, priests, and deacons who fully know the Divine Scriptures, as well as laypeople living virtuous lives, and it is proper, O Sovereign, to seek out monks living in the wilderness, experienced fathers who possess knowledge from the Divine Scriptures.” Professor Nikolai Kapterev of the Moscow Theological Academy characterized Neronov’s stance as follows: “A true council, as opposed to one consisting solely of bishops, must, according to Neronov—who expressed the understanding of the best of Russia at that time—include the tsar as chairman, bishops, archimandrites, abbots, monks, archpriests, priests, deacons, and laypeople leading virtuous lives… One cannot deny the breadth or accuracy of this view in understanding the idea of true ecclesiastical sobornost.”
The views of Archpriests Neronov, Avvakum, and other 17th-century authors significantly anticipated the further development of Old Belief. The influence of middle and lower clergy, monks, and laypeople on church governance approached the standards of the early Christian era. In the 1920s, the renowned theologian M. Brilliantov prepared a scholarly work for the All-Union Congress of Old Believers, dedicated to the role of laypeople in the life of the Christian Church. In his work, he examines various forms of lay ministry in the early Church, including their participation in preaching the Word of God: “Laypeople Aquila and Priscilla instructed the renowned preacher Apollos in the truth and explained the way of the Lord more accurately when he began preaching about Christ in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26). As evidence that lay brethren preached the Word of God and the crucified Christ, the Apostle Paul wrote from Rome: ‘Most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear, while others proclaim Christ with good intentions’ (Philippians 1:14–15).” A separate chapter of Brilliantov’s work is devoted to lay participation in the election of clergy and bishops. He meticulously analyzes a range of historical sources and concludes that the right of laypeople and lower clergy to elect bishops was not only enshrined in the decrees of ancient councils but was also the primary method of their selection in practice. Brilliantov’s work is supplemented with extensive material on lay participation in church trials of bishops and clergy. On this matter, he provides both ancient and more recent evidence: “There have been such precedents in our Holy Church over the past two or three decades. In 1898, Archbishop Savvaty was tried with lay participation for signing a non-canonical document (under police pressure, Savvaty renounced his episcopal title, thereby committing a spiritual offense—author’s note). In 1909, Bishops Innocent and Michael were tried with lay participation for performing an ordination single-handedly. At the 1911 council, several clergy members, over ten individuals, were tried for various offenses and violations. These hearings also involved laypeople. In short, the participation of the people in trials of bishops and clergy is not prohibited; it has been and should be part of Christ’s Church as a public, beneficial practice that does not contradict sound reason, apostolic tradition, or the wisdom of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.”
M. Brilliantov, F. Melnikov, A. Varakin, I. Usov, and many other Old Believer theologians supported the view of maintaining an unshakeable balance between the ministry of laypeople and clergy. A key tenet of this position is that clergy have no additional rights beyond those granted at ordination—the right to perform sacred rites. This firm stance allowed the Old Orthodox Church to avoid the temptation of adopting teachings prevalent in other Christian churches about the stratification of the church body, such as the doctrine of hierarchical infallibility or the division of the Church into a teaching and a taught entity. Regarding the latter, Brilliantov noted: “We cannot accept such a notion of the church people, the religious community, as that espoused by the defenders of papism—a teaching church and a silent church. Once, a certain ‘Proudhon’ described the oppressed and suppressed state of the people in such a church with these words: ‘The people pray and pay taxes; the people pay taxes and pray.’ In our Holy Church, such a notion of the people cannot be allowed, for the people in our Christ’s Church, if they are slaves, are slaves of Christ, not of any mortal. The Apostle Paul wrote of such a people: ‘You yourselves, like living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ’ (1 Peter 2:5).”
A separate study on stratificational teachings was prepared by Old Believer Metropolitan Innocent (Usov). He argued that churches that adopted these teachings lack a rational, critical approach to understanding their faith. The only requirement of the church community in such cases is “to obey the teaching church or hierarchy—bishops—without any contradiction, because they are infallible.”
In contrast to blind obedience to the Pope or higher hierarchy, Usov emphasizes a critical aspect of Orthodox confession: “When we say that one must listen to the Church and obey the Church, we mean only that one must accept all the teachings and traditions of the Church—not just the contemporary Church but also the Church of past times. For the Church of the present is only a part of the entire conciliar Church of Christ. John Chrysostom says: ‘What is the body (of the Church)? All believers everywhere in the world, who were, are, or will be.’ Therefore, in Old Belief, as in early Christianity, the opinion of a bishop or even a council of bishops is not the final, infallible authority and is recognized only if it does not contradict the dogmatic and canonical structure of the Church.”
These views on sobornost became the foundation of the entire structure of the Old Orthodox (Old Believer) Church. Virtually all researchers of this phenomenon acknowledged that true sobornost is preserved in Old Belief. For instance, New Rite Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) noted that the life of Old Believer communities is built on “democratic” principles.
Indeed, the church-democratic, akin to early Christian, conciliar principles became the foundation of the Old Believer Church’s structure. All church councils, from the early post-Schism period to the present day, consist of representatives of the entire church body. Parishes are governed in a conciliar manner, with all matters decided by the common agreement of the legitimate and equal members of the community—the parish. Church trustees, elders, all those serving in the temple, and the priest himself are elected by the collective council and decision of the entire parish. Candidates for priesthood or diaconate are ordained or transferred from one parish to another by the bishop, based on the parish’s election and decision. This places a special responsibility on church pastors. In the Old Orthodox Church, a priest is not a hired worker or a church official; his fate does not depend on the whims of the ruling bishop, his assistants, or secretaries. The community itself, or rather the priest’s conscientious and zealous service within it, determines the people’s attitude toward the cleric. However, the parish priest is not left to his own devices. The ruling bishop oversees his activities, the orderliness of church worship, the building and adornment of the temple, and the fulfillment of pastoral duties. In cases of canonical or other deviations (e.g., if a cleric arbitrarily shortens services, permits baptism by pouring, or commits a personal sin contrary to his ministry), he may be suspended from serving. This practice helps prevent deliberate or unintentional disruption of church order. Matters concerning deposition are decided at the Consecrated Council. The same applies to bishops, who are elected by the entire diocese and confirmed by the Consecrated Council, which convenes annually. According to church historian F.E. Melnikov, the sobornost that permeates the Church from top to bottom represents “the model of a communal-hierarchical structure of the Church, established since apostolic times.”
The sobornost of the Old Orthodox Church was unaffected by the mass executions during the time of Patriarch Joachim and Tsarevna Sophia, Peter the Great’s church reforms, Catherine II’s secularizations, Alexander I’s liberalism, or Bolshevik persecutions. Sobornost persisted even during the harsh times of Nicholas I’s reaction, when merely possessing priestly vestments could lead to hard labor or lifelong imprisonment. One of the most significant church councils, the Great Moscow Council of 1832, which established an episcopal see outside Russia, took place during a period of severe government repression. In 1897, thanks to the active efforts of Bishop Arseny of the Urals, the canonical norms of the Old Believer Church were strengthened. From then on, in accordance with the 37th Apostolic Canon, Consecrated Councils were convened annually. Naturally, most councils during this period were held clandestinely, as the authorities did not recognize the rights of the Old Orthodox Church. However, this practice is a significant testament to the fact that a developed civil society institution can exist not only without state involvement but even without a necessary legal framework. Since the declaration of freedom of religion in Russia in 1905, Old Believer Church councils have been convened openly with government permission, primarily in Moscow.
For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that there were attempts in the history of the Old Believer Church to convene councils lacking broad representation. In 1911, Archbishop John convened a council consisting of specially selected priests without the participation of lay delegates. This sparked outrage and indignation throughout the Church. “What was the outcome of this matter? What else,” as the Venerable Vincent of Lérins noted, “but the usual and customary: antiquity was upheld, and novelty was rejected.” That same council resolved that future councils should include two priests and two laypeople from each diocese, and five priests and five laypeople from Moscow and the Moscow diocese. (In modern practice, the Moscow Pokrovskaya community and some others also have an increased number of delegates to councils due to their large number of parishioners.)
The conciliar life of Old Belief was not limited to the framework of church communities or church councils. Other public associations and forums addressed regional or corporate tasks. Diocesan congresses, convened annually, played a significant role in pre-revolutionary church life. These united not only the regional church authority led by the bishop but also the interests of the parishes within the diocese, serving as a link to the Consecrated Councils. Another form of conciliar life was the All-Russian Congresses of Old Believers. These essentially secular events coordinated the public life of Old Believers and their relations with the state. Brotherhoods played a particularly important role, engaging in educational, charitable, and other specialized activities. Representatives of these brotherhoods, in turn, could participate in Consecrated Councils and other forms of Old Believer public associations.
The conciliar life of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church had a significant resonance in pre-revolutionary Russian society. Secular and church newspapers, politicians, state officials, laypeople, and clergy of the Synodal Church actively discussed the councils and their decisions. The prominent New Rite theologian, Professor Nikolai Subbotin of the Theological Academy, reflecting on Old Believer sobornost, wrote: “Meanwhile, the Orthodox people are deprived of this great consolation—to see a council of Orthodox archpastors in the walls of the first capital, gathered to discuss church matters.” The newspaper Kolokol, founded by V.I. Skvortsov, assistant to the Ober-Procurator of the Synod, reported: “In contrast to our bishops, an Old Believer bishop feels like he is in a beehive: he is not merely a person granted the right to reside in a designated official residence; he is the queen bee among the people, at the center of all—noble and common, poor and rich. This is sobornost without any regulations… This is what our church people should passionately strive for. This is the ideal of truly paternal and filial relations between archpastors, pastors, and laypeople.” The example of Old Orthodox councils became one of the key catalysts for the convening of the so-called pre-conciliar consultation of the Synodal Church.
Today, the traditions of church self-organization, including the holding of councils, remain the foundation of church governance. According to the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (RPSC), the highest authority in the Church belongs to the Consecrated Council, consisting of bishops, clergy, monastics, and laypeople. The most recent Consecrated Council of the RPSC was held in September of this year in one of the Old Believer spiritual centers in Ukraine—the village of Bila Krynytsia in the Chernivtsi region. Over 130 delegates attended the council, with more than half being laypeople. Among other decisions, this forum adopted measures to strengthen sobornost. For instance, the representation of delegates at diocesan congresses will now align with the same structure as at Consecrated Councils. The prerogative of approving the preliminary list of issues to be discussed at the council has been transferred to the metropolitan, diocesan bishops, and diocesan congresses. However, this preliminary list is not final; it is discussed during the approval of the agenda by the council itself and can be significantly amended.
Traditions preserving the characteristics of deep antiquity continue to endure in another important matter—the election of the Church’s primate and bishops. Any member of the Church, including a simple monk or layperson, can be nominated for the high rank. The form of voting—open or secret—is also determined by the council. In the election of a candidate for the episcopal rank, all council delegates participate, each having the right to cast one vote.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that the rich experience of self-organization and sobornost in the Old Believer Church may be of interest not only to historians but also to researchers of contemporary socio-public relations. This phenomenon refutes a number of stereotypes and myths entrenched in modern political and public consciousness. For example, the history of Old Belief demonstrates that democracy can exist in forms distinct from Western European models. Autonomous self-organization confirms the possibility of building civil society institutions without state assistance or control. The maturity and civic consciousness displayed by members of Old Believer communities illustrate the stability of self-governing societal units. It seems that the experience of Old Belief affirms the right of civil society institutions to become a vital foundation for public relations in our country.
Gleb Stanislavovich Chistyakov