Numerous churches have been built in Armenia in the last two decades for which enormous sums of money have been spent.  But the question of what problems these new churches are solving in addition to their ritual services, what new quality of thinking and spirituality they are giving to the public, is not the subject of discussion.

The Church as a spiritual-public institute and the churches as architectural structures are separate and at the same time interconnected themes as the spiritual outlook and worldview of societies and content of societies change with the passage of time as does the architecture itself.

We should try to understand the purpose of large-scale church building in previous times and in our day.  As we are going to discuss the cognitive potential of church architecture, we therefore propose to agree with the author the simple truth that vast and large churches and monasteries can only be built by societies with great material possessions and noble purposes.  After all, only vital causes and goals can force people to spend decades building such expensive buildings.

In this sense, it is unlikely that only by means of salvation and fear of God can the public afford to build a temple that is equal in value to the material wealth created by many generations of members of this or that community.

The inclination for large-scale church building should have more rational and immediate tangible reasons.  However, the evidence suggests that the economic prosperity of this or that area often does not correspond to the volume of church building.  Another explanation for this can be found in the case of looking at the problem from another point of view, namely the demonstration of the degree of power of government.

Not all research on the question of the relationship between church and state formations fully clarifies the exclusive tendency of authorities of different eras to large-scale church building.  It is said that the church has always been one of the institutions of social and political life and an irreplaceable pillar of monarchs’ power.  There is only one aspect to be touched upon here: the very essence of the exclusive phenomenon of the inextricable connection between the church and the monarchical power.

The problem is that the lack of a full understanding of this circumstance makes it difficult to answer the following question:  What is the essence of the modern principle of separation of Church and State in modern constitutional states?  To be more precise, why has the Church lost its centuries-old state-building function when the whole history of monarchies is closely linked to the history of that religious institution?  And here we come to the question, what is the fate of the Church in the modern world order?

It can be argued that the monarchs of all times paid tribute to the gods (God) for the sake of sacrificing a significant portion of the wealth of their superpowers.  But then you will have to answer the following question:  why did such fear not deter many from killing monks without ambiguity?  History is plentiful in such cases.  Or where in history did the unique phenomenon of respecting the religious attitudes of different subjects come from, that is why the monarchs built temples of God for subjects of different faiths?  After all, each Church had to inspire its monarch to think about the exclusivity of his own Church and “infidelity” of the rest of the Churches, especially the other religions.  Many other questions may also arise.

The questions raised can only testify to the fact that the monarchs were building churches (mosques, synagogues, etc.) largely for the sake of preserving their own power, not for the sake of saving their own souls.  Accordingly, they were building churches, largely for the sake of obeying their subjects, but not for the sake of God. This assertion can help us to deepen our understanding of the very essence of monarchical powers and the unique phenomenon of large-scale centuries-old church building scattered throughout the world.  It will also be easier to understand the bio-philosophy of monarchs who were not the best shining examples in God-fearing and law-abiding.  As a result, it will be easier to grasp the very logic of the history of societies and states.

The aforementioned assertion is not at all difficult to argue, given the pivotal political meaning of any religious system.  The “salvation” of all monarchs was the provision of “being chosen by God,” which was enshrined in every religious direction.  “Any power is from God,” here is the statement without which no religion would have the opportunity to survive long.  This “truth of God,” according to church tradition, was addressed to followers of religion in the simplest and most convincing way, inspiring people as if “only one has the right to rule everyone in the world,” which has long since become a key state-building factor.

Of course, the truth that “any power is from God” is much deeper than such a historical interpretation.  Many today realize that this formula is a reflection of the following truth:  “Man either rules over another or not.”  In other words, others can only be ruled by someone who is capable of controlling the consciousness of others and subjecting them to their own will.  It is, in fact, a gift from God and not at all given to all.  However, we are now interested in the traditional ecclesiastical interpretation of this question and its role in the history of mankind.

Societies that believed deeply in God could not ignore the provision of “being God’s chosen one”.  If that were not the case, the state unification of people would be impossible at all.  The strategic meaning of the church organization would also be incomprehensible, as mere discipline is a weak factor to be powerful.  Religion was originally supposed to have a political function, that is, a function of regulating human relations, irrespective of their moral development. It was just such an instrument for the church to have the public’s faith in the dominion of being God’s chosen.  This allowed church leaders to identify the one who is God’s chosen;  societies could only kneel and cry.  “Long live the master!”  And the ruler had to “bring down” laws from God’s own law, thereby laying the foundation for state-created life.

Such a logic of forming monarchical state formations clearly outlines the meaning of the roles of the church and the ruler, as well as their relationship.  It is here that we find the interpretation of the monarchs’ tendency to empower the church and to raise its authority.  The monarchs (even those who did not believe in God) formed the basis of the church, and the church upheld the faith of its subjects through affirming the idea that the ruler is chosen by God.  By doing so, the state union was given a complete system for its establishment and sustainable operation.

This has been the case for millennia, and it seems like nothing can change the situation.  But God’s faith also has specific forms.  There is always a time when people change their perceptions of God’s truths.  In this respect, we are interested in the fate of the Church in our time – it is necessary to briefly discuss the qualitative change in the scheme of political organization of human factions, and more specifically, the essence of a constitutional state. With it, the logic of a radical change in the role of the church in the lives of communities will also become clear.

Naturally, as the principle of equality of human rights arose, faith in the rulers, as God’s chosen ones, had to be exhausted and its role as a state-building factor had been lost.

Since the eighteenth century, the peoples of North America and Europe have rejected the pivotal role of the Church in shaping the power of liberalism – the ideals of freedom and equality of the individual.  States began to form a universal treaty on the basis of equality of citizens, that is, the Constitution, which is the main normative law.  The Church, contrary to its own will, withdrew from this process, which was specifically enshrined in the texts of the constitutions.  The ecumenical role of the Church Institute for thousands of years has been shaken.

Moreover, one of the main institutions of the Church has lost its effectiveness, that is, the dispute over the Truth.  Liberal ideology in state life rejected the monopoly of the right to higher truth.  Instead, as one of the basic principles of constitutional states, the principle of freedom to express one’s own opinion was embedded.  The political role of the Church has expired.  The Church was destined to seek a fundamentally different role in the life of societies.  Church building did not decrease, but the role of church activity changed radically.

However, in no corner of the world have religious institutions finally come to terms with their destiny.  Both in individual countries and internationally, they are trying to exert their influence in public life.  In many countries where the goal of building a rule of law has been announced, but where oligarchic and authoritarian regimes have been established, churches are merging with the authorities and providing them with serious support.

Moreover, in certain countries they pursue a policy of denying the existence of other religious communities that profess other religious values.  Nor do they cease to sow peoples’ unified ethno-religious notions of identity.

However, the function of the church’s political role in the state is exhausted.  Large-scale church building cannot restore the old glory.  In the life of the congregations, in the provision of spiritual nourishment to the people, churches can play a significant role, as well as in the humanitarian spheres.  But not everyone succeeds because of ambiguity in goals and desires.