Confrontation of the renovationist church groups in Siberia (September-December 1922)

The article analyzes the creation of the Siberian group of the “Union of Church Revival”, its prerequisites, as well as the period of confrontation with the Siberian “Living Church” and the reasons for the final merger of Renovationist church groups in Siberia in December 1922. The author points out that the first cell of the “Union of Church Revival” arose in Novonikolaevsk in the second half of September 1922 without the participation of Bishop Sofroniy (Arefiev), whom some researchers called the founder of the Siberian group “Union”. However, if bishop Sophrony headed the Siberian “Union of Church Revival”, the date of the final separation of which from the Siberian “Living Church” should be considered October 4, 1922, when the Provisional Administration of the Siberian Metropolis was formed in Novonikolaevsk. The study suggests that the reasons for such a step on the part of the bishop were, first, the desire for real power over diocesan structures, and second, the rejection of the idea of the widespread spread of the “family episcopate”, declared by the Siberian “Living Church”. The conditions of confrontation between two church groups in Siberia are described. The article emphasizes that there was no active confrontation, since the regional demarcation of the groupings was initially formed. In November 1922, the “Union of Church Revival” attempted to completely end the confrontation by creating a collegiate body that unites representatives of both church groups, but the arrest of Bishop Sofroniy (Arefiev) led to the fact that this project was curtailed, and the Siberian group of the “Union” in December 1922 was actually absorbed by the “Living Church”, although some members of the Provisional Administration of the Siberian Metropolis retained an important position in the leading structures of the Siberian Renovationism. It is concluded that the “Union of Church Revival” did not have wide support in Siberia, as a result of which there was no active opposition to it with the “Living Church” within the region.