There are times in our journey as a global nation when we descend into a victim mentality. We all are familiar with this behavior. We become reactive rather than proactive. We complain about the narrative rather than work to control it. We criticize the behavior of an ambivalent world, knowing full well that the number one attribute of international relations is self-interest. Perhaps most disheartening is our fixation on external factors beyond our direct control, while remaining distant from internal challenges within our capability. We warn of Turkish exploitation of the homeland and diaspora, while ignoring the fact that our public mutual criticism often provides fuel for Turkish interests. We speak with reverence about our Christian faith based on love and forgiveness, but tolerate a division of our institution based on power and a lack of collective will.
It is always easier and more comfortable to talk about how others negatively impact us rather than looking in the mirror and removing constraints. In the absence of oneness, we operate like an eight-cylinder engine running on only four. Why is it that we talk about the survival of our nation as it relates to the Azeris but don’t see our self-imposed obstacles as non-violent yet silent threats? Why do we focus on personalities rather than root causes that transcend individuals? We would rather talk about our perceived understanding of Karekin II or Aram I than advocate for strategies that will keep our church relevant. We live in a world where most Armenians intellectually support the institution called the Armenian Apostolic Church, yet far fewer are active adherents and even fewer are educated in its canons and beliefs. These gaps enable manipulation and lead to the conflicts we are currently witnessing.
What if we freed our thinking from self-imposed obstacles? Our church is a unique institution within the framework of Armenian identity. There are three components within our relationship with the church. The most fundamental is our Christian identity through our relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Although it should be the foundation, it is not always clear that spirituality is our primary purpose. Many Armenians connect with the institution as their main identity conduit. Given that our church is a national institution encompassing the full breadth of faith and heritage, a substantial number of Armenians identify with the church primarily for cultural reasons.
I have always found it ironic that while Sunday church attendance is often sparse in the western diaspora, churches in Armenia are generally full—regardless of the date. Even accounting for population density, it is clear that most Armenians in the diaspora demonstrate their commitment to the church through vehicles other than attendance. For a country whose religious institution was oppressed for 70 years, the expression of public worship in Armenia is impressive. I have personally found this to be true whether you are in Holy Etchmiadzin, Yerevan or in a rural village. We should never underestimate Armenian loyalty to the church. It is embedded deeply in the psyche of our people.
The responses to the current squabble between the Armenian government and Holy Etchmiadzin illustrate this point. The third dimension of our church is manifested through its leaders. This is best reflected in the value we place on the Catholicoi. Many of our adherents express their loyalty to the reigning Catholicos. It is somewhat natural to follow the leader of the church and anticipate their wisdom and direction. Our history is lined with iconic personalities such as St. Hripsime, St. Gayane, St. Nerses Shnorhali and Gregory of Narek, who served the church with distinction.
In more recent times, we have retained a deep love for Khrimian Hairig and Komitas Vartabed. Thirty years after his passing, Vasken I of blessed memory is remembered as a kind, humble and courageous leader who kept the church alive during difficult years. Catholicos Karekin I Hovseptiantz of Cilicia is held in similar regard for his brilliance and vision. Karekin II of Cilicia, later Karekin I of Holy Etchmiadzin, galvanized the Armenian church into the ecumenical light and inspired thousands with his remarkable oratorical skills. With the long history of church leaders through a well-defined hierarchy, it is clear why we focus on Aram I of Cilicia and Karekin II of Holy Etchmiadzin. Loyalty seems to transcend controversies as the lines of faith, church and individuals blur. For most, there is little to differentiate between the office of the supreme patriarch and the individual holding the seat.
The downside to this cultural norm in our nation is the same as the secular organizational dilemma. There are times when the institution or the individuals are prioritized over the mission. This is a particularly sensitive issue in the church since, by definition, it must be held to the highest standard. We have a tendency to work only within the walls of our institutions. This is a self-imposed constraint and can be overcome with vision, will and courage. I have often thought about our hierarchical sees and jurisdictional challenges. Our leaders downplay the impact of our dysfunctional interactions, but the problems go far beyond the division in North America.
Our church was established in 301 AD in Holy Etchmiadzin. That fact established the primacy of Holy Etchmiadzin, regardless of geopolitical turmoil and other sees. Jurisdictional dilemmas are as old as the church. The Etchmiadzin seat was forced to move many times, to Dvin, Aghtamar, Sepastia and eventually Cilicia, before returning to Holy Etchmiadzin in 1441. During the same period, the Ottoman Empire established the Patriarchate of the Armenian millet, the de facto representative of Armenians under Ottoman rule. Persian—and eventually Russian control of eastern Armenia—effectively limited Holy Etchmiadzin’s influence.
After the seat returned to Etchmiadzin in 1441, the See of Cilicia continued where the seat of all Armenians had resided since the 10th century. These events aligned closely with the political turmoil of the time, such as the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the Cilician Kingdom in 1375. For centuries, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the See of Cilicia fell within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, but jurisdiction was not always clear. The See of Cilicia focused on the Cilician region and later the former Ottoman territories not in the Turkish Republic. Even then, transitional jurisdiction issues were muddled. Holy Etchmiadzin administers the diocese of Iraq, and there remains a diocese under Etchmiadzin in Syria (Damascus) and one under Cilicia (Aleppo). Confused yet?
Some interesting core competencies should influence our thinking going forward. We exist as a nation in very diverse worlds. Armenia is a homogenous environment regarding faith and heritage, while the diaspora is deeply shaped by host cultures. Despite the safety, security and precious freedoms afforded American Armenians, the threat of cultural assimilation is constant. It is the reality of a dispersed nation.
After the destruction of Sis by Turks, the See of Cilicia was reborn among the refugee camps of Aleppo and other Middle Eastern communities, eventually finding its permanent home in Antelias in 1930. What began in the post-genocide chaos through a group of courageous clergyman has evolved into the miracle of the Great House of Cilicia. Antelias is the de facto expert on the diaspora, with its renowned ecumenical relations and record of high quality celibate clergy in diaspora leadership positions. In 2015, hundreds of American Armenians affiliated with Holy Etchmiadzin were stunned to witness the leadership brilliance of Aram I in Washington, D.C. This was a luxury not previously afforded them, due to our jurisdictional challenges.
In my view, the capability of the See of Cilicia remains underutilized. The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin is constrained by the responsibilities of operating in an independent homeland. The challenges of recovering from the Soviet era and addressing the risks of secularism in a free society are all-consuming.
Simply stated, Holy Etchmiadzin has its hands full in Armenia. The primacy of Holy Etchmiadzin is not challenged by any of the other hierarchical sees, including the See of Cilicia. I would propose that the See of Cilicia be given greater jurisdiction and responsibility under the united umbrella of Holy Etchmiadzin. If we could only get past the egos and power interests, this could be viewed as “management delegation” by the supreme patriarch. Working as one church would also allow us to eliminate long standing jurisdictional issues. These exist only in a divided state. It would increase the credibility of Holy Etchmiadzin from a leadership perspective by improving the utilization of our resources as a global church.
Certainly, such a proposal could be called naive or unrealistic, but only because we choose to ignore possibilities within our control. Pride and ego can have no future if we are to survive the challenges before us. We should be motivated to turn a subtle competitive situation into one that optimizes our capabilities. The groundwork has actually been prepared with the long-standing hierarchical order and the openly cooperative environment in North America.
If our vision is to remain in survivor mode, then this is not the solution. If we have a vision of growth and prosperity, then it is time for bold ideas. After all, these decisions are within our control.