Given the recent tragic skirmishes between the government of Armenia and the national church, which have created yet another self-inflicted wound, it seems like an appropriate time to discuss the unique relationship Armenians have with their church. To fully comprehend the response of many individual Armenians and organizations, it is important to examine this reaction through the multiple dimensions we call the “church.”
At the foundation of our association is our Christian faith. Many Armenians are affiliated with the national church solely as an expression of that faith. The Armenian church operates as an intercessor and catalyst in the development of their relationship with Jesus Christ. Although prayer can be practiced individually and collectively, worship is a communal experience realized through the Badarak (Divine Liturgy) and sacraments. Adherents to this approach are less interested in the cultural aspects of the church, which they tend to approach as a purely Christian vehicle. In recent decades, this has become more prevalent in the diaspora through intermarriage and the resulting diluted core cultural identity. However, the trend is somewhat offset by non-Armenian spouses embracing Armenian culture and accepting the broader definition of the Apostolic Church.
Another dimension expressed by Armenians is the church as an institution. This aspect is very significant and serves as an identifier for most Armenians. It is unique in that attendance and membership do not always accurately reflect institutional support. Many Armenians support the church financially and spiritually, despite rarely attending services. If we were to “audit” an Armenian church in the U.S. on any given Sunday, we would probably observe an understating of its relevance based on limited attendance. Some parishes list 600 to 700 adult members—a fraction of the population base the church serves—yet less than half of that amount may attend on a weekly basis. This pattern is typical of those who utilize the church as an ethnic connection. As a result, Armenians exhibit a peculiar (though, not unique) behavior of sporadic attendance combined with a fierce belief in the institution.
Although many Armenians complain about the church’s institutional issues—including the role of women, inflexibility, worship service and challenges to remaining relevant in the diaspora—these criticisms have not eroded the church’s importance as the most important institution in Armenian society. Armenia’s churches are full but should be viewed in light of the limited number of churches per capital—despite a significant building program. Still, for a country that lived under severe religious persecution for 70 years during the 20th century, I am filled with joy whenever I attend Badarak in Armenia and see crowds of all demographics. Interestingly, though some have left the church over their concerns, the majority continue to identify the church as an institution with their Armenian Christian identity.
One aspect of the church in America that was lost in the transition to the diaspora—and is now being rediscovered—is the essence of the Badarak and the church as a remarkable Bible-based miracle. The contributions of Armenians to global Christianity are sometimes better understood by non-Armenian clergy and scholars than by the Armenian laity. This credibility remains despite the fact that the church has disappointed its faithful over the years. Scandals, corruption and administrative divisions between the hierarchical Sees have been absorbed by the faithful, with predictable recovery.
One possible reason for this resilience is the unique integration of the institution into Armenian identity. In the diaspora, most communities are built around an Armenian church. This is true of both older established communities as well as newer ones founded by population shifts. In Armenia, the church remains a very important public institution, despite criticism. The Armenian church is deeply ingrained in the psyche of most Armenians, making it nearly impossible to separate ethnic identity from the church. For this reason, Armenians answer the call when they see their church under duress.
I have mentioned in previous columns that it is rare for an Armenian church in the diaspora to fail because of finances. Churches fail when the faithful decline. We have witnessed countless occasions where Armenians will respond to a financial crisis within their church. Given the aloofness some may experience, it can take some time to recognize the challenge, but they usually respond. This is why the church must always remain focused on its mission of bringing the faithful and God together for their salvation.
The final dimension of how we identify with the church is through leadership. Personalities and individuals are very important. Although the Armenian church has many democratic tendencies— such as the lay/clergy election of the Catholicos and Primates—our identity is closely tied to the leader during his primacy. In my view, this is driven by two factors. The first being that our history is written through events and individuals. Our alphabet is as much a reflection of Mashdots as it is of what he delivered. We talk about the defense of Christianity through the heroism of Vartan. The canonization of individuals has significant spiritual implications, but also places a clear earthly focus on their contributions. As a people, we remember our history through leaders. We speak of the church’s importance over the last 100 years through the bravery of Gevorg V, the resilience of Sahag II, the brilliance of Karekin I of Cilicia, the pillar of strength of Vasken I and the intellectual leadership of Karekin II.
The presence of a Catholicos with the faithful in the diaspora is always a significant life event. I remember meeting Khoren I of Cilicia as a young boy and Karekin II of Cilicia as a young man. We recall these events vividly, as well as their words. Many Armenians love to discuss their private meetings with Catholicoi as a reflection of their importance in the community. These examples reflect our identity with our leaders. It is also notable that while everyone has an opinion about our Catholicoi, the moments of direct contact are few and far between. This is one of the reasons I appreciate Aram I’s commitment to visit every parish affiliated with the Great House of Cilicia during his recent two-part pontifical visit. It also illustrates the impact of Karekin II of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin not conducting a pontifical visit to the United States in well over 18 years—though several “private” visits have occurred during that timeframe.
The structure of the Armenian church is highly hierarchical. After a Catholicos’ election, they essentially wield absolute power for a lifetime. This structure has conditioned our people to look to their leaders for guidance. Being visible is essential in today’s definition of leadership. This isn’t 1900 anymore, with Khrimian Hayrig walking from village to village. Our people need the blessing of their spiritual leaders.
Reviewing the complexity of the relationship between the church and Armenians can help us understand reactions to current conflicts. In the view of many, Karekin II has not been a popular Catholicos. He is not very visible and tends to lead through released statements. His election was controversial and his leadership style is essentially “one size fits all.” Rumors have persisted for years, leading to credibility issues. Much of the criticism has remained outside of formal institutional processes and therefore, over the years, has lingered as rumors and conjecture. Despite the criticisms, he has led a period of growth in Armenia, with churches being built after years of decline under the Soviet regime.
Most Armenians have opinions on Karekin II, but choose to keep them private. He has a very loyal following among the clergy due to his focus on hierarchical decision-making and discipline. The issue of celibacy, raised publicly by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, is not new; it has been discussed in private rooms around the world for years. Celibacy is a subject many denominations grapple with in terms of compliance and reality.
The reaction of the Armenian church community and others to this conflict is the real story.
The Armenian church, in its multiple relationship identifiers, remains a very powerful force because it integrates our faith—a legacy institution intimately tied to our collective identity and our proclivity to accept flaws in favor of the institution.
Karekin II is a beneficiary of this integration. He may not be popular, but he will be defended under the institution’s shield by both clergy and the faithful who advocate for its longevity.
In 1974, President Richard Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House. Many opposed impeachment out of fear for the damage it would do to the “Office of the Presidency.” They might not have liked Nixon or his actions, but the perpetuity of the highest office was of utmost importance. Any collateral damage to the office by an impeachment was unacceptable.
This is harder to grasp today, since Nixon’s impeachment was the first in over 100 years. Given this behavior, we now see Armenians defending Karekin II who heretofore would have been critics. The church is very protective of its internal manners. It seemingly does not matter if it ignores some feedback over the years; it considers these issues its domain, and if it chooses to ignore concerns, so be it.
Another factor to consider is that the church is probably the one institution that has global implications with a conflict rooted in Armenia. The Catholicos of All Armenians immediately involves the vast diaspora. His title says “all,” not “some” Armenians. This can not be said of foreign policy matters, which are strictly the domain of the Republic. Citizens of Armenia and their government are responsible for political processes. Hopefully, it will evolve into collaboration with the diaspora, but it is the government’s responsibility.
Whether you subscribe to a faith connection, the institution or its leaders, the church in headlines will always get our people’s attention. It is ingrained in the deepest core of our soul. It is my prayer that civility and collaboration prevail to ensure a bright future for our homeland.