The Controllable Cause of Declining Parishes
It is a topic that consumes many of our church leaders globally, nationally and locally. Many of us lie awake some nights searching for the answer—how do we stop the obvious decline of many of our parishes? Each region of the Armenian nation has a different experience. The challenges in Armenia are generally associated with the impact of 70 years of Soviet rule, when the church was marginally tolerated but unable to provide public leadership. In the diaspora, we tend to attribute the decline of our parishes to the external impact of secularism and assimilation. The former has created a material society, at its worst obsessed with progress in a Godless state. Our children are separated from God in their daily lives, except in their family life. It is a struggle between two distinct worlds on this earth. Assimilation is associated with a separation from one’s Armenian roots, either by choice or due to the environment. These are real challenges and one of the reasons I advocate for a decentralized administration of our church hierarchy. Specific dioceses should be empowered to make adjustments to address the impact of these problems in a given locale. Unfortunately, our church remains a one-size-fits-all institution, and we suffer the consequences.
Many Armenians blame intermarriage as a contributor to our decline. My perspective is that intermarriage, in and of itself, is not a direct contributor, because identity in the diaspora is a choice. Certainly, it adds complexity to the challenge, but a welcoming church that understands the implications of intermarriage can function with success. We have yet to address this matter in a meaningful way, other than encouraging the Armenian spouse to bring their non-Armenian partner to church. This reflects a lack of understanding of how to fulfill needs and build identity. Intermarriage is a sociological reflection of ethnic cultures two-three generations removed and should be embraced, not ignored.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
Wonderful article and reasoning. I would also point out that most if not all of the churches still do the service in the Armenian language only as well as it makes it very hard to follow along using the books at the pews. Some evolving in those departments needs to occur. Updated literature and a mass in English (at least once a month).
Bingo Jean. Doing the service once a month in English is good compromise and a smart way to support parishioners. The idiom “throw them a bon” comes to mind. We made it so hard on parishioners.
We blame everyone else for our problems, “Sunday morning soccer”, American values, Soviet values, bla-bla-bla, bla-bla-bla. We don’t take ownership of the problem and thus are doomed to never fixing it. One can’t have two masters. We have two masters, that is, two missions, the other is preserving the Armenian culture and liturgical. The two missions are diametrically opposed. If bring people closer to Christ were the only agenda, declining attendance and participation would easier to fix.
We are starting to make the worship experience more user-friendly, but we are now where we should have been 40 years ago.
The Indians are smart, the Malabar Indian church nearest me does their service in English one Sunday a month, specifically the second Sunday of *every* month. Smart! They are smart enough to see that it does not dilute the liturgical language or culture, but actually helps save it.
At New Britains Holy Resurrection, I am please to comment that we do have young American born, nonn=speaking the Armenian language, doing very very well chanting the entire service i Armenian which they have gladly learned, and do want to perpetuate every week. We must preserve th krapar service.