Despite our disunity, many diasporan Armenians prefer to remain optimistic about our future. It seems logical at face value. Why would we dedicate ourselves to our community institutions if we had lost hope about the sustainability of those investments? Our communities and organizations are blessed with countless servants who carry the torch from the past to the future. As we know well, though, the future is not binary. There are a variety of realities, from extinction to prosperity. Our experience in the Americas seems to reflect that growth is embraced while decline is denied. Focusing on our challenges is not a popular vocation.
Our communities are a main social outlet consisting of extended families and friends. The social connection limits the risk that many are willing to take. Addressing our problems requires a commitment to taking risks and courage to sacrifice one’s social standing. Most of us are unwilling to assume such responsibility. This may partially explain why change is so difficult.
Another impediment to problem solving and its resulting replenishment is our inability to decouple “traditions” from the change needed as a result of an evolving state. I read this past week that His Holiness Aram I has declared 2025 the “year of the revitalization of traditions.” Since 2003, the annual event has dedicated a particular theme to each year. The intent is to bring focus, attention and collaboration on important issues to our global diaspora.
The last few years have been specifically focused on the diaspora. His Holiness’ focus on traditions, while encouraging modernizing and reorganizing of the diaspora, raises an essential point that reflects the depth of his leadership. Most community dialogue interprets modernization and tradition as polar opposites. It need not be adversarial, but in a world where many cling to traditions, change is not always welcome. Aram Vehapar asks an interesting question to frame the discussion: “How can values, traditions and ideals that ensure national identity be preserved while remaining integral and inseparable from the society of the host country?” The answer is complex, but it is the recipe for survival: we must stop seeing tradition and adaptation as incompatible.
During recent pontifical visits, Aram I emphasized these themes of revitalization and reorganization. His strategy openly requires evolutionary change while defining the core traditions vital to our identity. It is a great challenge but one that can reverse recent decline. After all, standing still and clinging to the past will only fuel further reduction in our long-term viability. I applaud his commentary that we must find solutions within these boundaries. Articulating the unique position of the diaspora, in this regard, is critical to identifying meaningful solutions.
Despite its struggles with the very issue highlighted by His Holiness, the Armenian church remains the most important institution in global Armenian life. Our value system in this country, however, seems to define success as the number of churches we have and whether we maintain a modest level of functionality. Our expectations of our leaders and institutions are inadequate. Institutional denial is evident when we consider that church attendance membership per capita and Sunday School attendees continue to decline. Many of our smaller churches suffer from changing demographics and assimilation. Larger parishes are drawing smaller percentages of the populations, which masks the underlying core issues. The large number of Armenians, particularly American-born Armenians, fading into the American woodwork has a compounding impact on successive generations.
Ask yourselves, how many of your Sunday School or AYF peers are active in the community today? For those in the more senior generations, how many of your children are adult members of the church? I have observed a focus on the short term and building endowment funds. With respect to the dedication of every participant, money alone will not save our churches. Rather, they will decline when we lose the faithful.
The church has been woefully slow to address these causes. I have been fortunate to attend several National Representative Assemblies and Diocesan Assemblies as a delegate. The problems are the same, and the results are similar. When our parishes struggle, resources are consumed by current issues and struggle to address the root causes. Where will the solutions come from? Are the answers on the local level, on the regional level or from the hierarchical Sees? The foundation of the solution will always reside with each of us as individuals. It is a choice we make at some point in our lifetime.
Are the answers on the local level, on the regional level or from the hierarchical Sees? The foundation of the solution will always reside with each of us as individuals. It is a choice we make at some point in our lifetime.
There is no doubt that the implementation will always be on the local level, and some parishes have the resources and ideas that will improve their experiences. The Armenian church, however, is a vertically-organized institution with most of the authority at the top of the pyramid. In the Americas, we have relationships separately with both the Great House of Cilicia in Antelias and the Mother See in Holy Etchmiadzin. Although we are proud of the democratic institutions of our church (elected lay and clergy leaders), it is also reasonable to declare that the Catholicoi are in powerful positions, and their leadership is a critical variable in addressing our challenges.
The leadership style and approach of the Vehapars of the two Sees are very different. Aram I’s seat is in the diaspora, and he has been in leadership ecumenical positions globally. His public leadership style is gregarious and focuses on addressing the faithful. His recent pontifical visit where he spent meaningful time in every Prelacy parish illustrated this point. His boundless energy to meet with as many of the faithful as possible was inspiring. The scope of his jurisdiction is narrower than the Mother See, but he is visible and engaging, emphasizing the need for reorganization and adaptation while embracing our core traditions.
His Holiness Karekin II has a very different leadership style. His responsibilities are also global but cover many other geographies than Cilicia. Although he has visited the Americas many times, his visits are frequently of a private nature focused on small meetings or fundraising. The last pontifical visit to the eastern United States was over 17 years ago, which means that most of the emerging adult generation have not experienced his presence in this diocese. In addition, he seems to have a different philosophy relative to the diaspora.
My perception from observing him as a communicant for many years is that he believes in the “one size fits all” approach for the Armenian church globally. He concurs with Aram I on the retention of tradition, but his internalization of the diaspora’s needs is limited. Stressing tradition in the diaspora without any flexibility for adaptation is a formula that will assure continued decline. While the church continues to straddle the status quo, it is important to separate adherence to our church from faith. When Armenians leave our church, it does necessarily reflect a lack of Christian faith. In fact, we all have known individuals and families who found it challenging to explore their faith in the Armenian church. This is a very sad occurrence but is clearly a segment of our decline.
As we begin to digest Aram Vehapar’s theme of revitalizing traditions, we must define for ourselves and our families which traditions are vital to our identity and which are peripheral. This is a difficult task because of our diverse background, but in the diaspora, our resources and absorption bandwidth are finite. When my grandfather came from his village in Koch Hisar in Sepastia, he brought many local traditions. Some of those evolved throughout history, but others — like language, faith, food, music and literature — continue to shape a part of our lives.
Each generation in the diaspora bears this responsibility. I believe that is what Aram I is referring to with this challenge. What are the traditions that define our values and identity? Embrace them as a method of continuity, and adapt to the host country’s culture in areas where it complements our identity. If our Christian faith is a core value, as Vehapar has articulated, then we should be wary of the secularization in the U.S. that may threaten our Christian Armenian identity.
Discussing tradition while speaking to the diaspora about adaptation may confuse some who are concerned about losing our traditions. It is challenging but succinctly defines the key to sustaining the diaspora. If we are to be successful in identity retention, then the areas we adapt from our host societies should complement our core traditions. I am hopeful that His Holiness’ guidance for this year will lead to meaningful dialogue organized at both the regional diocese and parish levels. We should also have the expectation that the unique needs of the diaspora will be advocated by diocesan leaders to His Holiness Karekin II.
Pontifical visits are necessary to building relationships and hearing from this community.The Armenian church has a direct relationship with the health of our communities. It is not only the center of our faith but the trunk where many cultural branches reside. For this reason, the church has an important responsibility to reverse decline. We also need flexibility to encourage our children and non-Armenian spouses, who have much to offer. Although we should value all generations of our community, we should pay particular attention to the ideas and thoughts of the younger generation. It is they who will determine the future of our church as an inheritance. Do we have a mechanism for engaging them in a substantive manner?
Stepan Piligian
Latest posts by Stepan Piligian (see all)
- Protecting sovereignty in view of shifting global dynamics - February 25, 2025
- Mentoring, role modeling and securing our future - February 19, 2025
- The mystique of our grandparents’ backyards - February 11, 2025
By its very nature, Diaspora is a community whose members have and maintain ties with their ancestral land. If there are no such ties, there is no Diaspora. Its members are Americans, Lebanese or Turks, etc. The post genocide- the post first Armenian republic-Diaspora had diametrically opposed principled stands vis-a-vis Armenia. History swept away the reasons for having such opposing principled stands. Armenia is now free, independent, democratic and continues to be endangered. At the present the Armenian citizens have elected Nikol Pashinyan led faction to govern Armenia. I understand very well the complexity of the matter but II imagine the Catholicos’ call for return of tradition is just that. For Diaspora to return to a principled stand towards the free, independent, democratic Armenia. Diaspora either unconditionally supports – at the cost of being repetitious – the free, independent, democratic Armenia, or it does not. It will wither away much sooner if it does not.
Vahe if Nikol was elected and he is a constitutional and democratic individual why was the resignation of his predecessor and his arrival to the government necessary before there was an election?
DM
I can offer you the following happenings and will not engage in any other interpretation other than what I said to which you alluded.
On April 23, 2018, around 4 pm, the parliamentary elected first PM of the new republic, the last president, Sezh Sargsyan, resigned as the PM elect.
On May 8, 2018, at its second and last snap parliamentary election, Nikol Pashinyan was elected the PM by the 105-member Armenian Assembly by 59 votes. 53 votes constituted the majority. ARF faction, disassociated itself from the Republican Party with which ARF had been part of the Serzh Sargsyan government for the 10 ten years, and voted for Nikol Pashinyan. Without those 7 votes, Nikol Pashinyan, would not have been elected PM by parliamentary votes.
Six months later, on December 2018, a general election was held, and Nikol Pashinyan led My Step Alliance won 70.44% of the votes resulting in a 132 seat National Assembly.
The disastrous 44-day Second Artsakh war broke on September 27, 2020.
Six months after Armenia’s capitulation and signed the November 9/10, 2020 agreement with Azeris, brokered by Russia, the PM Nikol. Pashinyan resigned but remained a candidate and the Civil Contract coalition he led, won the June 20, 2021 election by 54% of the votes. The Armenian Constitutional Court, unanimously, mind you that it was the same court that had ruled in favor of Robert Pashinyan and had him exonerated from prison, ruled the election constitutional.
Since then, Nikol Pashinyan led government has been administering Armenia.
You draw your conclusion on the legitimacy of NP as the PM and the government he leads.
The Armenian government has not even mentioned Giligia in decades. The only authority that even thinks about the Giligiatzis is Antelias. It should remain that way until Giligia is recoverred from the Turks and becomes independent.
Day dreaming about Giligia, West Armenia, Nakhichevan and Artsakh will lead to nowhere, since they have been lost forever, and almost all Armenians have been murdered or ethnically cleansed by the Turks and Azeris in those four regions. What is crucial is that Armenia, whose independence and territorial integrity is at stake, remains intact, viable and secure. Armenia itself has never been in such a perilous situation post-1921, like today.
Hello, I want to be removed from all emails.
I wish you the best.