Searching for solutions to the church-government crisis requires transparency

I often ask myself why Armenians, both in the homeland and the diaspora, remain so passive regarding the extraordinary struggle we are witnessing between the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the government of the Republic of Armenia. Media coverage can amplify — or muffle — the voice of the faithful, and while people freely express their opinions, such opinions are generally risk-free. The diversity of views reflects the elusive nature of real solutions.

Some applaud the government’s aggressive actions to “clean up” perceptions of corruption in the church. Others are concerned about political distractions from the core mission of faith and salvation, but are appalled by government intervention. A sizable segment acknowledges problems in both the church and the government’s actions, yet struggles to decide what should be done.

Collectively, these voices — aligned with “sides” — have proven ineffective in finding solutions. Most of the opinions I hear focus on personalities rather than resolving the conflict. We seem to have an insatiable appetite for disunity, failing to connect our disagreements to the nation’s health. It is ironic that both sides claim the “righteous” position while the conflict weakens our societal well-being. Supporting adversarial positions may be most common, but it rarely produces lasting solutions.

What is the point of the two most important institutions in Armenian life — the church and the government of the Republic — engaging in disruption if reconciliation is not the goal? The church, as an instrument of our faith, must always be above reproach in issues of ethics and morality. When it strays, it must seek forgiveness and rely on the self-correcting mechanisms embedded over centuries.

The Armenian Church is blessed with many democratic processes that allow both clergy and lay members to address issues. They start at the parish level through assemblies of membership, continue at the diocesan level with representative clergy-lay bodies and culminate in the election of diocesan bishops for finite terms and the election of the Catholicos by an international clergy-lay assembly for a life term. There are provisions for replacement, primarily through resignation. This structure has been a hallmark of the church as an institution, but it is effective only when participants focus on core issues. 

From my experience as a delegate to the Prelacy National Representative Assembly (NRA) and the Diocesan Assembly, many delegates prioritize social visibility and personal influence while patronizing clergy leadership, reducing the likelihood that self-governance mechanisms will function. Rumors of corruption and immoral behavior have circulated for years, yet sanctioned processes have often ignored them. Too often, we prefer to “kiss the hand” of the Catholicos and whisper concerns in private.

In my view, the current conflict is less about canon law or theology than power and control. Although the church objects to public scrutiny and arrests, it bears responsibility for ignoring these issues for years when rank-and-file members debated them quietly. Allowing a sitting primate to lead a political campaign against an elected prime minister was a significant misjudgment.

Solutions begin with accountability. The government, responsible for Armenia’s defense and prosperity, should advocate for a strong church. The church, in turn, should remain apolitical while serving as a bastion of love and healing. This past week, the prime minister attended Soorp Badarak at St. Sarkis Church in Yerevan. It is the cathedral of the Araratian Diocese, considered one the most important in Armenia. The presence of both the diocese’s primate and the prime minister immediately fueled speculation: Was the primate aligning with the prime minister in the dispute or was it simply respectful to accept all in a place of worship?

Unfortunately, in these polarized times, who attends which events has as much bearing as the public comments themselves.

This should be considered an important part of the maturation of democracy in Armenia — if due process is followed. In the United States, we have observed actions tolerated under one administration but considered unlawful under another. The difference lies in legal interpretation, which can lead to investigations, arrests and indictments — or no action at all. This illustrates the power of the courts in a functioning democracy.

While we fixate on statements and confrontations in this unfortunate crisis, the pillars of democracy are being tested. Both parties claim the right side of the debate. The government states that Armenia must be a country of laws that all are subjected to. The church certainly agrees with this, since they deny any wrongdoing. If Armenia is to survive, the results of this process must be credible — not viewed as manipulation by either party.

This is an unusual challenge in our Armenian life. At face value, the conflict between the government and an independent institution might seem like an internal issue to be managed within Armenia. Yet, our church is a global institution, so the matter becomes more complicated. The diaspora has a vested interest, as the Mother See exercises jurisdiction over large portions of Armenian communities abroad. Any leadership change can carry significant implications.

The situation is further complicated by the Great House of Cilicia, which also wields influence in the diaspora. Government attempts to define a replacement process for the Catholicos and influence that transition are troubling. Had the government limited its involvement to investigating potential legal violations, Armenians would still be split but the debate would center on the factual basis of the cases rather than institutional overreach.

The government’s attempt to define a replacement process after advocating for Karekin II’s resignation alarms many Armenians who uphold the separation of church and state. It also impacts the church’s current bylaws on succession. If Karekin II resigns and his successor is chosen outside canonical procedure, then the institution itself risks being altered.

It is disingenuous to support Karekin II simply because of dislike of the prime minister, especially when concerns about the Catholicos’ leadership have been voiced for decades. While this does not justify government interference in the elections, the church’s failure to address internal issues has contributed to this confrontation. We cannot afford to let this conflict devolve into a national debate over who is correct. 

The election of a Catholicos is a rare milestone. In the past 75 years, the Mother See has had only three. The first was the venerable and beloved Vasken I, born in Romania, who led the church primarily during the Soviet era. He is revered for his courage in keeping the institution alive post-Stalin and during the early years of independence. 

He was followed by another revered leader, Karekin I, who was elected from his previous role as the Catholicos of Cilicia. His oratorical brilliance and ecumenical leadership helped to rebuild an institution dormant for many decades. Despite his acknowledged reputation as one of the most brilliant Armenian clergymen of the 20th century, he was considered a bit of an outsider in Armenia, because of his Syrian birthplace and diaspora ministry.

It is widely believed that Karekin II was elected in 1999, after the untimely death of Karekin I, to ensure that the Catholicos was a native to Armenia. Over the past 25 years, Karekin II has led an ambitious building program, establishing many churches in the homeland and centralizing administrative authority. Similar to most leaders, he has both supporters and detractors. 

During his tenure, the Catholicos has traveled to the United States several times on private visitations but has not conducted a pontifical visit here for many years. This has limited audiences with the Vehapar to influential benefactors, core leaders and pilgrims who visit Armenia. After witnessing the two-year pontifical visit of Aram I of Cilicia to the United States and Canada, we see the inspiration, revitalization and rejuvenation a pontifical visit can have in the diaspora. Most Armenians want leadership, but they also need spiritual nourishment.

Where will this conflict lead the vast majority of our people who love their church and homeland? Perhaps we all can start with civility and a commitment to solutions. This will require all of us to be transparent with each other. It is my prayer that the government limit its involvement to potential violations of the law and support due process. I also pray that the church takes this opportunity to demonstrate to the faithful the values of self-governance instilled in the fabric of our Holy Church. 

Our church can strengthen our nation by leading in prayer, forgiveness and distinguishing patriotism from politics. Credibility is earned, not legislated. A strong church and democratic governance are essential for Armenia’s future. It is tragic to see our two most important institutions out of harmony. 

Our people should have higher expectations. Instead of focusing on personalities or the next wave of drama, we should insist on solutions that foster reconciliation. This means ending patronizing participation and utilizing the church’s internal processes to maintain credibility. No party is solely at fault, and transparency can open new opportunities for solutions. The alternative serves neither the church nor our homeland.