Convene the Ecclesiastical Assembly

Are we confused yet? The two most important institutions in Armenian life are confronting each other in a seemingly endless conflict of escalation. Once marked by public unity within the clergy, the Church has been rocked by defections and calls for the Catholicos’ resignation. It seems that each day, a new bishop is either investigated, arrested or declares rebellion while the Mother See waits for the storm to pass. 

Many among the faithful have been shocked by this level of disunity within the clergy. Priests celebrating the Soorp Badarak have refused to remember the name of a sitting Catholicos. We have a primate on the West Coast who is a signatory to rebellion yet continues to remember the Catholicos during Badarak and maintains his position. The state and the Church have blurred the lines of separation through political activity within the Church and proposals of succession advanced by the state.

In another era of disunity, we would ask one another which church we go to — a thinly veiled attempt to determine whether someone attended a Prelacy or Diocesan parish. Is the new normal to question whether your clergy are loyal to the Catholicos or advocating for his dismissal? How can we possibly think that continuing this approach will strengthen our vital institutions? 

The vast majority of the people are outsiders in this debacle. When it becomes obvious that one can not impact the outcome, the result is criticism, anger and ambivalence:  just what we need. In a world under constant pressure from secularism and assimilation, Armenians turn away from both their Church and state because they feel like outsiders. It’s the self-inflicted wounds that hurt the most. This cycle must be reversed.

Lost in the chaos and escalation are the canons and mechanisms available to resolve conflict. Perhaps we have forgotten that the Armenian Church is blessed with a foundation of inclusive democracy that empowers both clergy and laity. This may reflect our lack of emphasis on practical knowledge of how the Church functions. It is sometimes referred to as “functional illiteracy,” where one participates with limited understanding of the Church’s canons and structure. 

The Armenian Church operates through a participatory pyramid of clergy and laity that is critical to its credibility. The National Ecclesiastical Assembly is the supreme governing body of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Two-thirds of its delegates are lay representatives and one-third are clergy. Delegates represent regional diocesan structures globally, as well as the other hierarchical Sees (Constantinople, Jerusalem and Cilicia). It is truly a representative forum of our global nation in both homeland and diaspora. 

Delegates from dioceses are elected by regional diocesan assemblies directly affiliated with Holy Etchmiadzin. In North America, the Western, Eastern and Canadian dioceses elect lay delegates to represent the faithful. Additional representatives include members of the Supreme Spiritual Council and all bishops and primates of the Church. 

The Ecclesiastical Assembly is popularly known for its responsibility to elect the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians. The last election took place in 1999, with the election of Karekin II. Lay delegates are technically allocated based on a ratio of adherents — one delegate per 25,000 faithful — but that process has proven complicated. The Ecclesiastical Assembly is convened by the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and is granted broad powers under the Church’s Constitution. 

In addition to electing the Catholicos, the Assembly’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Making decisions regarding national ecclesiastical issues.
2. Making decisions related to theological, canonical and administrative matters.
3. Adopting and amending the Constitution of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church.
4. Defining the status of Church structures concerning spiritual authority, responsibility and the order and boundaries of their relations, as well as procedures for overseeing their activities.
5. Defining principles governing relations with other churches, religious communities, states and international organizations.
6. Hearing reports from the Catholicos, the Church Representative Assembly, the Supreme Spiritual Council and other committees, and making decisions as necessary.
7. Establishing commissions to monitor the implementation of decisions.

The Constitution grants the Ecclesiastical Assembly broad authority to address virtually all aspects of Church life. It is the one unifying body capable of bringing together the Church during times of crisis. The concerns raised by those opposing Holy Etchmiadzin and the Catholicos fall squarely within the Assembly’s mandate. 

Issues related to the moral conduct or alleged corruption of clergy can be addressed under Sections C, D or F. Section C also allows for constitutional amendments, if additional changes are warranted. Some opposing bishops have been relieved of their administrative responsibilities in response to their actions, but they have remained bishops of the Church. All bishops are participants in the Assembly as defined in the Constitution, ensuring that — even in times of division — there remains an opportunity to come together and resolve differences. 

Section G empowers the Assembly to establish subordinate bodies to further investigate challenges and recommend action. It is clearly evident that the mechanisms are in place. Of course, these provisions are only useful if utilized. There is mistrust among the opposition that the process is biased in favor of the current Catholicos. That concern only becomes valid if the opposition refuses to participate. 

The obstacle is typically the lack of will to move forward. I have heard from a variety of sources that, given the Assembly’s international composition, there are fears of intimidation that could prevent it from convening. This is what happens when we choose to work outside the boundaries of inclusion. We cannot resolve this problem through press statements or further division. Reactionary responses from each side need to end. 

A Christian institution is built on the foundation of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Love, hope and forgiveness are the hallmarks of our faith. If we love both the Church and our state, de-escalation and coming together should be our priorities. Our challenges go beyond personalities and the question of whether Karekin II should be replaced.

When we operate in parallel with an institution and an opposition, we risk permanently damaging the very foundation of the Church.

There is an overabundance of focus on the Catholicos and his management of discipline. What about the faithful and the inclusive processes of the institution? Rumors of corruption have circulated for decades, yet they have been ignored. Patronage has been rampant. When we fail to protect the institution, we become complicit and invite distractions. Blurring the line between Church and state will not resolve these issues. We will only find new and innovative ways to subdivide.

Does power blind us to this reality? Each of us, including our leaders, must ask: What would Christ do? With love and hope restored, forgiveness not only becomes possible but desirable. Forgiveness is where the power of the Holy Spirit is felt.

The Assembly must be convened by the Catholicos and the Holy See of Etchmiadzin. It should be done now to restore hope. We need not fear the outcome of the deliberations. We must foster an atmosphere of inclusion grounded in love. Expressing our views in public results in division because it offers no path toward resolution. All parties must come together in respect — not only for each other, but for the Holy Apostolic Church itself. We should fear the current stalemate that continues to fracture our Holy Church. Leadership requires addressing challenges honestly and in a timely manner. There is no shame in acknowledging internal problems. The shame lies in denial, leaving the faithful to wrestle with rumors and conjecture. 

The state cannot prevail if Karekin II resigns but the Church becomes hopelessly divided and loses its direction. The Catholicos carries the descriptor in his title of “All Armenians.” It is time to convene the highest body in our Church so that all Armenians can once again feel hope. 

With love in our hearts, invite all, debate all and bring us out of this divided state.