Window Quarterly
Vol. I, No. 4, 1990
Copyright 1990

[Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article 
provided the following acknowledgment is given:  From 
Window Quarterly 1, 4  (1990);  ACRAG c. 1990. 

***

Where Does the Buck Stop?
The Armenian Church and Politics

by Hratch Tchilingirian

As a  concept, to speak about the political dimension of the 
Armenian Church's mission might seem "un-religious" or 
even dangerous. And yet, it is not the notion, in and of itself, 
that causes a dilemma, but the possible assumptions and 
interpretations attached to it.  His Holiness Vazken I, in a 
written address to the clergy conference of the Armenian 
Patriarchate of Jerusalem (1980), warned the servants of the 
Armenian Church, when he wrote, "The Armenian clergy 
ought to bear responsibility for the task of RELIGIOUS-
MORAL UPBRINGING [OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE] 
(caps. mine); to stand guard to the unity of the Armenian 
Church and the unity of the Armenian faithful . . ..  In order 
for the Armenian religious servant to dedicate himself to this, 
[which is] his real mission, he shall stay away from the 
Diaspora Armenian political streams . . . However, if [the 
matter] concerns the present [Republic of] Armenia,  he 
should stand in PRAYER (caps. mine) for the preservation of 
the peaceful and safe life of [our] reborn Mother Armenia....  
The Armenian clergy should also stay away from expressing 
a pro or con opinion concerning international political 
rhetoric . . ."
	
It was a decade ago that His Holiness warned the Armenian 
priests with these words.  This policy was further reiterated 
in a speech to the delegates of the Armenian National 
Movement (1989), where his Holiness said, "the Church is 
not with any side, the Church is with all the sides."  This 
statement could either be read as a positive political 
neutrality or more correctly as a no position at all.  
Nevertheless, despite this policy, we see a double standard at 
work in the Armenian Church. We hear and read that this 
bishop or that primate met with this politician or attended a 
banquet for that congressman.  We hear that the prelacy or 
diocese honored that diplomat, or met with this president.  
Furthermore, it seems that the church hierarches are 
permitted to get involved in politics but not ordinary priest, 
who one might assume are not "qualified" to carry out such 
tasks. Obviously, the intention of such activities should not 
be minimized, as long as they are not  substitutes for the real  
purpose of the church.  We never hear the bishop or the 
diocese or the prelacy take a stand on contemporary moral or 
social issues.   We never hear what our church is doing about 
the poor, or the drug addicts or the pregnant teenagers, or for 
that matter the growing cults in Armenia . . . we have other 
"national priorities."  We do not read in the newspapers what 
this or that diocese is doing about the youth or the elderly. 
All we hear about is the "political stuff."  Admittedly, politics 
is a fact of life, but not a preoccupation or excuse for 
procrastination.

Where does the buck stop? Who is in charge of what?  The 
lack of a concrete and structured "church policy" concerning 
involvement of the church in national affairs, has created a 
large gap in the minds of the Armenian clergy between their 
mission and the expectations of the community.
	
The Armenian community, particularly in the Diaspora, 
expects the clergy to stay away from politics and confine 
himself to the religious services in the church.  Nevertheless, 
the anticipation of the community  proves to be just the 
opposite.  Besides the new trends in Armenia-Diaspora 
relationship that exact an undefined role to the Armenian 
Church, the clergy are constantly patronized by the laity to be 
on the forefront of Azkabahbanoom  (i. e. perpetuation of the 
Armenian nation).   The Armenian political "establishment" 
expects the church to be an insurance policy for  the 
preservation of the Armenian language, as a God given 
admonition.  The list of such expectations is very long . . . 
discouraging the increasing intermarriage of Armenians with 
non-Armenians ("Odars"), establishing contacts with local, 
state or national government officials who might be 
sympathetic to Armenians political and other needs, speeches 
before national and international organizations, representing 
the Armenians at public ceremonies and forums, so on.  
While, from a secular perspective, the Church is constantly 
scrutinized for its involvement in political affairs, experience 
and reality proves that the Church is not completely 
apolitical.  In fact, as long as the Church exists in society, it 
is necessarily a political entity, (here I use the term political 
with an Aristotelian understanding, i.e. the striving for the 
good or fair life by a society or community.  Politics which 
denotes those processes of human action by which conflict 
concerning on the one hand the common good and on the 
other hand the interests of groups.  Certainly, this involves 
the use of, or struggle for, power). Historically, the 
politicization of the Church, particularly in the Armenian 
experience, can also be seen in the church-state symbiosis.
	
In recent years, this resurgence of political involvement has 
been so emphatic, across the line in the church,  that the real  
mission and purpose of the church has been put on the "back 
burner."  Nowadays, when one follows the stories or news 
accounts in the Armenian media, it is not difficult to observe 
that the Church has assumed more of a capitulating role in 
the affairs of Armenian politics than being what it supposed 
to be--the Body of Christ.  In the wake of a political 
emergency, it is very easy to lose site of the unique 
characteristics of the Church.  While, on the one hand the 
Armenian political establishment and leadership approves 
this "assumed" role of the church and reaps the fruits of its 
efforts, on the other hand, the ordinary  Armenians that we 
see in our churches every Sunday, expect the Church to give 
them spiritual nourishment. Having said this, I am aware of 
the fact that, most probably, I will be  accused of being "too 
religious" in my views, because I used the word "Christ" and 
"spiritual."    And this exactly, brings us to the core of the 
problem.  We can speak about the Armenian Church, its 
glorious history and how the Church has preserved the 
Armenian nation . . . but we have to be careful when and how 
we use the word "Christ." In many people's mind the 
Armenian Church precedes Christ. Thus, the Armenian 
Church can and should exist "without using too much 
Christian stuff."  For example,  in most Armenian Churches 
in America, the sermon is delivered bilingually, Armenian 
and English.   I think many priests will agree with the 
observation that you can use the term "Jesus Christ" as many 
times as you want in the English sermon, but if you repeat it 
more than three times in the Armenian sermon,  you will 
most probably be accused of being poghkagan [protestant].  
In fact, in my experience I have come across people who 
have said openly that the priest is  "preaching Christ too 
much,"  or  "Enough of Jesus, preach a bit about the Nation 
as well."  It should not be surprising that many priests and 
bishops would agree with this rationale.  But on a more 
serious note, if the clergy, the priests or the bishops are not 
going to speak about Christ, the spiritual... the "religious 
stuff," then who will?  I accept that the Armenian Church is a 
national church and there is a certain degree of 
"nationalizing" the Message of Christ, but "Armenian" should 
only be the context of the message and not the content. If the 
Armenian Church is not going to preach the gospel, then who 
will?  Certainly not the political parties or the cultural 
organizations or the numerous Armenian organizations that 
are increasing on a daily basis.  If the Church is not going to 
preach the Good News to those who hunger for it, then let us 
not blame them for finding it in other places.  The 
fundamental question that we need to ask is "What remains 
of the Armenian Church if we take Christ out?"
	
To a certain degree, this confusion of mission stems from the 
fact that our churches are run by a few people who are vested 
with enormous authority to prioritize the needs of the 
Armenian faithful. No, the church is not democratic in this 
sense.  People would acknowledge that there is a political 
system at work in the church, but they are afraid that 
"democracy" is going to be equivalent to, or a subterfuge for, 
anarchy.  In the Armenian Church "democracy" is interpreted 
as "abandonment of all authority.  Granted that at the present 
time, the independence of Armenia, the rehabilitation of the 
earthquake stricken Armenia is a top priority, but this should 
not be actualized on the cost of ignoring the needs of the 
local churches or communities. Whatever happens in 
Armenia, there will still be people on the local level, in the 
local churches, who need to be "fed," who need to be healed 
and renewed.  The fate and the ministry of the  Armenian 
Church in the Diaspora cannot be dependent on the outcome 
of events in Armenia, per se.   Otherwise, the very catholicity 
of the Armenian Church would be in question, i.e. the 
Church's "mission to all, its responsibility for saving the 
world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth 
saving, especially when that assumption leads to the 
salvation of many." (John Meyendorff, Catholicity and the 
Church, SVS Press, 1983. p.46-47)  "A church whose only 
function is to maintain ethnic identification loses the 
character of true 'Church of God.'" Ultimately, if we continue 
to ignore the
part  we will damage the whole.  As the old Armenian 
proverb explains, "in attempting to fix the brow, let's not 
damage the eye."

Certainly, politics is not new to Christianity.  A look back in 
history shows that even Christ in his time was conditioned  
by the socio-political environment of his era.  But, Christ was 
not "with all the sides," his messianic mission was  to feed 
the hungry, to console the grieved, to quench the spiritual 
thirst of the people... to save those who believed in him.  As 
Christ himself went through the "political process" of his 
time, so ought the Church to prepare itself in the political 
process of her time.  As far as the Armenian Church is 
concerned, the need to reevaluate the church's position 
regarding political involvement is vital.  Without a clear 
assessment and articulation of issues, the church will 
capitulate to the political ends of the establishment, as it has 
done in the past.  If the church ought to have a political 
agenda, it should be contemplated within the context of her 
ecclesiology and theological vision.

===================================================
              _               _
   _   _   _ |_|    ___     _| |  ___   _   _   _
  | | | | | | _    / _ \  / _  | / _ \ | | | | | |
  | |_| |_| || |_ | | | || |_| || |_| || |_| |_| |
  \_________/\___||_| |_| \___/  \___/ \_________/

          View Of The Armenian Church 
===================================================