“Aztag” Daily Newspaper
P.O. Box 80860, Bourj Hammoud,
Beirut, Lebanon
Fax: +961 1 258529
Phone: +961 1 260115, +961 1 241274
Email: [email protected]
The Challenges Facing the Armenian Church: An Interview with Hratch
Tchilingirian
by Khatchig Mouradian
`The Armenian Church hides, under its each and every stone, a secret path
ascending to the heavens’, wrote the famous Armenian poet, Vahan Tekeyan.
Yet, the Armenian Church is more than a religious institution that has acted
as a `mediator’ between Armenians and their God. Having survived the
shifting tides of time for more than seventeen centuries, this `unique
organization’, as Professor Hratch Tchilingirian calls it in this interview,
has served its people as much as, if not more than, it has served God.
Today, in the age of globalization, secularization and false crusades, the
Armenians – despite their constant boasting about having the oldest
Christian state in the world – are also following this global trend, by
gradually distancing themselves from established religious institutions and,
at times, looking for spiritual answers elsewhere.
What is the mission of the Armenian Church in the 21st century? What are the
challenges that it faces in Armenia and the Diaspora? How effectively is the
Church hierarchy tackling these challenges? I discussed these and a number
of related issues with Professor Hratch Tchilingirian when he was visiting
Beirut in July.
Hratch Tchilingirian is Associate Director of the Eurasia Programme, the
Judge Institute, University of Cambridge. He received his PhD from the
London School of Economics and Political Science and his Master of Public
Administration (MPA) from California State University, Northridge. His
current research covers political and territorial disputes in the Caucasus
and Central Asia, as well as the region’s political, economic and
geostrategic developments. He has authored over 120 articles and
publications on the politics, economy, culture, religion and social issues
of the Eurasia region, especially the Caucasus and the Armenian Diaspora.
Tchilingirian is closely involved in the affairs of the Armenian Church. He
has a Master of Divinity degree from St. Vladimir’s Theological School and a
Diploma in Armenian Church Studies from St. Nersess Armenian Seminary in New
York. He was the Dean of St. Nersess Seminary in 1991-1994. Tchilingirian
was also co-founder and editor of `Window View of the Armenian Church’
(1990-1995), a quarterly magazine dealing with issues related to the
Armenian Church. He has authored many articles on contemporary Armenian
affairs, including those relating directly to the Armenian Church.
Aztag- Currently, people are farther away from religion than they used to
be, perhaps because in a highly secularized world, organized religion is
giving way to other philosophies and teachings. How do you see the situation
of the Armenian Church in this context?
Tchilingirian- This is a major and complex issue, but I would say there are
internal and external reasons for the current situation. As you mentioned,
secularization is part of the general trend globally. There is a steady
decline of organized religion and church attendance. For instance, there are
some studies which show that in Armenia only about 9% of the population
attends church services regularly on Sundays. In America, the percentage is
much higher; it’s about 40%, but in Europe, it’s also low, about 6-7%.
However, this does not necessarily mean that there is a decline of interest
in spirituality. There are alternative religions, as well as various other
philosophies and spiritual teachings that have gained currency in our world
today. So the challenge to institutional churches is how to be relevant in
the 21st century. In the case of the Armenian Church, the question is no
different: How can a 1700-year-old church make itself relevant to Armenians
living around a very-fast paced world in the 21st century? This is the major
challenge. In fact, the Armenian Church has not addressed this issue
collectively and seriously.
Aztag- Can we benefit from the experience of other churches in this respect?
Tchilingirian- Well, virtually all churches are facing great challenges, be
it the Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant churches. They have various
programs or mechanisms to address- not necessarily successfully- these
challenges. For instance, homosexuality and gay marriage is a big issue in
the Anglican Church and it is creating divisions. The Roman Catholic Church
has its own sets of problems, with priests involved in cases of sexual
abuse, and with the issue of celibacy and marriage of the clergy creating
tensions. So, you have churches with particular issues and challenges, and
other problems that are common to all churches.
In the case of the Armenian Church, I believe there is a lack of clear sense
of mission. I have written about this quite extensively. What is the mission
of the Armenian Church in the 21st century? At least personally, I am not
aware of any well-articulated statement or program on the part of the church
that spells out the Armenian Church’s mission. Of course, if you ask the
clergy or the hierarchs, they would tell you that the mission of the church
is very obvious, it’s based on the Gospel; it’s the salvation of souls. But
how do we achieve this? How is this mission carried out? How do you make it
relevant to the Armenian on the streets of Bourj Hammoud, Yerevan or Los
Angeles? How does this translate into the everyday life of the Armenian
faithful?
Each problem is unique and has a unique solution and one cannot take a
one-size-fits-all approach when thinking about solutions. In America, there
are many new ideas. There are churches that play modern music or Christian
rock, but if you try to bring this to Lebanon, for instance, people would be
scandalized; they would find that very foreign and reject it. So you have
to find a solution based on the local culture, on how local people perceive
things, or based on whether a particular community is ready for a particular
change.
One of the most important functions of religion or faith is to provide
meaning to human life. If a religion or a philosophy provides this role in
your life, then you follow its teachings. If the Armenian Church provides
meaning to Armenians from different walks of life, who are looking for
something more than the Sunday liturgy, conducted in a language most people
don’t understand, then it would become relevant to them.
Aztag- The Armenian Church is also regarded as an institution with a
national mission. Is there a lack of planning in that domain as well?
Tchilingirian- I think the church and the clergy feel more comfortable in
the so-called “national mission” of the Church- Azkayin Arakeloutyoun, than
its religious-spiritual mission. And yet when you ask about the national
mission of the Armenian Church in specific terms, you realize that the
answers are very vague. Obviously, the Church has played the role of a
surrogate state in Armenian history and it has preserved our culture, but
today, one has to be more specific also about what the national mission of
the church is. Of course, the church can publish books, discuss Armenian
philology and culture, and so on, but why does the church have to do these
things? Why doesn’t the Church or the hierarchy relegate this role to
other, perhaps more qualified organizations in the community to carry out
such functions – and what could be termed as `non-religious’ services – so
that the Church and clergy can dedicate more talent and resources to their
main religious and apostolic mission?
Aztag- But throughout history, perhaps due to the circumstances, the
Armenian Church has served the people by a number of ways that have little
to do with its apostolic mission.
Tchilingirian- Every organization has its primary raison d’etre. But when
you neglect and do not carry out your primary mission and you engage in
secondary or other peripheral missions, then why exist? If an organization
wants to change its raison d’etre and say, `henceforth, we are not this, but
we are that’, fine! But if you say you’re something, and you are doing
something else, then you’re not being true to your own calling, and you are
not delivering what you say you are going to deliver. This is a matter of
principle; it’s a matter of stating your mission. What is your mission
statement?
The Church is the only national institution that has existed continuously
throughout Armenian history in the last 1700 years. So the church, as an
institution, is beyond the individuals who run it. It is very powerful – it
has an in-built power vis a vis the fact that it is a religious and national
organization that has a very long history. And it will still be here in the
coming centuries. It’s unlike a secular organization which is very temporary
– it is here today, but might not be here in 50 years or 100 years. And yet,
each generation has a responsibility to carry out the mission of the Church.
If we want the Armenian Church to be what it’s supposed to be, then we have
to ask: What are the people who are running the church, namely the clergy
and hierarchy, doing? What are the laymen doing? How are they carrying out
their mission?’
I think this is the problematic issue -whether in Etchmiadzin or in the
Diaspora. I should note that some Hierarchical Sees are more aware of these
issues and are carrying out more serious work in their respective
jurisdictions. The Catholicosate of Cilicia, for instance, is involved with
serious mission work. Yet, collectively, we are still not clear about what
the main purpose of the entire Church is. How do you reach the 90% of
Armenians who are not affiliated with the Church, who do not come to church,
except once or twice a year, for weddings or for funerals?
Aztag- Do you think changing the language of the liturgy into modern
Armenian would make a difference? After all, religion seems to have become
an individual quest for meaning in life, and it seems that the factors
carrying people farther away from the church have little to do with the
language.
Tchilingirian- If you conduct the liturgy in modern Armenian or English,
there is no guarantee that suddenly you’ll have thousands of Armenians
flocking to the church. I think making the language understandable does
help; but it’s not the solution.
In the old times, the church was the center of the community life. There was
a church in every village and it brought the community together. People had
a communal life around their faith, their everyday-life traditions. But in
modern times, when people live in such remote places the situation is
completely different.
I agree that religion has become a very individual matter. In fact, even if
people go to church on Sunday, they go there as an individual; they go there
to light a candle, to say a prayer; they don’t go there from the beginning
of the service, it’s like they go in for 10-15 minutes and they don’t
necessarily feel a sense of commonality with everyone in the church, because
probably they’re not from the same neighborhood or have no meaningful
affiliation with that community.
People choose various philosophies, various kinds of alternative religions
or faiths that fit their particular choice or particular sense of where they
are in their lives. For example, there are different types of Armenian
believers, which I have identified through my own research in Armenia,
Karabakh and the Diaspora. There are what I call Theist Believers, Deist
Believers, `Agnostic Believers’ and `Atheist Believers’. For instance, the
Armenian `atheist believer’ does not believe in the existence of God, but he
may be baptized in the Armenian Church; he may go to church once in a while
for weddings or on holidays, just to feel Armenian or to meet with friends,
so on. And, interestingly, he is considered a `child of the Armenian
Church’, at least by the hierarchy of the Church. If you ask the clergy,
they include every Armenian in the `membership’ of the Armenian Church. But
what is significant here – and generally overlooked – is the fact that if
you are preaching to an atheist Armenian, you have to preach differently
than if you are preaching to someone who is dedicated and attends church
regularly.
Aztag- What are the challenges facing the Armenian Church particularly in
Armenia and Karabakh?
Tchilingirian- As I mentioned, there are common problems facing the Armenian
Church regardless of geography, but there are issues that are specific to
the region where the church finds itself. For instance, in North America,
the Armenian Church has different sets of problems; these problems have to
do with language, the length of the liturgy, ordination of women, and so on.
These are not problems, say, in Karabakh or in Armenia.
In Armenia, the major challenge is what the late Catholicos Karekin I used
to call the
`re-Christianization’ of Armenia, the re-evangelization of Armenia. This is
still a major problem, because after almost seven decades of atheist regime,
people don’t even have the basic knowledge about Christianity and the
Armenian Church. In the last 10-12 years, the Church has tried to educate
the population and yet, as I mentioned earlier, there is the need to further
clarify the mission of the Armenian Church.
As far as the so-called cults are concerned, I think people have exaggerated
the problem. For example, there are about 30-40 Hare Krishnas in Armenia.
It’s not like tens of thousands of Armenians are following these cults. More
important, at least sociologically, is the fact that all of these people who
are following alternative religions are Armenians — they are not foreigners
who are coming and living in Armenia as Hare Krishnas or Jehovah’s
Witnesses. This fact is totally ignored in the anti-cult discourse in
Armenia. The fact that hundreds of Armenians are following alternative
religions indicates that these religions or teachings are appealing to a
certain segment of the population. These are not necessarily brainwashed
people, as anti-cultists would have us believe; in fact, many of them are
highly educated individuals. They are people who are in search of something
and it happens that a particular group or teaching provides them with what
they are looking for, spiritually. My point is that we should not look at
the issue of cults or alternative religions from a very nationalistic point
of view. Some say, `This is causing a problem to our national security’,
that’s too much. One way of addressing this problem is to carry out a
similar mission. If, for example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are going around
in Yerevan knocking on people’s doors, why isn’t the Armenian Apostolic
Church doing the same thing? Simply sitting in comfortable places and
complaining about it doesn’t resolve the problem. We have to be very
realistic about this.
In Karabakh, I would say the church, headed by Archbishop Barkev
Martirossian, has done a lot of work. The church has provided extensive
pastoral services during the most difficult periods in the life of Karabakh.
Especially during the war, the church has played an important role and, I
believe, it is continuing to do so today. Of course, it has its own
problems, but the clergy are doing their best to provide the type of
pastoral mission and care the people expect from the church. In Karabakh,
generally people are skeptical about any philosophy or any kind of teaching,
so the Church faces a challenge there; but the younger generation, the
children and youth, are much more receptive and open to the teachings of the
church.
Aztag- In the Armenian Church, leaders constantly talk about reforms. What
is your take on that?
Tchilingirian- The issue of reform is not new. There has been a continuous
discussion about reforms in the Armenian Church at least in the last 100
years. There is some literature about this matter, for example, Patriarch
Torkom Koushagian of Jerusalem has written “Paregarkoutyoun hayasdanyayts
yegeghetsvo” (Improvements [or reform] in the Armenian Church), published in
1940. But, again, my point is that if you don’t have a clear sense of
mission, if you don’t have a clear mission statement, you cannot organize
the types of reforms you need to make. What are you trying to do? What are
you trying to change or reform? Where are you trying to go with your
reforms? From what point to what point? And as long as you don’t have a
clear idea about where you want to go and what you are supposed to do, then
all this talk about reform is irrelevant. In business, for instance, people
formulate a clear plan about the goals they want to achieve in, say, 5
years. My question is: Where is the plan in the Armenian Church that says in
5 years or 10 years time this is where we want to go and this is what we are
doing today to reach that point. It’s like a tree. You plant a tree, so that
in 5 years or 10 years you benefit from its fruits. If you wake up in 10
years and say `where are the fruits we need?’ people will tell you that you
should have planted your tree a decade ago.