Why is it that our church infrastructure and our communities are often discussed as interchangeable terms? The church goes beyond the spiritual needs of the diaspora, given the unique relationship between our faith and our heritage. The vast majority of our communities in the diaspora are centered around a local parish with a complement of patriotic, philanthropic and educational organizations. It is rare to see a community in the Armenian diaspora without a functioning church parish. When our survivor generation came to these shores, they brought their familial lifestyle with them, which was centered around the church. Even today, as changing demographics expand our community base into other geographies, the establishment of a new community usually begins with a mission parish. This reflects not only the importance of spirituality in Armenian life, but specifically the importance of the institution itself in sustaining the diaspora. In the absence of the church, our communities would operate as several loosely connected secular organizations. 

The church should never take its communal importance for granted and neither should members of the community. There are several barometers of the sustainable health of the church. We can look to spiritual health, outreach programs, financial stability or parish membership. These are all important and contribute to the overall picture, but I believe that the engagement of the youth is one of the best indicators of vibrancy and the future direction of this institution. Ironically, the youth represent the future but are underrepresented in the decision-making processes of the church. We assume we know what is in their best interests. This is one of the reasons why I am always interested in the health of the Sunday school programs. Traditionally, our Sunday schools are designed to offer Christian education according to the teachings of the Armenian church from preschool through high school. In some parishes, high school students are blended with other programs, such as the ACYOA in the Diocese. Using Sunday schools as a barometer of a community’s health, we should be very concerned. Usually our proxy decisions for the youth work, but in times of rapid change there is dangerous latency. Such is the case with the digital revolution as it relates to education. 

Harry and Elise Markarian of Providence bow their heads in prayer in front of their computer as Sunday School class began in 2021.

Our Sunday schools, whether in the Prelacy or Diocese, have been in decline for a few decades. We can use almost any metric to illustrate the points of regression. The number of students according to registrations has declined consistently since the late 70s. Registration is actually a more forgiving measurement, since it simply tells us who signed up in September but does not account for the inconsistent attendance week to week. We have teachers in every community who prepare lessons weekly only to have the students attend inconsistently. Imagine the challenge of teaching with less kids and a different group week to week. One of the ironies is that a significant emphasis has been put on curriculum and other teaching material. We are well prepared in this area, but it has not slowed the decline. This week I had the pleasure of speaking with someone who taught Sunday school for many years and recalled when the parish Sunday school had 400 students; today, it has a small fraction of that. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. Most of our parishes are experiencing this tragedy, and we have parishes that do not have a Sunday school. What can their future be? There are many dedicated volunteers in parishes and staff at our Diocese/Prelacy who have discussed this problem at retreats, teacher training seminars and conventions. The challenge has received significant attention, but we seem to be pushing the wrong buttons. Are we reaching the intended audience?         

The data tells us that Christian education is simply not as important to the current generation. By debating the symptoms, such as competing sports, assimilation or intermarriage, we have provided ourselves rationalizations to explain away the problem. We have not lost the children. There are hundreds who find joy in our schools. We have lost the parents. They are making choices other than a church education for their children. Many cave to the peer pressure that sports on Sundays are vital to their child’s development. I have never understood why our clergy are not more direct with parents, articulating that this is not in their best interests. Our priests can say this as a part of their ministry without being accused of being judgmental. We are trying to solve this problem in our churches through teacher training, curriculum and activities. Yet the problem is in the home. Until we find a way to build spiritual families, they will never understand what they are missing. We ask our families to pray together during meals. How many families even share a meal amid their overly scheduled lives? In recent weeks, I have shared some thoughts about the importance of change for maintaining vitality and relevance. We need a new approach with our Sunday schools. We have pilot programs for church membership and stewardship integration. Why are we not piloting new programs that bring God and the Armenian church into the home for our parents and children? What would that look like? Here are some ideas to consider.

An increasing number of students have no home experience to attract them to church. No connection has been made to draw them to Sunday services. We rely on the commitment of the parents, which is a diminishing proposition. Most parents, however, will prioritize what interests their kids. If there was something exciting happening in their homes relative to Armenian Christian education, it may provide the connection that is missing today. The argument that a church education is more important than conflicting social or athletic events has not worked. Children must discover the value in their homes. 

Our educational practices must reflect what these children are used to in their daily lives. They are growing up with web-based learning, streaming programs and digital integration. This is how our children are learning during the week in their public or private education. In the simplest form, we must design digital programming for the home that can be viewed by parents and children and open new doors for families. Imagine the possibilities if students connected to streaming platforms, YouTube channels or web-based programs using age appropriate animation and other graphic tools. The children would have weekly programming during a window of time, maybe 2-3 weekdays. Soon it would become a part of their weekly schedule, if done professionally. Episodes would be connected to Sundays for continuity and building interest. Animation is a proven method of building interest and teaching primary grades. Interactive programming would focus on the needs of secondary students. Instead of watching programs that serve as babysitters, older students could equally become hooked on innovative educational programs that focus on Armenian Christian education. Make it fun, connect with characters and tell the stories. Students could receive merchandise of important characters through the Diocese/Prelacy. In addition to a hundred stuffies that kids collect on their beds, there might be a St. Gregory or St. Hripsime. With more children participating in the primary grades, there will be a foundation for transitioning to the secondary grades. This is an area of significant attrition today. These are just a few of the possibilities.

One of the objections to this type of programming is that everything must take place in the church. I am suggesting that in order to achieve a breakthrough, the programming should be under the control of the church but not limited to its four walls. Some of our more traditional leaders do not understand how young minds learn today. I don’t think that any of us in the adult community actually fully understand it, and for this reason, we should consider focus groups with students to feed the development process. It would be a closed loop process of adjusting to what works and what doesn’t. We should ask ourselves: Is it riskier to the health of the church to maintain the same approach or to focus on the core of the issue – the home? This would represent a significant shift in funding, resources and leadership. Programming could be national or regional, thus relieving some of the redundant burden in parishes. A pilot program could be launched in a few parishes before full implementation. There are two critical elements to this strategic shift. The focus will be building interest in the homes that will be reflected in participation, and content will be designed to connect with the existing digital culture that our children understand. We love our church, and its future should be our motivation. Our methods must be better aligned to current educational vehicles. This will not alter the theology or the history of our church but open new doors for its acceptance. We are experiencing a tragedy in that so few have experienced the beauty of our church and what it has to offer. I have heard the term “irrelevant” too often from those who have left the church. It hurts me to the core to observe the gap between ignorance and substance. We must do better if we are to pass a healthy institution on to the future. We are stewards during our time on this earth.

Utilizing different teaching methods does not compromise the essence of who we are. On the contrary, it honors it by providing new avenues of knowledge acquisition. Once our children establish a better connection with an educational opportunity, we will begin to see the creative branches blossom, with our students offering prose and poetry as expressions of their experience. I have watched carefully how my grandchildren learn. It is different from my generation or even my children’s generation. The goal of current educational methods is to establish a passion for knowledge within the students, and once that is established, their self-motivation will take them to new heights. With digital programming, our children will better identify with the content and position themselves for peer _expression_ in the near future. Absorb and express is a powerful two-step method to bring Armenian Christian identity into the fabric of children’s lives. It starts with the will to change our approach.        

For two weeks now, the Armenian press has been flooded with news about a bill banning virginity testing. The ban would classify virginity testing, a controversial physical exam used to determine if a girl has had sexual relations, as an act of violence. It is part of a broader package of amendments that aims to strengthen Armenia’s current domestic violence law. The bill has gained widespread attention on various social platforms in Armenia, sparking debates over the preservation of national values. 

On February 7, the bill passed its first hearing in the Armenian National Assembly. The purpose of the draft law, according to its authors, is to increase the effectiveness of the prevention of domestic violence and protection of victims. According to the proposal, the existing law will be renamed “On Prevention of Domestic and Household Violence, Protection of Persons Exposed to Domestic and Household Violence, Restoration of Family Unanimity.” 

The amendments clarify and supplement existing definitions in the law to bring them in line with the Armenian Criminal Code. The draft proposes considering children as individuals protected under the law from violence. It also suggests revising terms related to urgent intervention and protective decisions, as well as mandating free or subsidized medical care for victims of domestic violence.

Under the bill, the aggravating factors listed in a number of articles of the Criminal Code will be reviewed, including factors determined by gender, as well as whether the crime was committed by a close relative, partner or ex-partner.

Tsovinar Vardanyan, co-author of the draft and MP of the ruling Civil Contract party, told the Armenian Weekly that this draft “represents a big cultural change” and is mainly preventive in nature. The MP singled out two important principal changes proposed, the first being the use of the term “partner” in the law.

“The need for these changes arose after consultations with non-governmental organizations and discussions with law enforcement officers. I consider it very important to introduce the concept of ‘partner’ in the law. The sphere of influence of our current law is not large and affects only marriages registered by law. When people are engaged or just dating, domestic violence also occurs. By defining the term ‘partner,’ the law will also protect those persons who are in a romantic relationship but are not officially married,” she said.

The second important change, according to the deputy, is to consider persecuting a person as a form of violence. “Almost all women living in Armenia have been persecuted at least once in their lives. The woman is disturbed by some actions, phone calls and messages of the abuser, but she cannot protect her rights, because there is no such law,” Vardanyan said.

Nvard Piliposyan, a lawyer from the Women’s Resource Center NGO, told the Weekly that persecution is a common and widespread phenomenon in Armenia. “There are many applications on this issue, against which we currently do not have any legal remedy, and it is very important that this act be criminalized,” she said.

In the National Assembly, MPs debated whether the Armenian Criminal Code already protects people from the forms of violence raised in the bill. Some members of the opposition argued that the topic was artificially introduced.

Gegham Nazaryan, deputy of the Armenia faction, presented this perspective in a conversation with the Weekly. “For cases of beating and violence, the RA Criminal Code applies, which prohibits beating and violence. That law already protects people from violence. The project introduced by Civil Contract is absurd,” Nazaryan said. 

Vardanyan, the co-author of the project, argued that the Criminal Code cannot provide full protection against domestic violence. “People in relationships are much more vulnerable. Therefore, there is a need for separate protection. In addition, there are many loopholes in our criminal code. For example, persecution as such is not in our laws. Often, people use violence based on ‘adat’ (custom in Armenian), so to speak, and neither the one who uses violence, nor the one subjected to violence, is aware that it is violence,” said Vardanyan.

Piliposyan agreed that the Criminal Code cannot fully protect the victims of domestic violence and that additional changes are needed. “The issue of the subjects between whom the violence takes place has always been the most problematic, because from the beginning, when the Law on Domestic Violence was adopted, the concepts of some relatives and spouses were included, which meant that the law could work in the case of registered marriages. But a number of people were left out of protection, for example, engaged individuals, people who are just dating, as well as LGBT people,” she said. 

Discussions concerning the introduction of the term “partner” have been heated. Opponents to the bill insist that the gender identities and sexual orientations of the partners should be clarified. Nazaryan argued that the bill, by being inclusive of LGBT couples, erodes the “traditional Armenian family, the union of a man and a woman.”

Regarding the debate over the word “partner,” Vardanyan said, “This law, as well as all laws in the Republic of Armenia, should not be discriminatory. Discrimination by any criteria is unacceptable, be it based on gender, race, religion or otherwise. The law protects all groups. The law creates a framework of protection for everyone, regardless of gender identity and orientation.”

“Family values are not defined by law, but domestic violence is clearly defined. This is just an anti-violence project that prevents domestic violence, household violence, and the family is a unit where, unfortunately, cases of violence occur, and the state is simply obliged to protect its citizens,” Vardanyan continued.

The Women’s Resource Center NGO participated in discussions of the project with the deputies. According to Piliposyan, there are many problematic wordings in the project from a legal point of view. “There are weak parts, definitions – for example, the household violence part, which we don’t quite agree with. It is not explained in any way what is domestic violence and what is household violence. From a legal point of view, there may be confusions,” she said, expressing hope that the problematic wording will be corrected during the second reading of the draft.

Despite the continued debate, Vardanyan is hopeful that the draft, which has been in discussion for two years, will be accepted in the second reading. “I am very happy that we have finally reached this stage, because the discussions lasted for a long time. I am not saying that the project is currently in its most perfect form. When the draft is put into practice, the shortcomings will be seen, which will be corrected. But at the moment, important changes have been made,” she said.

Tripartite meeting between Nikol Pashinyan, Olaf Scholz and Ilham Aliyev in Munich on Feb. 17, 2024 (Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia)

YEREVAN—Armen Grigoryan, Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, confirmed today that Azerbaijan has submitted its version of a peace treaty to Armenia.

“Following our response on January 4, Azerbaijan has submitted its version, and we are currently working on it. I believe that if the foreign ministers meet soon, they will discuss the peace agreement,” Grigoryan said.

Grigoryan clarified that the EU civilian monitoring mission, which is deployed along the Armenian side of the border, does not have access to the Nerkin Hand region, where the recent border incident occurred. Four Armenian soldiers were killed in an Azerbaijani attack on Nerkin Hand, Syunik on February 13, the most intense escalation along the border in months. Grigoryan emphasized that Armenia remains committed to resolving the issue through diplomatic means and reiterated Armenia’s commitment to a mirror withdrawal of troops from the border.

Grigoryan also addressed the issue of armament acquired by Azerbaijan. He proposed the implementation of arms control mechanisms to establish stability and long-term peace in the region. He emphasized that Armenia is actively diversifying its security and foreign policy and is committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict through diplomatic channels.

This news follows a meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Munich on February 17 with the mediation of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz within the framework of the Munich Security Conference. The meeting, which was the first between the two leaders since last July, was held to discuss the ongoing conflict between the two countries over Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh and the peace deal that continues to linger.

According to Azerbaijan’s APA news agency, Scholz left the room at some point, and the meeting continued in a bilateral format between Pashinyan and Aliyev. Afterwards, the sides expressed satisfaction with the meeting but offered few specifics on a way forward. 

One of the main reasons for their failure to meet has been disagreement over who should mediate, particularly since Azerbaijan’s seizure of Artsakh in September and the exodus of the region’s Armenian population. Armenia has favored mediation by the EU and U.S. Azerbaijan first expressed preference for authoritarian regional powers Russia and Turkey and then began rejecting all outside mediation.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have met in bilateral format several times, however, to discuss border delimitation in November and a prisoner exchange in December. Armenia has not explicitly rejected bilateral talks on a comprehensive peace deal, though its preference for Western mediation is evident, as it seeks closer ties with the EU and U.S. and attempts to move away from its traditional strategic partner Russia.

The Aliyev-Pashinyan-Scholz meeting took place just four days following the latest escalation on the border with Azerbaijan on February 13.

In the latest incident, Azerbaijan claimed that its troops had come under fire from an Armenian army position in the southern Syunik region on February 12, resulting in the wounding of one Azerbaijani soldier. The Armenian Defense Ministry promptly announced that it would conduct an investigation. The following day, Azerbaijan launched what it called a “revenge operation,” subjecting the Armenian post to intensive fire for four hours, killing four soldiers and wounding another.

During a government meeting on February 15, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed concerns about Azerbaijan’s intentions along the border. “Our analysis shows that Azerbaijan wants to launch military action in some parts of the border with the prospect of turning military escalation into a full-scale war against Armenia,” Pashinyan stated. “This intention can be read in all statements and actions of Azerbaijan.”

After his meeting with Aliyev, on February 18 Pashinyan said the two countries’ foreign ministers would meet soon for peace talks. It is not clear whether or not any mediators will be present. Aliyev, meanwhile, called his meeting with Pashinyan “constructive and useful.” He declared that there is “de facto peace in the region” and expressed readiness to sign a peace treaty.

At the same time, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry reiterated Baku’s demand that Armenia revise its constitution and other laws to remove all references to Artsakh.

Following the Munich meeting, Scholz stated that the sides agreed to resolve their differences without violence. No details about any specific agreements were made public. 

On the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also met with Pahinyan and Aliyev separately, expressing support for the peace process. During his meeting with Aliyev, Blinken “raised the importance of Azerbaijan adhering to its international commitments and obligations regarding human rights.”

While the two countries’ leaders maintain that they have agreed on the main principles of the peace treaty, the sides voice disagreement over almost all of the parts of the deal, including the opening of the transport links, border delimitation and demarcation, and Aliyev’s bold declaration that Armenia must amend its constitution if it wishes to achieve peace with Azerbaijan. Aliyev emphasized that Armenia’s current constitution contains provisions that supposedly challenge Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

The crux of the issue lies in Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, which calls for the unification of Artsakh with Armenia, as well as international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. These references have been a point of contention in the ongoing peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Regarding the principles for a peace treaty, Armenia and Azerbaijan have discussed recognizing each other’s territorial integrity, with the latest USSR and Almaty declaration maps used for the demarcation of the borders, and opening regional infrastructure based on the respective country’s legislation and jurisdiction. Azerbaijan, however, demands a corridor through Armenia connecting mainland Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan to be controlled by Russian border troops and without Armenian customs or border checks.

Amidst Azerbaijan’s outward display of peace on the international stage, the country’s Defense Ministry has announced the commencement of a training session for reservists, in line with the 2024 training plan approved by Minister of Defense Zakir Hasanov. The reservists, after undergoing registration and medical examination at the assembly point, have been equipped with military uniforms and other essential supplies.

The training session is designed to elevate combat proficiency, military acumen and practical experience of the reservists, according to the Defense Ministry. It also aims to acquaint reservists with the latest weaponry and military equipment in the army’s arsenal.

While Azerbaijan’s rhetoric on the international stage may suggest a commitment to peace, its actions at home raise questions about its true intentions. The timing of the reservist training session, coming on the heels of a recent escalation on the border with Armenia, suggests that Baku may be preparing for a new round of hostilities rather than seeking genuine peace. This dichotomy between words and actions underscores the complexity of the situation and the challenges facing the region in achieving a lasting peace.