|
“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.
|