Even when we try addition, it ends up in division

2026-02-20 - 21:03

We simply cannot resist. Perhaps it is the passion we hold for our identity, or perhaps it is ingrained in our culture to debate. Escalation seems instinctive, while de-escalation eludes us. We add fuel to the fire but feel powerless when it rages out of control. Is it our egos? My grandfather used to remind us of the old Armenian saying that God gave us twice as many ears as mouths for a reason. But do we truly listen, or do we use that time to prepare our response? Whether commentary is well-intended or partisan, the reaction from our community is often the same: a barrage of criticism — with a sprinkling of support — challenging facts, questioning motives and attacking character. It seems our egos push us into attack mode when thoughts different from our own are shared publicly. The one common thread in all this commentary is the call for unity. Really? The prospect of unity is diminished when we operate with exclusion, disrespect and a reflex to question the intent. How does that approach serve the cause for unity? Last week, eight prominent Armenians from the diaspora released a statement on the current conflict between the See of Etchmiadzin and the government of the Republic of Armenia. In today’s binary climate, where everything is framed as “pro-church” or “pro-government,” the statement has largely been interpreted as “pro-church.” I am sure the authors were motivated by good intentions. Many have devoted their lives to Armenian causes, with long records of pan-Armenian advocacy in philanthropy, education, human rights and economics. Yet one of the most unfortunate habits in our thinking is that when we disagree, we feel compelled to attack the credibility and motivations of individuals. Social media offers a window into these reactions. Rather than engage with the substance, questions of church self-governance and constitutional “separation,” many sought to discredit the authors themselves. This is discouraging and reflects a deeper flaw in our collective behavior: we struggle to listen and digest. I found that the statement itself largely provided historical context and a plea for maintaining the independence of the church and for de-escalation by all parties. Unfortunately, its framing opened the door to distraction. The diaspora is a complex, decentralized and multi-geographic entity. There is cooperation at times, but it should not be mistaken for organization. The term itself is often used too loosely. In a climate of mistrust, questions quickly arise: Why these eight “leaders”? Was the statement negotiated? Why was it not published more broadly? Those not included may dismiss it on the basis of perceived exclusion. Who, then, is the intended audience? If it is the general public, why is it not actionable? If it is directed at the government, how does a unilateral statement contribute to a solution, unless it is simply meant to be “on the record”? From a content standpoint, acknowledging longstanding perceptions of corruption within the church, and the limited progress on internal reform, might have strengthened the sense of balance and mitigated perceptions of bias. Likewise, some responses labeled “pro-government” (or more accurately, anti–”pro-church”) fail to meaningfully address the issue of separation and where law and self-governance intersect. Too often, the discourse devolves into personal opinions about the Catholicos. Personal views are inevitable, but far more is at stake than personalities. Another controversial issue is the suggestion that Armenians in the diaspora seek intervention from their host governments. While the conflict affects two central pillars of Armenian life — the church and the homeland — the broader issue of diaspora-homeland estrangement is deeply concerning. One challenge in the current conflict is that the government has not adequately addressed the global nature of the Armenian Apostolic Church and how it relates to state authority. It is reasonable to assume that diaspora voices are motivated, in part, by a desire to avoid exclusion from decisions that affect the global Armenian nation. However, calling on external governments risks damaging the already delicate relationship between diaspora and homeland. Third-party actors inevitably pursue their own interests, further complicating an already complex situation. It is a difficult balance. While calling for unity and de-escalation, we cannot create new pressure points that cause long-term damage. While “severing” the relationship is a bit strong, there is no question that we are on a path of collateral damage. What is needed are private, respectful interventions — efforts that allow the Vehapar and the prime minister to find compromise in the interests of both church and state. Common ground must be prioritized over obvious points of conflict. While we all advocate for the church’s independence and self-governance, we must also acknowledge that internal reform has been limited, particularly regarding past defrockings, perceptions of corruption and violations of vows. If the church were to seriously address these issues and refrain from political entanglement, it might open a path toward compromise. If we are to consider ourselves a Christian society, then civility and humility must guide us. Some may dismiss this as naïve in the realm of politics. But if civility and respect have no place in our vision, what then is the purpose of sovereignty or freedom of worship? In the ongoing escalation between the government and the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, the Assembly of Bishops has become the latest focal point. In response to mounting pressure, Catholicos Karekin II called for a conclave of all bishops, including those who have called for his resignation. The meeting was initially scheduled for mid-December at Holy Etchmiadzin but was canceled days prior, reportedly due to fears among clergy of investigation or detention. Many had hoped for the convening of the National Ecclesiastical Assembly, which is the church’s highest decision-making body, composed of both clergy and lay delegates. Instead, the bishops’ gathering was rescheduled for February 16–19 in Sankt Pölten, Austria; this was an unusual decision, as such meetings are rarely held outside Armenia. It is unclear who is advising His Holiness during this crisis, but denial and silence are proving ineffective. Holding the meeting abroad, particularly after concerns about safety and travel restrictions, sends a message and invites further escalation. When travel restrictions were later imposed on several bishops — and reportedly on the Catholicos himself — the situation, while troubling, was not entirely surprising. The opening of criminal proceedings against the Vehapar for allegedly obstructing judicial processes further intensified the crisis. Earlier, the prime minister had warned against attempts to move the Catholicosate out of Armenia. The bishops’ conference proceeded without the Catholicos, with roughly half of eligible bishops in attendance. It remains unclear what substantive outcomes will emerge. What is clear is that the lines between church and state have become increasingly blurred. While allegations of corruption within the church should never have been ignored, the current conflict is fundamentally political. The prime minister wields the instruments of state power, while the church’s internal weaknesses have made it vulnerable. Escalation by both sides does not serve the Armenian people, either in the homeland or the diaspora. After all, is that not whom both institutions are meant to serve? As Armenians, in our communal and national deliberations, we seem to operate vehicles with accelerators but no brakes. Even if brakes were present, it is unclear whether we would know when to use them. We speak often of “addition,” of contributing to the nation and strengthening our inheritance. Yet too often, our efforts at addition result in division. Much of the commentary on this crisis is well-intended but ineffective. It either becomes a solitary monologue or invites negative, personal responses. We unintentionally transform constructive intent into fragmentation. Last week, the political party of detained Samvel Karapetyan announced its electoral strategy, naming him as its candidate for prime minister, despite his current ineligibility. To qualify, he would need to meet the requirements of a member of parliament, including exclusive Armenian citizenship and four years of residency. As a dual citizen of Russia who does not meet these criteria, the party proposes amending the Constitution — requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority — following the June 7 election. After months of anticipation for a credible opposition, this proposal leaves many unconvinced. While intentions may be sincere, the result is yet another fragmented alternative. Each political force seeks to “add” to the national cause, yet in doing so divides the electorate and strengthens the incumbent. This is not healthy democratic competition; it risks devolving into feudal fragmentation. A loyal opposition offers a viable alternative within the system. It requires compromise, discipline and vision. The role of the diaspora in this crisis is legitimate, as the church is the people, the majority of whom reside in the diaspora. But public pressure, absent coordination or strategy, risks deepening division rather than resolving it. We must commit ourselves to de-escalation, dialogue and compromise. The alternative is far more damaging.