Our children are always listening and watching

2026-01-29 - 21:42

I have always been comfortable with our Armenian clergy. My father was the deacon of the parish in our small community. There were always priests in our home, from kahanas (married priests) to vartabeds and surpazans. My father mentored many parish priests in our community, and we were taught to always respect our clergy. As a result of this upbringing, I developed an affinity for our clergy that has been an integral part of my identity. I have always been uncomfortable with the consistent criticism of priests that seems to serve as a favorite pastime in parish life. My father taught us that in community life, criticism should only be offered with respect and paired with a solution. Reviewing a priest’s performance in a discreet environment — by a parish council, for example — or offering feedback face to face can be both appropriate and respectful. This is in stark contrast to the gossip-motivated and hurtful behavior with which we all are too familiar. It is one of the most damaging expressions of broken relationships within our Christian institution. How many communities have been weakened by clergy-lay conflict that could have been prevented? The problem has been aggravated in recent decades by declining understanding of the role of priests in our church. Through holy ordination, a priest is called to a special vocation and anointed with the Holy Muron. After ordination — or elevation, in the case of a celibate priest — he begins or continues a ministry founded in Christian theology, offering the sacraments and abiding by the canons of our church. This is best illustrated when the faithful recite confession and seek forgiveness from Our Lord through the priest. Celebrating the Holy Badarak is a sacred responsibility to the faithful, as Christ commissioned the Apostles to teach the Good News. It is an awesome responsibility reserved for those who are called by God and deemed ready by the senior clerics of our church. It requires humility and love, modeled after Jesus Christ. We also know, as human beings, that both priests and laity can fail at times in this mission. As sinners, we seek forgiveness from Our Lord, and clergy are no exception to human frailty. Why, then, do we often exclude our clergy from true forgiveness? Holding grudges reflects an absence of forgiveness. At the beginning of the Badarak, before ascending to the Holy Altar, our priests ask forgiveness from the faithful for any offense they may have caused. Do we take this seriously, or is it a simple ritual forgotten after the service? We all are guilty of failing to integrate the Holy Badarak into our daily lives, but faith is a journey toward communion with Our Lord. Given the almost daily examples of disrespect and conflict within our church hierarchy today, it seems appropriate to remind ourselves that disrespect is not confined to the top of the pyramid. The atmosphere in our church today — cultivated by the crippling conflict between church and state — has become ripe for more rumors, accusations and stereotypes. In a world where pre-conceived notions seems to be the standard, facts don’t seem to matter. If one does not support His Holiness Karekin II, then every rumor of immorality, broken vows and corruption adds to your perception. Blurring the more strategic issue of church and state matters little if you discover “facts” that support the chosen narrative. Of course, those who proclaim loyalty to the Supreme Patriarch, or in some cases to the integrity of the Holy Church, have often done little to confront decades of rumors and debilitating perceptions. Why? Most Armenians are drawn to being insiders or, at least, affiliated with the establishment. There is not much space between inside and outside. The church also offers communal social standing, and few wish to risk exclusion from the complacent majority. Complacency and attachment to the status quo encourage avoidance. It is easier and safer to turn the other way. These are some of the underlying causes that contributed to where we are today. Conflicts can easily spread beyond their intended target. The Prime Minister of Armenia wants Karekin II removed and a “reformed”church at Holy Etchmiadzin. His Holiness wants to remain Vehapar and maintain the status quo. At its core, this is a struggle over power and control. Yet, far more is at stake than who prevails. We are in uncharted territory. The Vehapar has called for a bishops’ conclave next month to address this crisis internally. Ideally, the Ecclesiastical Assembly—the highest decision-making body—would have been convened, as this crisis warrants such authority. Still, steps are being taken, likely aimed at reconciling the episcopal community following defections by several bishops in Armenia and the diaspora. The gathering will take place in Austria rather than the hallowed grounds of Holy Etchmiadzin due to security concerns. That a full conclave of bishops will be held outside the homeland out of fear speaks volumes. This, of course, assumes that all attendees from Armenia will be able to procure travel documents. How far we have fallen. One of the problems with this gathering is the perception that it will be “Vehapar-friendly,” either through majority alignment or a possible boycott by many of the dissident bishops. His Holiness does not have a history of bold decision-making and disciplining bishops has its limits. In all likelihood, this will be a forum of loyalty, with possible recommendations for a full Ecclesiastical Assembly. The bishops’ assembly has no authority over the succession of a catholicos, in the unlikely event that a resignation should occur. It is also interesting to note that the government-backed “Council of Reform” has articulated few details regarding the reforms it seeks or how they would be implemented within the church’s current structure and canons. If the dissident bishops advocate reforms outside of church structures, how does a parallel process avoid further division? While the upper tiers of our beloved church have been shaken by this conflict, we all should be concerned about its impact on the foundation of the church itself. Encouraging young men to pursue the priesthood has long been a challenge in this country. Although we speak respectfully of the vocation, many parents quietly adopt the attitude of “We need more priests, but not my son.” Some cite higher “professional” expectations, while others fear their children will become targets of the interpersonal conflicts often directed at clergy. In my view, the vocation of the priesthood is among the most honorable and vital of callings. Priests guide the faithful’s spiritual journey and serve as essential community leaders. In the diaspora, the church remains the pillar upon which Armenian communities are built, much as village priests once anchored life in the Armenian Highlands. Encouraging youth toward this vocation starts early. I have been so impressed with the strong participation of young Armenians in altar service across both the Prelacy and the Diocese. This has been supplemented with strong educational programs at camps, seminary workshops and retreats. Our youth who serve as acolytes, subdeacons and deacons are quite knowledgeable and grounded in theology, structure, canons and liturgy. This gives us hope. Most candidates for the priesthood emerge from these ranks, mentored by a priest or family members. The gap between vocation and family opposition is closing, and it is heartwarming to meet parents who take pride in their sons’ calling toward Holy Ordination. Our church cannot function without qualified priests, and nothing should undermine this progress. While the church-state conflict in Armenia may seem distant to this topic at hand, its effects are not. Our church is very hierarchical. Serious students of the church have all learned about our structure and the individuals who serve in leadership roles. It is a difficult job with high expectations because of the nature of the mission. We are always reminded that our church is made of humans who make mistakes, yet we intuitively know that the vast majority are committed, and we should forgive. Today, we are inundated with information of deceit, corruption, immorality and deception — hardly descriptors that will motivate young minds. We have been raised in a society that values the separation of church and state, both in the United States and in Armenia, yet we now witness a conflict driven by blurred lines. We see a church that has refused to address long-standing issues that are not in the best interests of the institution or our faith. We see insults and defections among senior clerics who are expected to be our role models for respect, love, hope and forgiveness. How will this conflict end, and what will our church look like after reforms — whether they come from within or from external forces? When I became a parent, my own parents reminded me that children are always watching their elders. It is probably the most important lesson in parenting. I feel it is analogous to the current church conflict and its impact on our youth. Young people in service to God are always watching the actions of both the lay and clergy leadership. They will ask questions about this ordeal and expect reassurances. Do we have the answers? I am grateful that we are blessed with many priests in our parishes and regions who serve with love and bring hope to emerging generations. Our most noble vocation has been shaken by this nightmare, but we must never forget those who will follow. Encourage dialogue so the ministry of our church may prevail. Our church is very unique, and the “trickle-down effect” from the Catholicos and the Hierarchical Sees to the local parish is real. Let this be an opportunity to strengthen support for our clergy with love and humility. Remember: our children are always watching.