Nation, Faith and Diaspora at a Crossroads

Listen to the AI generated audio article. 

The Armenian Apostolic Church has long embodied a singular strength––its ability to unite nation, state, faith, and diaspora. However, in contemporary Armenia, this strength is transforming into a vulnerability. The political changes since the Velvet Revolution of 2018, the trauma of the 2020 war, and shifting geopolitical alignments have exacerbated tensions between state and Church, Etchmiadzin and Antelias, homeland and diaspora. The challenge extends beyond theology into geopolitics, raising questions about legitimacy, governance, and the future of Armenian identity.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is recognized in Article 18 of the Constitution as the guardian of national identity, culture and spiritual life. The 2007 Law on Church–State Relations formalized its special status in education, culture, and pastoral care, in line with OSCE and Council of Europe standards. Yet this framework leaves ample room for interpretation, particularly when state policies on education, heritage, and taxation inevitably impact the Church.

While the government insists on regulating religious space, the Church resists what it perceives as political encroachment. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s calls for the resignation of Catholicos Karekin II and proposals to alter the election procedure for the Catholicos illustrate the contested balance between spiritual autonomy and state authority.

In the Armenian Church, the Catholicos is elected through a secret ballot organized by an electoral commission of the National Ecclesiastical Assembly, the supreme body of the Church. Decisions require a majority of delegates present, with a quorum of two-thirds. The Assembly includes bishops, members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, diocesan primates, delegates from the four brotherhoods (Etchmiadzin, Antelias, Jerusalem, Constantinople), and elected representatives from Armenia and the diaspora. This system reflects both democratic principles and transnational participation.

However, an imbalance between Armenia-based bishops and diaspora representatives, along with declining vocations in secularized societies, raises questions about representativeness in this globalized Church.

According to canonical practice, the Catholicos must be chosen from among the episcopate (the “spiritual fathers” of the Church). Any bishop may stand as a candidate, and after election, the new Catholicos is consecrated and enthroned. The locum tenens, a clergy member who temporarily fills another’s position––in this case, the Catholicos––presides over the sessions until the election is completed. In 1999, more than 450 delegates from around forty countries elected Karekin II on October 27, and he was consecrated on November 4.

The National Ecclesiastical Assembly includes all bishops, members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, diocesan primates, and delegates from the four brotherhoods (Etchmiadzin, Antelias, and the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople). It also includes diocesan delegates elected proportionally to represent Armenians in both Armenia and the diaspora: one delegate per 25,000 faithful, with an additional delegate for each additional 25,000, and a minimum threshold of 10,000. Delegates serve a seven-year term.

Church of Armenia and the Diaspora: Multiple Challenges

The Holy See of Etchmiadzin (Mayr Ator), the spiritual capital of the Armenian nation, hosts the Supreme Spiritual Council at least twice a year. While Etchmiadzin claims primacy based on the see’s reactivation in 1441, Catholicos Karekin II has exercised this authority in a highly centralized manner, creating tensions with Antelias and undermining collaborative governance.

The Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia draws legitimacy from its historical connections to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and its continued existence after the 1915 genocide. Currently, Antelias oversees Lebanon, Syria (excluding Damascus), Cyprus, Greece, Kuwait, and the UAE, while maintaining prelacies in North America, Canada, and Venezuela.

Despite Antelias’s wide reach, demographic decline in the Middle East has weakened its position, and its close ties to the ARF have restricted its perceived independence. Nevertheless, Antelias maintains a strong reputation in ecumenical diplomacy, particularly through its active participation in the World Council of Churches.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, established in 1311, now faces a critical decline. The Armenian population in the Old City has plummeted from 15,000 in 1948 to fewer than a thousand today. Issues including internal corruption, forced Judaization, and contentious land disputes like the “Cows’ Garden” case have raised serious concerns about the Patriarchate’s ability to protect its community.

In Constantinople/Istanbul, the Armenian Patriarchate remains the formal representative of Turkey’s Armenians, but its legitimacy is undermined by internal disputes over vakif [1] properties and persistent pressure from Ankara.

In diaspora contexts, the Church serves as both a place of worship and a cultural and social hub. Western communities demonstrate how investing in schools, parishes, and youth education can preserve identity. However, the Cold War-era schism between Etchmiadzin and Antelias continues to divide North American communities, creating parallel parishes and dioceses that duplicate structures and weaken cohesion.

The Church also struggles to adapt to secular, post-Christian societies. Transmitting language, tradition, and liturgy has become increasingly difficult, while innovation in pastoral approaches and digital strategies remain underdeveloped. Many dioceses—especially in France—lack coherent religious education and bilingual liturgy, highlighting these challenges.

Governance and the Need for Reform

Corruption, lack of transparency, and proximity between clergy and oligarchic wealth have damaged the Church’s credibility in Armenia, creating space for evangelical groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Word of Life. Without reform, the Church risks further erosion of public trust.

While the Holy See of Etchmiadzin and Yerevan continue to reject institutionalized dialogue, the Armenian state must both respect ecclesiastical autonomy and secure a legal framework for cooperation. This means establishing a concordat, a necessary step toward a mutually acceptable form of Armenian secularization. Such an agreement, while ambitious, could strengthen heritage protection programs and implement audits and annual reports to improve transparency to financial and educational issues. These goals are achievable  if key actors facilitate the needed reforms. These include the President of Armenia, as constitutional guardian and the Constitutional Court judges, alongside the Catholicos of Cilicia, who is eager to mediate despite being previously sidelined by the opposing parties.

In religious diplomacy, Antelias holds an advantage over Etchmiadzin due to its fifty-year active participation in the World Council of Churches and greater openness to ecumenism. As the Azerbaijani lobby continues gaining influence at the Vatican, the Armenian Church suffers from its own inaction. Its voice is barely heard, its messaging remains fragmented, and its advocacy for justice in Artsakh takes a back seat to realpolitik.

Necessary Reforms for Transnational Governance

Three key points need emphasis. First, a clear boundary: the election of the Catholicos and the Church’s internal organization—despite Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s ambitions—must remain solely within the Church’s authority. Any direct state interference would violate spiritual autonomy. However, a gray area exists where state policies on education, heritage, and taxation inevitably impact the Church. This necessitates reformulating the overly vague Article 18 of the Constitution. The foundation must be transparent dialogue that will hopefully prevent future crises.

The Armenian Church still awaits the appointment of a canonical mediator and an institutional pact between Etchmiadzin and Antelias. A binding agreement should ensure electoral autonomy, establish a regular consultation schedule for joint decisions, and create a shared secretariat to overcome inertia and mistrust, while modernizing the Church’s operations.

Let’s be realistic: a merger between Antelias and Etchmiadzin is not on the horizon. However, the lack of cooperation between their dioceses in the diaspora creates significant problems. Several issues require attention, particularly reforming the Catholicos election process  and balancing canonical legitimacy with transnational representation. This challenge highlights the imbalance favoring bishops from Armenia over those from the diaspora. While declining religious vocations in secular societies contributes to this imbalance, this explanation alone is insufficient.

The triangle of Etchmiadzin, the Armenian state, and Antelias clearly does not function as intended. Ideally, it should act as a system of counterbalances. When any of these three poles gains too much influence, institutional safeguards become necessary to prevent polarization and lack of transparency.

The distinctive strength of the Armenian Church lies in its ability to unite nation, faith, and diaspora. This strength, however, becomes a vulnerability when poorly structured. The Church requires reform to strengthen the role of laypeople, who see the Church primarily as a guardian of faith, not a vehicle for social advancement or a battlefield for power struggles. This calls for the establishment of a legal framework for jurisdictions that have become anachronistic and undermined by corruption of both institutions and individuals.

To sum up, necessary reforms include:

• Institutionalized and transparent dialogue between state and Church
• A concordat to clarify Article 18 of the Constitution
• Annual audits and accountability in finances and education
• Greater inclusion of laypeople in decision-making
• Modernized pastoral approaches and contextual theology for the diaspora

Holiness and Renewal

The Armenian Apostolic Church stands at a crossroads. Its unique strength—binding nation, faith, and diaspora—risks turning into a weakness if left unstructured. Reform is essential to empower lay participation, modernize governance, ensure transparency, and create new frameworks for transnational representation.

Beyond institutional arrangements, however, lies the core mission of the Church: holiness, set apart for God’s presence and service, to live according to divine teachings. At a time of political upheaval, demographic decline, and cultural assimilation, the imperative is for spiritual renewal. Only by reclaiming its role as a true guardian of faith, justice, and truth can the Armenian Church remain the cornerstone of the nation and a beacon for its diaspora.

Moving forward, the faithful must establish consultative donor committees to rebuild trust and create co-financing funds for schools and heritage preservation. Clergy must modernize pastoral practice, empower laypeople in proclaiming the Gospel, and develop a contextual theology adapted to diasporic realities and responsive to current challenges. This includes updating canon law to align with national legal systems regarding associational status, church property, taxation of donations, and school management. Above all, let us not forget the essential point: the call to holiness—an absolute urgency in these times.

Footnotes: 

[1] In Turkey, vakıf properties (from the Arabic waqf, meaning “endowment”) are religious foundation properties historically belonging to non-Muslim communities such as the Armenians, Greeks, and Jews. These vakıfs managed schools, churches, cemeteries, and charitable institutions. After the establishment of the Turkish Republic, many Armenian vakıf properties were confiscated through restrictive laws, especially during the 1930s–1970s, when minority foundations were forced to register properties under new regulations or lost them to the state. Despite partial restitution laws adopted in the 2000s (notably during EU accession reforms), numerous Armenian vakıf assets remain under state control or are disputed.

Also see

Opinion