Naturally, I hope Pashinyan will fail in his attempt to stage a coup within the Armenian Apostolic Church. I find such an initiative absolutely unacceptable — not because I’m blind to the shortcomings of our bishops or clergy in general, but because the Prime Minister’s campaign is anti-constitutional, anti-state, and anti-national at its core.
However, in evaluating any political phenomenon, one must also consider the worst-case scenario.
The most Pashinyan could achieve is the establishment of a so-called “Church of Armenia” — an institution de facto subordinate to Armenia’s executive power. Some citizens of the Republic will accept this new church. Others, including myself, will not. Those of us who reject it will seek to attend churches that remain independent of Pashinyan’s control and faithful to the traditional Armenian Church with its 1,700-year-old legacy.
It’s possible the authorities would respond by banning those temples and persecuting “non-Pashinyan” clergy. Unfortunately, such ecclesiastical and political divisions have occurred before in Armenian history. But in today’s fractured society, this kind of rupture would be uniquely destructive.
Read also
We are already split along countless lines: former vs. current regimes, pro-Russian vs. pro-Western camps, “Armenians” vs. “Karabakhians”, “people-lovers” vs. “people-haters.” Now, a new cleavage may be added — between followers of the traditional church and adherents of a state-engineered “Pashinyan church.”
Let’s assume that, numerically, the divide within Armenia would be roughly even. But in the Diaspora — where the majority of Armenian believers live — the overwhelming majority would reject this “cooperative church.” The result? An even deeper chasm between Armenia and its global Diaspora.
Of course, this will not spell the end of the Armenian people. But in such a scenario, we may well have to forget about Armenian statehood.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
