In response to the recent statement issued by the Assembly of Bishops, I write not in opposition, nor in alignment with any political authority, but out of sincere concern for reconciliation. The bishops have reaffirmed the spiritual unity and canonical integrity of the Armenian Apostolic Church. That affirmation deserves respect.
The tensions surrounding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and His Holiness Karekin II have evolved beyond personal disagreement. They reflect a broader institutional challenge between the sovereign Republic of Armenia and the Armenian Apostolic Church—two foundational pillars of Armenian national life. What began as dispute has matured into structural strain, touching questions of authority, accountability, and public trust. Preserving both institutions requires procedural clarity rather than continued public contestation.
If reconciliation does not take place, the risk extends beyond disagreement. It may gradually fragment the working relationship between Church and State within the Republic. More concerning, it may deepen emotional distance between Armenia and its diaspora. For many diaspora Armenians, faith, identity, and national belonging are inseparable. The Church has historically served as the primary bridge to the homeland. If polarization persists, indifference may replace engagement—not out of hostility, but out of fatigue.
For a small nation with significant global potential, such disengagement could carry long-term consequences. At the same time, it could affect the Church itself—weakening its unifying national mission and diminishing the vitality of its living connection with the diaspora. A sustained decline in engagement would not only reduce national capacity, but could also erode the Church’s credibility and its historic role as a unifying spiritual center.
Read also
Reconciliation must therefore be structured and safeguarded.
First, both sides should commit to an immediate de-escalation of public rhetoric.
Second, each should appoint two official representatives: one senior institutional figure and one legal expert (constitutional and canon law respectively).
Third, a time-bound (90-day) Joint Consultative Commission should be established to clarify institutional boundaries, review contested actions under principles of due process, and recommend safeguards against future conflict. Equal representation from State and Church should be complemented by mutually trusted independent figures, including respected members of the diaspora.
Fourth, confidence-building measures should accompany the process.
Fifth, the commission’s findings should be published transparently, followed by the creation of a permanent Church–State liaison mechanism.
This proposal asks neither side to surrender principle. It asks both to preserve unity—before distance hardens into division.
K. M. Greg Sarkissian
Op-ed by K. M. Greg Sarkissian, Co-Founder and President of the Zoryan Institute. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of the Zoryan Institute.