The Armenian Apostolic Church: Refutation of a False Premise

Pashinyan’s Paradox: Silencing the Church While Interfering in It

The current government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has brought the tension between the state and church to its most critical point in modern Armenian history. After the catastrophic loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 — a region Armenians consider an integral part of their historical homeland — Catholicos Karekin II publicly called for the prime minister’s resignation, pointing to his responsibility in the national debacle.

The government’s response was revealing: in June 2025, Nikol Pashinyan publicly called for the removal of Catholicos Karekin II, the supreme spiritual authority of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Additionally, the government has detained Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and other clerics under accusations of conspiracy against the state, simply for exercising their right to peaceful political opposition.

Here is hypocrisy in its purest form: while the church is accused of “interfering” in politics, it is the government that directly interferes in internal ecclesiastical affairs, attempting to remove religious leaders elected according to Church canons and promoting ecclesiastical voices aligned with political power.

If the church has no right to opine on the nation’s direction, why does the government have the right to decide who should lead the Church?

If there is a “separation” between Church and State, why does that separation only apply in one direction?

If the Church must remain silent before catastrophic political decisions resulting in the loss of historic Armenian territories, why can the State intervene in the election and removal of religious authorities?

This double standard reveals the truth: the problem is not institutional “separation.” The problem is that Pashinyan’s government seeks to silence a powerful critical voice that questions its competence, legitimacy, and disastrous political decisions.

Global Precedent: Religions DO Legitimately Participate in Politics

Those who argue that the Armenian Church must remain on the sidelines of politics deliberately ignore that in multiple consolidated democracies and internationally respected nations, religious institutions actively participate in public debate without compromising democracy. Let’s examine concrete examples:

Iran is a theocratic state where no separation exists between religion and politics. The system is based on the principle of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), where the Supreme Leader combines political authority and spiritual guidance. Although this model presents problems from a liberal democratic perspective, it demonstrates that religious integration in state structure is a contemporary geopolitical reality accepted internationally.

In Israel, though formally secular, laws on marriage, divorce, holidays, and multiple aspects of public life are deeply influenced by Jewish tradition. Religious parties exercise decisive influence in government formation and crucial political decisions. Jewish identity is inseparable from the State of Israel, and no one considers this undemocratic.

In Latin America, the Catholic Church has historically been a fundamental political actor. During the 19th-century civil wars between liberals and conservatives, religion reinforced political motivations. The governments of new republics recognized Catholicism as the state religion to facilitate governing countries with immense Catholic majorities.

Even today, the Catholic Church has intervened in political processes concerning sexual and reproductive rights in many countries of the region. In Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and other countries, Catholic leaders regularly pronounce on public policies, constitutional reforms, and moral questions, without anyone suggesting they should “remain on the sidelines” of politics.

During Soviet occupation, the Polish Catholic Church was the center of national resistance. Pope John Paul II, Polish-born, was instrumental in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. The church was explicitly political, and its participation was considered legitimate and heroic. Today, though debates exist about the Church’s role in Poland, no one denies its right to express positions in public debate.

The Comparative Lesson: Participation Is NOT Imposition

These examples demonstrate that religious participation in politics is the norm, not the exception, in the contemporary world.

It is one thing for the church to express moral positions, criticize governmental decisions, or mobilize the faithful in defense of fundamental values. It is quite another to impose its dogmas through state coercion. The Armenian Apostolic Church does the former; Pashinyan’s government attempts to prevent it through the latter.

The argument that the Armenian Apostolic Church should not “interfere” in state politics is historically false, sociologically naive and politically convenient for those seeking to avoid legitimate criticism.

The true motive behind this argument is revealed when we examine who wields it and when. It is no coincidence this discourse intensifies precisely when Pashinyan’s government faces devastating criticism for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh. Silencing the Church is silencing the government’s most powerful critic. It is censorship disguised as secularism.

The Real Threat: Subordinating the Church to the State

Twentieth-century history is full of examples of what happens when totalitarian states subordinate churches to political power:

In the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church was infiltrated, controlled, and converted into a KGB tool.

In Nazi Germany, the “German Christians” attempted to Nazify the Evangelical Church.

In Communist China, “patriotic” churches controlled by the State are propaganda instruments.

The pattern is always the same: first the church is accused of “interfering” in politics, then state intervention is justified “to maintain order,” finally the religious institution is subordinated, converting it into an appendage of political power.

Armenia is in the early stages of this dangerous process. Detaining critical clergy, calling for the Catholicos’s removal, promoting ecclesiastical voices aligned with the government: these are classic steps toward subordinating the Church to the State.

Conclusion: Defending the Church Is Defending the Nation

The Armenian Apostolic Church is the historical guardian of Armenianness. Pretending to separate it now from Armenia’s political life is not modernization: it is denying 1,700 years of documented history.

Religions legitimately participate in the politics of world nations.

In Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu nations, religious institutions have a voice in public affairs. Why should Armenia be the only nation in the world where this is considered illegitimate? Why should the church representing 92 percent of the population be silenced while churches representing minorities in other countries have full freedom of political expression?

Armenia is not — nor should be — the exception. The claim that the Armenian Apostolic Church must “remain on the sidelines” of politics has no precedent in global democratic practice and contradicts the universal experience of all nations that value their religious traditions.

The real problem is not that the church “interferes” in politics, but that the government attempts to subordinate it.

Here is the fundamental hypocrisy that dismantles the entire governmental argument: while the church is accused of “interfering” in politics, it is the State that violates institutional separation flagrantly and dangerously.

When the government detains Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and other clergy under accusations of “conspiracy against the state” for exercising peaceful political opposition; when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly calls for the removal of Catholicos Karekin II; when the state deliberately promotes ecclesiastical voices aligned with political power to divide and weaken the institution, it is violating the church’s institutional autonomy far more gravely than any political declaration the Church might make.

This is not “separation of church and state”: it is subordination of the church to the state. It is the Soviet model of religious control, where churches could exist only as decorative appendages of political power, without critical voice, without real autonomy, without capacity to question governmental decisions.

An Urgent Call to Clarity and Historical Honesty

The Armenian people — both in the homeland and in the diaspora — must confront these questions with brutal honesty:

Do we want to preserve the institution that has been the heart of our identity for 1,700 years, or will we allow it to be reduced to a decorative appendage of political power? The Armenian Apostolic Church is non-negotiable. It is not a cultural luxury we can modernize by eliminating it from public life. It is the backbone of Armenianness.

Do we consider that the 92 percent of Armenians who identify with the Church deserve their institution to have a voice in the nation’s future, or do we believe only temporary politicians should have that privilege? If democracy means representativeness, then the Church — representing practically the entire population — has more democratic legitimacy than any political party or elected official. Silencing it is not secularism: it is anti-democratic censorship.

Do we accept that the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh is a national tragedy justifying criticism from all institutions, including the Church, or do we believe the government should be exempt from accountability? The fall of Artsakh is not a partisan political issue: it is a historic catastrophe comparable to the genocide. The Church has the right — and the moral duty — to raise its voice before such national disaster.

Do we understand that 20th-century history unequivocally demonstrates that subordinating the church to the state is the path to totalitarianism, or are we willing to risk institutional autonomy for temporary political convenience?

The Armenian Apostolic Church has not only the constitutional right but the historical and moral duty to raise its voice when it considers the nation to be in existential danger. This is not “interfering” in politics: it is exercising its millennial role as guardian of Armenian national identity, a role it has performed uninterruptedly since the year 301.

When Catholicos Karekin II criticized Pashinyan’s government after the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, he was not violating any imaginary “separation of powers.” He was doing exactly what Saint Gregory the Illuminator did with King Tiridates III 1,700 years ago: reminding temporary rulers they have responsibilities before God, before history, and before the Armenian people. Reminding them that political power is transitory, but the nation is eternal.

Kings come and go. Prime ministers rise and fall. Governments change with elections. But the Armenian Apostolic Church remains, as it has remained through Persian invasions, Byzantine occupations, Arab conquests, Ottoman domination, Soviet oppression, and the most brutal attempt of all: the 1915-1923 genocide.

It only remains for the Armenian people in every corner of the world to remember the indelible lessons of their ancestors and defend with all their strength what makes their nation unique and indestructible: the indissoluble union between apostolic faith, the millennial Church, and Armenian national identity.

This union is not negotiable. It is not reformable. It is not modernizable. It is the very essence of what it means to be Armenian.

Defending the Armenian Apostolic Church is not blind conservatism or religious fundamentalism. It is defending the survival of the Armenian nation as a unique historical entity with transcendent purpose. It is recognizing there are realities deeper and more permanent than electoral cycles and temporary political fashions.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is Armenia’s immortal soul. When the Armenian State disappeared, it preserved it. When genocide attempted to erase us from history, it kept us alive. When the diaspora was fragmented across the world, it kept us united.

The choice is before us. History watches us. Our martyred ancestors judge us from heaven. Future generations will ask us: Were we worthy heirs of 1,700 years of unwavering faith, or were we the cowardly generation that voluntarily surrendered what no invader could seize from us?

Let each Armenian answer with their conscience, their vote, and their voice: On which side of history do you want to stand?

(Sergio Nahabetian is the director of Sardarabad newspaper in Buenos Aires.)