MJ Posted February 21, 2001 Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Window QuarterlyVol. 2, No. 3, 1991Copyright 1991 [Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article provided the following acknowledgment is given: From Window Quarterly 2, 3 (1991); ACRAG c. 1991. *** RETHINKING ARMENIAN PROTESTANTISM by Fr. Vazken Movsesian Earlier this year, the editors of Window were invited to address a youth group of the Armenian Brotherhood Bible Church. By their claims, the Brotherhood is a "non-denominational" group with a mission of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ among Armenians. Conveniently, the Armenian Church refers to them as Protestants. We arrived at a location in Pasadena, California, which had no resemblance to a church from the outside. On the inside there was the inescapable warmth of a Christian home. Young men and women greeted us in a most hospitable manner. They were eager to listen and perhaps even challenge us, as clergy of the Armenian Church. The program began with a half-hour of worship. A small combo set up their equipment. The pianist gave a tone and the guitar and bass tuned-up. With the drummer's steady beat, this group of 50-70 young Armenians began praising the Lord with song and testimony. To our ears, for which sacred hymns were expressed in solemnity, these Armenian spirituals, set to a light-rock and roll beat, were a novelty, to say the least. Young minds, especially of college years, are skeptical. We could see the questions in their eyes: What can these Orthodox clergy teach us? By the end of the evening, the barriers were down on both sides, and we were engaged in an open dialogue. To have focused on our commonalty might have been more cordial, but the drift toward our differences granted us a more fruitful discussion. As Protestants, they saw ecclesiastical institutionalization as a hindrance to the individual quest for Christ. Nevertheless, the question was finally asked at the end of the evening: What can the Apostolic and Protestant churches do to be united as the Body of Christ? This question is seldom discussed within the Armenian Church. In the early 1970's, two commissions, respectively set up by the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Evangelical churches, convened in New York city to discuss issues pertaining to a rapprochement. Between October 1970 and December 1971, the Commission had eight sessions, where theological, pastoral, canonical and other related issues were discussed. As a result of these consultations, a Report was prepared (February 1972) and sent to the official bodies of the two groups for further study and assessment. The Chairman of the Commission was Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan, Second-Chairman, Rev. Senekerim Sulahian, Secretary, Rev. Dikran Kasouni, Second-Secretary Mr. Bedros Norhad.1 Unfortunately, there were no follow ups to these consultations. Nearly two decades later, this question resurfaced. It was a good question and worthy of an answer, with hopes of instigating a concerted effort toward rapprochement. If the reference to the Armenian Orthodox Church is made as the "Mother Church" (commonly referred to by the Armenian Protestants) then by implication alone, we may conclude that there is a desire for the children to return home. But no steps have been taken on either side toward this reunion. For many, the thought of reuniting Armenian Protestants and Orthodox is incomprehensible. The Protestant community is seen by the Church as a splinter group functioning autonomously, yet morally (even magically) bound to the "mother" Armenian Church. While terms such as "mother" and "child" may suggest endearment, reality does not speak this language of cooperation and union. Proselytizing continues today throughout Armenia as well as the diaspora by the Protestant groups. Meanwhile, the Armenian Church, like the father of the prodigal, waits and hopes (with an occasional burst of rhetoric) for the child to find his way home. Protestants are making in-roads to Armenia and establishing communities. The official organ of the Armenian Missionary Association bellows, often subtly and at times overtly, with criticism of Armenian Church practices. A new publication Hatz mer hanabazort--"Our Daily Bread"-- aimed at providing spiritual comfort to the individual believer sorely diminishes Christianity to an individual experience.2 The examples of this type of abuse and indignation toward the teachings of the Armenian Church are innumerable, yet the Church is reluctant to condemn (or at least answer) these publications nor their authors. Quite the opposite, cordial ties are maintained between the Church and Protestant communities in an almost nonsensical manner. It is not uncommon to find the Armenian Church in America celebrating Saint's Days (e.g., Sts. Vartanantz) with with the Protestants who have no affinity for the saints. Requiem services are held on Armenian Martyrs' Day with the "participation" of groups which not only have no regard for the ceremony, but have critically labeled the requiem as heathen. The Armenian Church to date has hesitated to address rapprochement for a variety of reasons. First, Protestantism has not been seen as a considerable threat. The Church has only recently taken notice, primarily due to the proselytization occurring within Armenia -- the Church's once-exclusive domain. Secondly, the schism with the Protestants has been overshadowed by the jurisdictional division within the Armenian Church itself. The past six decades alone have been give-and-take matches between Etchmiadzin and Antelias affiliates. The reference to "unity in the Armenian Church" is a usual reference to settling the division of the Catholicoi, rather than healing any rift of ecumenical consequence. Primarily, though, the Armenian Church has remained dormant regarding the Protestants because of the ethnic composition of the denomination. The Protestants, by virtue of being Armenian, are considered part of the same family, as if the "Armenian Church" title encompasses three branches: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. This fallacy is perpetuated within the Protestant community as well. An Armenian Protestant minister in the Los Angeles area once observed that the Armenian Church was similar to the Temple of Judaism, while the Protestant church was akin to the synagogue. For the Jew, the main sacrifice took place in the Temple, while a form of worship consisting of readings from the scriptures, preaching, prayers and psalms was the custom of the synagogue. Hence, this minister presents a parallel where Protestants follow the synagogue model while the modern-day sacrifice (=badarak) takes place in the Temple known as the Armenian Church. On closer inspection, however, the analogy is flawed. For the Jew, the faith was one, only the method of approach differed to that faith. For the Orthodox and the Protestant, beyond methodology is the disparity between the beliefs. Furthermore, the synagogue form developed during the exile, when it was impossible to sacrifice at the Temple. The Armenian Church has never been without its "sacrifice," (though the purpose of the sacrifice may have been unclear from time to time.) At issue here is not merely a difference of approach or method. Nor is this a denominational issue. As a matter of history, the early evangelical movement among Armenians was greeted with repeated anathemas, clearly an indication of a breach on theological grounds. The Protestants have repeatedly claimed that their discord with the Apostolic Church has been to make the Gospel message relevant to the people. Rituals, liturgy, the sacraments, institutional administration have no place in the Protestant model. It is possible though, that in the process of finding a "pure" Christianity and "cleaning" the faith, the Protestants may have thrown the baby out with the bath water. "There is nether Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Nestled in the Santa Cruz hills of Northern California is the Saints Peter and Paul Orthodox Church. Beneath its circular dome you will find a multitude of icons depicting the saints of the Church, candles burning around the reserve sacrament, the air still fragranced with incense from the daily worship and all the serenity of a monastery. An occasional truck roars by on the highway which leads to the church, reminding you that you are not in some other place or time. About half an hour's drive to the south, skimpy bikinis invoke cardinal desires on the beaches of Santa Cruz. A half an hour's distance to the north reveals America's Silicon Valley, where "icons" are small images on computer screens. This is the town of Ben Lomond. The Sts. Peter & Paul parish is an Orthodox Church. It is the paradigm of orthodoxy for here, the faith is professed with ethnic oblivion. It is neither Greek nor Russian, though both Greeks and Russians would feel at "home" in this surrounding. The parish is one of a growing number of communities throughout the world, part of the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission (AEOM). The history of this group spans over the centuries, yet they were established less than a decade ago. Their story is unique-- a story of looking for a method and discovering the Faith -- finding the Church of Jesus Christ. The quest of these pilgrims is chronicled in Becoming Orthodox, A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith3 by Fr. Peter Gillquist, an archpriest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Gillquist, and his fellow "travelers" were all Protestants, with the most evangelical upbringing. Their evangelism has not ended. Their approach may be construed as un-orthodox among the evangelicals, though their message is heralded louder than ever before. Their story begins in Arrowhead Springs, California. Here, these men made up the leadership of the Campus Crusade for Christ. Heeding the words of Christ's Great Commission -- spreading the Gospel to the whole world -- the activities of the Crusade focused on bringing America's college students to faith in Christ. Many of us who went through the American public school system and college remember the Bible Study groups assembled under trees and the Jesus rallies on the football fields. Their tracts were catchy and meetings were always inviting. But for Gillquist and some of his fellow workers, they found that there was something more to "church" than the classrooms and gymnasiums "where two or three gathered" in His name. By 1966, they were "convinced from the Scriptures that the Church was the means to fulfilling that Great Commission."4 In 1968, a group of these leaders resigned from Campus Crusade to "pursue evangelism through the Church." The question then followed: What is the Church? Their attempts to build house-churches in different parts of the country, fashioned after their understanding of the New Testament model, met with failure. They stayed in touch with one another, exchanging thoughts about their successes and failures. In 1973, these ex-Crusaders regrouped in hopes of overcoming the frustrations of working individually. They decided that seven men would assume the leadership of a new "network." Gillquist was chosen to preside. Subsequently, they met quarterly to study and pray together, continuing their quest for the New Testament Church. "Our background as evangelical Protestants," writes Gillquist, "meant that we somewhat knew our way backward to the Protestant Reformation, and that we knew our way forward to A.D. 95, the end of the New Testament era." Methodically, they approached the study of the Church starting from New Testament times. They researched Church history to look for continuity and polity. Early Church worship and Christology was studied by examining and scrutinizing the decisions of the early Church fathers and Ecumenical councils. They used the Holy Scriptures to verify everything in a very skeptical manner. They hid nothing from their people: they found no need to start yet another denomination. They wanted to "land somewhere in the historic Christian faith." Furthermore, they agreed that if their findings differed from what they held as true, but were "squared with the Scriptures," then they would change. Gillquist recalls, "Here we were: anti-established Church, anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental, congregational in polity. We represented people who ranged from hyper-dispensationalists to signs and wonders charismatics, reading publications as diverse as Ramparts and the Jesus People Survival Guide. With all this, we were making ourselves open and vulnerable to the Fathers and Councils of the early Church!" Their quest lead them to find that the apostolic church was liturgical and sacramental, with a clearly-defined laity, governed by bishops, priests and deacons. They discovered the biblical basis of the Liturgy, Ecumenical councils, the role and importance of icons, incense and vestments. "We had to eat a lot of crow -- buckets of it," confesses Gillquist. As these ex-Campus Crusaders were discovering Eastern Orthodoxy they formed the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC). Their practices changed to conform to their findings. But alas, here they were, the arms, feet, and mouth of New Testament Church, without a body to make them whole. "We had come to Orthodox Christianity 'out of the books,'" says Gillquist. The moment of truth had arrived. Moved to be united with the Body of Christ, they were in dialogue with the Orthodox Church of America, the Greek Orthodox Church, and met with many of the Orthodox jurisdictions. In 1985, they presented themselves to His Holiness Ignatius IV, the Patriarch of Antioch and His Eminence Metropolitan Philip Saliba, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America. In 1986 the EOC Synod drafted a proposal to Metropolitan Philip "to be considered for entrance into the Orthodox Church through his Archdiocese." Later that year they entered the canonical Orthodox Church. This became "the first time in history an evangelical denomination... gained official approval to become part of the Eastern Orthodox Church."5 The end of this journey became the beginning of their ministry. Chrismation followed. One-by-one, parish-by-parish the EOC was "Welcomed Home"6 to the fold of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. According to the wishes of Metropolitan Philip the EOC was named the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission, to avoid the operation of a church within a church. Soon, hundreds were welcomed to Orthodoxy. New missions have begun in Fargo, North Dakota; Salt Lake City, Utah; East Lansing, Michigan; Bloomington, Indiana; Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; Wheaton Illinois and the list is only beginning. Pastors "who love Christ and His Church and are seeking the fullness of Orthodox worship and faith," are making inquiries.7 Today, converts are found throughout the world. The church has an eight-hundred member support group called the Order of St. Ignatius which underwrites special projects. They operate the Concilliar Press which publishes the Again quarterly as well as books, cards and tracts. They have iconographers and are suppliers of Orthodox worship material. To sum it up: they are the New Testament Church. Without compromising their call to evangelize, they are spreading the oneness and the fullness of life with Christ, through the Orthodox Holy Church. They are neither Greek, nor Russian, nor Romanian, nor American nor Armenian. They are Christians. They are one in Christ Jesus. Toward the Only, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church If there is an answer to the question presented to us by the Armenian Brotherhood -- What can the Apostolic and Protestant churches do to be united as the Body of Christ?-- then the AEOM experience presents a key to this desired oneness. Given a chance to absorb pure orthodoxy, where ethnic and national aspirations are filtered, the members of the EOC--formerly strict Protestants-- found their roots and the vehicle to bring Christ to the people. With Armenians, it would not be reasonable nor fair, to place the entire burden on the Protestant Community, in a challenge to find their orthodox roots. A few years ago, I attended a reception honoring WCC president Emile Castro. His Eminence Archbishop Vatche Hovsepian was there to address this gathering on behalf of the Armenian Church. The Archbishop took to the podium and recalled the struggle of the Armenian Church to keep the Faith throughout the centuries. In his final words he said, "You (members of the WCC) have much to learn from us (the Armenian Church) just as we have much to learn from you." Accordingly, the Armenian Church has much to offer other churches--some, which have never known Christianity without struggle or persecution. On the other hand, churches of the WCC may offer the Armenian Church the experiences of working in an ecumenical spirit for global and social concerns -- something new, and therefore lacking in the focus of the Armenian Church. A similar statement of reciprocal learning is what is needed between Orthodox and Protestant Armenians. With nearly 200 years of Armenian Protestantism, the Armenian Church cannot assume them to be a passing fad. The Church must come to terms with her children who long to express their faith. Evangelism has been a practice of the Church since apostolic times -- it cannot be dismissed as a "Protestant practice." Concerns for relevancy of the Sacraments, in terms of language and connection to contemporary issues, is not only raised by the Protestants but many of the Armenian Church faithful as well. Learning from the Protestants does not mean a compromise of orthodoxy. The Protestant Armenian community affords the Armenian Church the opportunity to benefit from the West. While the world turns its attention to global concerns, the Armenian Church, as the Body of Christ, cannot be confined to ethnic parameters. She must come out of her ethnic ghetto and not blemish Her sacred mission with such secular concerns of national preoccupations. The aspirations of the nation are best served when it is fed a diet of spiritual sustenance. The Armenian nation has remained intact because of the Armenian Church: not because she taught national pride, but because she provided the virtues necessary for a people to survive and progress. The counter part to reciprocal learning belongs to the Armenian Protestants. The Protestant communities are in serious need to evaluate their direction and preaching. As Fr. Gillquist and other members of the EOC soon found, there was an element missing from the Christian equation. If the message of Protestant evangelism does not account for the Church, then they are depriving the believer of one of Christ's greatest gifts. Christianity is not an individual faith, it is a collective experience. God did not give the world a Bible from which we would find our salvation. God gave us a greater gift, His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. In turn, Christ gave His Body, the Church, through which we would be saved. It was His Body -- His Arms, Legs, Mouth -- which formalized and gave us the articles of Faith and the Bible. And today, if we are to remain faithful to the New Testament understanding of the Church, it cannot be with the exclusion of His Holy Body. Through liturgy, sacraments and communion of the saints, the Church offers the fullness of the Christian message which is the only message sanctioned by Christ for preaching. The AEOM had the unique advantage of learning orthodoxy "from the books" and not necessarily from practice. Can the Armenian Protestants find an outlet and a form of express in the Armenian Church much like Fr. Gillquist and the EOC found in the Orthodox Church? If so, would the Armenian Church be open to "welcome home" the Armenian Protestants, as Metropolitan Phillip did to the EOC? Mutual respect and receptiveness are the only means by which this may occur. Toward this end, there are certain stumbling blocks already in place which may be too cumbersome to lift. At present, the infiltration of Armenia by Protestant missionaries is of great concern to the hierarchs of the Church. In his sermon at the blessing of the Holy Miuron, His Holiness Catholicos Vazken I, emphatically says, "The Armenian people will never tolerate proselytizing by other churches within the bosom of our nation..." The motives of missionaries to Armenia are in serious question: Are they there to bring the Gospel of Christ to the spiritually starved people? Or are they there with the ultimate hopes of winning converts to their churches? In 1989, a Greek Orthodox priest disrupted an open-air evangelistic campaign in northern Greece. There was physical & verbal abuse alleged on both sides. Almost at the same time, the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece established a special "anti-heresy department" to neutralize the influences of Protestants within Greece.8 Fortunately, these old world beat-um-up methods have not been reported in Armenia. But, with the recent declaration of independence by Armenia, also came a declaration of the primacy of the Armenian Church. Legistating religion only insures a safe haven for believers, but is not a substitute for actual instruction and evangelization. In conclusion, these reflections about Armenian Orthodox and Protestant unity began innocently by a simple question. I have tried to offer a practical approach to this end through a model of reciprocal learning. I am not an idealist. I do realize we are far from unity and perhaps, just as far from even entertaining the notion. I hope that this article may be a catalyst for subsequent discussions about this subject and eventual movement in the direction of rapproachement. Ironically, the issue of uniting the Armenian Apostolic and Protestant churches is an issue of both religion and nation. The Armenian nation would certainly be strengthened with a single solidified Church, but more importantly it would be to the benefit of Christ's Holy Body. And to this we are commited. ----------------------------------------------Notes:1. The full text of the Report was published bilingually by Pen-Text Publishing Company, Boston, MA.2. Published in Armenian by the Armenian Missionary Association, New Jersey, this small pamphlet, offers a short scriptural passages for the days of the week, followed by a 3-5 paragraph commentary/illustration of the passage.3. 1989, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc, Brentwood, Tennessee.4. All quotes in reference to the formation of the AEOC, unless otherwise noted are from an article by Peter Gillquist, Arrowhead Springs to Antioch in Again Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1, Concilliar Press, Mt. Hermon, California.5. Christianity Today, February 6, 19876. A phrase used by Metropolitan Philip to describe the EOC experience.7. Becoming Orthodox, p. 181.8. Christianity Today, October 6, 1989, p.41 *** =================================================== _ _ _ _ _ |_| ___ _| | ___ _ _ _ | | | | | | _ / _ / _ | / _ | | | | | | | |_| |_| || |_ | | | || |_| || |_| || |_| |_| | _________/___||_| |_| ___/ ___/ _________/ View Of The Armenian Church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 21, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2001 Window QuarterlyVol. 2, No. 3, 1991Copyright 1991 [Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article provided the following acknowledgment is given: From Window Quarterly 2, 3 (1991); ACRAG c. 1991. *** THE ARMENIAN PROTESTANTSA Brief History Compiled by Hratch Tchilingirian The beginnings of the Armenian Protestant church dates back to the early nineteenth century. As a movement, it was "imported" and "implanted" by American and European missionaries, amidst the "intellectual renaissance" that was taking place in the Armenian community within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. Tracing the roots of Armenian Protestantism is not as easy as it may seem. The authors who have written about the subject, while they agree on dates and personalities, are divided over the reasons, rationale and effects of the events that lead to the establishment of a separate Armenian Protestant denomination. Among the books that were consulted for this article were Leon Arpee's A Century of Armenian Protestantism; G.H. Chopourian's The Armenian Evangelical Reformation: Causes and Effects, and Vahan H. Tootikian's The Armenian Evangelical Church (see sources below). The purpose of this article is to give a historical account of events rather than an analysis of the movement. The First Reformers The first Protestant missionaries that were sent to the Turkish empire were from the Church Missionary Society of the Church of England in 1815 and in 1818, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. In 1827, the Syrian Mission (established in 1823 by the American Board), led by two ministers, received two Armenian helpers. Among the first missionaries was William Goodell who arrived in Constantinople in 1831 and founded the Mission of the American Board for the Armenians of Turkey. In 1833, John Der-Sahakian and his companion, Paul Minassian joined the mission. Within a year, Der-Sahakian was appointed general superintendent of the Mission's high school in Pera. However, in 1837, the school was forced to close due to pressures from the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. Despite the opposition of the Armenian Patriarchate, the evangelical movement made considerable headway with a following of about 500 people. The "mission" of the Protestant ministers caused a great deal of uproar in the Armenian community. The Mother Church, headed by the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, protested the activities of the missionaries among the Armenians. Eventually, the confrontation lead to a formal anathema of Protestants by the Patriarch and even persecutions by the Ottoman government authorities. Here is an excerpt from a report sent by a missionary to the American Board, which gives a glimpse of events of the time: "In order that misunderstanding may be cleared up, it should be stated here that missionaries to the Armenians and Greeks were not sent to divide the churches or to separate out those who should accept education and read the Bible in the vernacular. Their one supreme endeavor was to help the Armenians and the Greeks work out a quiet but genuine reform in their respective churches. The missionaries made no attacks upon churches, their customs, or beliefs, but strove by positive, quiet effort to show the necessary changes. . . . When the separation did come, it was in spite of every effort of the missionaries to prevent it." 1 The missionaries were critical of the Armenian Church and viewed its practices as "corrupt." Here is how Goodell describes the Armenian Church: . . . like all the Oriental churches, the Armenian had become exceedingly corrupt. It was almost wholly given up to superstition and to idolatrous worship of saints, including the Virgin Mary, pictures, etc. The Armenians hold to transubstantiation, and worship the host; and, indeed have adopted most of the errors of popery... As with all rigid formalities, the weightier matters of the law and the gospel are considered of small account compared with the punctilious performance of religious rites and ceremonies.2 While the "supreme endeavor" of the Protestants "was to help the Armenians...work out a quiet but genuine reform in their respective churches," their eventual mission was characterized by an attack on the established "Mother Church." These confrontations lead to a wide persecution of Protestants. Thus, in an attempt to survive the opposition in Turkey to their missionary work, the missionaries secured temporary shelter and amenities were obtained from contributions received from Protestant sympathizers in England, America, India and the Caucuses, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Wurttemberg and Switzerland. Meanwhile, in mid February 1846, the evangelicals sent a petition to the minister of foreign affairs begging for protection of the imperial government. They refuted all charges of civil rebellion and stated that the reason for their persecution was due to their refusal to conform to the practices of the national church such as the worship of images and priestly absolution. The following month they submitted a petition to the British, Prussian and American diplomatic representatives and finally one to the Sultan himself. On March 12, 1846, the minister of foreign affairs spoke with the Armenian Patriarch, Matthew, who, after extensive negotiations, declared from the pulpit of the cathedral church, that "Religion is free in Turkey!" On May 17, 1846 the evangelicals were authorized to resume their "normal" life and obtain credit as Protestants. Thus ended the civil persecution of the Protestants. Organization of Protestant Churches On June 21, 1846, on the occasion of the feast of Etchmiadzin, Patriarch Matthew issued an encyclical of perpetual excommunication and anathema against all Protestants to be publicly read at every annual return of the festival throughout the churches. Thus, "the reformers," originally a party within the church, excluded from the church's fellowship and ordinances, formed a rival organization outside the church, i.e. the Protestant church. On June 25, 1846, a constitution was drawn up for the Armenian Evangelical Church about to be organized. This constitution provided for a form of government half-way between Congregationalism and Presbyterianism. The doctrine of the church was embodied in a confession of faith composed of 12 articles to which all candidates for church membership were to express publicly. On July 1, 1846 the constitution was formally adopted by the evangelicals of Constantinople and the First Armenian Evangelical Church of Constantinople (with a total of 40 members) began. During the months of July and August, three more evangelical churches were organized on the basis of the above described constitution; Nicomedia and Adabazar with 14 members each and Trebizond with nine members. At the end of a year, the infant church of Constantinople had more than doubled its membership and the aggregate membership of the four churches was about 140. After the consummation of the ecclesiastical organization, the civil recognition by the Turkish government was made the important object of endeavor by the evangelicals. On August 17, 1846 a meeting of the "Protestant Nation" (milet) was called at Constantinople and an executive committee of four was appointed to represent the community in its external relations. On June 16, 1846, this committee submitted a petition to the local governor requesting separation from the Armenian community and the granting of a charter. Four petitions were sent to the Sultan in the space of a few months. However, through the petition of the British embassy, and the efforts of Lord Cowley and later Stratford de Redcliffe, the first imperial acknowledgement was issued on November 15, 1847, recognizing the Protestants of Turkey as a separate community and granting them freedom of conscience and worship. But it was not until 1850, again through the efforts of Lord Stratford, that the rights and privileges of the Protestant community were permanently defined by imperial firman (edict) and the Protestants were authorized to elect a chancellor or civil head. On December 13, 1850, at a popular meeting of the Protestant community in Constantinople, this was publicly read and Stephen Seropian was elected civil head of the community. As of the beginning of 1850, the expansion of Armenian Protestants was not great in scope; there were only 7 mission stations in the Armenian field: Constantinople, Bebek, Brusa, Smyrna, Trebizond, Erzrum, and Aintab; 6 outstations: Nicomedia, Adabazar, Rodosto, Diarbekir, Urfa, and Cesarea; 18 missionaries and 20 female assistants; 8 churches with 2 of them in Constantinople, with an aggregate membership of about 240. However, by the end of 1850, with the promulgation of the imperial firman, the whole country was opened up to missionary operation. It awakened a general readiness everywhere to listen to the preaching of the Protestants. About 100 towns and villages around Aintab, Marash, Urfa, Diarbekir, Arabgir, Agn, Silvas, Cesarea, Tocat, and Marsovan began to show "signs of an awakening," and from remote localities "came requests to the missionaries for preachers of the gospel." By the end of 1860, the field had become so extensive that it necessitated its subdivision into three separate missions; the Western Turkey Mission (including what was afterward the European Turkey Mission), the Central Turkey Mission and the Eastern Turkey Mission. Combined, there were 23 mission stations; 65 outstations; 50 missionaries and 50 female assistants; 40 evangelical churches, with a total membership of nearly 1,300 people. The Rationale for a Protestant Armenian Church According to the scholars who have written about the Protestant movement in Turkey, the missions of the American Board to the oriental churches, more specifically the missions of the Armenian church, were originally committed to a policy of strict non-proselytism (non conversion from one belief to another). Accordingly, this policy had as its sole aim the instillation into those churches evangelical ideas--without alienating any of the members from them. In their pursuit, "the American missionaries in Constantinople at first avoided all controversy and based their efforts on what the oriental churches needed above all else an enlightenment to arouse a widespread interest in the Word of God." However, in the 15 years from the founding of the Armenian mission, the missionaries of the American Board in Turkey "felt compelled" to establish an independent evangelical church, contrary to the original plan. L. Arpee enumerates four reasons which led the missionaries to establish a Protestant church in Turkey prior to 1846 and to regard a strict adherence to their original policy of non-proselytisms as impracticable. 1) Pressure from the home churches for tangible results. 2) Intolerance of the oriental churches. 3) Antagonism between oriental orthodoxy and the missionaries doctrines and methods. Arpee writes, The Armenian church, although it theoretically held to the Scriptures as the supreme authority, had given place to a great mass of patristic interpretations and ceremonial rituals with the result that the Word of God had been all but lost in the traditions of man." On the other hand, the missionaries' ideas and methods of ultra-evangelism were far to radical for the oriental churches and sooner or later would invite opposition. Therefore, long before they were excommunicated by Patriarchal anathema, the evangelical Armenians found themselves seceding. 4) The official recognition of the treaty rights of American missionaries in Turkey by the U.S. government in 1842. The U.S. government pointed out to the Turkish empire that the American missionaries in Turkey were entitled by treaty to the protection of the U.S. government as long as they refrained from proselyting. Since no distinction could be drawn from proselyting and non-proselyting missionaries, it was now understood that if a missionary had any right to reside in the Turkish dominions at all, he was also entitled as a citizen of the U.S. to the protection of his government. By 1914, on the eve of the first World War, Protestants had 15 stations in Turkey, 146 missionaries, 137 churches and 13,891 communicant members. The most notable single evangelical influence on the Armenians of Turkey came from the combined efforts of the American Board and the American Bible Society in disseminating the scriptures into the people's vernacular, (i.e. Goodell's Bible for Turkish speaking Armenians, published in 1842 and Elias Riggs' modern Armenian Bible, published in 1853). By 1890's, the relationship between the Apostolic and Protestant Armenian churches was cordial enough to permit the collaboration on a modern Armenian New Testament, which was published under the Armenian Patriarch's imprimatur to provide free circulation among the Armenians. Eventually, the massacres of Armenians in Turkey, (1895-1908) drained not only the Protestant Armenians of their leaders, but the entire Armenian nation. The 1915 deportations and massacres swept the Armenian evangelical churches out of Asia minor. The American Board liquidated its hundred-years interest in Turkey and withdrew from the field. However, as Armenians scattered throughout the world, so did Armenian Protestant congregations, which can be found in large Armenian communities in the Diaspora. With the emergence of an Armenian Protestant church, in the 19th century, a rapture was created between the Armenian Apostolic Church and those who followed the missionaries. What were predicted as "dangerous trends" by Patriarch Matthew of the time -- which eventually gave permanence to the separation between the Armenian evangelicals and the Mother Church-- are summarized by V.H. Tootikian in these terms: a) "the Armenian Evangelical Church failed in her original goal to reform the Armenian Apostolic Church," It "failed to keep the balance between the Armenian-Christian and Protestant-Evangelical heritages," c) "The Armenian Evangelical Church weakened the solidarity of the Armenian people," d) It "withdrew into isolation," and e) "The Armenian Evangelical Church gradually became complacent."3 However, Tootikian adds, that " when every criticism has been made, and every allowance recorded for the imperfection of the Armenian Evangelical Church, the fact remains that she worked her way into many corners of the life of the Armenian Nation. Obvious faults and weaknesses must not hide the deeper significance of the Evangelical Movement, because measured by its effects, it proved itself a potent force among the Armenian people." -researched by Jeannie Murachanian ---------------------------------------------------Notes1. James L. Barton, Daybreak in Turkey (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1908), pp. 108-109. Cited in The Armenian Evangelical Reformation: Causes and Effects by G.H. Chopourian (New York: AMAA, 1972) pp.1-2.2. Quoted in Chopourian, op. cit. pp. 26-27.3. Vahan H. Tootikian. The Armenian Evangelical Church. (Detroit: Armenian Heritage Committee, 1982). pp. 85-93.----------------------------------------------------- Sources for further reading: The Church of Armenia by Malachi Ormanian, Diocese of the Armenian Church, New York. A Century of Armenian Protestantism by Leon Arpee. New York: Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc., 1946. The Armenian Awakening by Leon Arpee. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1909. The Rise of the Evangelical Movement Among Armenians by A.A. Bedikian (English Translation of the Beginning of the Evangelical Movement Among Armenians.) New York: Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc., 1970. The Armenian Evangelical Reformation Causes and Effects by G.H. Chopourian New York: Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc., 1972. The Armenian Evangelical Church by Vahan H. Tootikian, Detroit, MI: Armenian Heritage Committee, 1982. The Separation of the Armenian Catholic and Evangelical Denominations in the 19th Century by Puzant Yeghiayan. Antelias: The Armenian Catholicosate of the See of Cilicia, 1971. *** =================================================== _ _ _ _ _ |_| ___ _| | ___ _ _ _ | | | | | | _ / _ / _ | / _ | | | | | | | |_| |_| || |_ | | | || |_| || |_| || |_| |_| | _________/___||_| |_| ___/ ___/ _________/ View Of The Armenian Church =================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilafhead Posted February 22, 2001 Report Share Posted February 22, 2001 Martin, I didn't see your posts here. I posted this same article to Religion. My cousin is the one cited at the bottom for research. BTW, you posted the same thing twice in this thread. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilafhead Posted February 23, 2001 Report Share Posted February 23, 2001 I'm sorry, you're right about them being two different articles. No, Vahan is not my cousin. Jean Murachanian is (she's credited for research on the second article). Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted February 23, 2001 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2001 Mike, These are two different articles on the subject of Armenian Protestants. Did you mean Vahan is your cousin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.