The EOTC decided

Several questions could be raised in relation to the election of the sixth patriarch. Was
the election timely and in the best interest and need of the church? To what extent was
the election free and fair? How and to what extent the election reflected the church’s
tradition of electing patriarchs? How and to what extent the ruling party engineered the
election? Were voters adequately and objectively informed of candidates’ backgrounds
and qualifications? Does the winner possess the best qualities expected of a leader?
Should the laity acknowledge the new patriarch? These and other questions beg for
answers. Different answers could be provided by different people, depending on their
spiritual life, political affiliation, ethnic orientations, social networking, and even
personal benefits. However, for a rational and responsible person, a couple of points are
worth to be clearly made.

Was the election necessary?

It is, from a spiritual point of view, unacceptable and even being bogus to push
reconciliation efforts aside and rush for elections. Some argue that the home synod has
already expressed interest to continue with the reconciliation efforts. That is a mere
political gesturing; they wanted to falsely communicate to the public that they are
committed to peace and unity. It is like locking hard your ‘French door’ and inviting a
person to come into your house. Millions of Christians expected the synod to choose a
course that is wide open to accommodate the exile synod. Unfortunately, the home
synod decided to drive hard and rough on that bumpy one-way road. The church could
have benefited a lot if serious attention and priority were given to reconciliation and
unity. The election was neither necessary nor sufficient for the smooth operation of the
church as it excludes the interest of the laity and is in sharp contradiction with what the
Bible says about peace and forgiveness.

Was the election fair?

There were clues and ‘glues’ here and there that indicated that Abune Matias would win
the election. Special coverage was given to him in the booklet that maintains candidates’
history and qualification, for instance. Plus, we have seen and heard that top
government officials were convening with the synod and making ultimatums and terrors.
If there is anyone this time around who denies the role the government played in the
election, s/he must be out of touch with reality. All these testify to the fact that the
election result was known much before it was conducted, not through poll simulations
but through spurious manipulations.

Were votes bought?

The patriarch election bylaw clearly denies God’s intervention; voting decides final
election. That paved the way for manipulations of all sorts. Plus, voters who came from
the church structures all around Ethiopia testified, in one way or another, that they were
under pressure to vote for the now winner. That was mainly why most of the votes (500
0ut of a possible 806) were harvested by Abune Matias. This makes significant sense as
the Archbishop has never been serving in Ethiopia for quite a long period of time. I
doubt that his qualifications and services to the EOTC were well known by the voters.
On the other hand, those who were daily serving the church in Ethiopia to their capacity
were given embarrassing number of votes.

Should we acknowledge the new patriarch?

If it is spiritually unacceptable to run for election at the expense of peace and unity and
if the election process was designed, executed, and regulated by outside forces- the
government, there is no compelling reason to get satisfied with the election result or to
accept it at all. Those who cry for the holiness of the election have to travel extra miles to
convince their minds and others’. Of course, it is easy to justify the election by playing
politics for perceived, imagined and/or real benefits. Or, one could by default assume
that “I do not care whoever sits on that front seat”. Others might innocently believe that
it is impossible to question or discuss about issues related to how the synod operates
including election of patriarchs. For these groups of people, the election result might be
edifying and fulfilling. But for a genuine Christian who adequately knows the church
teachings and who believes in truth, all what is done so far is well below spiritual
standard.

Is future reconciliation possible?

The probability to further pursue genuine reconciliation with the exile synod is near zero.
The exile synod has a clear precondition for reconciliation- to reinstate Abune
Merkorios to the patriarchate. The home synod has already assigned Abune Matias as
the ‘legal’ patriarch. And we are supposed to have only one patriarch at a time. So, the
difference between the America-based and home synods is as wide and big as the
physical distance between Ethiopia and North America; it is as dark and scary as the
Atlantic and as arid and hot as the Sahara. Future reconciliation and unity are possible
only if we are super lucky to have a paradigm shift both at the church, synod, and
government levels.

What would be the impact of the division?

If reconciliation is something unthinkable henceforth, the two synods would implicitly
and/or explicitly compete for members, churches, resources, fame, and recognition.
This has already started. Christians might not have the confidence and trust in the
church leaderships- the synods. Instead of learning and teaching the Gospel, people
would tend to indulge in cursing and chasing the other party. A protracted process of
attacking each other would be the norm. This would have a significant unfavorable
impact on the growth of the church and the moral and spiritual strength of the laity.
Other anti-unity and anti-EOTC forces might use the tension created to their advantage,
by then weakening the great church. Meaning, the EOTC would continue to suffer from
both internal and external pressures for years. In general, the number of Christians and
churches and the quality of spiritual life is unlikely to improve in the years to come.

Could the problem be solved if the two patriarchs quit or die?

If the two patriarchs, Abune Matias and Abune Merkorios, quit or pass away from
natural or other causes, both synods would elect their respective ones soon. And the
cycle would continue up until at least a truly transparent, accountable, and democratic
governance model is employed at church and state (national) levels. That time, the laity
would resort to, along with spiritual criteria, the rule of law to safeguard the church. And
that time, the clergy who appear powerful now would realize that the laity would not
anymore be as ‘tolerant’ as God is. That would restore the good image of the church and
of the synod, and of Ethiopia in general. Until people work hard and smart to bring that
moment anytime soon, the church would continue abusing and killing itself.

Is there something the laity could do to bring unity?

Unlike the views of the many, it is for the laity possible and is a moral and spiritual
obligation to contribute towards the stabilization and unity of the church. The top
leadership is already a lame duck. The laity who are under the two synods could eye on
initiating, implementing, regulating, and sustaining partnerships between them. That
with a goal of 1) easing the tensions between the two synod followers, 2) strengthening
their collaborations to better spread God’s words, 3) building and/or renovating
churches in the Diaspora, 4) supporting the poor and poor churches and monasteries in
Ethiopia, and 5) paving the way for future merger and unity.

To do just that, Christians including the good-spirited clergy must focus not on their
respective synods but on what the church wants and needs to achieve at this point in
time. Organizing inter-synod spiritual workshops and seminars or conferences should
not be dependent upon the whims of the synods. As long as EOTC traditions, teachings,
and values are respected, Christians must be free from participating and organizing such
forums. This is extremely useful to Diaspora EOTC church communities who belong to
three jurisdictions. The neutral churches must decide to create unity although there is
no compelling and stimulating condition to do so. Overall, if the laity decided to break
the yoke put on their shoulders and if they commit to create unity and peace among
themselves, the synod divisions might not have a noticeable negative impact. If
Christians wish to go by the status quo- cursing the synods but doing nothing else- the
effect would be titanic enough for individual Christians, the church, and Ethiopia at
large.

—

The writer could be reached at [email protected] and also blogs at
http://tekluabate.blogspot.no/