The misguided stance of neutrality by some EOTCs in Diaspora

 For
many keen observers and supporters of reconciliation, the final blow came, of
course, with the arbitrary decision of the Holy Synod in Ethiopia—under
duress from the regime— to go forward with the installment of the sixth
Patriarch in spite of the peace talks that could have resulted in the return of
the exiled Patriarch, His Holiness Abune Merkorios, to his rightful throne. Once
again, the Ethiopian regime’s obsession with imposing its will illegally on the
selection of the next Patriarch was clearly and unambiguously on display, as a
small group of the Synod’s members in Addis Ababa successfully put into action
the government’s bidding in a dramatic show of force, supported by the mighty
hand of regime operatives. Many other colleagues have written insightful pieces
on this very subject, providing critical but timely analyses.

At the same time, two latest postings, one written by the
Holy Synod-in-Exile, and the other one appearing initially on Ethiomedia.com
and having a possible impact on any future attempts of bringing unity among all
Diaspora EOTCs, have particularly prompted this writing. The Synod’s posting
was a statement of declaration explaining the reasons why the recent peace
talks with the Addis Ababa Synod failed, including the course of action it will
take to strengthen its presence in the Diaspora from hereon; the decision of
the Home Synod to reject the proposed return of the exiled Patriarch to his
throne precipitated this declaration. The other posting came from no other than
Dr. Getachew Haile, a renowned
scholar of Philology but a controversial
one.  In effect, the latter advances a stance of
continuing the neutrality of non-affiliated Diaspora EOTCs, thus preemptively
striking against the recent call made by the Exiled Synod for unity and
rapprochement between the churches under its jurisdiction and those that have
stayed on neutral grounds since the official split of the Holy Synod more than two
decades ago. In the view of this writer, however, continuing the neutrality stance
would be tantamount to supporting the latest complicity of the regime in Addis
Ababa, which in effect highjacked the process of selecting a new Patriarch to simply
anoint a person of its choice. It would also inadvertently appear to be championing
the existing divide that has beleaguered the Diaspora Orthodox community for so
long. Further elucidation of this point will follow the introduction.      

The Regime’s Latest
Action and its Consequences for the Diaspora EOTCs

Indeed, characterizing the sadness felt by many followers
of the EOTC throughout the Diaspora about the failure of the peace talks as
devastating would not be an exaggeration; the talks, if they had been conducted
in good faith and without regime treachery, would have brought back the Church
to its pre-1991 era. For all its worth, that period was a time of relative
tranquility, when the sanctity of the EOTC was faithfully maintained and the Church
enjoyed, by and large, a respectable measure of stability and unity of purpose.
This, of course, would change with the regime’s coming to power in 1991 and the
subsequent installment of the late Abune Paulos while the reigning Patriarch Abune
Merkorios was still alive— a violation of the Church’s canon law. The divide
that ensued within the Church in the aftermath has been at the root cause of
discord within the Ethiopian Diaspora Orthodox community, compelling the
faithful to choose sides while also making it problematic for them to forge a
united front to impact positive changes at home. Still, many wishfully thought
that the latest action of the government, that is, thwarting the desires of the
esteemed Fathers of the two rival Synods for reconciliation and unity, would automatically
translate into bringing together Ethiopians of different political and social
persuasions against the regime. For the most part, many also felt it would
restore the illusive unity that had been missing within the Diaspora in general
and among the divided EOTCs in North America and elsewhere in particular. On
its face value, the latest action of the Tigrean People’s Liberation Front
(TPLF)-dominated government in Addis Ababa should unequivocally prove even to
many non -politically savvy members of our community the extent to which the
regime’s culpability has become never-ending, as it continues its unrestrained authoritarian
rule over more than 86 million Ethiopians. Nothing is more revealing of this
phenomenon than the regime’s guiltiness in effecting both the dethronement of
Patriarch Abune Merkorios 21 years ago and, most recently, the stage-management
of the installment of the sixth Patriarch of the EOTC, which is expected to
take place in the coming days.

Without a doubt, the regime in Ethiopia has proven once
again its unwavering stance of neither making compromises with its opponents in
the Diaspora and at home, nor of giving in to reconciliation efforts to bring a
lasting peace in that country. In light of these facts, critical questions such
as these readily come to mind: How and what exactly does neutrality
serve the independent EOTCs in the Diaspora and for how long will the divide
within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church be allowed to continue? On what rational,
pragmatic and even canonical grounds can the ill-advised stance of neutrality be
defended? Why would neutral EOTCs at this very juncture even wish to continue their
neutrality as opposed to affiliation with their sister churches of the Exiled
Synod, when considering the recent events that clearly exposed that the Holy
Synod in Addis Ababa is only a political entity and/or an extension of the government
in Ethiopia and thus lacking legitimacy? What benefit would it be to the
neutral churches to cling to the notion that a Holy Synod cannot be run from
exile in the face of evidence proving that the Home Synod is illegally
controlled by a small cadre of clergymen who take their orders from the regime
in power? We will decipher these issues next.

Rationale for the
Existence of the EOTC Holy Synod in Exile

Neither Orthodox canonical law nor the dogma of the EOTC precludes
the Holy Synod from launching a legitimate Patriarchate in exile and carrying
out the teachings of the Lord. A Holy Synod, by dogma as well as practice, is a
gathering of high-level clergymen who meet regularly and make religious decrees
that are enforceable on member churches. The Patriarch and a few or more clergymen
above the rank of Bishop together can legitimately create a Holy Synod. Under
Orthodox canon law, a living Patriarch cannot be replaced with another without
an abdication by the former of his position, or without the collective action of
the Holy Synod of the Church to remove him. Otherwise, it would be a violation
of the canon law of Orthodoxy.

In the Ethiopian case, the canon law was violated in
1991, and the Patriarch, who was dethroned by the order of the regime, was
forced into exile along with several Archbishops, thereby giving him the legitimacy
to establish the Holy Synod in exile. For years, many of the faithful that make
up largest segment of the membership within the neutral EOTCs had held the
erroneous belief, grounded in the regime’s disinformation propaganda, that Patriarch
Abune Merkorios abdicated his position voluntarily. That has now been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that it was part of the regime’s ploy to place
someone of their choosing as the Head of the EOTC, which in this case was the
late Abune Paulos.  At the same time, recent
events associated with the pending selection of the sixth Patriarch have also made
it clear that the Synod in Ethiopia cannot be legitimate even more so now than
ever before, because the government’s dictate on the anointment of a Patriarch
of its choosing is openly implemented by a minority group of Archbishops without
any fear of retribution from the majority members of the Synod, whose members
are being subjected to intimidation and threat against any deviation from the
dictates of the regime. This fact alone must be good enough to accept the Holy
Synod in exile as the legitimate body by all Diaspora EOTCs.  Indeed, it is the exiled Synod that follows
strictly the tradition and practices of the Church devoid of any governmental
interference and pressure, unlike the Mother Church in Ethiopia.

Indefensibility of
Neutrality under Oriental Orthodoxy

Looking at critically, the position of neutrality held by
several Diaspora EOTCs can neither be rationalized on the canon law and
religious dogma of Oriental Orthodoxy, nor can it be justified on any
historical precedents established by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It is
rather a lame excuse to run an Ethiopian Orthodox Church devoid of a hierarchical
order on the pretext that no two Holy Synods can exist at the same time. In
effect, neutrality among several Diaspora EOTCs these days has taken the
characteristics of the congregational model of church administration, which is
typical of those found under the domain of Protestantism. Neutral EOTCs, for
all practical purposes, have become more like Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran,
Anglican and Presbyterian denominations in their ecclesiastical arrangement or
church administration, but not necessarily in their practices and beliefs. These
Western congregation-led church organizations operate independently, and thus do
not prescribe to a higher ecclesiastical body in the same way as the Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches do. In this regard, the neutral
EOTCs have fallen prey to the former group not
necessarily because of shared principles of faith but because of their stubbornness
to amend past wrongs. Their position at this very point simply defies logic to
say the least, as well as trivializes our conviction on the collective sense of
unity, as Orthodox believers.

While many of the neutral EOTCs may no longer have the
pretexts that they have used in the past to remain neutral, a few still intend
to do so dogmatically and without just cause. Mostly, two lame excuses were
used in the past by those arguing for the neutral stand.  The first and foremost defense used by them
was that the Patriarch of the Exiled Synod gave up his position due to illness,
and that he never uttered a word to dispel the rumors of his self-induced
abdication of his throne while in exile for more than a decade and a half. But
this pretext has now run its course, as His Holiness has made a public speech
just recently explaining the fact that he has over the years made it known,
both in his public action and privately, that he would have liked to reclaim
his position in Ethiopia as the legitimate Patriarch of the EOTC, had he been
allowed to do so. During the last 17 years of exile, his public activities
should have given some clue to those questioning his official deportment that
he has been in charge and that his fellow Brothers within the Synod have been
his staunchest supporters and advocates of his wishes as the symbol of the
Patriarchate in exile. For instance, he
has presided over every one of the 34 biannual conferences of the Holy Synod held
during the same period. Moreover, he has conscripted 13 new Bishops and charged
his clergymen with expanding their missionary work across the globe where the Diaspora
Orthodox communities live and work. What further evidence is needed to prove
that he has been actively engaged during his tenure as the Head of the Exiled
Synod?

The second and commonly used pretext by advocates of
neutralism was that so long as the EOTC Holy Synod was split into two,
neutrality would be the preferred stand that they would prefer, adding that the
return of the Patriarch to the throne through reconciliation would make them embrace
the Synod once again. However, whatever optimism or hope that there was a few
months ago about the return of the Patriarch to Ethiopia and about the
possibility of reconciliation for a lasting peace and unity within the Church
has practically evaporated under the force of the regime. The illegality of the
Home Synod must be evident to many by now since the government has become the
driving force behind the decision to reconcile or not reconcile; and a Synod
that is subject to regime manipulations cannot be legitimate, nor can it be
regarded as one having the integrity and the will to speak for the faithful or
uphold the values that advance the national interest, as viewed by the great
majority of Orthodox believers. This fact begs neutral ETOCs to rethink their
misguided position for the betterment of the whole, and for sake of unity from
which the collective strength of our community can be marshaled to make a
difference in all aspects of societal engagements.

Statement of
Declaration from the Exiled Synod 

The Synod-in-Exile held a special meeting recently in Los
Angeles and issued a public declaration that outlines several points, ranging
from the failure of the peace talks with the Home Synod to the proposed
activities that it wishes to engage in, since the return of the Patriarch to
Ethiopia and peace and reconciliation efforts have reached a dead end. The official
communiqué in and by itself is a well-thought out document that has the
potential of appealing to the many segments of the Diaspora community,
including neutral churches. In the view of this author, the esteemed Fathers of
the Exiled Synod now are in a better position to make their case for acceptance
by the great majority of the faithful in the Diaspora because much of the
confusion emanating from unsubstantiated information on the Patriarch and the
rest of membership of the Synod has been completely extricated, if not debunked
entirely.

In essence, what the outcome of the peace talks and the
events that followed have done for the Exiled Synod is that it made the
argument for a stronger Exiled Synod more palatable; it has placed the Synod in
a much stronger position vis a vis the Holy Synod in Ethiopia. The talks also revealed
that the Exiled Synod presented itself as an entity that had force behind its
talking points while conducting the reconciliation meeting in good faith. In
contrast, the representatives of the Home Synod were under constant pressure
from regime operatives in Ethiopia and seemed to be lacking independence in
their bargaining positions on the resolution of the issues brought on the
table. Of course, the whole scenario began to unravel upon their return, as the
government highjacked the course of action that the representatives would have favored
to take; it is no secret that they would have liked the Patriarch to return
home for the sake of uniting the divided Church. It was in the context of this
backdrop that the Exiled Synod sought to reach out through its communiqué to
the neutral EOTCs to position itself in a way that will help augment its role
throughout the Diaspora Orthodox communities. This is to include expanding its missionary
work as well as serving the Diaspora faithful in their spiritual needs, among
others. The communiqué, both for its conciliatory tone and plan of action,
should make all past detractors of the Exiled Synod to rethink rationally and
join the esteemed Fathers in exile in their new endeavor to expand the Church’s
missionary work as well religious services throughout the Diaspora.

Cynical Retort from
Professor Getachew Haile to the Synod’s Communiqué       

In what appeared to be a derisive response to the Synod’s
statement of declaration, Dr. Getachew wrote a piece that was unbecoming of a scholarly
figure, whose renowned public stature is widely recognized particularly in
Ethiopian intellectual circles. In many respects, however, Dr. Getachew is also
a divisive force, although this may sound too harsh on someone who has made
stellar, scholarly contributions to Ethiopian languages, history and literary
development. He is both admired and derided by many. He may be regarded by some
as a model to be emulated, but others may see him as an embodiment of division,
drawing criticisms mostly from his ardent critics. Yet this writer has been an
admirer of this scholarly genius. However, his continued stand on neutrality on
the Holy Synod has been rather dogmatic in the sense that he has not changed a
bit over the years even with new developments that could possibly trigger a
rethinking of his views, which happen to be contentious at times and may have broader
implications for the unity and solidarity of Ethiopians in the Diaspora. A
scholar of high stature, Dr. Getachew made a huge gaffe by sending mixed
signals in his latest posting; he may have even made his readers more confused
than they needed to be. At the time of this writing, he has already provoked two
postings aimed at challenging his advocacy of neutrality, and a few others
might follow.

The underlying premise in Dr. Getachew’s latest writing
is that the EOTC, as we know it, is not divided and that neutrality should be the
preferred stance for churches in the Diaspora, so long as two rival religious
entities (Holy Synods) claim to be a representative of the Church’s highest
ecclesiastical body. In a commentary written in Amharic and titled, “Our Mother
Church is not Divided,” the senior professor alludes
to a reason that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not split because there are
not known doctrinal issues that have created a division within the Church. The
crux of his argument, therefore, is that the high-ranking clergymen that make
up the Ethiopian Holy Synod are divided into two groups, forcing the faithful
to either take sides or declare allegiance to their respective cause. Apparently,
his prescription for the faithful is not only to ignore this non-doctrinal rift
within the Church, but also to look beyond the artificial dividing line and
worship in churches irrespective of their affiliation with one Synod or
another.

Looking at critically his rational for neutrality in his
article, I beg to question the state of mind in which the renowned professor
was operating when he wrote it. This writer finds it absolutely ludicrous to
read an assertion from him that the EOTC is not divided today. Contrary to his
claim, the Church has been divided for more than two decades because of
doctrinal issues: the forced dethronment of a living Patriarch and replacing
him with another in violation of canonical law. There cannot be any denial of
this fact in the case of Ethiopia. Secondly, the EOTC in the Diaspora is
divided into three organized groups: churches that claim affiliation to the
Exiled Synod; churches that maintain loyalty to the Home Synod; and churches
that belong to neither group. This is also a fact that neither Dr. Getachew nor
any other concerned Orthodox believer would dare refuting. Furthermore, the
assertion that there are no practical reasons that preclude the faithful from
attending any of the EOTC churches at any given time also begs further probing.

With all due respect to Dr. Getachew, the paramount
question to be asked of him is, does he not really know that the division among
Diaspora churches is not only real but also pervasive throughout the Diaspora
churches? In fact, the divide is so widespread that it has split family members
and friends in some cases, often based on which church one is a supporter of, or
which Synod is a church affiliated with, or whether one is a member of a
neutral church, and so forth. This divide has been going on for years unabated,
and to deny otherwise would be disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at
worst. To advance this argument, a case in point can be made. For instance, the
city in which this writer lives is the site of four EOTCs, one of them a well
established church with a large membership that is neutral; one smaller church affiliated
with the Exiled Synod; and two smaller churches, one leaning to the Home Synod and
the other a neutral church that split from it. It is a well established fact
that the clergy of each of these churches are prohibited by their boards to celebrate
each other’s special church holydays because of the dividing line created by
the crisis in the EOTC Holy Synod. This case alone proves the fallacy of Dr. Getahcew’s
argument that the Ethiopian Orthodox church is not in a crisis of division. If
the illustrated case is not the side-effect of such a division, one must ask, what
else could it be?

It is indeed ironic that Dr. Getachew wrote the article right
after he had purportedly made peace with the high-ranking members of the Exiled
Holy Synod, with whom he has had a strained relationship for several years due
to his opposition to the Synod and its mission and goals. During his recent
visit to Los Angeles to celebrate Timiket (Epiphany), Dr. Getachew reportedly reconciled
his past estrangement with the General Secretary of the Synod, requesting for
the latter’s forgiveness, which was a gracious and novel thing to do on the
part of the professor. However, his latest writing seemed to have put him at
odds once again with the Synod’s core mission of reaching out to individuals
and churches that are embracing the neutral posture. His ideas, as denoted in
his article, definitely run contrary to the goal of the reinvigorated Exiled Synod
without any doubt. Again, Dr. Getachew has often been prone to controversy in
good as well as bad times. I just wish he could see the larger picture this
time and take a vanguard role in advancing the interest and unity of the
Diaspora EOTCs. Which religious entity could have the potential of bringing
such unity other than the Exiled Synod? It would be a remarkable and even a pragmatic
undertaking for Dr. Getachew to reverse course and become the staunchest supporter
of unity, validating the institutional appeal of the Holy Synod-in-Exile to
bring together all Diaspora EOTCs under one and united body. After all, the
good old professor was once the brain trust behind the
establishment of the same Synod that he so denounces despondently today. It is
a well-known fact that at the time when the late Archbishop Abune Yisehaq was
leading the charge during the early stages of the Synod’s establishment, Dr.
Getachew played a major role in it, advising His Eminence and others with enthusiasm
and optimistic zeal.      

Conclusion

In this brief critique, the author attempted to equate the
neutrality posture pursued by several Ethiopian Orthodox churches in the
Diaspora with the perpetuity of discord among the faithful. Using both Dr.
Getachew’s article on Ethiomedia.com as well as the
statement of declaration issued recently by the Exiled Synod as a point of
departure, a critical scrutiny of Diaspora EOTCs that claim neutrality was
made, while providing the rationale for the possible fusion of such churches
with the rest of the affiliated sister churches of the Exiled Synod.  It was proven that the Ethiopian Orthodox
Church in the Diaspora suffers terribly from a division, contrary to what Dr.
Getachew would have us believe. Therefore, unity is surely and urgently needed
in our community. Neutrality on faith begets crisis of despair more so than
feelings of confidence, solidarity or even fellowship, which are undoubtedly the
hallmarks of unity as well as an imperative for the collective security and
wellbeing of a people. In the humble opinion of this writer, neutrality on
faith is simply counterproductive to our sense of unity and solidarity, and it has
neither canonical nor practical justifications for us to pursue it, as a
community of Oriental Orthodox followers.

Given the backdrop above, the pragmatic and compelling
action needed in the immediate future is for the neutral EOTCs and the Exiled
Synod to call for a summit immediately first to clear up the misunderstanding
that has caused the rift for several years and then map out a strategy that
will not only foster unity among all the Diaspora EOTCs under the auspices of
the latter, but also help expand the religious work needed to advance the
expansion and services of our Church across the globe. With unity comes a
collective strength that can be marshaled readily for the betterment of our
people, wherever they may be.