The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church: A Crisis of Spiritual Leadership and Accountability

 1. Introduction: Context, Rationale, and Purpose

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC) is approaching another annual meeting of its Holy Synod at a time when questions about ecclesiastical unity, the credibility of spiritual leadership, and the implementation of Church decisions remain pressing. Rival synodal structures, unresolved disputes over ecclesiastical authority, concerns about the selection and conduct of Church leaders, and the relationship between the Church and political power have placed the institution under considerable strain. These developments invite more than another round of declarations, counter-declarations, and expressions of concern. They call for an honest examination of the relationship between the Church’s spiritual mission, the conduct of its leaders, and the effectiveness of its governing institutions. 

This article is written to contribute to that examination. Its purpose is not to discredit the Ethiopian Orthodox faith, diminish the sacrifices of faithful clergy, or deny the historical and spiritual significance of the Church. Rather, it seeks to assess the present crisis of leadership and institutional responsibility, explain its implications for the Church and its members, and identify the principles on which meaningful renewal must rest. The central concern is whether the Church’s spiritual authority is being exercised in ways consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, the qualifications expected of spiritual leaders in Scripture, and the Church’s own Constitution and canons.

The intended audience is broad but specific: members of the Holy Synod and the Patriarchate, diocesan and parish administrators, bishops and other clergy, Church scholars and theologians, preachers, spiritual associations, parish councils, and educated Orthodox believers in Ethiopia and the diaspora. These are not merely observers of the Church’s institutional life; they are among those who shape, interpret, administer, sustain, and experience it. The article therefore addresses both those who exercise ecclesiastical authority and those whose faith and participation give that authority its practical significance.

The immediate impetus for this article was a video recording in which a monk, responding to public scrutiny over alleged personal misconduct, appeared to ridicule those questioning him, threaten those raising the matter, and invoke the younger generation’s alleged failure to respect Church fathers. What troubled me was not simply the allegation, which requires fair examination, but the apparent response to accountability: rather than acknowledging the seriousness of the concerns and demonstrating humility, he appeared to portray those questioning him as the problem. His invocation of his Oromo background also raised concerns about bringing ethnic identity into a controversy that should be addressed through evidence, ecclesiastical principles, and equal standards of conduct. This episode recalled an earlier televised address by a senior archbishop associated with the unauthorized ordination of bishops in Wolisso, who similarly claimed that the younger generation no longer respects Church fathers. Although the circumstances differ, the recurrence of this appeal prompted a broader question: When Church leaders are challenged over their conduct or decisions, do they respond with the humility and accountability expected of spiritual leadership, or invoke age, office, and ethnic background to deflect scrutiny?

These reflections led me beyond the conduct of particular individuals to the wider condition of spiritual authority and institutional integrity in the EOTC. Learning of the forthcoming Holy Synod meeting provided a timely occasion to develop this broader intervention. This article is neither a judgment on the individuals concerned nor a response to a single controversy. It examines the standards expected of spiritual leaders, the Church’s capacity to address allegations and acknowledge failures, and the institutional conditions necessary to sustain moral credibility, ecclesiastical unity, and the trust of the faithful.

My concern is neither new nor detached from the institution. As a member of the EOTC and a public commentator, I have written about the Church’s leadership and unity over many years. In “Beyond the Death of EOTC Patriarch” (16 August 2012), I called for reconciliation between the two Synods, protection of Church autonomy, responsible stewardship of Church assets, implementation of existing decisions, and greater transparency. In “The EOTC at a Crossroads” (5 November 2012), I warned that institutional division could become associated with authoritarianism, nepotism, corruption, injustice, and spiritual weakness. In “The EOTC Patriarchate: A Cause for Division” (21 December 2012), I examined how disputes over leadership had become a source of division rather than a means of strengthening the Church. And in “EOTC Synod Relived its Failure” (18 January 2013), I questioned whether decisions presented as part of a continuing reconciliation process were, in practice, perpetuating the crisis they were supposed to resolve.

Those articles were written in response to the circumstances of their time. They should not be treated as proof that every concern raised then persists unchanged, or that current leaders should automatically be judged by earlier disputes. Their relevance lies in the continuity of the underlying questions: How should spiritual authority be exercised? What gives ecclesiastical leadership moral credibility? What happens when institutional decisions fail to resolve recurring problems? And how can the Church distinguish genuine unity from an appearance of agreement that leaves the causes of division unaddressed?

These are questions of institutional responsibility, but they are also questions of faith. Criticism of Church leadership need not be an expression of hostility towards the Church. It can arise from the conviction that the institution’s spiritual mission is too important to be weakened by avoidable failures of leadership, governance, or accountability. Indeed, if the Church teaches truth, repentance, justice, humility, and service, it should be possible to examine its institutional life through those very principles. Respect for the Church should deepen the seriousness of such an examination, not prevent it.

The argument advanced here is therefore deliberately critical but cautious. Allegations of misconduct must not be confused with established findings; rival ecclesiastical claims must be examined in their historical and canonical contexts; and the conduct of individual leaders must not be used to condemn the clergy or faithful as a whole. At the same time, the sensitivity of these matters cannot justify silence when credible concerns arise. A religious institution’s moral authority is not protected simply by defending its reputation; it is sustained when its teachings, decisions, and practices remain sufficiently consistent to command the confidence of those it serves.

The article proceeds in four stages after this introduction. It first establishes an analytical framework, drawn from biblical teachings and the EOTC’s own legal principles, for evaluating spiritual leadership at both Synod and episcopal levels. It then examines the interconnected crises of leadership, ecclesiastical division, appointments, misconduct allegations, and political interference. The following sections consider the consequences for the Church’s moral credibility and the faithful, before turning to the relationship between existing Church law, accountability, repentance, and institutional renewal. The governing question throughout is not simply whether the Synod or particular bishops have failed. It is whether the Church has credible ways to recognize failure, take responsibility for it, and transform the conditions that allow it to recur.

2. An Analytical Framework for Effective Spiritual Leadership

An assessment of the EOTC’s leadership should not rest on personal preference, political alignment, factional loyalty, or the intensity of public criticism. It requires standards that are recognisably grounded in the Church’s own faith and institutional order. Three sources are especially relevant: the teachings of Christ on leadership as service; the biblical qualifications and responsibilities associated with spiritual oversight; and the Constitution and canons through which the EOTC defines its governing authority and responsibilities. Jointly, these sources provide a framework for assessing not only the character of individual bishops but also the collective performance of the Holy Synod.

The framework does not presume that every institutional failure is evidence of personal corruption, or that a leader who makes a mistake is necessarily unfit for office. Nor does it claim that spiritual effectiveness can be measured through a simple checklist. Rather, it identifies dimensions of leadership against which conduct, decisions, and institutional outcomes can be examined. Its central premise is that ecclesiastical authority is a responsibility entrusted for the service of the Church, not a personal possession or a status that places its holder beyond scrutiny.

 2.1. Spiritual Integrity and Leadership by Example

In Mark 10:42–45, Christ contrasts the exercise of authority through domination with the calling to serve. The passage establishes a fundamental distinction between leadership that seeks status and control for its own sake and leadership that places the well-being of others at the centre of its responsibilities. For bishops, this means that spiritual authority cannot be evaluated solely by rank, title, ceremonial precedence, or the ability to command obedience. It must also be assessed through humility, self-restraint, honesty, and the willingness to place the Church’s mission above personal advantage.

The qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 reinforce this principle. Those entrusted with spiritual oversight are expected to be above reproach, self-controlled, disciplined, hospitable, capable of teaching, and not motivated by greed or domination. First Peter 5:1–4 further describes the responsibility to shepherd the flock willingly, not for shameful gain, and not by domineering over those entrusted to one’s care, but by serving as an example.

These passages do not imply that bishops are incapable of sin or that any accusation should be treated as proof of wrongdoing. They do establish that character is integral to spiritual leadership. An officeholder’s conduct is not a private matter entirely detached from the responsibilities of the office, especially where that conduct affects the Church’s moral credibility, the treatment of others, or the use of institutional resources.

The first criterion of leadership is therefore spiritual integrity: Do the conduct and decisions of Church leaders credibly reflect the humility, self-discipline, honesty, and service expected of those entrusted with spiritual oversight? This criterion concerns more than the avoidance of scandal. It asks whether leaders embody the values they teach, treat others with dignity, and demonstrate that their authority is exercised for the Church’s mission rather than personal status or advantage.

2.2. Faithfulness to Doctrine, Canons, and the Church’s Institutional Order

Spiritual leadership also requires fidelity to the Church’s teaching and canonical order. The Holy Synod has a distinctive responsibility in this respect because it is not simply a gathering of senior clergy. Under Article 2 of the EOTC’s 2015 E.C. Constitution, it is the Church’s highest spiritual and administrative legislative and decision-making body. The Constitution also assigns it responsibilities for safeguarding the Church’s doctrine, canons, traditions, and institutional life.

This authority carries corresponding obligations. The Synod must exercise its powers in accordance with the Church’s established rules and the responsibilities attached to its office. Individual bishops, in turn, must exercise their authority within the Church’s canonical structure rather than treating their dioceses or positions as independent personal domains. The Church’s own resolution of 26 January 2023, for example, invoked the Constitution’s provisions on the authority to elect and appoint bishops and on the consequences for bishops who violate Church rules and canons. Whatever position one takes on the broader dispute, the resolution illustrates the importance that the Church itself attaches to canonical procedure and institutional authority.

The Constitution also provides for Synod resolutions to be recorded through prescribed procedures and makes such decisions binding on members, including those absent from the relevant meeting. This underscores a distinction between authority formally exercised and authority merely asserted. A governing body’s credibility depends not only on its legal competence to make decisions but also on the consistency and seriousness with which those decisions are implemented.

The second criterion is canonical and institutional fidelity: Do the Synod and individual bishops exercise their authority in accordance with the Church’s doctrine, canons, Constitution, and established procedures? Are decisions applied consistently, and are the boundaries of ecclesiastical authority respected? This criterion must apply to all parties. A leader cannot reasonably invoke canonical order when challenging others while disregarding it when it constrains their own preferences.

2.3. Justice, Impartiality, and the Equal Dignity of the Faithful

Spiritual leadership is tested not only by the decisions it makes but by how it treats the people over whom it exercises responsibility. The Church’s mission is not confined to protecting its internal hierarchy. It includes serving the faithful, preserving their spiritual life, and maintaining a community in which believers are not treated as more or less worthy because of their ethnicity, language, wealth, social background, or political opinion.

Article 8 of the EOTC’s 2015 E.C. Constitution expressly affirms service to clergy and faithful without discrimination on these and other grounds. This is an important institutional standard in a country where political and social disputes are often framed through ethnic identity. It means that neither the exclusion of a community nor the distribution of ecclesiastical office as a reward to an ethnic or political constituency is consistent with the Church’s stated commitment to nondiscrimination.

The third criterion is justice and impartiality: Does Church leadership treat clergy and faithful fairly, without discrimination or patronage, and does it respond to grievances in a way that respects both canonical order and the dignity of those affected? This includes the integrity of appointments, recruitment, disciplinary procedures, and the administration of Church resources.

2.4. Responsible Stewardship, Competence, and the Implementation of Decisions

Spiritual authority cannot be separated from the ability to discharge institutional responsibilities. The Church’s Constitution envisages an organised system of governance, with defined powers and responsibilities across its institutions. Its stated purposes extend beyond doctrine and worship to administration, property, services, and the Church’s wider mission. The Church’s own ecclesiastical regulations likewise emphasise the implementation of laws, decisions, and orders within the established administrative structure.

The biblical expectation that an overseer should be a responsible steward reinforces this institutional dimension. In Titus 1:7, the overseer is described as God’s steward and is expected to avoid arrogance and dishonest gain. First Timothy 3:4–5 connects responsible oversight with the ability to care for God’s Church. These passages should not be reduced to a modern managerial model. They do, however, make clear that spiritual calling does not excuse incompetence, irresponsibility, or the misuse of entrusted resources.

For the Holy Synod, stewardship includes the capacity to make decisions that address the Church’s challenges, communicate them clearly, and ensure appropriate follow-through. For individual bishops, it includes responsible oversight of dioceses, clergy, property, pastoral services, and institutional relationships. A decision that is announced but not implemented may have little practical value. A disciplinary measure that is applied selectively may weaken confidence in the fairness of the Church. A reconciliation agreement that is not followed by sustained action may leave the underlying conflict unresolved.

The fourth criterion is responsible stewardship and institutional effectiveness: Does Church leadership exercise its responsibilities competently, use entrusted authority and resources responsibly, and ensure that decisions lead to meaningful outcomes? Effectiveness is not measured by the number of resolutions, meetings, or declarations. It is measured by whether the Church’s responsibilities are fulfilled and whether its decisions advance its spiritual mission, institutional integrity, and the well-being of its faithful.

2.5. Accountability, Repentance, and the Capacity for Self-Correction

The final dimension of effective spiritual leadership concerns the ability to recognise and respond to failure. Christian teaching places great importance on repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Yet these principles do not require the Church to ignore wrongdoing or abandon its institutional responsibilities. Repentance concerns a person’s relationship with God and the community; accountability concerns the responsibilities of an officeholder, the effects of conduct, and the integrity of the institution.

The EOTC’s Constitution provides for formal decisions and disciplinary authority within its governing structure. Its January 2023 resolution illustrates the relationship between discipline and repentance: while imposing sanctions for what it judged to be canonical violations, the Synod also stated that the Church’s doors of repentance remained open. The combination is significant. It indicates that, in the Church’s own stated approach, discipline and the possibility of repentance need not be mutually exclusive.

Accountability, however, requires more than a formal power to discipline. It requires credible procedures for receiving complaints, establishing facts, hearing those concerned, applying rules impartially, and communicating decisions sufficiently clearly to sustain confidence. It also raises the difficult question of who can hold senior authorities accountable when they are themselves implicated in a dispute or when their independence is questioned. Without credible answers, formal authority may remain intact while trust in its exercise deteriorates.

The fifth criterion is accountability and the capacity for self-correction: Can the Church recognise institutional failure, examine credible allegations fairly, implement its own decisions, acknowledge mistakes, and take proportionate action when wrongdoing is established? Does it distinguish sincere repentance from the automatic removal of every institutional consequence? And can those responsible for enforcing Church law be held to account in a manner that is fair, credible, and consistent with the Church’s own order?

2.6. Applying the Framework to the Holy Synod and Individual Bishops

These five criteria- spiritual integrity, canonical fidelity, justice and impartiality, responsible stewardship, and accountability- are interdependent. They should not be treated as separate boxes that can be checked independently of one another. A bishop may possess administrative competence yet undermine the Church through partiality or misuse of authority. The Synod may issue a canonically valid decision yet weaken confidence in its leadership if the decision is inconsistently implemented. A leader may speak convincingly about repentance while resisting the consequences of established misconduct. Conversely, a fair and transparent response to a difficult case may strengthen the Church’s credibility even when the outcome is painful.

The framework also distinguishes the responsibilities of the Synod from those of individual bishops. The Synod must be assessed as a collective governing body: how it makes decisions, safeguards canonical order, handles disputes, oversees appointments, implements resolutions, and responds to institutional failure. Individual bishops must be assessed in relation to their own conduct, the discharge of their diocesan responsibilities, their treatment of clergy and faithful, and their observance of Church doctrine and canons. Neither level can simply transfer all responsibility to the other. Individual misconduct does not automatically prove collective failure, but repeated failures to investigate, correct, or prevent serious problems may raise questions about institutional responsibility.

This is not a claim that spiritual leadership can be reduced to a formula or that an outside commentator can determine every canonical dispute. The final interpretation of Church law belongs within the Church’s legitimate processes. But those processes and their outcomes can still be examined against the Church’s own stated principles. The purpose of the framework is to make the discussion more disciplined: instead of relying on personal accusations or general expressions of disappointment, it asks what standards apply, what the evidence establishes, what remains disputed, and what the institution’s response reveals about its leadership.

The sections that follow use these criteria to examine the recurring crises confronting the EOTC. They do not assume that every allegation is established or that every rival structure has the same origin or legitimacy. They ask, rather, whether the Church’s experience of division, leadership controversy, disputed appointments, political involvement, and uneven follow-through reveals a widening gap between the standards the Church professes and the way authority is sometimes exercised. That gap, where it exists, is the central concern of this article.

3. The Crisis of Leadership and Institutional Responsibility

The crises examined below are selected not as an exhaustive account of the challenges facing the EOTC, but because they expose critical questions about spiritual leadership, canonical order, institutional accountability, and the Church’s relationship with its faithful and the wider political environment. They differ in nature and immediate causes, yet each raises questions about the Church’s capacity to uphold its own principles, resolve internal disputes, address alleged misconduct, and translate formal authority into responsible action. Jointly considered, they provide a basis for assessing not only the conduct of individual leaders but also the institutional conditions that enable crises to persist or make their resolution possible.

3.1. Ecclesiastical Division and Contested Authority

The crises in Tigray and Oromia expose serious difficulties in the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, the management of legitimate grievances, and the restoration of institutional unity. They should not, however, be reduced to a simple contest between a rightful central authority and disobedient dissenters. Each crisis has its own history, grievances, actors, and contested decisions. A serious response must therefore recognize the circumstances that produced these divisions while insisting that grievances be addressed through credible processes consistent with the Church’s spiritual mission, canonical order, and commitment to unity.

The Holy Synod bears primary responsibility for leading efforts to resolve these crises. As the Church’s highest spiritual and administrative legislative and decision-making body under Article 2 of the 2015 E.C. Constitution, it cannot evade responsibility for the conditions that have allowed division to emerge or persist. Its responsibility includes listening to grievances, acknowledging institutional failures, communicating decisions clearly, and ensuring that reconciliation commitments are implemented rather than merely announced.

The Synod’s own actions provide an important basis for such engagement. In relation to Tigray, the Church publicly acknowledged shortcomings in its response to the suffering of Orthodox Christians during the war, including failures of timely communication and humanitarian support. The subsequent dispute over the selection and consecration of bishops for Tigray nevertheless developed into a deeper conflict over ecclesiastical authority and canonical legitimacy. The U.S. Department of State’s 2023 report on international religious freedom documents the continuing division and the unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation during that period. These developments illustrate how unresolved grievances and contested institutional decisions can reinforce one another.

The Oromia crisis likewise cannot be understood without considering grievances concerning language, representation, and the place of Afaan Oromo in Church life. Yet the dispute also raised serious questions about episcopal ordination, canonical procedures, and the authority of the Holy Synod. In its resolution of 26 January 2023, the Synod declared that the ordinations conducted without its approval violated Church canons. In February, the Church announced reconciliation following apologies by the dissident archbishops. These developments matter: they show both the seriousness of the original dispute and the possibility of restoring communion through repentance and reconciliation (EOTC, 2023; Africanews, 2023).

Responsibility, however, does not end with the Synod. Other parties involved in these crises also have obligations to act in good faith, engage seriously with reconciliation efforts, and accept responsibility for their own decisions. They cannot reasonably demand acknowledgment of their grievances while refusing to consider a public apology, a corrective measure, or a decision offered in good faith by the Church’s legitimate institutions. Nor should they treat every institutional decision as invalid simply because it does not satisfy all their demands.

The political dimension of these disputes also deserves scrutiny. The apparent alignments of the Oromia-based faction with the Abiy Ahmed government and the Tigray-based faction with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) raise concerns about the extent to which ecclesiastical disputes have become entangled with Ethiopia’s precarious political environment. Whether intended as a strategy or emerging from political circumstances, such alignments risk allowing competing political interests to shape Church affairs and may create incentives for factions to use the prevailing instability to advance their respective positions. This possibility does not absolve the Synod of its responsibilities, but neither should it exempt the rival factions from scrutiny. The Church’s unity and canonical order cannot be restored if ecclesiastical authority becomes an extension of political competition.

This principle must be applied fairly. An apology does not automatically resolve every grievance, and a formal decision does not prove that trust has been restored. Where a decision is inadequate, its shortcomings should be articulated and addressed through meaningful dialogue, appropriate review, and established Church procedures. But a refusal to engage with any credible process of reconciliation can itself perpetuate the crisis. Neither side should make its own position, grievance, or institutional standing an absolute condition for unity.

The Qibat ቅባት movement in Eastern Gojjam raises a distinct and potentially more fundamental challenge to the EOTC. Whereas the disputes in Tigray and Oromia have principally concerned ecclesiastical authority, representation, episcopal appointments, and canonical legitimacy, the Qibat controversy concerns the Church’s defining Christological confession of Tewahedo, the union of Christ’s divine and human natures. The movement’s rejection of this places the dispute at the level of doctrine itself, rather than merely ecclesiastical administration. The ordination of bishops and selection of a “patriarch” by members of the movement further raise questions about canonical authority and the emergence of an alternative ecclesiastical hierarchy. Although the Holy Synod has denounced the movement, a formal condemnation, by itself, does not resolve the pressing issue, restore communion, or address the conditions in which the dispute has developed. The case illustrates that institutional authority cannot be sustained through declarations alone: it must also demonstrate the capacity to explain, engage, and resolve challenges to the Church’s doctrinal and spiritual foundations.

3.2. Spiritual Authority and Allegations of Leadership Misconduct

The crisis of leadership also concerns the relationship between spiritual office and personal conduct. Concerns raised within Church communities about bribery, corruption, sexual misconduct, ethnic partiality, administrative incompetence, and the pursuit of status at the expense of service strike at the moral foundations of episcopal leadership. These concerns should neither be dismissed as attacks on the Church nor accepted as established facts merely because they circulate widely. Specific allegations require credible evidence, impartial investigation, appropriate procedures, and fair opportunities for those accused to respond. The institutional question nevertheless remains urgent: How does the Church respond when credible allegations concern those entrusted with its spiritual leadership? If complaints are ignored, investigations are obstructed, or officeholders are protected because of their rank or connections, the resulting failure extends beyond the conduct of an individual. It calls into question the Church’s capacity to uphold the standards it teaches.

My earlier writings repeatedly raised concerns about leadership, unity, accountability, and the dangers of subordinating the Church’s spiritual mission to personal or political interests. In Beyond the Death of EOTC Patriarch (16 August 2012), I argued for leadership characterized by selflessness, accommodation, and fear of God rather than political proximity at the expense of Church values. In The EOTC Patriarchate: A Cause for Division (21 December 2012), I examined the way disputes over leadership could obstruct the more fundamental task of restoring unity. These earlier interventions demonstrate that the questions addressed here are not merely reactions to recent controversies. They reflect longstanding concerns about the relationship between spiritual authority and institutional responsibility.

The essential point is not that every accusation is true. It is that the Church must have credible mechanisms for determining what is true, protecting those who raise legitimate concerns, treating the accused fairly, and acting decisively when misconduct is established. A spiritual institution undermines its own credibility when it demands moral discipline from ordinary believers but appears unwilling or unable to apply appropriate standards to its leaders.

 3.3. Episcopal Appointments, Clerical Recruitment, and the Problem of Patronage

The integrity of spiritual leadership depends not only on how officeholders conduct themselves after appointment but also on how they are selected. If episcopal appointments, clerical recruitment, or staff promotion are influenced by bribery, nepotism, ethnic preference, political patronage, or personal loyalty rather than spiritual character and relevant competence, the institution risks embedding its weaknesses within its own leadership structure.

The Church’s constitutional framework offers a basis for addressing these concerns. Article 8 of the 2015 E.C. Constitution commits the Church to serving clergy and faithful without discrimination on grounds that include ethnicity, language, political opinion, and social background. The provisions governing episcopal appointment and election, including Article 16(30) and Article 37(1), also establish the institutional framework within which these processes should occur. These provisions do not, by themselves, establish that a particular appointment was corrupt or discriminatory. They do, however, provide standards against which procedures and decisions can be assessed.

Concerns about patronage in the EOTC extend beyond perceptions of favouritism. Widely circulated allegations suggest that financial payments, political connections, personal networks, and ethnic affiliations may influence the nomination and appointment of bishops. Particularly troubling are claims that some candidates pay millions of Ethiopian birr to secure episcopal nominations. Similar allegations concern appointments to senior administrative and managerial positions, as well as the recruitment of priests and deacons, including in Addis Ababa, where financial considerations are said to influence access to Church positions. Although such claims should not be treated as established facts in every case, their persistence raises serious questions about the integrity of ecclesiastical appointments. If spiritual offices are obtained through financial transactions, political loyalty, or ethnic patronage rather than spiritual character, competence, and vocation, the very meaning of Church leadership is compromised. Such practices would turn positions of spiritual service into instruments of private advancement, weaken the moral authority of those who hold them, and undermine the faithful’s confidence that their leaders are appointed to shepherd the Church rather than serve personal or factional interests. They also risk creating a cycle in which those who acquire positions through patronage feel beholden to the networks that secured their advancement, further entrenching the influence of money, loyalty, and affiliation over spiritual integrity.

3.4. Political Interference and the Vulnerability of Church Autonomy

Political interference in the EOTC is not a recent development. Its contemporary history is closely associated with the removal of Patriarch Abune Merkorios following the EPRDF’s assumption of power in 1991 and the subsequent election of Abune Paulos in 1992. The election of Abune Paulos did not resolve the legitimacy dispute. Instead, the Church developed two competing centres of authority: the Synod in Ethiopia, which recognized Abune Paulos, and the Synod in exile, which continued to recognize Abune Merkorios. Reconciliation efforts repeatedly encountered inteference from the government Following the death of Abune Paulos and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in 2012, the transition to a new patriarchal leadership further complicated negotiations. The election of Abune Mathias in 2013 was followed by a period in which reconciliation stalled, mainly because of the persistent inteferrence by the govenement. The eventual agreement in 2018, facilitated in significant part by the Reconciliation Committee but then showcased as the contribution of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, reinstated Abune Merkorios as Patriarch while Abune Mathias retained administrative responsibilities, and reunited the two synods. This reconciliation was a major achievement, but the long history preceding it illustrates how political transitions and the interests of successive governments became entangled with the Church’s internal settlement of authority.

The significance of this history extends beyond the personalities involved. When the legitimacy of a patriarchal succession becomes entangled with political change, the Church risks being perceived as vulnerable to the preferences of the government of the day. The damage is institutional and spiritual: disputes over leadership become difficult to separate from political allegiance, ecclesiastical decisions are judged through competing political narratives, and the faithful inherit divisions that may persist long after the original political circumstances have changed. The experience also complicates the Church’s moral authority to speak independently on questions of justice, peace, and public responsibility. An institution expected to stand above partisan interests is weakened when its own highest office is widely perceived to have been shaped by the political order.

The January 2023 events in Woliso exposed this vulnerability in a different form. Three archbishops ordained 26 monks as bishops without the approval of the Holy Synod and announced the formation of an independent synodal structure associated with the Holy Synod of Oromia and Nations and Nationalities. Its proponents invoked grievances concerning Oromo-language worship, representation, and the treatment of Oromo Orthodox Christians. The Synod rejected the ordinations as violations of Church canons and constitutional procedures. The dispute rapidly acquired a political dimension. The Synod accused the federal government of supporting the breakaway group, while the government’s involvement in dialogue and the reported actions of Oromia regional security forces intensified controversy over the boundaries between political and ecclesiastical authority. The United States Department of State’s 2023 religious-freedom report recorded the competing claims, the appropriation of Church properties attributed to the breakaway group, and reports of worshippers being shot by regional security forces during confrontations in Shashemene. These events demonstrate how disputes over canonical authority and legitimate representation can become entangled with regional political interests, state power, and conflict over control of religious institutions (ACLED, 2023; U.S. Department of State, 2024).

The so-called Tigray synodal rupture in 2023 developed in a different but equally consequential political context. The war in Tigray caused immense suffering and severely damaged relations between the central Church leadership and Orthodox communities in the region. In May 2023, the EOTC formally apologized for its failure to call for an end to the war in time and for not being physically present in Tigray to comfort the population and its Church leaders, although physical visits to Tigray were impossible to be done by then. In July, Abune Mathias led a delegation to seek reconciliation, and the Synod acknowledged shortcomings in communication and humanitarian support. Yet the effort did not prevent the establishment of a separate Tigray Orthodox synodal structure. Tigray-based leaders proceeded with the selection of bishops in July, despite the Synod’s objections that the process violated the Church’s constitution and canons. The central Synod subsequently excommunicated leading figures of the new structure, which rejected the central leadership’s authority and accused it of having failed the people of Tigray during the war. The split thus involved not only canonical disagreement but also a profound contest over moral credibility, historical grievance, and the legitimacy of central ecclesiastical authority (U.S. Department of State, 2024; Addis Insight, 2023).

This crisis cannot be separated from the wider political relationship between the TPLF and the Tigray regional authorities. The TPLF’s continuing political influence in the region formed part of the environment in which the separate synodal structure emerged and asserted its authority. The timing and regional setting of the ecclesiastical separation therefore raise legitimate questions about the interaction between political power and Church reorganization. However, the existence of this political context does not, by itself, prove that the TPLF directly orchestrated every decision or that the grievances expressed by Tigrayan faction were merely political. The central issue is how genuine grievances, political alignments, and competing claims to ecclesiastical legitimacy became intertwined, making reconciliation increasingly difficult and the division more durable.

Taken together, the historical split and the later Woliso and Tigray crises reveal a recurring vulnerability: political power can influence, intensify, or become entangled with disputes over the Church’s leadership and institutional order. The mechanisms and circumstances differ, and responsibility cannot be assigned uniformly to every actor. Nevertheless, the implications for spiritual leadership are serious. When appointments, ordinations, patriarchal succession, or the recognition of ecclesiastical authority become associated with political patrons or regional power struggles, believers may struggle to distinguish decisions grounded in canonical principles and pastoral responsibility from those shaped by political interests. Church leaders risk being perceived as representatives of competing political or ethnic constituencies rather than shepherds of a spiritual community that transcends such divisions. The Church’s capacity to act as an independent moral voice is correspondingly weakened, while distrust and fragmentation among the faithful deepen. The problem, therefore, is not merely that political actors sometimes enter Church affairs; it is that the entanglement of political power and ecclesiastical authority can compromise the integrity, unity, and moral credibility on which effective spiritual leadership depends.

4. The Human and Spiritual Cost of Institutional Failure

The consequences of leadership failure cannot be measured only in terms of institutional division, public criticism, or damage to the Church’s reputation. They must also be assessed in terms of what happens to the spiritual lives of believers who look to the EOTC for truth, moral guidance, hope, belonging, and communion with God. The Church’s moral authority depends substantially on the perceived relationship between its teachings and the conduct of those entrusted with leadership. When leaders preach honesty but face credible allegations of corruption, teach marital fidelity but engage in established sexual misconduct, or proclaim impartiality while tolerating discrimination, the contradiction becomes difficult to ignore.

The failure of an individual bishop does not invalidate the faith of the Church or the spiritual lives of its members. Christian faith distinguishes between the truth of its teachings and the imperfections of those who profess them. Yet this distinction must not become an excuse for institutional indifference. When wrongdoing is tolerated, concealed, or treated as inconsequential because the person involved holds high office, the Church’s witness is weakened from within. The deeper problem is not simply that leaders may fail to live up to spiritual ideals; human failure is possible in every institution. It is whether the Church can credibly demonstrate that it recognizes such contradictions, addresses them justly, and prevents them from becoming recurrent features of institutional life.

The erosion of moral credibility is compounded by ecclesiastical division. Rival synodal structures, prolonged internal disputes, and contested decisions weaken the Church’s capacity to act collectively and leave believers uncertain about which institutions and decisions to trust. They can undermine cooperation among clergy and divert attention, resources, and energy from worship, pastoral care, education, charity, and evangelization. Disunity can also become self-perpetuating: each faction interprets the other’s actions as further evidence of bad faith, grievances accumulate, and opportunities for reconciliation narrow. When institutional actors prioritize vindication over restoration, the Church’s spiritual mission risks becoming subordinated to the continuation of conflict. Unity, therefore, cannot be measured merely by declarations or agreements. Its significance lies in whether relationships are restored, decisions are respected and implemented, and disagreements can be resolved without producing renewed institutional ruptures.

For ordinary believers, these institutional failures can have consequences that extend far beyond disputes among Church leaders. Many initially respond to crises with concern, prayer, patience, and hope that their leaders will correct the situation. When similar problems recur without credible resolution, however, disappointment may gradually become exhaustion. Believers may begin to feel that their concerns do not matter, that decisions are made without regard for ordinary members, or that those in authority are beyond accountability. Some may experience despair or helplessness; others may withdraw from Church activities, reduce their participation, or cease to expect the institution to embody the moral standards it teaches.

The danger is not merely declining participation. Persistent contradictions between Christian teaching and institutional conduct can lead some believers to question whether the Church, as they encounter it in practice, remains a trustworthy spiritual institution. They may separate their personal faith from the institution, distance themselves from its leadership, or seek spiritual fulfilment elsewhere. Such outcomes should not be assumed to have occurred uniformly across the Church. Many believers remain deeply committed and continue to serve faithfully despite institutional difficulties. Nevertheless, the possibility of growing disillusionment is too serious to dismiss as impatience, disloyalty, or a failure of faith. The faithful are not merely recipients of ecclesiastical decisions; they are members of the Church whose spiritual welfare lies at the heart of its mission. A Church that repeatedly asks its members for patience must recognize that their patience is not inexhaustible. When their concerns appear persistently disregarded, the resulting loss of trust can become a spiritual wound as well as an institutional problem.

These internal difficulties also affect how the Church is perceived and how effectively it can respond when its members face insecurity or persecution. Public ridicule may intensify when the conduct of Church leaders appears inconsistent with the values they preach. Although criticism of leaders and institutions is not itself hostility toward the faith, the public credibility of the Church can suffer when its internal conflicts and alleged misconduct become recurring subjects of controversy. More seriously, division may weaken the Church’s capacity to mobilize resources, communicate consistently, support affected communities, and advocate collectively for the protection of Orthodox Christians.

The 2023 U.S. Department of State report on international religious freedom, drawing on information from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, recorded deaths in a shooting in Shashemene and concerns about excessive police force. These reports illustrate the wider context in which religious identity, security, and political conflict can intersect. They do not establish that internal Church leadership failures directly caused particular attacks, and such a causal relationship should not be asserted without evidence. The institutional concern is instead that a divided Church may find it harder to respond coherently to suffering and insecurity when its leadership is preoccupied with internal disputes. Nor should public ridicule or internal criticism ever be used to justify hostility toward Orthodox Christians or collective blame against entire ethnic or religious communities.

Ultimately, the human and spiritual cost of institutional failure lies in the cumulative damage it can inflict on trust, belonging, moral credibility, and the Church’s capacity to fulfil its pastoral mission. Leadership failures can weaken the bond between spiritual teaching and institutional practice; unresolved divisions can diminish collective authority; repeated disappointments can exhaust the patience of believers; and internal fragmentation can complicate the Church’s response to the suffering of its members. These consequences are neither inevitable nor uniform, but they represent serious risks to a Church whose mission depends not only on the truth it proclaims but also on the credibility of its witness and the spiritual welfare of the people it serves.

5. Restoring Holiness to the Holy Synod

The preceding analysis has revealed a disturbing pattern of ecclesiastical division, allegations of moral and financial misconduct, patronage, political entanglement, inconsistent accountability, and declining confidence in spiritual authority. These challenges differ in their immediate causes, but together they raise a more fundamental question: Why do archbishops and bishops, who occupy the highest ranks of spiritual leadership and are entrusted with safeguarding the Church’s faith, teachings, and moral integrity, become associated with conduct and decisions that appear to contradict the very Christianity they are ordained to embody? Why should those who have dedicated their lives to God be susceptible to bribery, ethnic prejudice, political manipulation, the pursuit of worldly privilege, or the abuse of spiritual authority? And why should the faithful repeatedly have to demand from their spiritual fathers the integrity, humility, justice, and accountability that Christian life itself requires?

These questions direct attention beyond administrative deficiencies to the spiritual condition of leadership itself. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC) is not simply an institution governed by religious laws. It is a spiritual community whose highest authorities are expected to live in communion with Christ and bear witness to His teachings. Bishops are not merely administrators who happen to possess religious titles. They are spiritual fathers, teachers, and shepherds whose lives should demonstrate the Christian virtues they proclaim. Their authority is therefore inseparable from their spiritual character. When that relationship is weakened, the Church may retain its formal structures, constitutional provisions, and ecclesiastical offices while losing something more fundamental: the lived spiritual integrity that gives those structures their Christian meaning.

The five criteria developed in this article (spiritual integrity and leadership by example; fidelity to doctrine, canons, and institutional order; justice and impartiality; responsible stewardship; and accountability, repentance, and self-correction) are not simply administrative standards against which bishops can be evaluated. They are expressions of authentic Christian spirituality. A bishop who genuinely lives in communion with Christ should embody these qualities not primarily because institutional rules demand them, but because they arise from the faith that governs his conscience, conduct, and understanding of spiritual responsibility. Holiness is not an additional qualification for effective spiritual leadership; it is its very foundation.

Consider the implications. A bishop whose life is genuinely governed by the teachings of Christ cannot knowingly justify stealing Church resources, accepting bribes, or purchasing spiritual office. He cannot regard ethnic identity as a reason to favour or mistreat members of the same spiritual family. He cannot subordinate Christian truth and justice to political allegiance, personal advancement, or fear of those who wield worldly power. He cannot knowingly exploit the faithful, abuse spiritual authority, or treat the privileges of episcopal office as more important than the responsibilities attached to it. These are not merely violations of institutional regulations; they contradict the Christian vocation itself.

Such a bishop does not understand spiritual authority as a means of commanding unquestioning obedience or shielding himself from criticism. He recognizes that the greater his responsibility, the greater his obligation to humility, self-discipline, and moral example. He does not demand reverence while disregarding the values that make spiritual fatherhood worthy of reverence. Nor does he interpret legitimate questions about his conduct as evidence that the younger generation has abandoned respect for Church fathers. Genuine spiritual fatherhood earns trust through the visible practice of Christian virtues. Respect for ecclesiastical office and accountability for personal conduct are not opposing principles; the latter gives credibility to the former.

The same spirituality should shape a bishop’s relationship with truth and justice. A spiritual father who places Christ above worldly interests must be prepared to defend what is right even when doing so threatens his position, privileges, security, or life. He cannot remain silent in the face of injustice merely because speaking would displease political authorities or powerful individuals within the Church. Nor can he selectively defend truth when it benefits his own community or faction while overlooking wrongdoing committed by those close to him. Christian courage requires impartiality, moral consistency, and a willingness to bear personal costs for the sake of truth.

The history of Christianity, including the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, offers examples of spiritual fathers, saints, and martyrs who endured suffering rather than surrender their faith and conscience to worldly power. Their authority rested not on political protection, material wealth, or institutional rank, but on their willingness to remain faithful even unto death. This is the standard against which contemporary spiritual leadership must ultimately be understood. A bishop should be a person whom the faithful can trust to defend truth and justice regardless of the consequences, even to the point of martyrdom. Such courage is not an extraordinary virtue reserved for a few historical figures; it represents the highest expression of the spiritual commitment inherent in episcopal vocation.

Equally important is the bishop’s relationship with his own failures. Genuine spirituality does not imply that a bishop becomes incapable of sin. It means that he cannot comfortably coexist with wrongdoing, rationalize it through his office, or demand mercy for himself while denying justice to those he has harmed. A spiritually serious bishop should be more demanding of his own conduct than of the conduct of others. When he fails, his conscience should move him toward honest acknowledgment, repentance, restitution where appropriate, and acceptance of the consequences. He should not require public exposure, institutional pressure, or the threat of scandal before recognizing his responsibility.

Here, a fundamental distinction must be maintained between spiritual forgiveness and continued entitlement to ecclesiastical office. A bishop who sincerely repents may seek and receive spiritual reconciliation, but repentance does not automatically restore the trust, authority, or institutional position compromised by established wrongdoing. Depending on the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence, applicable Church canons, and due process, he may be subject to disciplinary restrictions, removal from episcopal or administrative responsibilities, or a return to monastic life where canonically appropriate. Where conduct also constitutes a criminal offence, he remains answerable to the law and may face prosecution and imprisonment following lawful conviction. Neither episcopal rank nor an expression of repentance should place anyone beyond legitimate consequences. Indeed, genuine repentance should include a willingness to accept them.

This understanding of accountability is itself profoundly spiritual. It rejects the assumption that protecting the reputation of a bishop necessarily protects the Church. On the contrary, concealing established wrongdoing or preserving an unfit leader in office may compromise the Church’s moral witness and expose the faithful to further harm. The Church’s holiness cannot be defended by treating the misconduct of its leaders as insignificant. Nor should forgiveness become a mechanism through which institutional responsibility is evaded. A bishop who sincerely embraces Christian humility should not regard accountability as humiliation, but as part of the truthfulness and repentance to which he has devoted his life.

The central challenge, therefore, is not primarily the absence of Church laws or the need for additional administrative instructions. The EOTC already possesses a substantial canonical and constitutional framework. Yet laws cannot manufacture spiritual integrity, and institutional procedures cannot substitute for a conscience genuinely formed by Christian faith. Rules may restrain misconduct and provide remedies when it occurs, but they cannot by themselves create the spiritual character expected of a bishop. A Church whose leaders lack that character may repeatedly introduce corrective measures without overcoming the underlying conditions that produce the same failures.

What the EOTC needs, therefore, is a radical restoration of holiness within the Holy Synod and in the lives of its individual members. This is not a call for outward displays of piety, ceremonial solemnity, or more frequent declarations of spiritual commitment. It is a call for a transformation so profound that the character, decisions, relationships, and public conduct of bishops visibly reflect their communion with Christ. The Holy Synod must be holy not merely in its ecclesiastical designation or canonical status, but in the spiritual integrity of those who constitute it. Its collective authority should express the same truthfulness, humility, impartiality, courage, and accountability expected of each bishop.

Such transformation would give substantive meaning to all five criteria of effective spiritual leadership. Spiritual integrity would be evident in the personal conduct of bishops; fidelity to doctrine and canons would arise from conviction rather than convenience; justice and impartiality would transcend ethnic, political, and personal loyalties; responsible stewardship would reflect an understanding of Church resources and authority as sacred trusts; and accountability would become an expression of humility and repentance rather than a reluctant response to public pressure. The criteria would no longer remain standards invoked primarily when controversy arises. They would become recognizable qualities of everyday spiritual leadership.

This is also what the faithful should be able to expect from their highest spiritual authorities. Believers do not principally need bishops who are politically influential, materially prosperous, administratively powerful, or skilled at defending their positions. They need spiritual fathers whose lives make Christian teaching credible: leaders who can be trusted with Church resources, who treat believers without discrimination, who speak truth without fear, who accept responsibility without evasion, and who place the welfare of the Church above personal or factional interests. Such leaders inspire respect not by demanding it, but by embodying the faith they teach.

The restoration of authentic spiritual leadership is therefore more fundamental than institutional reform, although it does not eliminate the need for institutional accountability. It concerns the very identity and purpose of the Church’s highest governing body. The decisive transformation is from authority sustained by office to authority made credible through holiness; from the defence of status to the practice of sacrificial service; and from the appearance of spiritual leadership to its genuine embodiment. This is the standard demanded by the Gospel, exemplified by the Church’s faithful spiritual fathers and martyrs, and rightly expected by the congregation. Without such transformation, administrative reforms may remain superficial. With it, the Church’s laws, institutions, and decisions can become genuine expressions of the spiritual life they are meant to serve.

6. Conclusion: Spiritual Renewal Requires Institutional Courage

The challenges examined in this article point to a fundamental truth: the credibility of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church cannot rest on its ancient heritage, canonical structures, or the formal authority of its Holy Synod alone. It must also be reflected in the spiritual integrity of those entrusted with leading it. Ecclesiastical division, allegations of misconduct, patronage, political interference, and inadequate accountability are not merely institutional difficulties; they raise profound questions about the relationship between Christian faith and the conduct of spiritual leaders. Yet these failures should not be confused with the failure of the Orthodox faith itself. Rather, they underscore the urgency of restoring the spiritual values that give the Church its enduring purpose and moral authority.

The central argument of this reflection is that lasting renewal requires more than administrative adjustments or declarations of unity. It requires a genuine restoration of holiness within the Holy Synod and in the lives of its individual members. Bishops must embody the faith they teach through integrity, justice, humility, courage, responsible stewardship, and sincere repentance. They must be prepared to defend truth even when doing so carries personal costs, and to accept accountability when they fall short of their sacred responsibilities. The faithful do not need leaders who merely occupy holy offices; they need spiritual fathers whose lives make the holiness of those offices credible. The challenge before the Holy Synod, therefore, is not simply to preserve its authority, but to renew the spiritual character through which that authority can command trust and serve the Church.

Ultimately, the restoration of holiness is both a spiritual imperative and an institutional responsibility. It calls upon the Holy Synod to examine itself with the same moral seriousness with which it guides the faithful, recognizing that no ecclesiastical rank places anyone above Christian truth, repentance, or accountability. The Church’s renewal will become credible when its highest leaders demonstrate, through their lives and decisions, that service to Christ takes precedence over personal privilege, political allegiance, ethnic loyalty, and institutional self-protection. The words of Scripture offer a fitting standard for this calling: “ለራስህና ለትምህርትህ ተጠንቀቅ፤ በእነዚህም ጽና፤ ይህን ብታደርግ ራስህንም የሚሰሙህንም ታድናለህና”  1ኛ ጢሞቴዎስ 4፥16