13 July 2013

Our Expectations, Our Prayers





Rev. Thomas John












After much uncertainty, waiting and prayer, finally the North Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India has a Bishop. The Rev. Baker Ninan Fenn was consecrated as the Bishop of North Kerala Diocese on Sunday, 30 June 2013. Rt. Rev. B N Fenn is someone who had experienced firsthand the ‘ecclesiastical highhandedness’ of his predecessor, Rt. Rev. Dr. K. P. Kuruvilla. Probably, Rt. Rev. Fenn is one of those who became a bishop in the recent past without money bags changing hands. It is also to be noted that he and his co-panelists went for the interview to the synod office together in a car and returned together in the same car - something unseen in the recent past. In doing so, they acted with utmost cordiality. Many who attended the consecration have also noted his simplicity and insistence on wearing the most appropriate white vestment as opposed to the attempts of other bishops to distinguish themselves by wearing coloured vestments.







What this points to is the possibility of opening a new chapter in the life of NKD and even in the life of CSI by the concerted efforts of people cutting across dioceses aspiring and working towards renewal and reformation within the life of the church. The momentum should be kept up and accelerated and it should not be allowed to slow down. It is the earnest prayer of all believers that God may enable Rt. Rev. Fenn to become a bishop in the tradition of our late bishops - Bishop Newbigin, Bishop Solomon, Bishop Jesudasan and Bishop Benjamin - emulating their examples in simplicity of life, humility, forbearance, and loving care for the sheep. He should keep before his eyes and always remember the golden verses in 1 Peter 5: 2-4: “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”





Rt. Rev. B. N. Fenn has the onerous task of bringing order and unity within the church and mending broken relationships. Let the shoulder bag he wears remain as a signifier of his identity as ‘the servant of servants’ in Christ’s ministry to His flocks:  “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.” (I Peter 5:6)  Reverence is not something one can claim but it is something that one must earn. Moreover, respect without love is of no use except that it can satisfy one’s blotted ego which will be deflated by the slightest of annoyance. God calls ordinary people and entrusts them with extra ordinary tasks. But they are able to perform these tasks by the supporting hands of God’s people. The Book of Exodus narrates the story of how Moses defeated the Amalekites. We read: “As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So, Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.” Rt. Rev. Fenn needs our prayerful support; we must “hold his hands up” so that he would be able to lead the church to win the battle of fulfilling the apostolic vocation of the church.





Moses needed the help of Joshua, Aaron and Hur. Bishop Fenn also needs the help of human hands. He needs the advice of people with experience and ability and who are devoid of vested interests. It is the selection of these close aides and their advice that are going to be of utmost importance. They must be people with theological and prophetic insights. This does not mean that the Bishop should run the church with a coterie. No and not at all. The Bishop should strengthen the democratic institutions of the church and ensure their democratic functioning. He should commit himself to his role as envisaged in the constitution of the CSI: “the historic episcopate in a constitutional form.” 





The Bishop should not be vindictive to people who oppose his views, but rather respect them and listen to their views carefully and may be more carefully than those who agree with him. He should not surround himself with sycophants. They have their own vested interests and they would say only things that would please him and finally, that would take him further and further away from reality. The Bishop should work towards consensus, yet be respectful of the majority opinion. The majority also should not denigrate the minority. Truth could be on the side of a dissenting minority. The Bishop should strictly adhere to this difficult path of working with and through these democratic institutions and its decisions. The strength of episcopal leadership is not having decisions made according to his will but rather the courage of conviction with which he could share his personal concerns for the church with the larger constituency of laity and clergy. Nobody can take away his right to preach and teach. What is required in all this is lack of any personal agenda and total transparency in matters of decision making and proper procedures for implementation of various tasks. 





The new Bishop should declare a moratorium on the sale or leasing out of church property. All renewals of lease deed must be done only after establishing clearly laid out norms in consultation with financial experts and lawyers. The church properties, particularly most of the landed properties, are bequeathed to it by mission agencies for its evangelistic mission. It is a breach of trust to alienate these properties and use it for crass material interests. The church should build bungalows not by selling valuable church properties but by the good will offerings of people. If we cannot add more to the immovable assets of the church, we should at least commit ourselves to not alienate what was bequeathed to us. The two and a half acres of land sold in Thalikulam by the previous dispensation could have been used to build a facility for the old and the infirm or to build a half way home for the mentally ill or any number of service activities that truly express Christ’s ministry of compassion. The church should keep itself out of all enterprises that require underhand financial dealings. As one who has been part of the earlier dispensation, Bishop Fenn knows better than anybody else as to how this ‘black money’ lends itself for the formation of a coterie around the bishop and how that comes to have a debilitating effect on the bishopric and witness of the church. 





One of the important tasks of the bishop incumbent is to retrieve the lost dignity and status of presbyters and work towards enhancing their morale and provide them with effective pastoral leadership. In the name of ecclesiastical authority, the clergy have been reduced to servants of the bishop rather than shepherds and servants of people and congregations. The loyalty of the clergy has been shifted to the bishop instead of the people who, through their subscriptions and donations, sustain them. This has resulted in the degeneration of pastoral care. The primary task of clergy has become that of moving around the corridors of power and getting as much favours as possible by pleasing the powers that be. A lot of subservience and sycophancy has become the order of the day, rather than real hard work of pastoral care. The rights of people and congregations have been totally ignored with pastors and bishops ruling over people and congregations “harshly and brutally”. In a similar situation in the life of Israel, the word of God comes to Ezekiel (Ch. 34): “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.”   







We hope and pray that Bishop Fenn would work toward restoring the dignity and glory of shepherding. For this, it is essential that the transfers of pastors do not become a means of handing out favours or punishments. Good work should be rewarded, but not sycophancy. Transfers should be based on the objective criteria laid down by the Executive Committee or Ministerial and Pastoral Committee involving the needs of the congregation, abilities and capabilities of pastors, and their experience. Moreover, they should be given in-service courses and sent for higher studies to theological institutions abroad and within India. The views of the clergy on matters of liturgy and life of the church must be sought. In all respects, the Bishop should be their counsellor and friend and try to learn the problems and needs of their families, and be able to extend pastoral care and counselling to them. During pastoral visits to congregations, wherever possible, he should be able to stay with the clergy and get to know the family. 





Arbitrary exercise of authority should be avoided at all costs. The Bishop is a vicar of Jesus Christ, earthly representative of Christ. All Christians have this responsibility, but more so, in the case of Bishops. Jesus Christ is the ‘Great shepherd of the flocks’ who gave his life for the sheep, and sought after the one that is lost leaving aside the ninety nine. The model that Jesus gave us is that of a servant: “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” (John 13: 14). Jesus admonished the crowd of his disciples, “The greatest among you will be your servant. For, those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. (Matt. 23: 11). This is a theme that echoes repeatedly in the gospels, but seldom practiced in the life of the church.





The Church as a whole has failed to understand the meaning of “ecclesiastical authority”. Authority has more to do with authorization, mandate than domination, brutal exercise of power. In Christian understanding, each individual is a centre of power. Without power we cannot do anything. But then, in Jesus Christ and on his cross, what we find is power in the service of love. On the cross, we do not find any insignia of worldly power, but power subjected to love; love that is extended to those who are undeserving from a worldly point of view, love that seeks after the least, the last and the lost. Christian love does not force itself on the other; respects the freedom of the other and waits for the other’s response. The parable of the loving father (otherwise known as the parable of the prodigal son), found in Luke Ch. 15, describes how God exercises authority as a father, and it is from this father that we should derive all our notions of authority. The authority given to a bishop is not to dominate and subjugate, but love and care for the flock. Imagery of the shepherd is given to us to divest the Christian leadership of all notions of power and arbitrary exercise of it. A presbyter is only an elder, a leader. As leaders, the presbyters and bishops (a presbyter with jurisdiction over a larger area) goes before the flocks and even lays down their lives for the flock.





Secondly, it is the people that authorize a presbyter or a bishop to play certain roles of leadership within the Church. We, who stand in the reformation tradition, believe in the priest-hood of all believers. The office of elders and bishops should be divested of all notions of priesthood. Jesus Christ, by giving his life as an ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity, has done away with priesthood and the need for sacrifices. In fact, Jesus by his ultimate sacrifice has done away with “religion”, which heavily depended on sacrifices, altar, temple and priesthood, and replaced it with a spirituality based on serving the ‘Living God’ by fulfilling his will on this earth and history. So, all presbyters are elders and not priests and when a presbyter becomes a bishop, he remains a presbyter with the authorization of leadership over a larger jurisdiction. Hence, he does not have to change his ‘colour’ when he becomes a Bishop. They exercise authority given to them by the people and for the people.





Thirdly, there is no hierarchy in the triune God; the three persons of the Trinity are equal and co-eternal. The whole doctrine of Trinity has been developed to affirm our faith that God is unity and community and that there is equality in God. The Athanasian Creed, which was developed as a statement of the Church’s faith in the Trinitarian God, states, “For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.” God is love and there is no domination in love. What we find on the cross is the transforming power of love and not brute exercise of power. It is our hope and prayer that Bishop Fenn would emulate that love and would bring about the much needed healing and transformation to the diocese. 





Those who have to devout their time for the spiritual growth of the church, involving themselves in preaching, teaching and prayer, should not take on the burden of administration. Presbyters are not called for that. The early church recognized that “it would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God” and hence, “in order to wait on tables”, to take care of the many important matters of administration in relation to the church’s ministry of compassion, they set apart deacons, men “full of faith and Holy Spirit” to engage in such ministries. As the early church had done, we should find lay people of such integrity and commitment to head and manage our educational institutions, hospitals and such other institutions of service. Especially financial and construction matters should be given over to expert committees who would discharge their functions judiciously. 





Moreover, we should not turn them into institutions that make profit. We should not go in for self-financing institutions; many bishops had ‘stumbled on it and fell’. It is very difficult to avoid the temptation of “quick money” and “big money”. We may follow a business model, but we should not turn our institutions into business ventures. We must eschew all situations that would lead us to deal with unaccounted money; self financing institutions thrive on money that is collected illegally and lend itself to corruption of all sorts. Naturally a coterie of brokers of money and power will be formed around the bishop and finally, they would lead the bishop into the abyss of sinfulness. After having seen and experienced this sort of deviations from Christian witness in close quarters, we believe that Bishop Fenn would not be part of such enterprises.  





Bishop Fenn has the onerous task of completing the “bishop’s palace”. He should take stock of the present stage of the construction of the building and complete the rest with people’s free will offering. He should give a call and the people would respond generously. The church should grow not by selling and leasing out church properties bequeathed to us by forefathers and missionaries to carry out its apostolic mission, but by the free will offering of its people. It is this dependence on and accountability to people that should be the hallmark of the church. Dubious means of making quick money should be avoided at all costs. More than that, whatever money that the bishop receive while visiting a parish should be accounted and must go to the “bishop’s discretionary fund”, which the bishop could use in consultation with the treasurer for meeting hospitality expenses, pastors’ welfare,  and other charities for which the bishop would like to make contributions.  





Many areas of the church’s activities like pre-marital counselling, partnerships with foreign churches, laity fellowship, women’s fellowship, youth fellowship, Chorister’s association (if we have one) etc, are badly in need of a review and must be subjected to a performance audit by a group of people with expertise and experience. This is a gradual process and yet, they are crucial areas of the church that demand the bishop’s attention.   







While there was much rejoicing over the nomination and consecration of Bishop Fenn, much of the response in the social media was very cautious. People do not want to get frustrated by expecting too much from a Bishop. People ceased to have much trust and confidence in what a presbyter like Rev. Fenn would turn out to be when he was elevated to the office of the Bishop. That is what the history teaches them. But, our prayer is that humble as he is, Bishop Fenn would be used by God for God’s glory in the service of this diocese, which has a distinct history of missionary contribution to the Kerala culture and society. The longer he stays on his knees, the greater he will be used by God. It is our prayer that he be enabled to stoop to conquer the hearts of people and be a great Bishop who would lead the diocese to greater heights of Christian witness at a crucial time in its history.





(Rev. Thomas John is a theologian, educator, and ordained minister of the Church of South India. He has served the Union Christian College, Aluva, Kerala, for over 33 years as Professor and Head of the Department of Psychology. He was the General Secretary of the Student Christian Movement of India from 1990-94, a Mission Partner in Residence in the Worldwide Ministries Division of the General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian Church (USA) from 1994-95. He now serves the Presbyterian Church (USA) as the Companionship Facilitator for the ‘Joining Hands Against Hunger’ partner network in India and Sri Lanka.)




01 April 2013

Still No White Smoke, Only Dark Clouds



A new Pope was elected and consecrated within a time span of about 20 days by the Roman Catholic Church. The Diocesan Council of the North Kerala Diocese elected a panel for Bishopric on 9 January 2013. The incumbent bishop formally retired on 23 March. In fact, the position was vacant since the incumbent bishop became seriously sick since October 2012. There was nothing that stood in the way of consecrating a new bishop for the diocese. But nothing happened and the diocese is languishing under a Moderator’s Commissary, who works with a different set of priorities than shepherding the people. Many of the decisions of the Executive Committee of the diocese remain unimplemented. The transfer of pastors has not happened since the last two years. This criminal negligence of the Synod in nominating and consecrating a bishop for the diocese can only be attributed to their eagerness to grant the position of Bishopric to the highest bidder that comes knocking at their door - a common practice for the last several years.





After the election of the panel, there has been no communication with the diocesan officers except to make an announcement of the panel in all the churches so that responses may be elicited from the congregations and church members. They were given 21 days to respond and those 21 days are also over. During this period, various rumors were spread with the aim of compelling the members of the panel to bribe the powers that be.




One such rumor was that the election of the Bishopric panel is not valid as deacons were allowed to vote to elect the panel as members of the Diocesan Council.  Now, it is learned that the synod court will be meeting to decide on this matter on 2 April in Chennai. In our previous post in this website, The Suitcase Politics Still Rules the Roost, we dealt with this matter in detail highlighting the absurdity and maliciousness of this propaganda. But it seems that the moderator and the synod officers would still like to proceed with this false allegation and make the elected panel for bishopric null and void using the good office of the synod court. This is a matter that the moderator himself could set aside as frivolous with the powers given to him under the CSI constitution, Chapter VI/29. Instead, we fear that the synod is going ahead for a repeat of what happened in the Nandyal Diocese. Hence, we are forced to reiterate some of the things that we have already brought to the notice of the synod and the public.



First, by its very use of the term ‘court’, it becomes mandatory for the synod court to adjudicate any matter referred to it only after giving notice to the parties concerned and after having heard their defense or arguments or explanations. It cannot take decisions ex parte and without due process of hearing the arguments. So, till date the members of the panel or the diocesan officers have not been intimated of any accusations leveled against them or the election procedure.




Second, as per the CSI constitution VI/5: “The Diocesan Council that exists at the time of the receipt of the mandate by the Secretary of the Council shall elect the panel.” The Diocesan Council that existed at the time of the receipt of the mandate had deacons as its members and no new members were added to it. In other words, the Diocesan Council that elected the panel for Bishopric in 2013 is the same as the Diocesan Council that elected the Diocesan Officers and the Synod representatives in 2011.



Since the inception of the diocese, deacons in active service were always members of the Diocesan Council. The 1984 Constitution of the NKD, which had been recognized as valid by the Synod for many years states (Ch 5/34-c): “Composition of the Diocesan Council: All Presbyters and Deacons in active service according to the Standing Service Rules of the Diocese.” It is certain that Bishops K. C. Seth, P. G. Kuruvilla, and K. P. Kuruvilla were elected to bishopric by the Diocesan Councils constituted as per this constitutional clause. Nobody raised any objections regarding the validity of these elections.



This is in agreement with the governing principals of the CSI, which acknowledges the tradition of each church denomination that was brought into the union and its commitment to foster those distinctive traditions. Inclusion of the deacons in active service to the Diocesan Council represents the reformed historical legacy of the Basel Mission which had a specific order of deacons in addition to presbyters that rendered active service in the church. This was all the more so in the context of not having enough presbyters to shepherd all the parishes in the diocese.



The Church of South India has always recognized separate constitutions for each diocese so that their distinct histories and traditions were respected and represented. The new constitution of the North Kerala Diocese, which came into effect on 10 February 2009, once again states that the Diocesan Council is composed of “All Presbyters and Deacons in active service of the diocese.”  (5/34c) This constitution and the Diocesan Council constituted accordingly had been the instrument by which the representatives to the present synod were elected. If this constitution is defective and the Diocesan Council that was formed accordingly is invalid, the Synod structure itself must be declared null and void as it is a product of an ill-legitimately constituted Diocesan Council.




It must be further noted that that Mr. M. M. Philip, the General Secretary of the CSI Synod, was the observer to the Diocesan Council meeting constituted as per the present constitution of the North Kerala Diocese (Ch.5/rule 34 c) that elected Bishop K. P. Kuruvilla to the panel of Bishopric in 2007. He had not found any anomaly in this election. How can he have a different reading of the situation now?



We are forced to reiterate what we have already stated in our previous posting: “It is as clear as day light that the present composition of the Diocesan Council does not in any way contravene the basic structure and content of the CSI Constitution and it had been consistently followed all these years without causing inconvenience or loss to anybody. It is our prayer that the Synod will not play second fiddle to these lobbies who are only interested in abuse of power for self-aggrandizement. The people in North Kerala Diocese had suffered enough under the rule of a despotic Bishop whose megalomaniacal ways had scattered ‘the sheep’ and destroyed congregations. If not for the sheep why do we need Bishops and Presbyters?  The Synod remained a silent spectator during these periods of turmoil. Why do we need a Synod?” What service do they render to the church except to act as a bottle neck and dead weight that swindle its valuable properties and the good will donations of our partners across the globe?



The plight of the members of CSI is that of the Israelites who asked Samuel for a King. God reminded the people of the ways of a king; the oppression, exploitation and violence they may have to suffer from a king. (I Samuel 8) But the people refused to listen to the warning of God. Finally, God gave in to their adamant attitude and gave them a king in the person of Saul and the people of Israel had to suffer on account of it. In the formation of CSI we did not ask for this sort of an episcopacy or synod structure; we asked for only a historic episcopate in a constitutional form and a synod structure to maintain the unity of the church in Faith and Order. But, episcopacy has become a menace to the Church of South India. The worst fears of the non-Episcopal traditions that it would become monarchical episcopates have come true. Who among them is there without obvious criminal charges and fraudulent land dealings?



The Synod and the Episcopacy in particular have become institutions that “tie up heavy loads and put them on the men’s shoulders.” People will no longer tolerate this nonsense; people are forced to think even of seceding and remaining independent. Driven to the walls, the North Kerala Diocese will have no other option but to secede from the synod and consecrate a bishop for its own.



If the smoke turns out to be black on April 2, we will be compelled to call a meeting of the members of the Diocesan Council, senior members of the church, retired pastors and other important person from all walks of life to decide the future course of action. There should be wider solidarity built up to confront these forces who are devoid of any sense of probity, propriety and reasonableness. In this effort, we may also have to draw in the wisdom and support of our partner churches across the world. However, we wish and pray that wisdom will prevail and the Synod will act with responsibility in the long term interest of the Church.


24 February 2013

The Suitcase Politics Still Rules the Roost

The 'Suitcase' politics in the appointment of Bishops is reaching a point of absurdity and deviousness. In the Nandyal diocese, the elected panel for Bishopric was set aside by the Synod officers. The Moderator called a meeting of the Bishop’s Selection Committee to select one from among the panel as per the CSI constitution. But the meeting of the Selection Committee was cancelled in the last minute and the matter was referred to the Synod Executive Committee, which met in Bangalore. The Synod Executive, as per a cleverly crafted design, set aside the Bishopric panel to pave way for the appointment of a Bishop of their choice.



The reason for setting aside the panel was also not made known to the Synod Executive which met in Bangalore. Subsequently, certain allegations against the candidates were referred to the Court of the Synod. The term “court” refers to an institution that decides the merit of an allegation through a fair process of trial in which both parties have a chance to defend themselves. But the Court of the Synod, through an ex parte decision enabled the Synod Executive to reject the elected panel.



Sad to say, the candidates still have not been informed as to why their candidature had been rejected; instead the moderator had taken statements from them under duress. This is nothing but a travesty of justice. By this action, the Synod officers have been testing the waters to continue with their nefarious designs. (Read the open letter of Bishop Lawrence and the comments on it by Youth4CSI)



It is learned from reliable sources that the Synod officers are now planning to go the same route in the case of the panel for Bishopric in the North Kerala Diocese also. A lobby working in the Central Kerala Diocese with the tacit support of M. M. Philip and the cronies of Bishop K. P. Kuruvilla, are trying to create a smoke screen, spreading the canard that the election of the panel for Bishopric is invalid as the Diocesan Council that had elected the panel included Deacons, which is against the constitution of the CSI. This is nothing but an effort to fish in troubled waters and to bring in a “money bag” from the Central Kerala Diocese to the bishopric of North Kerala Diocese. In this context, we would like to enlighten the readers and the Christian public of the flowing facts:



1. Since the inception of the diocese, Deacons in active service were always members of the Diocesan Council. The 1984 Constitution of the NKD states (Ch 5/34-c): “Composition of the Diocesan Council: All Presbyters and Deacons in active service according to the Standing Service Rules of the Diocese.” The elections to the panel of the bishoprics of K. C. Seth, P. G. Kuruvilla, and K. P. Kuruvilla were made by Diocesan Councils constituted according to this constitutional clause. Nobody raised any objections regarding the validity of these elections.



2. None other than Mr. M. M. Philip was the observer to the Diocesan Council constituted as per 5/34-c, which elected Bishop Kuruvilla. He had not found any anomaly in this election. How does he now have a different reading of the situation?



3. The new constitution of the North Kerala Diocese, which came into effect on 10 February 2009 once again states that the Diocesan Council is composed of “All Presbyters and Deacons in active service of the diocese.” These re-statements of inclusion of the Deacons in active service are not without any reason. It represents the reformed historical legacy of the Basel Mission which did not have Bishops, but had a specific order of Deacons in addition to Presbyters that rendered active service in the church. This was all the more so in the context of not having enough Presbyters to shepherd all the parishes in the diocese. The Church of South India has always recognized separate constitutions for each diocese so that their distinct histories and traditions are respected and represented.



4. According to the CSI constitution Ch 5/5: “The Diocesan Council that exists at the time of the receipt of the mandate by the Secretary of the Council shall elect the panel.” Regardless of the composition of the Council, the panel for Bishopric was elected by “the Diocesan Council that existed at the time of the receipt of the mandate by the Secretary”. The election was held in the presence of synod observers and none had raised any concern.



5. If this election is null and void, and if the composition of the Diocesan Council is defective, all the elections that it had conducted must also be null and void including the election to the Synod. By the same argument, the Synod officers were elected by a defective Synod. They have no right to hold these offices.



6. The present Diocesan Council, which elected the panel to Bishopric in the North Kerala Diocese was constituted by the Synod appointed Administrative Committee of which the dual posts of Secretary and Treasurer were held by one and the same person, a close confidant of the CSI General Secretary, Mr. M. M. Philip, Com. Mohan Ancherry. Now the Synod cannot call into question the composition of the diocesan council which they themselves had directly constituted and about which they had never raised any question in this long history of association with CSI.



7. The question of composition that has been raised is purely of a technical nature; it does not make incursions into the rights of anybody or cause any inconvenience to anybody. When such is the case, it is to be prima facie rejected as arising from extraneous considerations that have nothing to do with justice or fair play or the life of the church. In cases like this, when the issue is purely that of technical nature, even the secular courts will respect conventions and precedence.



8. The Members of the present Diocesan Council who had not questioned this composition and who went along with the election cannot raise questions regarding the validity of the election at this late stage just because the result of the election was not in their liking. This is nothing but an effort to undermine the smooth running of the institutions of the Church and its democratic traditions.



It is as clear as day light that the present composition of the Diocesan Council does not in any way contravene the basic structure and content of the CSI Constitution and it had been consistently followed all these years without causing inconvenience or loss to anybody. It is our prayer that the Synod will not play second fiddle to these lobbies who are only interested in abuse of power for self-aggrandizement. The people in North Kerala Diocese had suffered enough under the rule of a despotic Bishop whose megalomaniacal ways had scattered ‘the sheep’ and destroyed congregations. If not for the sheep why do we need Bishops and Presbyters?  The Synod remained a silent spectator during these periods of turmoil. Why do we need the Synod? What service do they render to the people in the pew; how significant are they for the people who look for spiritual nourishment or lost in the vagaries of this world? The Synod and the Episcopacy in particular have become institutions that “tie up heavy loads and put them on the men’s shoulders.” People will no longer tolerate this nonsense; people are forced to think even of seceding and remaining independent. It is the future of our church that is at stake. Hope that the Synod officers will uphold the moral rectitude demanded of you and act with reason and probity and above all, as vicars of Jesus Christ.

17 February 2013

“First as Tragedy, Then as Farce”





Marx’s statement that history repeats itself “first as tragedy, then as farce” is proving to be true in the life of North Kerala Diocese. With the tragic and embarrassing exit of Bishop Kuruvilla, we all thought that a very shameful phase in the history of the diocese had come to an end and a new era had begun. But even before we could overcome the hangover of the previous disposition, history has repeated itself, though this time as farce in the form of Rt. Rev. K. G. Daniel, who ‘served’ the diocese for a short time as the bishop-in-charge, and now continues as Moderator’s Commissary.







The school compound walls being demolished


One and a half acres of prime land in the compound of the Kunnamkulam CSI Church worth around Rs. 10 crores was leased out by one Jacob Mathew alias Ronnie to a business house with the consent of Bishop K. G. Daniel, who as bishop-in-charge had no authorization except to sign cheques. This deal was struck without the knowledge of the elected constitutional bodies of the diocese such as diocesan officers, the Property Committee and the Executive Committee. People came to know about this deal only when the one to whom the land was leased out came to demolish the existing structures with a bulldozer on Thursday, 24 January 2013. They selected this day as it was a holiday, when the law and order machinery would be relatively non-functioning. But people came to know of this illegal and bogus deal and they resisted and alerted the diocesan officers. Fortunately they were able to act quickly and get an interim injunction from a vacation court. The court also appointed a commission. Thus, for the time being, a great loss and a damaging deal had been averted. But the question remains as to how a mere bishop-in-charge could act in this manner during his short stint in the diocese.







The school compound being encroached


It is learned that this was a deal originally struck by Bishop Kuruvilla through his crony, Ronnie before he was incapacitated. Bishop Daniel came to the help of the beleaguered fellow bishop by giving his consent to the deal. They had even expected that they would be able to carry forward their nefarious designs by putting in place a bishop of their choice. But that did not work out as they planned.





How could a bishop of the CSI act with such impunity to engage in a blatantly fraudulent land deal? It has become clear that Bishop Kuruvilla is not an aberration, but only one among the many bishops in CSI who besides being greedy for money, are arrogant and foolish. Bishop Daniel should know that the laity in North Kerala Diocese has already suffered enough, and are in no mood to tolerate another bishop with a bloated ego. Mr. M. M. Philip(General Secretary), Mr. Bennet Abraham (Treasurer), and the Most Rev. Devakadaksham (Moderator) have to do a lot of explaining as to how such deals could be struck and what action they would take against such bishops. A regime change need not bring about the desired results. The laity should remain watchful.  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."