The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on Sunday laid out the road map for the growth of the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India (CSI), emphasising the need to be selfless in its service to society.
Delivering his message on the occasion of the golden jubilee celebrations of the South Kerala Diocese of the CSI here, the Archbishop wanted the Church to be a questioning church and a praying church, one which has learnt to trust in God.
He marvelled at the “unusual Christian diversity” in Kerala and said he was convinced that this was based on deep trust and relationship.
“Kerala is a land of great religious diversity, but not of conflict. In the last few centuries, it has been a land of unusual Christian diversity. But my stay here in the last few days has shown that it is based on deep trust and relationship. Within the spectrum of Christian differences, the South Kerala Diocese has a special place,” he said.
Unusual Christian diversity – yes yes Archbishop, we caught the reference – lets all rub along in the Broccoli-shaped church!
His powers of ascertainment are PHENOMENAL! Unless he had a pre-visit paradigm he was wish-fulfilling. Then, again, the news from all over is not quite so encouraging these days.
Well, I share the skepticism of #1 & 2, but the fact is that Kerala is a region with truly remarkable diversity within the CHristian churches, especially given the presence of the ancient Syriac tradition in the Syrian Orthodox Church that claims descent from the apostle Thomas, and its Protestant offshoot, the Mar Thoma Church.
I think the CSI, Church of South India, is one of the most fascinating churches in the world, and I’m always glad to hear more about it. Since the ecumenical CSI was inaugurated in 1947 (with four large former Anglican dioceses providing much of the leadership and membership of it), for the Diocese of South Kerala to be celebrating its 50th anniversary means that it was one of the first new dioceses to be formed after the union of Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists some 13 years earlier.
I’ve always gotten a chuckle out of the typically muddled reaction of the Lambeth Conference of bishops in 1948 to the withdrawl of four dioceses in India to help form the CSI. Their basic assessment? “[i]This was obviously a move of God, but it shouldn’t be done again![/i]”
What did bug me was the part where ++RW is quoted as highlighting three desirable qualities in a regional church: being a praying church, and a selfless church, and a “questioning” church.
Huh? That was wierd. Questioning what? “Questioning itself” is all this report indicates. Hmmm. Well, how about that including questioning the integrity of the ACO and the ABoC himself??
David Handy+
No. 3: Thank you for bringing in the Syriac tradition. It has been a while for me, so what I’m about to say may not be entirely accurate and I invite correction. My understanding is that the Syriac Church’s Bible is in a written form of Aramaic, and that their canon rejects a number of books that were controversial inclusions in our canon: viz – Revelation, James, Jude and two of the Johns. For some reason Philemon was also left on the cutting room floor. That surprises me since it is one of the texts on which I thought there was little or no debate as to its direct Pauline authenticity. The Syriac testament also had (at least at one time) a third letter from Paul to the Corinthians.
NoVA Scout (#4),
You’re welcome. As for the Syriac Bible or canon, you’re partially correct. There was indeed a time, for a couple centuries, when the Syriac Church lacked Revelation in particular, but it was later added to their canon. Equally eccentric was the choice of the Syriac-speaking churches of the Far East (Parthian Empire and beyond) to substitute the famous gospel harmony of Tatian, the so-called [i]Diatessaron[/i] (ironically, a Greek term), for the four gospels themselves. Again, this odd custom lasted for several generations, but the Syriac Church eventually conformed to the usage of the rest of the Christian Church.
And yes, Syriac is a form of Aramaic, but it shouldn’t be assumed, as some people naively do, that it’s the same dialect that Jesus and the disciples (including Thomas) would’ve spoken. It’s a later variant.
More importantly, all the evidence strongly suggests that the Syriac NT is a TRANSLATION of the Greek original texts, and doesn’t represent some sort of survival of the sayings of Jesus in their original form.
But the Syriac Church was much more important in the first millenium of church history than we westerners generally think. Philip Jenkins has recently written about the Syriac (Nestorian and Jacobite) churches of the Far East with great insight.
David Handy+