Orthodox Church and Politics

This posting  in the context of the noises that are being raised regarding the role of the Church in relation to the Elections that are round the corner.An analysis has to start with the objectives of Church entering the political areana.It should be for for the welfare of all citizens in general and more particularly its members . The Church should also participate actively for realizing social goals like ensuring a Corruption free, equal opportunity driven political environment 
 There are certain fundamental questions that needs to be addressed to get proper answers to the questions that are being thrown up

1. What is the role of the Church in Politics? To rephrase the question, whether the Church should interfere in politics at all? And why?

In my opinion, the Church has a role in Politics for the purpose of ensuring Social Justice, for securing the Civil rights for its members,

2. What should be the kind of activism the church should take up for achieving the above objectives?

In my view, the Church should continuously involve itself in issues stated above.  Co-operation of various other organizations which can identify with the above goals of the Church. The Church should be less of a vote bank and more of a corrective force.

Within the frame of above parameters I am proceeding to analyze the present events that are being unfolded.

In the first place the present system of waking up at the 24^th hour will not take Church or the Diaspora anywhere. It may give some temporary sense of importance to some functionaries. Some promises and some nice words might come from here and there – like candies to a crying kid. There it will all end –as has been the experience in the past. Bargaining for a few seats for members of the Church irrespective of their past service to Church or even their morality and image is only going to affect the larger mission of the Church. The leadership of the Church needs longer vision and larger perspective.

Marginalization in political sphere that the Church is facing now is the result of the unimaginative actions of the Laymen leadership for many a decade. The situation needs to be corrected not by impulsive reactions when elections are round the corner. It has to be by way of long term strategies and grass root level work. For that there has to

be competent laymen leaders. Bava and Bishops should stay away from politics, but should educate the faithfuls on social issues and political stances should be based on such an ideological base. The present situation is that in Church hierarchy(Both Cleric and Laity),there are pro LDF and pro UDF persons, but hardly any pro Orthodox Church leaders. They act as power brokers for their political favourites.The goal is to canalize the votes to the Political force they are aligned with and gain access to powers that be. They are not bothered whether the interests of the church are short changed. All that bothers them is whether their political masters are pleased with their work and there is a good service entry in their service book kept by their masters. These good service entries are encashable at an opportune time. There are leaders who publicly proclaim that they are above Church affiliations, but interfere in Church elections to see that their Trojan horses are in place at the right places.

In such a messy situation, the politics of issuing statements when elections are round the corner, getting politicians to Church Headquarters, getting some promises that are forgotten in no time and raking up another controversy at the time of next election is an absurd drama that is being staged with monotonous regularity.

If the Church is serious about dealing in politics seriously for effecting social changes according to the church stances, there has to be proper home work to be done. Acting as brokers for some politicians to gain seats is certainly not the mission of the Church

Again a Dissenting note

I had been reading with intense interest writings of Dr Thomas Mar Athanasius Metropolitan  in Diocesan Bulletin of Kandanad East Diocesan,particularly,Thirumeni's Memories of  Service to the Church spanning 2 Decades.It appeared to me as a candid and honest account of Thirumeni's trials and turbulence in life and efforts to render selfless service to Church without deviating from convictions.For the same reason I feel duty bound to point out some of the wrong perceptions as stated in the 10th part of the said memories published in the issue dated February 15 th,2011.
What I am referring to is the following statements featuring in the said article pertaining to HH Basilio's GeevargheseII,the late lamented Catholicose of the east and Malankara Metropolitan.The statements in brief can be translated as follows:
1.Post 1958 unification of the Church,HH GeevargheseII Catholicose humiliated H.G.Paulose Mar Philaxinose(later HH Basaliose PauloseII)at the instigation of H G Augean Mar Timotheus.
2.HH Basaliose Geevarghese II also insulted Vayaliparambil Thirumeni also in an open Synod meeting

The two prelates at the receiving end reacted differently to the humiliations ,but these incidents were the seeds for the Antiochian Movement

It is extremely difficult to check the facts of these incidents since all involved are now on the other side of the wail.Even the ones who could possibly give some secondary testimony are also far advanced in age to give any meaningful testimony.But I am willing to accept the account of HG mar Athanasious at face value,recognizing the fact that there could be some distortions in the narrations Thirumeni may have received from sources HG has reason to believe.

This issue appears to have caused heated debates in MOC Managing Committee and Synod.Thirumeni had been on the receiving end of criticism,but there were some who admired the action of the then Catholicose in exercising HH's authority over his Bishops!!! Perceptions also vary from person to person.

The point that I want to make is  not about the propriety or otherwise of what Thirumeni wrote.In the total context of Thirumenis memories this could be considered as a perception HG gained based on accounts the ones whom Thirumeni trusted for this information.Purpose of this note is to draw the attention of those interested in Church History to certain facts relating to post 1958 events.

The Supreme Court verdict of 1958 had no ambiguities unlike the one in 1998.It was 100% victory for HH GeevargheseII.The result of the verdict had been that if the Patriarchal Party chose to have a separate  identity,it would have become necessary for them to build new Churches and to pay about 12 lakhs by way of Costs of litigation.In such a circumstances, it was the magnanimity of HH Basaliose GeevargheseII that paved the way for a unification.A large majority in the Catholicose Party was elated at the victory in litigation and were wanting to avenge the humiliations from the Patriarchal group.

But H.H.Basaliose Geevarghese II took a highly Christian view that the victory in the court cases is meaningless if your brethren on the other side of the factional divide is thrown out into the streets.There were many even in the synod which HH was presiding over,who could not digest the idea.But H.H.could impose his noble vision on them.

Therefore when he found Paulose Mar Philexinose Metropolitan tried to reopen the factional feud,it might have caused indignation in HH and might not have minced words in expression his disapproval.He always maintained that the Catholicose had the duty and authority to correct the erring Bishops.But he always tried to console those wounded by words or actions at the earliest opportunity.But Paulose Philaxinose Metropolitan could not function as a disciplined Bishop and believed in doing things at his whims and fancies.

One cannot ignore the fact that on either side of the factional divide there were many who could not digest the unification of 1958.The Patriarchal faction accepted the reunification since they had no other option and the Catholicose faction since HH GeevargheseII imposed it on them.I am not saying that as a universal truth.
I am talking about a good number of activists.Paulose Philaxinoese Metropolitan became a rallying point for the activists from Patriarchal faction who had severe indigtion of the idea of unity.Although Vayaliparambil Thirumeni took the unification in letter and spirit and did all he could to strengthen it,it was not the case with the activists of Angamaly Diocese.This perhaps could have disturbed HH GeevargheseII and the sharp reactions could have its roots therein.To imply that HH GeevargheseII didnot give respect to the Bishops from Patriarchal side post unification is not factually correct.HH's concern was unity and discipline,two cardinal principles HH was fully committed.

I will be the last person to suggest that Dr Thomas Mar Athanssios Thirumeni made a distorted statement.HG was making a point that unification process needs a healing touch and the official faction has more responsibility to provide that.But inadvertently HG implied that behavior of HH Geevarghese II was crude and impertinent.This dissenting note is only against that implication.