At the fag end of the Synod Executive Committee Meeting held in Chennai on Oct 31 (see pics attached of meeting) a demand for raising retirement age of pastors and bishops from 67 to 70 was voiced. This by pastors from Telugu-speaking dioceses using agenda item “Any Other Matter.”
Moderator Reuben Mark who was in the chair appeared cold to the demand though that likely was posturing to prevent opposing views being triggered from the floor by the controversial demand. He said the proposal had to come from the grassroots for the Synod to consider it.
Raising the retirement age was one of 13 amendments to the CSI Constitution (see attached) passed by the church but annulled by the Supreme Court last May on grounds of procedural irregularities. This after a long court battle that began in the Madras High Court five years earlier. It involved multiple cases filed by CSI members from Madras, South Kerala, Karnataka Central, and Vellore, among other dioceses, opposing the amendments.
It is highly unlikely the amendments issue would have been resurrected unless it had the prior sanction of Moderator Mark and Treasurer Vimal Sukumar, both of whom are Telugu-speaking. And possibly the support of General Secretary Fernandas Rathinaraja as well. What made the demand seem like a pre-planned set-up was Rathinaraja promptly passing a prepared note to Mark who then read out from it names of those on a sub-committee being instituted to look into “legal issues” of amendments revival.
The sub-committee reportedly includes Bishop Timothy Ravinder of Coimbatore diocese, Bishop Padma Rao of Dornakal, Rev Isaac Kathrivelu of Vellore and Vinod Dasan of Karnataka Central – all staunch allies of the current Synod officers. There is some confusion if Bishop Sabu K. Cherian of Madhya Kerala diocese, who is said to be a front runner to fill the vacant Deputy Moderator post, is part of the committee, or even its convenor.
Soon after the Executive concluded Bishop Padma Rao, who has several serious criminal cases pending against him, was seen rushing to the dias and pledging to do what’s necessary to bring the amendments back quickly. Given he is due retire in June 2026, and hence a prime beneficiary of any retirement age extension, including him in the committee is a serious breach of integrity and neutrality.
With the Supreme Court itself having stated that its decision to annul the amendments last year in no way interferes with the right of the CSI to amend its constitution (but after following correct procedure), the sub-committee to examine legal issues appears superfluous. Its real purpose seems to be to provide a fig leaf of protection for the current Synod officers from any charge reviving the amendments is driven by their own vested interest to cling to power. This given they were severely castigated for showing undue haste by both the Madras High Court and Supreme Court. The latter declared they had “rushed the amendment process despite the byelaws allowing two years for ratification by diocesan councils.”
The recent appointment of six new bishops (see pic of their felicitation at Executive) and four more due to be appointed in the next two-three months may have emboldened the Synod Officers. They may believe that with this number heading some 40% of the councils they need ratification from it may be easier to get to the two-thirds (66.67%) approval mark.
Several other dioceses like Jaffna, Rayalaseema, Krishna Godavari, Karnataka Northern, Dornakal , Madurai-Ramnad, etc that had ratified the amendments easily the last time continue to be run by bishops having strong allegiance to the Synod. These can be expected to repeat what they did last time round.
It is expected the sub-committee will table its report in favour of the amendments being revived at the next Executive that is being held abroad, most probably in Dubai (seen largely as a “bribe” to members to blindly approve controversial decisions), in the second week of December. This reintroduction is crucial to helping Synod Officers extend their current term in office and consolidate power well into the future. Contrary to popular opinion the proposed retirement age extension from 67 to 70 is among the least dangerous (among the 13 amendments) for survival of church democracy. Consider these:
a) Amendment No 6 will increase the power of the bishops by their being allowed to chair even those diocesan boards and committees where they, under the existing constitution, are duty bound to find clergy or lay members to chair.
b) Amendment No 7 proposes to remove the current cap of only two consecutive terms for diocesan officers. With this removed lay power brokers in particular serving as diocesan officers — who are not constrained by retirement age limitations — will misuse their power to stay in office indefinitely. This will turn dioceses into even worse dictatorships than they currently are.
c) Amendment No 9 will allow the Moderator to nominate 15 members against the current 10 to the General Synod. This will bring more thugs through the backdoor into the Synod who will intimidate genuine elected delegates (as happened during Synod 2023) and push through controversial decisions that further increase powers of the Moderator and Synod Officers. This increase will then be used by bishops to justify amending their own diocesan constitutions to increase the number of goons they can induct into their diocesan councils through the nomination route.
d) Amendment No 10 proposes to scrap two consecutive term limit for Synod officers allowing them to stay in office indefinitely, a strong possibility given the money power and influence those in control of the Synod wield.
e) Amendment No 11, the most dangerous all, will allow Synod officers to legally bypass the Synod Executive/Working Committee in what they deem “urgent matters” like suspending bishops who don’t toe their line, appointing administrative committees in dioceses where popular will is subverted etc. Currently this is being done through an illegal resolution surreptitiously passed at the very first executive held on the last day of the General Synod. If the Synod constitution is amended to legitimize this illegality it will also creep into diocesan constitutions. Diocesan officers will not have to go to the diocesan executive to take “urgent” decisions like suspend/transfer clergy, appoint administrative committees in parishes where members are challenging their undemocratic orders, etc. Saying such decisions can be ratified post-facto by the executive is giving license for jungle raj to prevail.
f) Amendment No 12 dilutes the right given under the existing CSI constitution for diocesan councils to exclusively deal with internal affairs of a diocese. Now Synod officers can play big daddy and legitimately interfere in the internal matters of dioceses.
g) Amendment No 13 empowers Synod Officers to take disciplinary action against anyone disrupting the “smooth functioning of the Synod.” If this becomes law expect amendments to diocesan constitutions to follow empowering diocesan officers to take disciplinary action against anyone disrupting “smooth functioning of a diocese.” Even a post like this exposing the deviousness behind the amendments can be enough to label me as disrupting the smooth functioning of the Synod!
So, as perceptive readers can see from the above, the danger in allowing the constitution amendments to pass is MUCH GREATER than posed by increasing the retirement age from 67 to 70 (which issue seems to monopolise all the attention). Any such increase will only mean bishops and pastors stay three more years but other amendments will destroy the very democratic character of the church and usher in an era of unprecedented tyranny that is hugely detrimental to both laity and clergy.
Although a regular triennial Synod is due in mid January 2026, the revival of the constitutional amendments matter has put it in serious doubt. It is highly unlikely the Synod officers, who currently cannot stand for re-election at the next Synod, would in the normal course have allowed amendments issue to be revived given how badly it burnt them. This unless they see themselves being able to personally benefit by reviving it.
Apart from the Moderator who will benefit if the retirement age of bishops and pastors is increased from 67 to 70, all three current officers (Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer) will gain from the amendments only if two events follow. First the constitutional amendments re-approved by the upcoming Synod Executive in December has to be ratified by two thirds of the full Synod followed by two thirds of diocesan councils. Second the current officers have to stay long enough in office to see the above process through to become eligible to stand for election for a record third term.
Both the above scenarios could fructify if back to back Special Synods are held as happened on April 8-9, 2015 in Chennai. The Special Synod of April 8 approved the then constitutional amendments including increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 and raising the tenure of Synod, diocesan councils and pastorates from two years to three. These changes were approved by two thirds of dioceses by November 2015 and made law by the Synod Executive the same month. This resulted in the ongoing biennial (2014-16) Synod due to end in January 2016 becoming triennial with postponement to January 2017 (2014-17). On April 9 a second Special Synod was held to split some dioceses — South Kerala diocese to create Kollam Kottarakara diocese and erstwhile North Kerala Diocese into Cochin and Malabar dioceses.
Since a Special Synod can only deal with one issue, holding two Synods back to back could happen before mid January 2026 (after giving minimum three weeks written notice), when the term of the current Synod runs out. Synod officers could call two Special Synods, if approved at the forthcoming Executive meeting in December, in the first or second week of January over two consecutive days. The first Synod could re-approve the amendments and the second on the following day could extend the tenure of the Synod (including of Officers, Executive Committee, etc) by anywhere from a few months (long enough to get two-third ratification from dioceses) to January 2027.
It is important to remember that the CSI Constitution designates the General Synod as “the Supreme governing and legislative body” of the church and the “final authority in all matters pertaining to the church” (Rule 13, Chapter IX). Further the constitution gives it “power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive action as may be necessary for the general management and good government of the church” (Rule 14, Chapter IX). Taken together these two rules could be exploited by the Synod officers to justify extending the term of the current Synod by a year – long enough to get the amendments approved by two thirds of diocesan councils and enable them to contest the next Synod election. Any legal challenge to such extension saying the constitution does not provide for extension of its life is likely to be countered misusing the flexibility provided by these constitution rules.
The justification likely to be trotted out for this extension would be that the current Synod functioned only for two years due to the one year freeze on its functioning by the Supreme Court (from May 2024 to May 2025). Of course the officers will not admit it is their own greed to get the amendments passed illegally in a rush before the 2023 General Synod that led to the one year freeze being imposed while the apex court heard the dispute. This is like a thief, when caught, demanding to be rewarded for returning the goods he stole!
There is another important pointer to why the constitutional amendments could be brought back. While annulling the amendments on procedural grounds the Supreme Court upheld the changes made to its related byelaws as valid. This because Rule 3 of Chapter XIII of the CSI Constitution gives the Synod the power to approve the byelaws without subjecting them to ratification by the dioceses (as is required for constitution amendments under Rule 2c).
General Secretary Rathinaraja had issued a letter dated November 24, 2022 (see attached) confirming to all dioceses that the byelaw amendments had “come into force “ effective its approval on March 7, 2022 by the special Synod and had become the law of the church. However at least one provision in these amended byelaws (see attached) is operationally linked to the failed constitutional amendments that did not get the required two-thirds ratification by the dioceses.
Amendment No 8 in the failed constitution amendments provide for four members to be elected by the North American CSI Council, an independently registered entity in the US, to represent the body on the Synod. Linked to this is Amendment No 4 in the byelaws that provide for how this election result is to be communicated to the General Secretary and is not relevant anymore when the very election of four members has not secured legal sanctity. Besides the North American Council itself has been replaced by the Diaspora Diocese approved at the 2023 Synod and the constitution of which was “approved” at the October 31 Synod Executive. Yet Rathinaraja has not withdrawn his byelaws letter perhaps hoping to get the constitutional amendments themselves brought back into law.
In fact the anomaly of the constitution amendments having to be ratified by two thirds of diocesan councils after Synod approval and of bye-laws to be only approved by the Synod has to be corrected to avoid this kind of problem. Both the amendments to the CSI constitution and its byelaws should be subject to ratification by two-thirds of diocesan councils.
CALL TO ACTION
It is not enough to comment on social media or petition the Synod through emails and letters protesting the insidious move to bring the rejected constitutional amendments back. Between now and January 2026 there is an urgent need to put feet on the ground (through physical meetings in different dioceses/states and pass resolutions therein) in protest action to make five demands of the CSI Synod:
a) Hold the regular General Synod with elections in mid January 2026 when it falls due
b) Press individual Synod Executive members attending the December meeting to reject any move to have Special Synods to bring back the constitution amendments and increase the tenure of the existing Synod and its officers.
c) Have the new Synod Officers that will be elected to publicly declare after their election they will not bring back the discredited constitution amendments. In fact those standing for election as Officers should be urged to publicly make this a campaign pledge.
d) Have the byelaws adopted by the Synod in November 2022 formally withdrawn at the December Executive or at the next Synod.
e) Bring out constitutional amendments and bye laws that will help improve transparency and accountability in how the Synod and dioceses are administered. This building on the work already done by the Movement for Renewal and Reformation of Churches (MRRC) led by late Dr Jayakaran Isaac and others during 2013-15. Ideally endorsement for these amendments becoming the law of the church should be secured from candidates contesting for Synod Officers in January.
A small group is planning a zoom meeting to discuss the above. Those interested to join this meeting can email a) their name, b) parish name, c) city/town, d ) mobile number and e) what they hope to contribute to this effort. The need of the hour is for workers, not advisers, who can selflessly work for the church leaving any ego outside the door. Kindly email your interest to clasp2025@gmail.com on or before November 12, 2025. God bless.