The Synod Executive held on Dec 11 in Chennai was one filled with high drama and confusion. Even as the Holy Communion service that precedes the Executive was underway, members present started receiving Whatsapp messages saying Bishop V. S. Francis of East Kerala had been appointed the new Deputy Moderator of the CSI. The messages emanating from some members of Madhya Kerala Diocese (MKD) were apparently meant to embarrass the Synod leadership ahead of any decision being officially made.
And here’s the reason for the embarrassment attempt. Earlier that day the bishops had been called to a private meeting where they were informed the Officers (Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer) would like Bishop Francis to be the new Deputy Moderator.
This upset Madhya Kerala Bishop Sabu K. Cherian who had been promised the post by the officers and is due to retire in 2028 (hence cannot contest the next Synod election). The officers apparently went back on their word based on certain complaints received against him from his diocese and for his not cooperating with the Synod’s push to replace the North American CSI Council, where MKD is dominant, with the newly created Synod-controlled Diaspora diocese.
The minutes of the previous Synod Executive of Oct 31 that was given to members only as they arrived for the Dec 11 meeting inter alia noted the decision (see EC:2025-11 attached) to defer the Deputy Moderator appointment to the next meeting. Hence the issue was taken up under Agenda item “Matters Arising.” “The whole appointment was done in two-three minutes with Bishop Royce Manoj of Malabar proposing the name of Bishop Francis and another bishop seconding. It was asked if there were any other contestants and no other bishop spoke up,” said a participant.
That blatant lies are contained in the Executive minutes is evident from the previous item (EC: 2025-10) recorded about approval of CSI Diaspora Diocese constitution. Contrary to the recording shown of “placing” of constitution draft before members and “discussion” of the same, neither took place. The “approval” happened without members even seeing a copy of the Diaspora Constitution much less having discussed it.
Drama No 2 unfolded when the issue of holding the next General Synod came up. Synod Executive member Rev. T. Bhasker, a close confidant of Synod Treasurer Vimal Sukumar (see pic of them together), made a strong plea for the existing Synod term being extended for another nine months. Bhasker, who last month was elected Vice President of Medak Diocese, said the current Synod Officers were doing an excellent job and replacing them now could create problems for the church.
Not surprisingly, Bhasker got support from Sukumar (recently re-elected Medak Treasurer too) who said that an extension was warranted. This as the Synod was rendered non-functional for a year due to the stay granted by the Supreme Court while it heard the constitutional amendments issue. The only mild objection from the floor came from Bishop Isaac Vara Prasad of Rayalaseema and purely for selfish reasons. He is a contender for Moderator in 2026 January and is worried that given his age of 63, any extension of existing Synod beyond October 2026 would derail his chances of contesting the Synod election that follows.
General Secretary Fernandas Rathinaraja warned that any extension would invite major legal trouble and even result in the court-appointed administrators coming back to the CSI. But it was clear he was in a minority among the officers with Moderator Reuben Mark — who is arguably the most incompetent and irresponsible Moderator CSI has had in its history — supporting Sukumar. Mark incidentally is also the Bishop-in-Charge of Medak where he is completely under Sukumar’s thumb.
Rathinaraja closed the convening of Synod issue saying an opinion would be sought from the Supreme Court before deciding whether it would be an extension of the existing Synod or holding of the General Synod as scheduled in January 2026. He said an online meeting of the Synod Executive will be called to finalise the decision. It is hard to see how the Supreme Court is going to rule unless a case is moved which could take months to settle.
The Synod does not have the luxury of time to wait for any Supreme Court ruling given the current term expires a month from now. It is important in the interim to exert maximum pressure on Moderator Mark not to lead CSI into another abysss (so soon after the Constitutional Amendments blunder) by blindly siding with his patron Sukumar. That all in not well between Rathinaraja and Sukumar regarding holding of the next General Synod was evident when the latter did not attend the recent consecrations of two bishops in Trichy-Tanjore and Kanyakumari. He also arrived late night only hours before the Dec 11 executive meeting and vanished soon after it concluded around 3.30 pm.
It is clear that Sukumar, Mark and their supporters in Medak diocese are the only ones wanting an extension of the existing Synod. Their reason for seeking the extension is to bring back the constitutional amendments. This through both a fresh Synod resolution, probably at a Special Synod, and seeking quick ratification from two thirds of dioceses – a process made far easier by the recent spate of new bishop appointments (eight in four months with two more in next three months),
Ulitmately the blame for any screw up in holding the next General Synod when it becomes due will lie at the door of the General Secretary, who is the CEO of the church. From all appearances Rathinaraja appears both aware of and burdened by this realization.
Rathinaraja’s decision to circulate the agenda for the Dec 11 meeting in advance along with the notice and with his signature below it (see attached) seems now, in retrospect, deliberate. This to try and overcome Vimal’s opposition though in the end it did not quite prove to be the fait accompli that was intended. How unusual the move to circulate the agenda in advance is borne out by the fact that in all previous meetings neither was the agenda sent with the notice nor did it bear the signature of Rathinaraja.
This agenda paper now becomes a powerful tool in any court action to prove malafide intention of Synod Officers to fulfill their constitutional obligations. This could well pave the way for appointment of court administrators with possible strictures against those responsible for the failure to comply with the constitution.
The term of the current Synod runs out in mid January and given any meeting of the Synod will require at least 21-days notice (going by past precedent upheld by the Madras High Court) the General Synod meeting announcement has to go out by around December 27. Only then will constitutional propriety which requires notice to be sent before expiry of the current term in mid January be met.
Drama No 3 was a ridiculous one exposing how conceited Synod officers have become. The nomination committee to select candidates for Synod General Secretary and Treasurer (Agenda Item No 13) was finalised to include the three Synod officers, a priest from Jaffna diocese and a layperson from Kollam-Kottarakara diocese. How can outgoing officers effectively select their own successors for General Secretary and Treasurer? Is this not a blatant attempt to influence the decision and against all norms of good governance?
Justice, as the saying goes, should not only be done but, equally importantly, be seen to be done and having Synod Officers propose names of their successors is as unjust as it can get. I hope someone will challenge this in court and get this decision annulled though with the delayed sending out of minutes there may not be documentation available in hand soon enough to move court.
Above all, what is worrying is the silence of Synod Executive members in allowing the Synod Officers to do as they please at the meeting. Not one of the over 80 people present had the courage to question the blatant disregard for constitutional propriety and norms. They are all like puppets on a string doing as their masters command. This only shows the venal nature of those attending who are busy looking at only their own self-interest than doing what is good for the church and our Lord.