The Malankara Orthodox Church's quest for peaceful existence as an autocephalous church, at once proud of its Indian roots, even as it remains in spiritual association with the Syriac Orthodox Church and in communion with all other Oriental Orthodox Churches, is indeed a noble objective. But unfortunately, this noble quest has time and again encountered opposition from one section of our own church, whose energies and God-given talents are spent on the grant project of tethering the church in an unequal relationship with the Syriac Church.

Myths have had a calamitous role in derailing Malankara's journey towards the fulfillment of our search for identity. These myths are also an obstacle against providing a healing touch. The time has come to unravel a few of these myths for our greater common good.

1.)Myth: The church is universal. Therefore, to stress on one's national heritage is unchristian.
Fact:The church is indeed universal. But for the message to be understood, its language has to be rooted in the cultural milieu of any given society. When we talk about the universality of the church, our focus should rightly be on the apostle St Paul, without whose single-minded devotion in preaching the message to the gentiles, the worldwide Christian church wouldn't have been a reality. The Acts of the Apostles tell us that the apostle St Paul, himself a cosmopolitan Jew and a Roman citizen to boot from Tarsus, ensured that his actions and speech were always rooted in the cultural context in which he found himself.

Take for instance, his speech at the council of the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:19-33), where speaking, no doubt, in Greek, he adopted the tone of a philosopher suited for a city, whose residents, according to St Luke, "spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing". The apostle St Paul even quoted from Greek poetry to impress his listeners, and impress he did to an extent.

A few chapters later, in Acts 23, we find the apostle explaining his stand before a very agitated Jewish Sanhedrin, and using a language rooted in the milieu. "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided..." A very effective communicator indeed!

As the original and truly Indian church founded by St Thomas, for our message to be effective, it should convey the good news about Our Lord Jesus in an idiom in tune with the cultural moorings of this country. Otherwise we will always be perceived as aliens, and the universality of the Christian message will be lost in suspicions about hidden agendas. It thus becomes important for us to stress our national heritage. And by doing so, we become at once universal (in the sweep of the message) and particular (by stressing our independence and adopting an idiom rooted in the milieu).

Oriental Orthodoxy And Nationalist Self-Assertion

If we look at the origins of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches to which we belong in terms of faith, we find that the monophysite* doctrine - which led to the parting of ways of the Armenian, Egyptian and Syrian Churches from the Chalcedon position - though located in Christology, conveyed a sense of nationalist self-assertion by all the above people against the Greek-dominated Byzantine government. In other words, the differences were one part Christological, and one part self-assertion by groups of aggrieved people organised along ethnic lines. (source: encyclopaedia britannica entry on Byzantine Empire)

Even today, the Egyptian (Coptic), Armenian and Syrian Churches are known for their ethnicity. After the separation of the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, the Coptic Church is almost exclusively composed of ethnic Copts. The Armenian Apostolic Church is entirely composed of Armenians. Except for the Jacobite faction in India, all members of the so-called universal Syriac Church are ethnic Suryoyo (Suriyani) people. ''When we speak of Syriac Christianity, we refer to Christians whose native tongue was Syriac and those who employed Syriac as their liturgical language,'' explains the Syriac orthodox resources (sor) website in its overview section.

That the Suryoyos do not have a country of their own, and are spread across Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, and a diaspora in Europe and America, is a function of history. If they had the opportunity, they would have gladly formed themselves into a nation state.

In short, what our Jacobite brothers in India are effectively saying is that the Suryoyo people can organise themselves in a manner which stresses their cultural heritage, but we Indians cannot. Isn't there some injustice in this?

Conclusion: Considering its antiquity, its cherished St Thomas tradition, and the importance of conveying the message in an idiom rooted in the cultural milieu, the Malankara Orthodox Church is justified in its claims of independence and quest for Indian moorings. At the same time, it's desirable that the Church continues its spiritual association with the Syriac Church. Instead of getting apoplectic about it, our Jacobite brothers should join forces with others in creating a structure for the Malankara Orthodox Church which will enable a united church to honour both our spiritual association with the Syriac Church founded by St Peter and our legacy as a church founded by the apostle St Thomas.

Note: *The preferred term nowadays is miaphysitism. But I am using monophysitism because for researchers who want to look up the subject, more material is available under that head than under miaphysitism. For example, a simple Google search under the head 'monophysitism' returned 72 pages, whereas one under 'miaphysitism' returned only six pages.

Next: Is autocephaly an alien concept for the Oriental Orthodox?