The problems happening in the CSI Tirunelveli diocese.

Group conflicts with political

influence. Many Christians are worried. But such conflicts and corruption are not new to the
church. Martin Luther started the Reformation against the corruption of the Roman Catholic
church. Liberation movements in Latin American churches started mainly because of the
corruption in the church. Particularly when the leadership of the catholic church sided with
the oppressive and corrupt rulers.

The church has been corrupt from day 1. The earliest Christianity, that is, immediately after
the death of Jesus was a sect within the Judaism. This sect took Jesus as a prophet who
came to reform the corrupt Judaism. (The prophets in Israel’s history provided an alternative
to the Temple centered religious life. They preached morality based on God’s call and
commandments. Jesus came as a severe critic of the Temple based religion. He even
predicted the destruction of the temple.)

But another group claimed that the crucified Jesus rose again from death and went back to
heaven. A small group of people who claimed to be the Apostles claimed that they had seen
the risen Jesus. This group planted the seed that this crucified Jesus was not merely a human
being but a god. Here starts the corruption of this early movement. This group claimed
authority as the people who represented god himself. In the first century this movement
was a minor one. Only Paul exported it to other areas in the Roman empire.

In the second century, resurrection was taken literally. All other understandings about Jesus
was regarded as ‘heresies’ (these so-called heresies were the alternative teachings
compared to the ‘orthodox’ teachings). Pagels writes, “when we examine its [resurrection]
practical effects on the Christian movement, we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of
bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of
certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors
of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the
apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of papal authority to this day.” (Elain Pagels, The
Gnostic Gospels, 6-7)

In the New Testament , the resurrection appearance is limited to a select few: “God raised
him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all people but to us who were chosen
by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10:41)

In the second century Marcionites and the Valentinians presented an alternative teaching.
The orthodox teaching had one purpose, to legitimize a hierarchy of persons through whose
authority all others must approach God. The Gnostic teachings, as Irenaeus and Tertullian
realized, was potentially subversive of this order: it claimed to offer to every initiate direct
access to God of which the priests and bishops themselves might be ignorant. (Pagels, p.27)

Clement, the bishop of Rome and Irenaeus were vehement in their opposition to this
“heresy”. Clement argues that God, the God of Israel, alone rules all things; he is the Lord
and master whom all must obey; he is the judge who lays down the law, punishing rebels
and rewarding the obedient. But how is God’s rule actually administered? Here Clement’s
theology becomes practical: God, he says, delegates his “authority of reign” to “rulers and
leaders on earth” (1 Clemens 60:4, 61:2, 63:1-2). Who are these designated rulers? Clemens
answers that they are bishops, priests and deacons. Whoever refuses to to “bow the neck”
(1 Clemens 63:1) and obey church leaders is guilty of insubordination against the divine
master himself. Carried away in his argument, Clemens warns that whoever disobeys the
divinely ordained authorities “receives death penalty” (1 Clemens 41:3). Just imagine this is
the teachings in the early second century.

One generation later, another bishop, Ignatius of Antioch (Syria) passionately defended the
same principle. But Ignatius went further than Clement. He defended the three ranks –
bishops, priests and deacons – as a hierarchical order that mirrors the divine hierarchy in
heaven. As there is only one God in heaven, Ignatius declares, so there can be only one
bishop in the church. “One God, one bishop”, this became the orthodox slogan. He further
warns the “the laity” to revere, honor, and obey the bishop standing at the pinnacle of the
church hierarchy, presides “in the place of God.”

As the doctrine of Jesus’ bodily resurrection establishes the initial framework for clerical
authority, so the doctrine of “one God” confirms, for the orthodox Christians, the emerging
institution of the “one bishop” as monarch (sole ruler) of the church.

Teachers of alternative teachings (“heretics” as the church prefers to call them) encouraged
freedom in the church as they stood against the developing church hierarchy. There were
many such alternative teachings in the next three centuries. One of the more prominent and
powerful teaching was Arianism (Arius was a presbyter in the Archdiocese of Alexandria in
Egypt). Arius taught that Jesus was not God. He certainly had divine qualities. He was
opposed by the arch bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. But the real challenge came from
Athanasius, who became the Archbishop after the death of Alexander. He was barely 30
years old when he became the bishop, which can point to us the extent of corruption in the
church. Timothy D Barnes’ book on Athanasius narrates how corrupt Athanasius was.
(Athanasius and Constantius:Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge:
Harvard University press, 1993) Even today Athanasius is considered to be the defender of
orthodoxy.

In the early church there must have been a variety of Christian groups. The purely Jewish
group which considered Jesus as a prophet. This group competed with the John-the-Baptist
group. Jesus as a prophet was possible. In the OT we have seen the prophets were one of
the two main groups competing with the priests. If you asked the question what is the
central truth of the Jewish religion the priestly group would have answered, “the Temple”
with all its cults. The priest were the bosses. The second group, the Prophets would have
answered “Yahweh”. For them, Yahweh is the central truth of the religion. The early
prophets like Elijah stood for this.

Later prophets (particularly, the 8th century prophets) put the emphasis on the fact that
Yahweh is the only center. Jesus by preaching against the temple made him a proper
candidate for being a prophet. To the Samaritan woman he said, there comes a time when
you can worship God anywhere you want. This completely negates the temple and the cult
and the importance of the priests. He also predicted the complete destruction of the temple
in the near future.

So, it is logical to consider the first group of Christians as the ones who took Jesus to be a
Prophet. (The Transfiguration experience, in which Elijah and Moses were brought together
with Jesus). This group considered Jesus merely as a human being, who had a divine call to
do a correcting ministry. These can be named the followers of Jesus the Prophet. They
stayed withing Judaism, but formed the prophetic group, just as the disciples of John the
Baptist. The competition between the Baptist’s group and Jesus’ group was great. John’s
gospel narrates how John was lower to Jesus.

The other group was a power seeking group who spread the news that Jesus rose again from
dead. And he has gone to heaven. This is a well-organized move with the involvement of few
powerful people. Peter narrates that the “risen Jesus” appeared only to the twelve. But Paul
later narrates that the “risen Jesus” appeared to Cepha and the twelve, then to more than
five hundred people, and then to the Apostles and then to him. This is a bit advanced story.
But why the resurrection of Jesus in the first place? What is the advantage of having a risen
savior? This gave power to the inside power group. The twelve were not merely the disciples
of Jesus, but now they represent God himself. This immediately increased the power of the
twelve. The narration of how the church developed in Jerusalem in the first two chapters of
Acts. The so-called apostles were the undisputed leaders of this small community. They had
everything in common. We see the community life. But we need to see the growing power
and authority of the group of disciples. This is the power group which profited from the
resurrection. So the twelve represented the risen Lord who is God himself. Later, we see
them performing miracles in the name of the risen Lord. The power group.

There must have been other groups, like the Essenes who were living in the Dead sea area.
The dead sea community. But the group which promoted the risen Jesus became powerful.
One of the important persons who promoted this idea and propagated it was Paul.

Christian orthodoxy was never interested or concerned about theological truth or even
guidance. It was ultimately concerned about political (and economic) power to a select few,
the power group. It was more concerned about the politics of power rather than theology.
Even the gospels have to be read with this plan in mind.

The uneducated need a spiritual support structure. Such as the church. A proper analysis
and understanding will reveal that even this NEED is created by the church. The important
tool for this is the theology of crucifixion. The very statement that “Christ died for you” put a
tremendous burden to the common people. There is a moral obligation on the people.
Instead of freeing people from the burden of existence (living) this increases the burden. The
church offers to help. But at a cost, of course.