Fr. Biju Thekkekkara

The world is going through a state of economic, social, political and ecological turmoil in recent years. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, people are anxious and afraid. There is an acute economic crisis. Many have lost their jobs and the income is reduced considerably, while the cost of living has gone up. Besides the economic crisis, there are many disturbing situations affecting the fabric of our society. As far as the Church is concerned, its peaceful existence and growth in different parts of India are under threat. There are different forms of persecution in which the scattered Christian communities are intimidated and attacked. Christian institutions are targeted by communal forces. At this juncture, internal differences should not weaken the Church. While there is a certain sense of desperation in the air due to pandemic, it is really saddening to see that the Church is fighting its liturgical differences on the streets forgetting totally the real issues of the people. The problems created due to the move aimed at liturgical uniformity in the Syro-Malabar church have caused much disunity and scandal among the people. It is by looking at the Lord in our midst that we have to muster strength to stand united.
The Jews considered Jerusalem as the place which the Lord chose to be the dwelling place of His name. We know from the archaeological studies that Jerusalem Temple had many divisions like the Outer Court (Jer 19:14; 26:2), the Court of the Gentiles, the Court of the Women, then further inside, was the Court of the men of Israel (1 Kings 6:36) and the Court of the Priests (2 Chr 4:9). Above the courtyard of the priests to the west was the porch or Ulam, which separated the court of the priests from Heikal, the interior of the sacred area. The Holy of Holies or Debir was the most sacred area in which once the Ark of the Covenant stood. A veil separated it from the rest of the area (Ex 26:31-35). Only the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and that too once in a year (Lev 16:34).
The Jerusalem Temple was equivalent to the Tabernacle in the desert camp, a place of God’s dwelling. Later rabbinic writings made it mandatory that a Jew is called upon to pray facing the direction of Jerusalem, and if in Jerusalem, towards the Temple and once in the Temple, towards the Holy of Holies. This practice was indicative of the symbolism of a geographic understanding of the divine presence. Jerusalem Temple was the only official site for worship and was considered as the “centre of the world”. People considered that the Temple and its structures were patterned after the heavenly court. It promoted a hierarchical structure for the community and a cultic model of worship.
In the post 70 AD era, Jesus is considered by his followers the cornerstone of the New Temple and Jesus himself becomes the axis mundi (Col 1:17-20). For Matthew, Christian community is the place where God’s Glory is manifested. In Jesus, God dwells among his people (Mt 1:22-23). Mark too envisions that the death of Jesus symbolically inaugurates the end of the Temple cult (Mk 15:37-38). Hence Jesus’ sacrifice and body seems to replace the Temple’s sacrificial system (Heb 9:7). Johannine Jesus too fulfills the role of the Jerusalem Temple and its cultic activity (Jn 2:19). Luke portrays the Temple and the city of Jerusalem as the symbolic centre of Luke-Acts. Yet this climactic centre of Luke-Acts has the Stephen episode as its high point (Acts 6:8-15). Stephen sees Jesus as the Lord in heaven, and he was not in the Temple (Acts 7:56). He saw that climactic vision of the Jerusalem episode while he was outside the city of Jerusalem. This is narratively very significant. From then onwards, the narrative moves outward to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
God of Israel and Lord Jesus is no more limited to the geographical location of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Pauline epistles and Acts present the Church as a charismatic community with varied structures adapted to the local cultures (Rom 12:1-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-13). It was linked to Jesus by tradition and was animated by the charismatic pastors, guided by the Spirit.
The New Testament theologies show us the creative tension that existed between the original message of Jesus and the cultures it encountered in its growth (Rom. 3: 29–30). New Testament does not advocate for uniformity at any cost. It is sure that there are varied theologies in creative conflict in the New Testament because in its growth it had encountered Palestinian Jewish community, Hellenistic Jewish community of Diaspora, and Gentile communities (Acts 15: 1–31). Church could survive and move ahead with its mission as a dynamic community because it was not a closed community bent on keeping the status quo. It was ready to adapt to the cultures after the model of the incarnation without in any way compromising on its prophetic message (1Cor 9:19-23).
The initial history of the Church is the history of the ‘house churches’, where people gathered together to break the bread, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ after the pattern of the Last Supper, which Jesus celebrated (Acts 2:46). Christian worship in the New Testament times was primarily a shared meal with historical roots in Jesus’ table fellowship meals, not a procession led by the priest and moving towards the sun. Those commemorative meals along with the breaking of the Word made risen Jesus present in the community. God among His people is His address, not God of the East or God of Jerusalem, as some ancient religious cosmology teaches.

Those commemorative meals along with the breaking of the Word made risen Jesus present in the community. God among His people is His address, not God of the East or God of Jerusalem, as some ancient religious cosmology teaches.

The Second Vatican Council made a genuine effort to regain the biblical notion of the Church. It described Church primarily as the people of God (Lumen Gentium, 9-17). Church is seen as a community of the people of God gathered in and around Christ. It was a sincere effort to correct a model primarily guided by a hierarchical and pyramidal concept of the Church and to promote a circular understanding of the Church. The way the Church worships, greatly contributes to the understanding of the meaning of the Church.
There is a movement tendentious to the right wing all over the world. It has brought populist right wing parties to power in many important countries. It has a tendency to promote centralized order and to encourage the restoration of obsolete traditions. Very often, it is intolerant towards others. It favours authoritarianism and insists on obedience without dissent. Media too is controlled under the pretext of national pride. It wants submission, which unquestioningly accepts and adheres to authorities. It supports aggression, which upholds the unjust punishment of those who oppose and raise voice against the establishment and the authorities or do not comply with the imposed norms. When we observe, for example, the Hindutva brand of the right wing mentality, prevalent today in our land, we can see how it promotes in an absolute manner one leader, one religion, one language etc. Uniformity is the norm and anyone who differs, is branded as anti-national. In the pretext of national security, its proponents do not hesitate to brand dissenters as terrorists, who are to be eliminated. Unfortunately, they are able to muster the support of the majority of the people, because people are already divided on the basis of ideology, religion, culture and caste. It is easy to instigate and exploit their sentiments. A sense of insecurity is created by posing an invisible, sometimes even an imaginary enemy. Sometimes people are made to feel that they are constantly under threat. They are also provoked to retaliate for some past historical victimization.
The Church, existing very much in the world, is not immune to today’s right wing tendency in the world. The recent imposition of the liturgical reforms in the Syro-Malabar Church in India, aimed at uniformity is a clear example of a presence of right wing extremist tendency in the Church. It demonstrates that the right wing conservative mentality has taken hold of the Church’s leadership. This retrograde tendency will take the Church to the pre-Vatican times. Let us not forget that it took many centuries to grow in the understanding of the message of Christ with little more clarity and to regain the lost Gospel vision of the Church. Let us also accept in humility that though the definite and climactic revelation of God has taken place in Jesus, we are still in the process of understanding it fully. The liturgical reforms introduced in the name of ‘the restoration of the Church’ and ‘the wish of the Holy Father’ with the supposed unanimity in the Syro-Malabar Church Synod is not an innocent reform, which will not affect the life of the faithful and the mission of the Church all over the world. The reformed liturgy insists on the uniform celebration of the Eucharist facing the altar. Thereby it actually makes the people of God who concelebrate, turn to a particular direction, hindering their proper vision of the altar of Christ.
The “Mass facing the people” should be properly understood as “Mass around the altar.” In this mode of celebration, the presence of God is not restricted to any geographical orientation. Altar of Christ is at the centre of the celebration. It is rightly observed that the insistence of the celebration of the liturgy turning to a particular direction is only to satisfy a few scholars of liturgical texts, who are obsessed with the nostalgia for the old and the antiquated. It is best suited and can be appealing to retired, ethno-centric and middle aged aristocracy. However, it will definitely stall the dynamic growth of the Church and make liturgy a pre-Vatican museum piece. The Church then will be a stagnant institution, maintaining the status quo. It will cripple the Church’s missionary potential, limiting it to cater to some scattered migrant communities. Mission is not merely the replication of the mother Church wherever its migrated members are found. Missionary call entails a process of “dying and sprouting”, facing cultural, linguistic and religious diversities creatively.
Let us remind ourselves that our God is a God who has adopted the culture of the people to come closer to us and to be among us. He was willing to accept our limitations so that he could communicate to us. Let us also remind ourselves that the one holy faith can be expressed differently and there are different theologies even in the New Testament. It is not fair to demonize the dissenters, without seeing the merit of their views and their right to hold them. When we promote “synodality” in the Church, it is to be practiced in the onward journey of the Church, discerning the signs of the times. Decisions are not to be thrust upon from above. They must be evolved from below. Let the “synodality” be understood as “walking the way of Jesus together”, respecting differences. Let there be freedom to express different opinions without the fear of being branded. It is not necessary to have a uniform way of expressing faith in order to have unity and communion. John Stuart Mill has written that to adhere to conservative ideas, one need not be that creative because it works towards upholding tradition and status quo. It is a pity that many innocent and God-fearing souls are succumbing to the temptation of taking a mental rest to follow passively and uncritically.
There are many urgent concerns to engage the Church today. Insistence on the uniformity in celebrations should not be a stumbling block, diverting attention from the real issues of the Church’s existence today. The political, social and family problems are being obscured by the hype of liturgical questions, which are of no importance to the faithful in general. The leadership of the Church seems to be very much distanced from the people of God. How long will it take to realize that if faith is not made relevant to the people in their daily struggles, this dynamic and vibrant church sooner or later will become another dead church. That will be a tragedy because that would mean that we have not learnt from the history of the Church.
“Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us.”