**Learning Objectives**<\/p>\n
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
\n– Understand the initial alliance between the CMS missionaries and the Syrian Christian community
\n– Trace the development of tensions over theology, authority, and reform
\n– Analyse the significance of the Synod of Mavelikara (1836) as a turning point
\n– Evaluate the collaborative translation work that persisted despite institutional conflicts
\n– Assess the long-term legacy of the CMS-Syrian Christian interaction<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
### 13.1 Initial Alliance and Shared Goals<\/p>\n
When the first CMS missionaries arrived in Travancore, they came with a clear but perhaps na\u00efve vision: to revive and reform the ancient Syrian Christian community, restoring it to what they understood as biblical purity and making it an instrument for the evangelisation of India. This vision assumed that the Syrian Christians would welcome the missionaries as brothers in Christ and embrace the reforms they proposed. The reality proved more complex.<\/p>\n
The initial reception of the missionaries by Syrian Christian leaders was indeed positive, but for reasons that did not entirely align with missionary expectations. The Syrian Christians had their own interests and agendas. Association with the British missionaries offered protection, resources, and prestige. The CMS could provide education for Syrian clergy and laity, printed Bibles and liturgical texts, and a measure of political support through the British Resident. For a community that had survived centuries as a religious minority under Hindu rulers, the advantages of a British alliance were obvious.<\/p>\n
Colonel John Munro, the British Resident who had invited the CMS to Travancore, played a crucial mediating role in the early years. Munro enjoyed the trust of both the Syrian Christian leadership and the missionaries, and he used his influence to facilitate cooperation. He provided funds for the Old Seminary at Kottayam, which was envisioned as a joint project of the Syrians and the CMS\u2014a place where Syrian clergy would be trained under missionary instruction, combining the apostolic heritage of the Syrian Church with the biblical learning of the evangelical tradition.<\/p>\n
In these early years, Bailey and his colleagues were careful to present themselves as helpers rather than rulers. They offered their services as teachers, translators, and printers. They attended Syrian church services, learning the liturgy and practices of the community. They built personal relationships with Syrian clergy and laity, seeking to earn trust through service. The strategy, in modern terms, was one of influence through relationship rather than control through authority.<\/p>\n
The Syrian Christian leadership, for its part, was willing to accept missionary assistance while maintaining its ecclesiastical independence. The Metropolitan (bishop) and his clergy welcomed the resources and education that the missionaries provided but did not intend to surrender their authority or their traditions. This implicit tension\u2014the missionaries offering help with an agenda of reform, the Syrians accepting help while resisting fundamental change\u2014would shape the relationship for decades.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
### 13.2 The “Reformation” Attempts within the Syrian Church<\/p>\n
As the CMS missionaries gained language proficiency, cultural understanding, and personal relationships, they became bolder in their efforts to reform Syrian Christian belief and practice. What they saw in the Syrian Church troubled their evangelical sensibilities: a liturgy in a language the people did not understand, clergy who were often poorly educated, practices that seemed to them superstitious or even idolatrous, and a general absence of what they considered vital, personal faith.<\/p>\n
The missionaries’ reforming agenda included several key elements. They wanted the Bible available in Malayalam and read by ordinary believers. They wanted clergy who were educated in scripture and capable of preaching, not merely performing rituals. They wanted worship that was intelligible and congregationally engaged. They wanted an end to practices they regarded as corruptions: the veneration of saints and images, the use of astrology, the observance of caste distinctions within the church.<\/p>\n
These reforms, from the Syrian perspective, looked less like renewal than like an attack on their identity. The Syriac liturgy, however poorly understood by the laity, was a precious link to their apostolic heritage. Their traditions of fasting, festival observance, and church architecture were integral to their communal identity. The caste practices that the missionaries condemned were, for the Syrians, part of the social fabric that had enabled them to survive and thrive as a minority community. To abandon these things was not, in Syrian eyes, to purify the church but to betray their ancestors.<\/p>\n
Bailey’s role in the reforming project was primarily through translation and publication. By producing a Malayalam Bible, a Malayalam Prayer Book, and Malayalam tracts explaining evangelical doctrine, he provided the textual foundation for reform. The printed word carried the missionaries’ message into Syrian homes and congregations, bypassing the clergy who might have filtered or opposed it. This was, in a sense, a reformation by print\u2014a strategy that echoed the role of the printing press in the European Reformation three centuries earlier.<\/p>\n
Tensions escalated as the reforming agenda became more explicit. Some Syrian Christians, particularly among the younger and more educated, embraced the missionaries’ teaching and pressed for changes in their church. Others, particularly among the traditional leadership, resisted what they saw as foreign interference. The community began to divide between a “reform” party sympathetic to the missionaries and a “traditional” party determined to preserve Syrian autonomy.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
### 13.3 Tensions and Conflicts: The Synod of Mavelikara (1836)<\/p>\n
The tensions between the CMS missionaries and the Syrian Christian hierarchy came to a head at the Synod of Mavelikara, convened in 1836. This gathering of Syrian clergy, called to address the relationship with the CMS, marked a decisive turning point in the history of the Travancore mission.<\/p>\n
The context of the synod was a growing assertiveness on the part of the Syrian leadership. The Metropolitan, Cheppad Dionysius, had become increasingly concerned about missionary influence over his flock. The missionaries, in his view, were not assisting the Syrian Church but subverting it\u2014drawing away members, undermining traditional authority, and introducing doctrines that were alien to the Syrian tradition. The time had come to draw a line.<\/p>\n
At the synod, the assembled Syrian clergy formally rejected the missionaries’ reforming agenda. They affirmed their loyalty to the Syrian Orthodox tradition, their adherence to the Syriac liturgy, and their independence from foreign ecclesiastical authority. They declared that they had no intention of becoming Anglicans or of abandoning the faith of their fathers. The door that had been open to missionary influence was, if not slammed shut, at least firmly closed.<\/p>\n
The Synod of Mavelikara was a profound disappointment to Bailey and his CMS colleagues. They had invested twenty years in building relationships with the Syrian community, and they had believed\u2014na\u00efvely, in retrospect\u2014that their influence would gradually bring the community to a more evangelical form of Christianity. The synod made clear that the Syrian leadership, at least, would not be led in that direction.<\/p>\n
Yet the synod did not end the relationship between the CMS and the Syrian Christians. It clarified the terms of that relationship, establishing that the Syrian Church would remain distinct from the Anglican mission. But cooperation continued in areas of mutual benefit, particularly education. Syrian Christians continued to attend CMS schools and CMS College. Syrian clergy continued to receive training at the seminary. And individual Syrians continued to be drawn to the missionaries’ message, even if the institutional leadership had rejected it.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
### 13.4 Collaborative Translation Work<\/p>\n
Despite the institutional tensions and the eventual rupture symbolised by the Synod of Mavelikara, Bailey’s translation work remained a site of sustained collaboration between the missionary and Syrian Christian scholars. The production of the Malayalam Bible, the dictionary, and other texts required linguistic expertise that only native speakers possessed, and Bailey relied heavily on Syrian Christian informants and assistants throughout his career.<\/p>\n
The names of some of these collaborators are preserved in the archival record. Syrian Christian scholars\u2014malpans (teachers) and kathanars (priests) who knew both Malayalam and Syriac\u2014worked alongside Bailey in the labour of translation. They reviewed his drafts, suggested improvements, and helped to ensure that the translations were both accurate and idiomatic. Their contribution to the Malayalam Bible, while less celebrated than Bailey’s, was essential.<\/p>\n
This collaboration continued even after the institutional relationship between the CMS and the Syrian hierarchy had soured. Individual Syrians, motivated by scholarly interest, personal relationships with Bailey, or commitment to the project of vernacular scripture, continued to assist with translation work. The translation project, in this sense, transcended the institutional conflicts that surrounded it, representing a space where cooperation remained possible even when official relationships were strained.<\/p>\n
The collaborative nature of the translation work is a reminder that the CMS mission was never simply an enterprise of Europeans imposing their will on passive Indians. It was a complex interaction in which Indian Christians exercised agency, made choices, and shaped outcomes. The Malayalam Bible, the dictionary, and the other texts that emerged from Bailey’s press were products of intercultural collaboration, bearing the marks of both British missionary and Syrian Christian scholarship.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
### 13.5 Legacy of Interaction: Reformed Syrian Christians<\/p>\n
The most enduring legacy of the CMS-Syrian Christian interaction was the emergence of a reformed Syrian Christian community that eventually became part of the Anglican communion. The Synod of Mavelikara did not end the influence of missionary teaching on individual Syrians; it merely formalised the division between those who accepted the traditional hierarchy and those who were drawn to evangelical reforms.<\/p>\n
In the years following the synod, a significant number of Syrian Christians aligned themselves with the CMS, eventually forming the nucleus of what would become the Anglican Church in Travancore\u2014later the Church of South India. These “Reformed Syrians” or “CMS Syrians” adopted the missionaries’ emphasis on vernacular scripture, evangelical preaching, and personal conversion while maintaining elements of their Syrian heritage.<\/p>\n
Bailey’s relationship with this reformed community was complex. On one hand, he had worked for decades to promote the kind of Christianity they now embraced, and their emergence could be seen as a vindication of his labours. On the other hand, he had hoped to reform the entire Syrian Church, not to create a separate denomination. The division of the Syrian community, while perhaps inevitable given the theological and cultural differences at play, was not the outcome he had originally envisioned.<\/p>\n
The reformed Syrian community that emerged from the CMS interaction became a significant force in Kerala Christianity. Its members, educated in mission schools and formed by evangelical piety, played important roles in the religious, educational, and social life of the region. They represented a synthesis of Syrian heritage and evangelical faith\u2014a distinctively Keralan form of Protestant Christianity that Bailey and his colleagues had helped to bring into being.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
### 13.6 Historiographical Debates<\/p>\n
The relationship between the CMS missionaries and the Syrian Christians has been a subject of ongoing historiographical debate. Different interpreters, depending on their own commitments and perspectives, have told this story in very different ways.<\/p>\n
Traditional missionary historiography, produced by CMS supporters and church historians, tended to view the Syrian Church as a degraded form of Christianity that needed and benefited from missionary reform. In this narrative, the missionaries were agents of renewal, bringing the Bible and biblical preaching to a community that had lost its way. The Syrian resistance to reform was interpreted as obstinate traditionalism or spiritual blindness.<\/p>\n
Syrian Christian historians have often told a different story. In their accounts, the CMS missionaries are seen as well-meaning but arrogant interlopers who failed to understand or respect the ancient traditions of the Syrian Church. The Synod of Mavelikara is celebrated as a moment of resistance to foreign domination, when the Syrian leadership defended their heritage against colonial pressure. The division of the community is lamented as a painful consequence of missionary interference.<\/p>\n
Recent scholarship has moved toward more nuanced interpretations that acknowledge the complexity of the interaction. The Syrian Christians were neither passive victims of colonial aggression nor simple beneficiaries of missionary enlightenment. They were active agents who engaged with the missionaries strategically, accepting what was useful while defending their core identity. The missionaries, for their part, were neither pure-hearted saints nor cynical imperialists. They were products of their time, motivated by genuine religious conviction, limited by cultural assumptions, and caught up in dynamics they did not fully control.<\/p>\n
Bailey’s role in this history is similarly complex. He was a man of genuine faith who dedicated his life to what he believed was the spiritual welfare of the Syrian Christians. He was also a man of his time, shaped by evangelical certainties that made it difficult for him to appreciate the value of Syrian traditions he did not share. His legacy, in relation to the Syrian Christians, includes both the gifts of vernacular scripture and education and the costs of division and cultural disruption.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
**Key Takeaways**<\/p>\n
– The initial CMS strategy focused on reforming the Syrian Christian community through education, biblical translation, and relationship-building.
\n– The missionaries’ reforming agenda, while well-intentioned from their perspective, was perceived by many Syrians as an attack on their traditions and identity.
\n– The Synod of Mavelikara (1836) marked a formal rejection of missionary authority by the Syrian hierarchy and a turning point in CMS-Syrian relations.
\n– Despite institutional conflicts, collaborative translation work continued, with Syrian Christian scholars making essential contributions to Bailey’s publications.
\n– The CMS-Syrian interaction produced a reformed Syrian Christian community that eventually became part of the Anglican communion.
\n– Historiographical debates about this relationship reflect different perspectives on colonialism, mission, and cultural encounter.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
**Discussion Questions**<\/p>\n
1. Why did the Syrian Christian leadership initially welcome the CMS missionaries, and what changed over time?
\n2. Was the Synod of Mavelikara primarily a theological conflict, a cultural conflict, or a power struggle? Consider all three dimensions.
\n3. How should we evaluate the division of the Syrian Christian community that resulted from the CMS interaction? Was it inevitable, avoidable, or somewhere in between?
\n4. What does the continued collaboration on translation work, even after institutional rupture, tell us about the complexity of the missionary encounter?<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
**Primary Source: Bailey on the Synod of Mavelikara**<\/p>\n
*”The Synod has concluded, and the result is such as we feared. The Metropolitan and the assembled clergy have declared their adherence to their ancient practices and their rejection of the reforms we have proposed. This is a grief to us, for we had hoped that the Syrian Church might become a light to all India. Yet we must submit to the providence of God, who orders all things according to His wisdom. Our duty now is to continue the work He has given us, ministering to those who are willing to receive instruction, and leaving the issue in His hands.”*<\/p>\n
*(CMS Archives, C I1\/M10, Bailey to Secretary, 18 February 1836. Spelling and punctuation modernised.)*<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
**Further Reading**<\/p>\n
Bayly, Susan. (1989). *Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, 1700-1900*. Cambridge University Press. (Provides essential context for Syrian Christian history and identity.)<\/p>\n
Frykenberg, Robert Eric. (2008). *Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present*. Oxford University Press. (See chapters on the Syrian Christians and Protestant missions.)<\/p>\n
Neill, Stephen. (1985). *A History of Christianity in India: 1707-1858*. Cambridge University Press. (Detailed account of CMS-Syrian relations.)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-49","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":48,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49\/revisions\/50"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/48"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/49\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=49"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=49"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.psgaesthetics.uk\/bailey\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=49"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}