News Desk
After the Diocese of Peshawar announced the suspension of its institutional association with the Synod of the Church of Pakistan, the central church leadership has formally rejected the move, stating that the unity of the Church of Pakistan is founded on a “Holy Covenant with God” and cannot be dissolved by any diocese or individual body.
The Diocese of Peshawar, through a resolution adopted on January 29 during an Extraordinary Emergency Meeting in Mardan, accused the Synod of constitutional violations, procedural irregularities, and loss of trust in its leadership. The resolution declared non-recognition of Synod authority, reaffirmed confidence in the sitting Bishop, and warned against interference in diocesan affairs.
In response, Khurram Shahzad, Representative Secretary of the Church of Pakistan, issued an official statement with White Post, rejecting the Diocese’s position and defending the Synod’s decisions, particularly regarding the retirement of Bishop Humphrey Sarfaraz Peters.
Responding to the resolution, Shahzad said the Church of Pakistan was formed through the union of four Protestant denominations Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Anglican, in 1971, and that this union carries spiritual as well as constitutional weight.
“The union of the four churches was not merely an administrative arrangement. It was based on a Holy Covenant with God,” Shahzad said. “No individual, diocese, or group has the authority to break or suspend this covenant.”
He categorically rejected the Diocese of Peshawar’s claim of detachment from the Synod.
“The Diocese of Peshawar was part of the Church of Pakistan, still is part of the Church of Pakistan, and will remain part of the Church of Pakistan,” he stated.
Addressing the central issue of dispute, the tenure of the sitting Bishop, Shahzad said the retirement of Bishop Humphrey Sarfaraz Peters was carried out strictly in accordance with the constitution, rules, and bylaws of the Church of Pakistan.
“As per the bylaws and election rules of the Church of Pakistan, Bishop Humphrey Sarfaraz Peters retired upon reaching the prescribed age of superannuation,” he said. “He has remained retired since then.”
Shahzad rejected the Diocese’s argument that the Bishop was entitled to an extension based on a resolution passed by the Diocesan Executive Committee.
He further disclosed that the issue of the Bishop’s possible extension had already been discussed at length during a special Synod meeting held in Faisalabad, convened specifically to deliberate on the matter.
“There was a detailed and hours-long discussion on this issue in the special Synod meeting in Faisalabad, where all Synod members were present and invited,” Shahzad said.
According to him, the Diocese of Peshawar was formally invited to participate in the meeting.
“A representative from the Diocese of Peshawar was also invited, but no one attended the meeting on behalf of the Diocese,” he added.
Shahzad said that after deliberation, the Synod reached a unanimous conclusion.
“After considering the constitution, election rules, and bylaws, the Synod unanimously decided not to grant any further extension to the Bishop,” he said.
The Church of Pakistan representative emphasised that neither the Synod nor any diocesan body could act beyond the constitution.
“Church organisations are not run on personal wishes. They are run strictly on the constitution,” Shahzad said. “If the constitution does not allow an extension, then no extension can be granted.”
He rejected the notion that diocesan resolutions could override Synod authority.
“Resolutions sent by local executive bodies often come from individuals who are handpicked or closely associated with the Bishop,” he alleged. “In such cases, personal affiliations tend to override merit, rules, bylaws, and constitutional discipline.”
“Such resolutions have no authority to amend or alter the constitution of the Church of Pakistan,” he added.
The dispute has now exposed a serious institutional rift within the Church of Pakistan, raising questions about constitutional interpretation, governance balance, and the limits of diocesan autonomy within a united church structure.
On one side, the Diocese of Peshawar argues that the Synod has violated the spirit and procedure of the 1970 Constitution by introducing major structural changes without proper consultation and by disregarding diocesan resolutions. On the other, the Synod leadership maintains that constitutional authority rests exclusively with the Synod and that diocesan bodies cannot selectively accept or reject church law.
The controversy is further complicated by parallel judicial proceedings, competing interpretations of retirement rules, and mutual allegations of bad faith and procedural manipulation.