Wolk Church East Ja As

This paper appeared in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 22(1): 1558. (2010).
This was the last

version before publication
Church Colony vs. Congregation:

A Struggle for Control of the Church of the East
in Chicago during the 1940s1
Daniel P. Wolk
Introduction
In late 1933 the last brick was laid for the first self-standing Assyrian Church
of the East in Chicago. For several years, an Assyrian Nestorian congregation
had owned an apartment building in the community area of Lincoln Park (at
180105 N. Hammond St., now Orleans), and had used the basement for its
meetings. With their own hands, the congregation erected their new chapel
behind the apartment building, and named it Mar Sargis. Little did they know
that this modest structure would become the spotlight of a protracted, spirited
controversy in the Assyrian community of Chicago and beyond. Though this
controversy is little remembered today, its reverberations can still be felt.
The controversy culminated in litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County

from 1942 to 1949. Ostensibly, what was at issue was the ownership of the
church building. Two separate factions, each long in the making, claimed to be
the lawful holders of title and deed to the property. Members of the first, which I
will call the reformists, claimed that they formed an independent Nestorian
congregation which had been established as a religious corporation in Chicago in
the year 1925 without any formal denominational ties. They recruited and hired
their own priest, Qasha Sadook De Mar Shimun,2 who assumed full duties as
priest upon his controversial ordination on July 18, 1939.
The second faction, which I will call the loyalists, insisted that the Assyrian
Church of the East, under the worldwide leadership of Mar Eshai Shimun, was
the lawful owner of the property. They agreed that a religious corporation had
been established in 1925, that it had become the lawful holder of the title and
1
Several people helped me in various ways on this paper. Robert Dekelaita first told me
of this existence of most of the documents. Mark Thomas graciously encouraged me to
examine the collection and made copies available to me. Francis Sarguis originally
encouraged me to write the paper, and explained many legal matters to me. Chip
Coakley read an earlier draft of the paper and long encouraged me to publish it. I am
delighted that I am able to publish it in his Festschrift. David Malick and Dr. Robert
Paulissian have more recently been supportive of my efforts. David Hirsch, of the
UCLA library, made a rare source (by Minassian) available to me.
2
I follow here the spelling that Sadook (adoq) and his followers themselves adopted in
the United States.
2 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 22, no. 1, 2008
deed to the Mar Sargis church property, but that from the beginning this
corporation was merely a colony of the Mother Church. They never accepted
the legitimacy of Sadook, but rather recognized Qasha Saul David Nissan, whom
Mar Eshai Shimun appointed in 1938 to be chair of the General Convention of
the Church of the East in America, as having authority over the local Chicago
parish and congregation (AbsDefExh: 289[Exh. 27]).
One might legitimately ask why a researcher such as myself would reopen
old scars of this case of bitter schism in the Church of the East, at a time when
unity in the Church is desperately needed. At the risk of sounding hackneyed, I
might offer Santayanas popular dictum, Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it. But there is more to it than that. While the case had,
it will be obvious to the reader, a uniquely Assyrian coloring, there was
something very American about the conflict as well. Those who struggled with
the conflict over the Mar Sargis Church in the 1930s and 1940s were immigrants
from the Middle East (mainly Iran and Iraq), who faced at least two challenges as
they tried to create a supportive religious community that would give succor to
their spiritual needs: First, they needed a community that was adapted to their
aspirations to live comfortably in an individualistic, ostensibly democratic
America. Second, the documents make it clear that they were also committed to
maintain ties with their brethren back in the Middle East and elsewhere in their
diaspora. These two challenges, which were sometimes at odds with each other,
are just as resonant today among Assyrians (not to mention among other peoples
as well). Understanding how the struggle not only spans generations, but also
different ethnic and religious groups, may help those who are torn by it to
depersonalize it, and seek new ways to resolve it. At least that is my hope.
Clearly, then, the significance of this court case stretches well beyond the
matter that was actually being litigated, the determination of who or what faction
was the legal property holder of the Mar Sargis Church. At stake were two
contrary normative models for the ecclesiastical and leadership structure of the
Church of the East in America. These two models were already on the American
stage long before the presence of Assyrians in the United States, and they parallel
opposed models not only for the Church of the East, but Eastern Christian
churches generally, models that had coexisted for centuries. The first such
ecclesiastical model in America has conventionally been called the
congregational one. Supported by the constitutionally-backed principle of the
disestablishment of religion in the United States, this model presumes the
fundamental unit of religious practice to be a community of believers, a
covenanted community, a congregation. According to this model, a self-
selected, formally egalitarian lay community confers upon an individual the role
of pastor. The more inclusive collectivity of a religious denomination forms a
confederation of similarly-inclined congregations.
Church Colony vs. Congregation 3
In contrast with this first model, which is conventionally associated with

Protestantism, is the model of a universal, hierarchical church, commonly
associated with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. According to this model, authority
in the church derives from the principle of apostolic succession. The clergy
derive their spiritual and administrative authority not from the congregation but
rather through consecration by bishops, in which the spiritual substance of the
Church, unchanged since the days of Christs Disciples, is passed on. It is
essential to apostolic succession that these consecrations be legitimate, which in
this context entails that they be canonical, that is, be in strict accordance with the
canons of the Church. In practice this means that there is a strong tendency for
there to be a governing authority to confirm that the canons are indeed met, and
for this governing authority to have the backing of, or be, the State. In other
words, apostolic succession has an affinity with established religion. As for the
local congregation, it is not, according to this hierarchical model, the Church, but
is rather only a group of individuals who come together to take, or participate in,
the communion of the Church.3
Although the first, voluntaristic, decentralized ecclesiastical model began in

this country primarily with Protestants, it has served as a model for many other
groups as well. Indeed today, many sociologists of religion argue that American
Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Roman Catholics are organized (or
are organizing) in accordance with this model, and thus exhibit a de facto
congregationalism (Warner 1993 and 1994, Ammerman 1997: esp. 34670).
Nevertheless, the second model, brought to the United States primarily by
Roman Catholics, has had a long and powerful influence (Dolan 1994: esp. 225).
Among the first significant Roman Catholic communities in America, in colonial
Maryland, the church leaders were Jesuit missionaries who were ordained in
Europe and sent by their Jesuit superiors to Maryland regardless of the peoples
wishes to have [them] or not (ibid.: 230). Indeed later, in the period from 1840
to 1940, argues Dolan, the hierarchical model of church leadership waxed rather
than waned, among not only Catholics but Protestants as well, so that the clergy
became more professionally and hierarchically organized, and thereby more
powerful vis--vis the laity. Such a process stemmed at least in part from the
industrialization of America and the growth of large scale corporations. Many
occupations, including that of clergyman, witnessed tremendous
professionalization during this period (ibid.: 23650).
The presence of both models in America has been the source of much
uncertainty and conflict in religious organization. I would argue that such
uncertainty and conflict has been particularly acute among Eastern-rite
3
In distinguishing these two models of ecclesiastical structure in America, I have drawn
primarily on Dolan (1994: esp. 22728), Papaioannou (1994: esp. 52021), and Warner
(1993: esp. 1064ff.).
Christians, including members of Eastern Orthodox and other churches, such as

the Church of the East. In the history of Eastern Christianity, both models have
long been, or long were, present: on the one hand, church hierarchies and the
principle of apostolic succession have been in place in Eastern Christianity for
centuries; on the other, more egalitarian, monastic communities, with voluntary
membership, also long existed and exerted strong influence on lay religious
practice. This was particularly marked in the Syriac tradition.4
Besides this dual heritage, there are at least two other factors that have made
Eastern Christian churches prone to factional conflict. First is the timing and
manner of Eastern Christian migration to America. Such migration began in
earnest at the end of the last century, and it was primarily in the form of
individual lay persons and families, who settled in small groups throughout
America. Whether Greek, Armenian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Arab, or Assyrian, such
groups were almost always composed of lay persons who came together and
established congregations, and then sent for priests.5
As these ethnic communities grew, so did the need for clerical

professionalization, and, with it, increasing calls for integration of these
congregations into traditional ecclesiastical hierarchies. The aspirations of the
lay leaders, who were the founders and trustees of Eastern church congregations
in America, often came into conflict with the clergys designs for them.
The other factor of factionalism worth calling attention to was the tenuous
status of various Churches in their home countries. When Communist and other
totalitarian regimes came to power, they usually co-opted the religious leadership
of their national Churches. The adherents of these Churches in the United States
4
I am indebted to Abdul Massih Saadi for his insights on this issue.
5
For examples, Saloutos on Greeks (1991: esp. 309), Minassian on Armenians (1974:
Ch. 3, 85146, esp. 100), Naff on Syrians (1985: esp. 296). A particularly clear case is an
account of the Russian Orthodox in New Britain, Connecticut:
The creation of new immigrant parishes was independent of any ecclesiastical
assistance and, in many cases, even formal hierarchical approval. The experience
of a New Britain (Connecticut) parish was typical:
In Russia only the Tsar builds churches. How can you build a church in
America? questioned one immigrant. So the brotherhood devised the following
plan. First each of them placed $5 on a table; then the new immigrant was asked
to do the same. The new man was then asked to select one of his own friends as
treasurer for the money, holding it in trust until such time as it would be needed.
Using this approach, the Brotherhood found and attracted many. The parish
churches that resulted from the efforts of these local brotherhoods were
responsible only to their own trustees, that is, to a democratically elected parish
council composed of prominent laymen. In most instances it was only after
purchase (or less often, construction) of a building that the trustees turned to a
bishop for a priest. (Stokoe and Kishkovsky 1995a).
(and other countries) would then divide over the issue of whether to recognize
the leadership of such national Churches. In many cases (Russian, Ukrainian,
Belarusian, Romanian, Serbian, etc.), new jurisdictions organized in America in
opposition to these puppet leaderships back home. But the Patriarchates of
such Churches back home fought back by organizing or winning over parishes in
the United States, in opposition to rival autonomous churches in America.
Outwardly, the conflicts generated by this legitimacy crisis of the Mother Church
did not fall along the lines of the congregational vs. hierarchical models, but
rather appeared to take shape as one hierarchically-organized jurisdiction vs.
another.
Typically, however, the site or point of conflict in America has been the
congregation. It has not been unusual within American congregations for factions
to develop to such a point that legal conflict over property ensues. Illinois and
other states have recognized that church property can be held solely for a
congregation, for the incorporators, or, alternatively, in trust for the benefit of a
particular denomination (e.g. RepProc: 7). Conflict can arise when perceptions
differ among congregation members, parishioners, or denominational leaders
over whether a particular church property belongs to a congregation or a
denomination. Moreover, even if people agree it belongs to a congregation, their
perceptions may differ concerning who lawfully constitutes the congregation.
A Comparative Survey of Conflicts in Eastern Churches in the United States

A survey of the experience of these other Eastern churches has turned up
many examples of litigation over church properties during the period 192050.
So far as I know, none of them has received any sustained scholarly attention.
First, Armenian apostolic churches have had a complex history since 1441, when
a split emerged between the Holy Sees of Etchmiadzin and Cilicia. Since the
establishment in 1891 of the first Armenian Apostolic Church in America, in
Worcester, Massachusetts, the Armenian Apostolic Church in the United States
has fallen prey to factionalism, primarily between those sympathizing with pro-
revolutionary forces, associated with the militantly nationalist Tashnags, and
those who remained loyal to the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin. From 1898, the
Armenian-American Diocese was under the jurisdiction of the latter. Conflict in
America intensified after the Soviet Union took over Armenia in 1920 and put
the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin under its influence. It reached a crescendo after
1933, when Tashnag members assassinated Archbishop Tourian, the leader of the
Armenian-American Diocese, still under the jurisdiction of Etchmiadzin.
Virtually evicted by the Diocese, the Tashnags established their own Armenian
National Apostolic Church of America. Emotions flared:
In several cities the clergy [of the Armenian-American Diocese] and

dissident members [the Tashnags] challenged the legality of the Church
Trustees and meetings which were often scenes of violence,
necessitating the presence of law enforcement officers to restore peace

and order (Minassian 1974: 474).
In one community after another, the two factions went to court to litigate over
the possession over church property (ibid.: 518). An example was St. Gregory the
Illuminator Church in Philadelphia, where after two years the Tashnags won the
case in 1935. The losing faction had to worship at various churches until 1940
(ibid.: 518). A similar case occurred at the Holy Resurrection Church in New
Britain, Connecticut. A court awarded the church to the Tashnags in 1938, and
they renamed it St. Stephens. The other faction bought a new church 1941 (ibid.:
65960).6
Among those who came to be called Ukrainian or Ukrainian-Americans,

the situation was, if anything, more complicated. The first waves of such
people(s) were primarily Greek Catholic (i.e. the Uniate Roman Catholic Church
that used Slavonic for its liturgy), and called themselves Ruthenian, Rusyn,
etc. The Roman Catholic Church in America discouraged these Greek Catholics
from forming separate parishes, until 1907, when Rome allowed a Ruthenian-
American exarchy (later called Ukrainian) to form. For a number of reasons,
from 1891 onward, various Greek Catholic parishes in America left their Mother
Church and established or joined Orthodox bodies affiliated (or at least in
communion with) various other Eastern Orthodox bodies such as the Russian
Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Moscow), the Ukrainian Autocephalous
Orthodox Church, or the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople.
Particularly in the years after 1931, when a group of ex-Catholic priests
established the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, which became
recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople, a whole raft of expensive court
cases over church property ensued, with both the Ukrainian Orthodox and the
Ukrainian Catholics claiming to be rightful church property holders.7
Factionalism among the Greek Orthodox was also spirited during the period
192050. From 1922 to 1940 there were in effect two rival Greek Orthodox
jurisdictions in America, each with its own hierarchy and organization of
parishes. On the one hand were the Venizalists, who supported the former
Greek prime minister, and came under the jurisdiction of his ally, the Ecumenical
Patriarch, Meletios. On the other were the royalists who rejected this
jurisdiction in favor of the Holy Synod of Greece, which, during this period, was
under the influence of the king. Conflict between the two even erupted into
violence in the church sanctuary (Kourides 1959: 8, Stokoe and Kishkovsky
6
Besides Minassian, I have also relied on (Phillips 1989) for this account of Armenians.
Of the cases I discuss, I provide more details on the Armenians than any other, because,
although they are not close theologically, Assyrians and Armenians have had intertwined
histories both in the Old Country and the New.
7
For this account, I have relied on Kuropas (1991: esp. 4855 and 30522).
1995b). Many Greek churches split over the issue. At the Annunciation Church
in Baltimore, for example, the royalist priest in 1923 brought a civil suit against
the Venizalist Archdiocese of North and South America for dismissing him.
After losing the case, he and his followers established a separate church
(Papaioannou 1994: 52831). Even after unity was achieved in 1940, conflict
lingered on. Archbishop Athenagoras ruled non-canonical a group of dissidents,
who, like the royalists, followed the Julian calendar. As a result, members of this
dissident group instituted an action for libel against the Archdiocese in 1942 that
raged on bitterly until 1947, when they ultimately lost the case (Kourides 1959:
12). The years of legal wrangling coincided almost exactly with the years of the
Church of the East case that will be the main focus of this paper.
The Russian Orthodox Church suffered from schisms resulting from Soviet
persecution of the Patriarchate of Moscow. The Soviets established the Living
Church in its place. Not only did they cut off support for the North American
Russian Orthodox Missionary Archdiocese, the Soviets, under the cloak of the
Living Church, tried to seize 116 Orthodox churches in the United States. The
North American Archdiocese reacted by declaring itself in 1924 to be
independent and temporarily self-governing. Indeed, it never rejoined the
Russian Orthodox hierarchy, but rather transformed itself into the Metropolita,
which was the forerunner of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.
The Living Church did manage, through a court case against Metropolitan
Platon, the head of the North American Diocese, to wrest control of the St.
Nicholas Cathedral in New York City, in 1925. Metr. Platons congregation had
to meet in an Episcopalian Church until 1943 (Serafim 1973: 312).8
The foregoing examples show that conflict over the control of churches and
parishes was rampant in the Eastern Christian churches in America during the
period between the two world wars. In certain Eastern churches, such as those of
the Romanians and Serbs, similar conflicts broke out after World War II.9
8
Stokoe and Kishkovsky (1995e: Chs. 5 and 8) provides most of the details for this
paragraph. See also Serafim (1973), which is primarily a detailed history of the
transformation of the North American Russian Orthodox Missionary Archdiocese into the
Orthodox Church in America.
9
After World War II, the newly-created Romanian Communist regime tried to abolish
the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America, and, in 1950, consecrated a Romanian-
American priest to be the bishop of a new diocesan structure for Romanians in America
to be named The Romanian Orthodox Missionary Episcopate in America. The
opponents of the Mother Church resisted, setting up their own autonomous church, that
eventually joined with the Russian Metropolita, the forerunner of the Orthodox Church in
America, in 1960. During the 1950s and 60s there ensued a series of long and costly court
cases in which the autonomous Romanian-American church questioned the legality,
legitimacy, and loyalties of the new jurisdiction under the Mother Church (Stokoe and
Kishkovsky 1995c, Serafim 1973: 10507). As for the Serbians, the Serbian Mother
Early History of the Church of the East in Chicago: A Brief Sketch

Assyrians first started settling in Chicago in the late 19th century. Most of the
first sojourners and immigrants were Presbyterians who had come to America
from Iran. The first actual Church of the East activity can be traced to Nestorius
George Malik, a priest in the Church who made several visits to Chicago from
his native Iran, from 1906 onward. But it was not until 1914 that separate Church
of the East services were held by Binyamin Odisho of Oramar, then a deacon
(am), under the direction of the Nestorian Patriarch, Mar Shimun
(BillCompt1942: 1; MS/2261916). His group met in the St. James Episcopal
Church. At major events, such as funerals, an American Episcopalian priest
officiated, and Sh. Binyamin assisted (e.g. MS/2121916).
Not only did a large proportion of Assyrians lose their lives during World
War I, but also the Church of the East became severely weakened. A boy, 1112
years old, Eshai, was consecrated Patriarch in 1920, and this had the effect of
decentralizing authority in the Church at least until he became of age. From 1916
until 1924, Church of the East adherents organized in Chicago in a grass-roots
way, with at best intermittent direction from further up the church hierarchy.
Congregations met in various places, with some support from local churches,
especially St. James. Already by 1917, Q Shimun Yonan tells us that there were
two Nestorian priests and many deacons in Chicago, with as many as 300
adherents. But, he complained, Everyone was his own priest, bishop, deacon,
etc., and ruins the name of the Church and brings Gods reproof (Kul [d] q
gnuhy leh q bon am r., maru yn l-imm d-edt w-ma[t]yuy
lm d-Alh). None was recognized by the Patriarch (MS/2241917). In 1919
Q Shimun left Chicago to become priest in the New Britain church (MS/425
1919).
In 1920, Mar Yawallaha, Bishop of Amadia and Barwar, came from Iraq to
visit Chicago, whereupon he ordained Binyamin Odisho and Gewargis
(George) Azoo (of Tkhuma) priests. Q Binyamin went off to Gary, Indiana, to
organize a group there, while Reverend Azoo collaborated with Nestorius
Malik to lead the congregation in Chicago (AnsCtrClm: 36; AddAbsRec: 348). As
will be seen, there was disagreement over just how much Malik and Azoo could
be said to be under the authority of the Church of the East. The congregation was
poor and had to rent rooms for services.
Matters changed in 192425, when Mar Timotheus, the Metropolitan of the

Church serving in Malabar (south India), spent 16 months in the United States,
mostly in Chicago, to raise money for the Church of the East, both for local and
international purposes (Mar Aprem: 105ff.). His main goal was to establish a
Church tried in 1963 to organize three dioceses in America, but many of the preexisting
Serbian churches fought back by forming a Free Serbian Church (ibid.: 10910).
Church of the East parish an assignment he claimed to have been authorized

in 1920 to undertake by a special council of the leaders of the Church, which had
named him Regent. However, Mar Eshai Shimun later denied that Mar
Timotheus had ever been vested with such authority. With modest success, Mar
Timotheus campaigned for funds, mainly from St. James and other Episcopalian
churches, as well as Church of the East congregations in Chicago, Gary and New
Britain. He was able to establish an office for the church at 1801 N. Hammond
[later called Orleans] St., and to buy a small plot of land to build a church (ibid.:
110). Q Tarwardi Esmail moved in from Yonkers to officiate over the growing
congregation, sharing duties with Q Gewargis Azoo and others. There was some
question over whether Mar Timotheus installed Q Tarwardi or not. The loyalists
insisted that he did, whereas the reformists insisted that he did not, saying, Mar
Timotheus had nothing to say about it and he was mad and declared he washed
his hands of all the congregation did in that regard (ReplicPlaint: 910). While
continuing to meet for several more years at the chapel in St. James, the
congregation succeeded in building a church on Hammond [Orleans]. Strapped
for money, members of the congregation largely built the church with their own
hands.10
After Mar Timotheus returned to India, the Church of the East community in
Chicago was marked by rapid growth and riven with deepening factionalism.
Mar Timotheus himself got embroiled in conflict with the Mar Eshai Shimun and
Surma Khanem (which is a long story in itself deserving of a separate study). A
newspaper account from 1936 gives a sense of the factionalism that developed:
Ever since Mar Timotheuss visit to America (Chicago), bitter disputes

have arisen in this Church. It is the priests who are the cause of its [the
Churchs] family becoming four sections. One part has fallen behind
Qasha Gewargis Azzo the Tumny; another part has gone behind
Eshaya Sliwo the Tumny; and another has followed the bishop
[Rahana David]. The people of TachaArdishai have brought Qasha
Sargis [Benyamin] for themselves. A small segment comprising people
of Urmia have remained with Qasha Tarwardi [Ismail], the canonical
(namosy) priest. (NestCh/Kta)
Some of the friction within the church can be attributed to cultural

differences between the plainspeople from Urmia vs. highlanders from Hakkari.
But, as will be seen from the following account of the court case, genuine
disagreements over the legitimacy of the Mar Shimun patriarchal dynasty, as well
as ideas of how a church should be organized in America, were to come into play
as well. The same article just quoted announced that the latter two factions, those
of Q Sargis and Q Tarwardi, were coming together in opposition to the bishop,
Rahana Davids party. These two groups came to represent what I have called the
10
Narsay Sargis, personal communication (April 1998).
reformists and loyalists, respectively. Both sides were resourceful in their

deepening conflict. A few months before the above account of the factionalism in
the church came out (in February 1936), Sadook Youkhanna Shimunaya (later
Qasha Sadook) arrived in Chicago and began to be groomed for leadership by the
reformists. At the same time, the loyalists enlivened their correspondence with
the patriarchal family, especially Mar Eshai Shimun and Surma Khanem, in Iraq,
Cyprus and London. The conflict came to a head in the court case.
A History of the Case

As can be seen, hostilities had been brewing between reformists and loyalists
long before Qasha Sadook and Qasha Saul appeared on the scene. The legal
documentary record begins on October 4, 1934, when Attorney John A. Brown,
just after having been retained by the reformists, wrote a letter to Rahana David,
one of the lead players for the loyalists. In the letter, Brown requested David to
surrender to his clients a quitclaim deed of the property that he was holding
(AbsDefExh: 53[Exh. 71]). Rahana was at that time safekeeping the deed in his
capacity as the representative of Mar Timotheus. Mar Timotheus was acting as
Mar Shimuns Regent (official deputy), and thereby had Church of the East
business in North America under his jurisdiction. That the reformists asked
David for a quitclaim deed indicates that the issue of who or what group had the
legal right to the property was already murky soon after they finished erecting a
chapel on it: a quitclaim deed is generally issued when the parties are not
altogether sure about who has had a legal interest in the property.11 If David
would not resign such a deed, Brown threatened, he would file a suit for it on
behalf of the congregation. Nearly eight years later, he did.
During those years the factional conflict seldom abated. The right to the
property may have been the legal flashpoint of the conflict, but fundamental
ecclesiastical, ideological, nay cultural issues underlay it. Since incorporation in
1925, the congregations official, canonical priest was Qasha Tarwardi Esmail,
although, as we have seen, several other priests, who came as refugees to
Chicago from the Middle East, assisted from time to time. It seems that he was
chronically in poor health, and was neither a strong leader nor a learned man.12
Though the documents available are stingy on details, it is clear that various
members of the church, including those assistant priests, had different ideas on
how the church rituals should be conducted.
11
I am indebted to Francis Sarguis for having explained the legal concept of a
quitclaim deed to me.
12
One elderly woman in the late 1990s told me that she recalled he was an alchoholic
when she was a young woman. See also the letter, written by Sh. Youash Y. DeKelaita to
Mar Timotheus in 1928, in which he was probably referring to Q Tarwardi: Our priest
has been drinking lately but we have scared him out of it. We told him if he dont stop,
we will let him go; someone else will take his place (Mar Aprem: 113).
Mar Eshai Shimun circa 1950
Qasha Sadook De Mar Shimun circa 1937

The little information on such conflict comes primarily from loyalist sources.
They complained that Qasha Tarwardi, under pressure from certain (reformist)
members, did not conduct the church rituals canonically, by which they meant
in accordance with the Sunhadus (the Canon Law of the Church). For the
loyalists, this was inseparable from the issue of the Chicago church following the
proper ecclesiastical authority of the metropolitan Mar Timotheus and the
patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun, through their legitimate representatives in America.
Neither prelate was in a position to exercise authority over the day-to-day

operations of the church. Mar Timotheus was far away busy governing his
Church of the East Diocese in Malabar, India. Mar Eshai Shimun had been
domiciled in Cyprus since his exile (or escape) from Iraq in 1933. Still very
young (in his late 20s), he was shuttling to and from England, and, from a weak
position, was desperately seeking to achieve territorial autonomy or nationhood
for Assyrians in northern Iraq and thereabouts. He hardly was able to
micromanage the business of his Chicago parish.
Mar Eshai Shimuns loyalist followers in America tried to fill this

institutional vacuum by creating an Executive Committee, vested with the
Patriarchs authority, to supervise Church of the East business in America. Those
active on this committee included, among others, Qasha Saul David (later
Nissan), who was then priest in New Britain (Connecticut), Qasha Benjamin
Odisho, priest in Gary (Indiana), the monk Rahana David, and George Eshaya
of Chicago, who was son of one of the part-time loyalist priests, Qasha Eshaya
Sliwo. They convened annually with the intention of ensuring that the various
Church of the East colonies in America conducted themselves in accordance
with Mar Shimuns authority and with the Sunhadus. However, the reformists
would not recognize this body: during the court proceedings, several of them
denied having any knowledge at all of this Executive Committee, for they had
their own.
Whether or not they had much of an inkling of the activities of the Executive
Committee, the reformists took offense against its members loyalists all
gathering together. The following, taken from the court summary of a letter
written by the Executive Committee to the Patriarch on November 18, 1938
(obviously reflecting a loyalist standpoint) gives the flavor of the struggle
between the two factions and their mutual antipathy:
. . . [A]t the instigation of Rev. Esmails committee, the lawyer [John

Brown] wrote a letter commanding three deacons, including George K.
Eshaya, and the Rev. Eshaya Sliwoo, not to come to the church in
Chicago. Under these distressing conditions the Executive Committed
[sic] worked especially hard to accomplish a peaceful settlement but
Rev. Esmail and Rahana David refused to attend the meetings and Rev.
Esmail sent a letter saying that he did not want to be a member of an

unlawful committee.
Emanual Odishoo was permitted by Rev. Esmail to join him in

conducting various services in the Chicago church although the
Patriarch has not accepted Odishoo as a priest of the church and the
Executive Committee resolved, on April 3, 1938, that such persons
should not be accepted.
These and other uncanonical works of Rev. Esmail so aroused the loyal
sons of the church that they asked the Executive Committee to stop
these uncanonical acts and the committee met again on May 28, 1938.
It was decided to hold the meeting as usual in the church in Chicago
but the committee found the door locked and Rev. Esmail refused to
open it or to attend the meeting without orders of his own church
committee. He asked that a letter be written to his committee [by the
loyalists] and it was done.
...
On Sunday, October 6, 1938, the church door was closed by Rev.
Esmail and his committee and policemen stood before the door so that
the loyal sons of the church could not worship there. . . . The chairman
wrote [a] letter to Rev. Esmail dated October 29 . . . , but in reply
Esmail and his followers locked the church door against the loyal
members and had policemen standing outside so that the chairman
could not enter and they had one of the most zealous sons of the
church and Goliath Benjamin taken by the police for an investigation.
(AbsDefExh: 3334[Exh. 34])
One can see that by late 1938, the competing factions of the church
disagreed not only over who the legitimate authority over the church was, but
also over who rightfully owned it. As has already been mentioned, the weak
leadership over the local church in the late 1930s locally, nationally and
internationally was soon to change, as a result of the entry of three strong
personalities onto the Chicago scene: Sadook, Q Saul David (Nissan), and Mar
Eshai Shimun. Sadook, who, being of the clan of Mar Shimun, took the name
Sadook (later Rev. Sadook) de Mar Shimun in America, sometimes referring to
himself as Sadook Shimunaya. His enemies refused to recognize the
designation de Mar Shimun, but rather referred to him as Sadook Yokhanan.
As a young man during the 1920s and early 1930s, Sadook worked both for the
Assyrian Levies and for an American Mission in Mosul. He had important ties to
the patriarch in at least two ways. First, in 1923 he married the first cousin of
Mar Eshai Shimun (the latters fathers sisters daughter).13 And second, he
worked as secretary and wakil for both the Patriarch and for the members of the
national conference (knuy millaty) (Sadook/Kta).
Presumably the knuy millaty refers to key meetings held by leaders of the
Assyrians in Iraq, at the Patriarchs residence in Amadiya in 1932 meetings
which led to the well-known split among Assyrians between followers of Malik
Yako, who pushed for Assyrian autonomy in northern Iraq, and followers of
Malik Khoshaba, who supported the British-Iraqi resettlement plan for Assyrians
in northern Iraq. At one of these meetings, probably in May, 1932, Sadook was
one of the Assyrian leaders representing the various a (rats and rayats) of
Assyrians in his case, Upper Berwar (which included the old patriarchal seat
at Qudshanis) (Isml 1964: 209). But by October, 1932, Sadook clearly stood
opposed to Mar Eshai Shimun on the side of Malik Khoshaba, denying the
legitimacy of Mar Eshai Shimun as the representative of Assyrians (ibid.: 213).
There is no doubt that this split over the issue of the status of Assyrians in Iraq
was a source of the protracted, bitter antagonism between Mar Eshai Shimun and
Sadook in the struggle over church property in Chicago.
As a result of the Assyrian Tragedy of 1933, Sadook had to flee Iraq in

September of that year, and made his way in succession to Syria, Lebanon,
Cyprus and France, where for two years he worked for a French Protestant
Mission to help Armenian and Assyrian refugees. He arrived in the United States
in February, 1936, and quickly became involved in the Mar Sargis Church, where
he had close ties to several in the reformist group, most notably his older brother,
known in America as John Simon.14
Sadook was intent upon receiving a proper theological education. In 1937

38, he briefly studied in a divinity school in Columbus, Ohio, but with the moral
and financial encouragement of members of the reformist group, transferred his
studies to divinity at the Chicago Theological Seminary, then affiliated with the
University of Chicago. While engaged in these studies, he played a more and
more active leadership role in the church, to the consternation of the loyalists.
Then, under pressure from, or with the encouragement of (it is not entirely clear
which), he sought to be ordained priest through a properly Apostolic Church. He
first approached the Episcopalian Bishop of Chicago. After the latter refused, he
went off and received ordination from one Henry Carfora, Metropolitan Prima of
the Old Roman Catholic Church, on the southside of Chicago, on, as already
13
Thus Sadooks mother-in-law, Romy, was the sister of (later Rabkhaila) David (Mar
Eshai Shimuns father), and Surma (Khanem), as well as the late patriarchs, Benyamin
and Polus (cf. Coakley 1988).
14
Aside from this last detail, which emerges from the court documents, I have relied on
the following articles for biographical information on Sadook: Sadook/Kta and
Sadook/AsySt.
noted, July 18, 1939. Both before and after this ordination, he sought approval
and official recognition for it from Mar Eshai Shimun, who was then still in
Cyprus. Mar Eshai Shimun refused to recognize the ordination at the time,
though he reiterated that he would take up local matters of church authority after
his impending arrival in America.
The second important actor who entered the Chicago Church of the East
scene was Q Saul David, who later took the last name Nissan. A strong
supporter of Mar Eshai Shimun from his congregation in New Britain, Q Saul
was appointed by the latter in November 1937 as the chair of the Church of the
East Executive Committee for all of America (AnsCtrClm: 38). In December a
meeting took place at Mar Sargis of the general convention of the clergy of the
Mother Church, from all over America. This loyalist group, which included both
clergy and lay delegates (including David Adam, who later was one of the key
reformists) agreed to replace Q Tarwardi with Q Saul (ibid.).
While the loyalist leaders waited for Q Saul to be officially appointed to the
position by Mar Eshai Shimun, certain reformist members of Mar Sargis
undertook to employ Sadook as their priest. They contacted Mar Timotheus for
approval, but he refused. Then this group sent a letter, which was signed by
Sadook as well as Q Tarwardi, to the Patriarch, asking him to overule Mar
Timotheus. But, as the court document put it, Mar Eshai Shimun
refused to recognize or approve said Sadook as a priest of the

Mother Church and declared that any of the clergy or faithful
who encouraged the pretender in his claim to priesthood would
be trespassing the law of the Church of the East and would be
considered unfaithful. (RepProc: 7)
It was at that point that Mar Eshai Shimun appointed Q Saul David instead.
Mar Eshai Shimuns refusal both to accept Sadook as a priest in the Church
of the East, and to appoint him the head of the Mar Sargis congregation, must
have deepened the frustrations of the reformists. As a surviving member of the
congregation has informed me, the church had to have a priest to conduct
baptisms, weddings and burials. (Qasha) Sadook was indeed officiating at these
events. By 1938, when the troubles were really coming to a head, there were no
other Church of the East priests available in Chicago.15 The refusal of Mar Eshai
Shimun, as well as Qasha Saul, who was still living in New Britain, to endorse
Sadook, despite the respect in which he was held by the reformist members of the
congregation (the majority), left them in the lurch.
15
Qasha Tarwardi was too infirm. Q Eshaya Sliwo and Q Sargis Benjamin were aging as
well, and they had never led an American congregation.
Soon after Q Sauls appointment, Mar Eshai Shimun entered the Chicago
scene himself. Indeed, in many ways, the pivotal event in the history of the
Church of the East in Chicago, if not everywhere, was the docking of Mar Eshai
Shimun in New York harbor on July 29, 1940. Before emigrating to America
from Cyprus, he had told a British official that he was going to America to
comply with the request of the Assyrian community there, and would be the
guest of the Bishop of Chicago (presumably the Episcopal bishop) (Rush and
Priestland 2001: [8]619).16 Mar Eshai Shimuns arrival in America was
momentous enough to get good press in the New York Times (NYT1/Patr and
NYT2/Patr), as well as Time Magazine, which noted that Mar Eshai Shimun was
the first Patriarch in history to visit the United States (Time/Patr). In the next few
months, several testimonial dinners in Chicago, Yonkers and New Britain were
held by Assyrians in the Patriarchs honor, and were attended not only by
Assyrians, but also by dignitaries in the American Episcopal Church, and sundry
other VIPs. His appearance at an Episcopal church in Chicago got him a write-up
in the Chicago Tribune, together with his photograph (CT/Patr).
On one of Mar Eshai Shimuns trips to Chicago in 1940, a long-awaited

meeting between reformist members of the Chicago congregation of the Church
of the East and the Patriarch took place at his temporary lodgings in Evanston.
According to the testimony of John Simon, the meeting must have gone very
badly. After he and 1516 other members of his church pleaded with the
Patriarch to give Sadook permission to lead services, Simon reports, He said we
had no right to worship, yes that is what the Patriarch told me. We the Assyrians
in Chicago had no right to worship. Yes, he also said we could have stayed home
until his arrival or somebody else (MastRep: 416). Mar Eshai Shimun went on
to inform the congregation that he was in charge and that any disobeying of his
orders was blasphemous. The reformists were taken aback, and informed the
Patriarch that he was now in America, where such dictatorial control over
citizens was frowned upon. In Simons words:
Romeo David took the floor and he said to the Patriarch well, he
showed the Patriarch the deeds of the congregation and he told him that
this is our property, bought by our money, and carried on by our people
from the east and we can worship God in any way we choose here in
America, whether you like it or not. (Ibid. 427)
To that the Patriarch did not respond. He did make it clear, however, that he
stood by his choice of Q Saul to lead the congregation. The face-off between
John Simon and Romeo Davids group, on the one hand, and Mar Eshai Shimun
16
The official was Squadron-Leader (retired) H. Hindle Jones, in a secret document,
Notes upon Recent Conversations with His Beatitude Eshai Mar Shimun XXI, Patriarch
of the Assyrians and Catholicos Patriarch of the East, 1 August 1939 [FO 371/23197].
on the other, brings into sharper relief the conflict between congregational model
of the reformists and the universalistic model of the Patriarch.
During 1941, the reformists and loyalists grew further apart. For a time, Mar
Eshai Shimun conducted separate church services for his faction at Our Saviours
Church (on Fullerton Parkway) (AddAbsRec: 96063).17 Then, when Qasha Saul
formally moved to Chicago in the summer of 1941, these loyalists moved over to
the Olivet Institute (AddAbsRec: 95253). By now it was clear that reconciliation
between the two groups was not going to happen. Accounts had not been settled.
Mar Eshai Shimun and his followers were not about to surrender their claim to
the church and the congregation that they had deemed a colony of the Mother
Church.
Accordingly, the loyalists went on the offensive. On December 8, 1941,

Rahana David, who still held in trust the deed to the church property at 18015
N. Hammond, made, executed and delivered a quitclaim deed of the property to
His Beatitude Mar Eshai Shimun (BillCompt1942: 56). The loyalists took
control of the building, and, by March 14, 1942, they locked the reformists out
(literally, by changing the locks), so that they could have exclusive control over
church services and decide who could participate in them.
Even more dramatically, Mar Eshai Shimun publicly excommunicated

Sadook Yokhanan from the Church of the East on February 15, 1942.
Although this event did not have any bearing on the litigation, it must have been
a landmark event in the history of the Assyrians of Chicago. Between 500 and
600 people, of many denominations, gathered to hear Mar Eshai Shimun declare
that he had never recognized Sadook as a priest, that Sadooks claim to
priesthood was null and void, and that in accordance with Sunhadus (Canon
Law), Sadook was to be punished for such blasphemous pretension to priesthood
by being suspended from all privileges of an ordinary member of the church,
such as receiving the Holy Eucharist, unless he offered repentance and officially
received pardon.18
17
In this source, the Additional Abstract of Record, I cite not the page number but the
record number, which corresponds to the page number in the unabridged proceedings
(Masters Report [MastRep:]).
18
I quote a statement by the Patriarch dated February 15, 1942, which I found in the St.
Johns collection. There was both an Assyrian version and an English translation.
Presumably the Assyrian version is the decree the Patriarch read, in which he
excommunicated Sadook. See also Qasha Saul Davids testimony, December 19, 1944, in
AddAbsRec: 99294.
I should add here that excommunication traditionally was a devastating verdict.
Shamasha Giwargis, writing also in the early 1940s (in Iraq), described what effect being
excommunicated would have on a Tiyari in his own village (in Tiyari, since there were
no bishops or metropolitans, it was only Mar Shimun who excommunicated criminals or
sinners):
The conveyance of the deed and the takeover of church services if not also
the affront of Sadooks excommunication prompted the reformists to have
their lawyer, John A. Brown, file a suit against Mar Shimun and his followers, in
order to recover the property. The Bill of Complaint was served on April 1, 1942.
In it, the plaintiff (the reformists) claimed to show that Mar Eshai Shimun was in
violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing to all the free exercise of
religion, and that . . . he falsely, fraudulently and illegally claim[ed] the
ownership and control of all of said property, as the pretended religious governor
and head of all religious worship by peoples of Assyrian descent and as members
of said congregation (BillCompt1942: 8). Labeling Mar Shimun and his
followers as conspirators, the reformists accused them of having threatened to
beat them up and assault them if they tried to enter the premises (ibid.: 10).
As the reference to the peoples of Assyrian descent suggests, and as further

testimony makes clear, the reformists were calling into question not only Mar
Eshai Shimuns right to own the church real estate, but also his claim to be the
leader of the Assyrians. In the course of testimony, they tried to present Mar
Eshai Shimun as the leader of merely one sect of Assyrians, with a relatively
small following in Chicago. Assyrians, as all other Americans, were free to
practice whatever form of religion they pleased, and Mar Eshai Shimun, a
newcomer to America and a nonresident alien to boot, had no right to impose his
particular religious practice on them.
The loyalists wasted no time fighting back. They argued that the reformists
were by no means the congregation of the church, but merely a dissident group of
certain individuals comprising a group or faction which has seceded from the
general religious body of the ancient and internationally established Church of
the East and of the Assyrians, . . . [that is, the] Mother Church. . .
(AnsCtrClm: 12). Rahana David did not convey the quitclaim deed fraudulently
to Mar Shimun; rather, he had held it from its incorporation in 1925 merely in
trust for the Mother Church, which was under the control, direction and
supervision of the supreme Head or Patriarch, Mar Eshai Shimun (AnsCtrClm:
24, 29). The reformists were free in America to practice religion as they wished,
...[T]he guilty ones life would be made miserable. He would not be able to
receive any kind of help from his neighbors. They even would not receive his
greeting, nor would anybody in the village greet him. No mill would grind his
grain. If a member of his household died, nobody would attend his funeral or
burial. Such a person would be the most defiled and degraded one (bu
musly w-am) in the village. He would be considered as garbage. Nobody
would come to him, or even approach him. He would be ritually impure
(hram). His children would have to avoid playing with the children of the
village. Also, his wife would not be able to speak with her friends. His family
would not be able to use fires from their neighbors houses for kindling. In
short, they would be cut off from any kind of help. (Binymn [d-t] 1982:
8283; my translation).
but they had no right to usurp the control over church property which had been
bought and developed under the auspices of the Mother Church. As members of
the Church of the East, most members of the plaintiffs party (the reformists),
had, along with members of the defendants party (the loyalists), sworn
allegiance to the Patriarch (ibid. 38). The reformists denied that they ever had
(ReplicPlaint: 1011, RepProc: 45).
The loyalists did not stop there. They drew further implications from their
charge that the reformists were merely a renegade group that had left the Mother
Church. In a counterclaim, they argued that the reformists had wrongfully and
falsely appropriated the name of the church, elected their own board of trustees,
and had collected rent. Therefore, they requested the court to restrain the
dissidents (reformists) from using the same name as them, stop this band of
Sadooks followers from pretending to comprise the board of the church, and
make them account for all these back rents (AnsCtrClm: 3239). Although the
loyalists did not state it explicitly at the time, it eventually became clear that they
were requesting the court to prohibit these rebels from using the term
Nestorian and the expression of the East, and indeed they succeeded
(PetVacDec: 2).19
It took six years to decide the case. Important events occurred during this
time, in and out of the courtroom. On June 5, 1942, Judge Cornelius J.
Harrington decided that if the case was not promptly settled in court, it was to
appear before a Master of Chancery (OrdDec: 2).20 That indeed happened within
two weeks, on June 18, 1942, although the first testimony was not taken until
exactly one year later (AddAbsRec: 12, 5). With the case pending, Judge
Harrington decreed a temporary arrangement between the two groups. Duplicate
sets of keys were to be made for each party. The loyalists were to have use of the
chapel Sunday mornings, as well as Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays; the
reformists on Sunday afternoons, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Neither
group was to intimidate or interfere with the other (Ibid. 23, 5). For a few
months, the two factions complied peacefully with this Order and Decree, but in
the latter part of 1943 the arrangement between the two degenerated into
bickering and mutual recrimination: the two sides accused each other of stealing
each others religious paraphernalia and breaking or changing locks on each
other.
The main problem was simply that the two groups were outgrowing the small
chapel on North Orleans Street. On June 5, 1942, Judge Harrington ordered the
church to divide up the times of the week for the two factions to pray, with the
19
For more on the disgruntlement over the name change, see below, on pages 2225.
20
As I understand it, chancery (now organized into a division within the circuit court
system) refers to a type of civil law proceedings, in which no legal damages are at stake,
but only equity, i.e. the rightful ownership and disposition of property.
loyalists getting the chapel Sunday morning and the reformists Sunday afternoon
(PetCerDefCtrClm: 2). But this arrangement was unsatisfactory. The two sides
squabbled over the possession of religious articles and locks, as well as over what
temperature to keep the chapel (the reformists complained that the loyalists
purposely left the place too chilly for them on Sunday afternoons!)
(AnsHolyCath). The reformists began to lose enthusiasm for a protracted court
battle to gain control over a church property that had become inadequate for their
needs. On January 15, 1944, John Y. Simon, filed an Affidavit of Incorporation
for a free and independent congregation named the Free Holy Catholic Apostolic
Church of the East (AffidIncorp). By that time, the reformists had made the final
arrangements to buy a significantly larger property at the former Belden Avenue
Baptist Church at Belden and Halstead (2247 N. Halstead Ave.). They paid
$17,500 for a building that originally had cost $150,000 (UshanaMemo: 2;
UshanaStaFct: 2). It is interesting to note that they were able to secure this great
deal by buying the property from McCormick Theological Seminary, the
distinguished Presbyterian school.
The prospect of physical separation between the two factions did not initially
dampen the animosity between them. Qasha Sadook and his followers were
undaunted by his excommunication, and never signaled any interest in repenting.
The most dramatic instances of intimidation occurred while the reformists were
in the process of getting settled in their new property, early in 1944. Attorney
Brown reported to Harold E. Sullivan, the Master in Chancery assigned to the
case, that after the hearings of February 14 and 25, and June 14, Simon Jacob of
the loyalists made threats in Assyrian against John Simon, promising that the
latter, his brother Sadook, and their congregation would be wiped out. More
shocking, on March 1 Sadook was assaulted at Montrose and Sheridan by a
contingent of loyalists. Sadooks skull was fractured and he had to lay in a
hospital several weeks (PlaintAbsRec: 438 [testimony entered June 30, 1944]).21
The case dragged on in front of Master Sullivan until January 4, 1946. Mason
and Mason, the attorneys for the loyalists, virtually swamped the court (or the
Master in Chancery) with testimony from their own witnesses (primarily Rahana
David, Qasha Benjamin Odisho, Qasha Saul David Nissan, and George Eshaya),
and, just as importantly, with countless documents concerning Sunhadus, the
history of the church (locally and internationally), and the property.
It took until November 24, 1947 before a Final Decree was entered by Judge
John Prystalski. Technically this was a consent decree, to which both sides
agreed and lent their signatures. In actual effect, the judge ruled in favor of Mar
Eshai Shimuns party, whose members he called, following their usage, the
orthodox. He agreed that the Church of the East is an organized Christian
denomination and ecclesiastical body of international scope and character, with
21
Referred to here is the record number.
the Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun as its highest authority (FinDec: 3). The
congregation, he ruled, neither was nor ever had been independent (Ibid. 7). A
Board of Trustees assembled by Sadook and the reformists on January 27, 1940
was never duly authorized to act on behalf of the church. This body
synonymous with the plaintiff in the case (and with what I am calling the
leadership of the reformists) was thereby null and void. The courts
permanently restrained the reformists from meeting on the property without the
permission of the Patriarch, interfering with the orthodox, and using their name
(Ibid. 9). Judge Prystalski did, however, throw two little bones to the reformists:
First, the loyalists, through their actions during the litigation period, waived their
rights to the previously collected rent money that they had prayed the court for
(Ibid. 67) And second, they were enjoined from interfering with the religious
practice of the reformists (Ibid. 910). The reformists were left in peace to
practice their Christianity as they saw fit.
The implementation of the decree had to withstand a few more ripples of

discontent. New strife broke out in the St. Johns congregation as a result of the
litigation and its outcome. To understand this strife, it needs to be recalled that
the reformist group incorporated itself as the St. Johns Church in January, 1944,
while it was engaged in litigation. Technically, however, in their capacity as the
St. Johns congregation, members of this group never were the plaintiff in the
1942 case, even though many of the same individuals acted in both capacities. As
plaintiff in the 1942 case, such members of St. Johns Church claimed to be the
rightful Mar Sargis Church. The Consent Decree in effect denied this claim.
The Consent Decree both the deliberations leading up to it and the Decree
itself fomented discord among the reformists concerning just how independent
they wanted to be from the Church of the East, controlled in Chicago through the
Mar Sargis Church. A new split occurred over issues that are not entirely clear
from the surviving documents. Three of the officers, David Adams (Chairman of
the Board of Trustees), Sayad Jacobs (Treasurer), and Paul Joseph, a deacon,
engaged in activities that the majority of St. Johns members felt to be averse to
the interests of the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation held a meeting in
November, 1947, in which they replaced Adams with David Pera as the
Chairman of the Board, and voted in a new secretary and treasurer. The members
were so fed up with Adams and Pera that they booted them out of the
congregation altogether.22
22
The sources obscure the timeline. According to a letter by Albert Ushana to
George Potts on April 2, 1948 (UshPottsLtr: 2), Adams and Joseph were
removed from the membership roll, and Pera was elected chairman subsequently
(along with Ephraim Harton as secretary and Baba Aslan as treasurer).
Apparently Pera was elected in November, 1947 (PetAgstCst: 1), which means
that the removal of Adams and Joseph from the membership roll should have
been before that. Yet, on a membership list, it is noted that the two were
expunged on February 29, 1948 (MemLstHw: 8 and MemLstTs: 7), and in a
Adams and Joseph were trying to reach a fresh accommodation with the
Patriarchs party. It is clear neither how many were in this group, nor how many
were (like Adams and Joseph) defectors from the reformists. I will call them
neo-loyalists and reserve the expression independent reformists for those
who persisted in bucking the authority of Mar Eshai Shimun and Qasha Saul. On
a handwritten membership list of St. Johns, Adams and Joseph are accused of
carrying out secret communication with those who have been regarded as
enemy of our church, and of their usurping and rebellious character, and this
is why they were expunged . . . by almost unanimous vote of all Saint Johns
active members all (MemLstHw: 8).23
This new factional split became apparent in the reactions to two meetings of
the men of the St. Johns congregation with Attorney Brown, one before and one
after the Consent Decree. In the one that took place in preparation for the
Consent Decree, on November 2, 1947, Brown told the men of the congregation
that it was time to stop fighting about the old church. Reportedly, the trustees
agreed it is not clear whether it was the new ones or the old ones and
exhorted Brown to come up with an agreement in order finally to stop fighting
with the other side, . . . so we will have no trouble with them any more (l hwilan
qlmql m-udl) (HartMin).
After the judge issued the decree, the St. Johns members met again, on
December 7, at which time Brown explained that to make a clean breast of the
case, they had to shed the word East from their official name (Ibid.).
Accordingly, on December 24, Ephraim A. Harton, the secretary for the
reformists, filed an Affidavit of Change of Name (AffidChN), in which the
reformists adopted the name The Free Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
This name change, more than anything else, disgruntled the independent
reformists. At a third meeting of the men of the church, on January 18, 1948,
they indicated that they felt betrayed by Attorney Brown. Mr. Brown, wrote
Harton in his minutes, never did the things he promises to do about the [church
and the name] (HartMin). They thereby decided that they had had enough of
Attorney Brown, and so they turned to a young lawyer, recently admitted to the
bar, who was from within their own ranks, Albert Ushana. He was the son of Joel
Ushana and nephew of Joseph Ushanna, both of whom were among the
incorporators of St. Johns in 1944. Brown agreed to turn the case over to him.
letter from Ushana to Perley on April 12, 1948, he states that they were
suspended on March 14, 1948 (UshPerlLtr). My guess is that there was talk of
expelling them from the congregation in or before November, but they were not
formally expunged until later.
23
I have been unable to figure out who wrote these notes, but they appear to be initialed
by one P.T.O.
Ushana immediately filed a Petition to Vacate Decree [PetVacDec] (i.e. a

request to take back the Consent Decree). He wrote that at those meetings
between Attorney Brown and the congregation, the men explicitly told him not to
delete the names Nestorian or Assyrian Nestorian:
. . . [Such a] deletion of the word Nestorian and the injunction

restraining plaintiff organization [i.e. the St. John Church] from using
said word in its name will tend to destroy the entire spiritual and moral
structure, organization, and unity of said plaintiff church organization,
which has been painstakingly built up and organized by approximately
one hundred twenty five families over a period of many years; . . .
[T]he very lives, culture, and spiritual existence of said congregation
are tied up with the continued existence of said church organization,
and the use of the word Nestorian is vital to the further existence and
is of the essence to the doctrines and dogma of said plaintiff church
organization. (PetVacDec: 2)
Qasha Sadook, along with a group of trustees and other leaders of the St.
Johns Church, instructed Harton and Ushana to file yet another change of name
(FrChUshLtr). Accordingly, on January 26, 1948, they restored the term
Nestorian, with the name now being the St. Johns Assyrian Apostolic Free
Nestorian Church (AffidChN). This same group filed a petition with the court on
February 7, explaining that the Consent Decree was entered in error, on account
of Brown having misunderstood the instructions of those who were now
petitioning (PetAgstCst).24
The loyalists and their new allies were not about to allow the Consent
Decree to be scuttled, however. The loyalists lawyer, George A. Mason, Jr.,
filed a motion to dismiss their petition, on the basis of technicalities: he claimed,
inter alia, that Attorney Ushana had not been properly authorized to replace
Brown, and, more intriguingly, that the appellation Reverend Sadook de Mar
Shimun, which appeared in the petition, was an unjustified replacement of the
Sadook Yokhanan inscribed in previous documents, and thus was among the
name changes the petition insufficiently prayed for (MotDisPet: 34).
For their part, the neo-loyalists, led by David Adams, hired their own
lawyer, none other than David Perley, the celebrated Assyrian nationalist. Perley
was by then the longtime Secretary of the Assyrian National Federation (now the
Assyrian American National Federation), a post he held from 1936 to 1950
(Yonan 1978: 154), after having served as the organizations second president in
193435 (ANFConst: 12). The neo-loyalists filed their own petition, on
February 17, 1948, in support of the consent decree, insisting that Attorney
24
For a list of those who petitioned, see the full citation of PetAgstCst. The names are
identical with those who signed FrChUshLtr.
Brown had indeed faithfully carried out the wishes of the reformists
(PetCerCounDef). Perley, writing for the neo-loyalists, lambasted the
independent reformists for restoring of the East and Nestorian: it was
motivated by malice and by a desire to create agitation and dissension in the
congregation, to cause expense and inconvenience and to dissipate and waste the
church assets (PetCerCounDef: 4). This is rather strong stuff for what may
appear to be bickering over semantics.
Perley did not stop there. He had even harsher language for Sadooks self-
appellation of de Mar Shimun, which was, after all, part of his legally
recognized American name: The assumption of that title or any use of those
words by anyone other than the rightful Patriarch of the Church of the East
(Assyrian Nestorian) is fraudulent in intent and malicious in motive (Ibid.). It is
remarkable that Adams and the others lent their names to such words of
opprobrium for a priest whom they had earlier supported. Perley and the neo-
loyalists, for reasons that we can only speculate on today (in the absence of more
information), had set themselves firmly in the Patriarchs camp.
Ushana was intent upon keeping this new party represented by Perley
from influencing the case. In handwritten notes on the neo-loyalists petition
(Ibid. 1) that are probably Ushanas, the author comments that 21 of the 27
petitioner names were not dues-paying members of St. Johns, and that six of
them had not authorized Perley to use their names. Ushana managed to get at
least three of them to file letters with the court claiming they had never
authorized Perley to act as their attorney, and that they sided with the majority at
St. Johns Church, represented by Albert Ushana.25 On February 19, 1948,
Ushana filed a motion with the court to strike the neo-loyalists petition
(MotStrPet).
Despite Ushanas doggedness, he and his independent reformists did

eventually back down. On March 2, 1948, the court issued an order which
allowed Ushana to withdraw his Petition to Vacate Decree (OrdMar1948). In
other words, the independent reformists acquiesced in the matter of removing of
the East and Nestorian. Ushana and Mason now exchanged letters expressing
relief that the litigation was over (UshMasLtr, MasUshLtr). Ushana added that
his clients finally could be independent and be left alone.
They were not, however, so fortunate. The neo-loyalists, namely David

Adams and Paul Joseph through their lawyer, David Perley, still had an axe to
grind. One June 2, 1948, they served up another Bill of Complaint, thereby
25
These were S. A. Alawerdy (Sam Alewardy) on one letter, and Elisha Urshan and
David Joseph on another (AlawLtr; JosUrshLtr). They all signed February 16, 1948.
opening up a new case [48 C 6399] (BillComplaint1948).26 In it they complained

that the affidavit of January 15, 1944, which incorporated the St. Johns
congregation, wrongfully and without their knowledge, used the terms Free. . .
and . . . of America. Curiously, they now complained that the St. Johns group
illegally and without authority changed their name on December 24, 1947, and
thereby illegally, wrongfully, fraudulently, with force and violence and in
breach of trust, eliminated the terms of the East and Nestorian from the title
of the Church, for the express purpose of abandoning the tenets and doctrines of
the original denomination (BillCompt1948: 4). This charge by the neo-loyalists
against the independent reformists for having eliminated the names is remarkable
since just 3 months earlier, the very same party had complained bitterly that
they had restored these very terms (PetCerCounDef : 34). Adams and Joseph
made it clear that they had not been to blame for such separatism, asserting that
they were the most faithful and true members, deacons, trustees, and officials of
[the St. Johns] Church (BillCompt1948: 1). Since the defendants (Pera, Harton,
and the other independent reformists) were merely pretenders, they, the plaintiffs
(neo-loyalists), should be decreed the lawful holders of the St. Johns property
(that was vested in trust) (Ibid.).27
The independent reformists were this time able to argue successfully that
their congregation, the Free Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, Assyrian American
(known by the misnomer of St. Johns), was fully independent and never had
had anything to do with the Church of the East (UshanaMemo: 5). The Bill of
Complaint, Ushana argued, simply went into a fable that the church was bought
in trust for the Patriarch and his co-workers (Ibid. 6). He accused them of
exercising bad faith, inasmuch as they were trying to come into equity of the
church out of disrespect for (in derogation of) the rights of the majority (Ibid.
67).
The court agreeing, Ushana and the independent reformists got their way.
On December 3, 1948, this follow-up case was dismissed, at its first hearing.28
Finally peace prevailed among the factions. According to Ushana, as of March,
1949, the reformist group, at Qasha Sadooks free church, comprised more than
100 families, whereas the Patriarchs group had 3050 families at the old
church structure (in the back lot of 180105 N. Orleans).
26
The documents I have on this case are exclusively from the St. Johns collection. For
some reason, the file is missing from the Cook County Court Archives.
27
Perley actually uses the technical legal expression, cestui que trust (pl. cestuis . . .)
here, meaning the person for whose benefit or use anything is given in trust to another
(OED).
28
The only documentation of this order in the St. Johns collection is a handwritten note
on Form 251 of the Circuit Court of Cook County. There is no signature apparent on this
copy, but presumably it is by a judge.
Points at Issue in the Case

From the point of view of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, the
issue at stake in Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, etc. vs. His Beatitude, Mar
Eshai Shimun, et al. was the rightful ownership of the small church property at
180105 N. Orleans, Chicago. Closely related was the right of the corporation
that owned this property to have an exclusive right to the names . . . of the East
and Nestorian. Mar Eshai Shimun and his loyal followers were the unvarnished
winners of the case in both respects. Qasha Sadooks reformist group, despite
losing, could draw solace in the end from being finally able to practice their
Christianity as they saw fit without any interference from outsiders.
Why did the Patriarchs side win the case? In his decree (FinDec), Judge
Prystalski does not actually explain why; he merely echoes the loyalist
statements and testimony (see especially of AnsCtrClm). Putting aside for the
moment which side had the inherently stronger case, more in keeping with the
historical facts, there clearly is the factor of effort (and presumably finances to
fund the effort). The Patriarchs side marshaled far more testimony and evidence.
The abstract of their witnesses testimony is more than three times as lengthy as
that of the loyalists (the plaintiff).29 More dramatically, the loyalists took much
more care in submitting exhibits to the court. They submitted a meticulous 75-
page index and summary of more than 150 documents serving as exhibits,
including letters, minutes of meetings, church yearbooks, deeds, articles of
incorporations, etc. (AbsDefExh). In contrast, the reformists submitted merely a
one-page index of their 55 exhibits, without any summary whatsoever
(SwnLDoc).30 Furthermore, it is clear from even a cursory reading of these
materials (both abstracts of testimony and indexes of exhibits) that the loyalists
were more diligent in their preparation: their records are much more carefully
edited and presented than are those of the reformists.
The reformists own sources give the impression that they fought the case
with less ardor than did their opponents. Once they actually formed a new
corporation and moved to a new building in 1944, their motivation to triumph in
the case fizzled:
29
With all the directs, cross-examinations and re-directs, it is difficult to make an
accurate quantitative assessment of the relative durations of the two sides testimony.
Moreover, the abstracts for the two sides are typed differently. Nevertheless it is clear
that the loyalist witnesses appeared much longer on the stand than the loyalists did (207
pages of abstract vs. 57), and that their lawyer, George Mason, Jr., spent much more time
questioning witnesses than his counterpart for the loyalists, John Brown. Cf.
PlaintAbsRec and AddAbsRec.
30
In addition, in the St. Johns Collection there can be found what is probably a rough
draft of this document (PlaintExh).
After some four or five years of litigation and trickery on the part of the
Patriarch, the members of the church became disheartened and
discouraged, and upon advice of their counsel that litigation in a church
is a bad influence upon the youth of the church, it was then decided that
the members of the church who did not want the Patriarch to interfere
in the affairs of their church should organize as a new independent
church and give up the old church to the so-called Patriarch and end the
litigation. (UshanaMemo: 23)31
What further sapped the reformists energies, their lead witness, John Simon,
fell ill he was unable to appear in court on June 21 and August 2, 1945
(AddAbsRec: 1302, 1361) and passed away, sometime between the last day of
testimony (January 4, 1946) (Ibid. 1650) and November, 1947 (PetAgstCst: 1).
Regardless of how important this factor of effort may have been, it was the
substance of the reformists argument that turned out to be defective, at least in
the eyes of Judge Prystalski. In order to explain this, it is first necessary to grasp
what the court understood needed to be determined. At the beginning of 1943,
the judge who referred the case to Chancery, Judge LaBuy, explained that the
entire case hinged on one simple issue: when the religious body was incorporated
(in 1925), did its trustees either (1) own the property, or hold it in trust, for the
benefit of a particular religious denomination; or (2) hold the property. . .
solely for the society or congregation whose officers they are, and thereby not
be subject to any ecclesiastical judicatory (RepProc: 7)? If the first condition
applied, then Mar Eshai Shimuns group would be the rightful owners; if the
second, then Qasha Sadooks would be. In other words, it all depended on the
purpose and intent of the incorporators (Ibid. 8), on whether they established
and incorporated their church as agents of the Church of the East, headed by Mar
Shimun, or exclusively for their own, independent congregation.
Normally, the original charter, or articles of incorporation, would have made

clear what the trustees intentions were, and thus would have settled the issue.
But in this case, no such charter was ever submitted, filed, or shown to the court.
It was lost, mysteriously withheld, or never existed. Whichever the case, it was
effectively absent and nonexistent.32 None of the witnesses, on either side, ever
referred to it. However, as we shall soon see, an affidavit attesting to the
incorporation was indeed introduced to the court.
31
Ushana reiterated the point in a letter to Rev. John Harms, a Chicago religious leader:
I found . . . that . . . all [the members of the congregation] were desirous of terminating
this unnecessary litigation and letting the alleged patriarch and his followers have title to
the small church property . . . (UshHarmLtr: 2)
32
In the entire collection of documents, such a charter was never mentioned, except when
Judge LaBuy noted that they were not pleaded (Ibid.:8). I have explained in the text (in
the sentence I footnote here) what is entailed by this legalistic expression. Thanks to
Francis Sarguis for helping me understand this point.
As a consequence of the absence of a charter, the court had to determine

through testimony and other documents what the intentions of the first trustees of
the religious corporation were. To do this, the court took testimony and accepted
documents concerning the full sweep of the Church of the Easts history in
Chicago.
With the issues of fact framed in these terms, the loyalists clearly were in the
drivers seat. In great detail, they were able to show that from the first meetings
in 1914 of a Nestorian congregation under Shamasha (Deacon) Benjamin
Odisho (later Qasha Benjamin), the intention always was to be a colony
(qolony) of the Mother Church. The reformists objected to that interpretation,
insisting that Qashas Nestorius Malik and George Azoo, rather than Sh.
Benjamin Odisho, were the real forces behind the establishment of that original
congregation, and that neither of them fell under the jurisdiction of the so-called
Mother Church, for both of them had actually been ordained priests by the
Lutheran Church (ReplicPlaint: 7; John Y. Simon in MastRep: 610). In the
reformists view, their group was a congregation rather than a colony. However,
as will be seen, they were not able to convince the courts of that at all.
When Mar Timotheus subsequently came, in 192425, to establish a church

officially, he raised money in Chicago, Gary, New Britain and elsewhere for the
purpose. On this point both sides agreed. For the reformists part, they argued
that Mar Timotheuss role was solely to raise funds for the church, not to
establish a branch church. The loyalists, however, were able to counter this claim
successfully in three ways.
First, they showed correspondence between Mar Timotheus and members of

the church, and, more importantly, between the church and the Patriarch,
showing that from the earliest days of the St. Johns Church, its leaders saw
themselves as linked to the Patriarch. For example, the committee of the church
in Chicago, signed by Eramiah, son of Rev. Elisha Sayad, sent a letter to Mar
Eshai Shimun, with copies to the Metropolitan Mar Joseph Khnanishoo, and the
archbishops Mar Yawallaha and Mar Sargis, in which they said:
Thankfulness and gratitude to the head of the church that we are not
forgotten by you. In regard to sending Mar Timothy, your personal
representative, to visit our church at America . . . [sic] He started to
meet the duties imbued with him. That this venerable saint removed all
the pride, selfishness and errors of the church, we are all witnesses
before the Holy Throne of God. Then we, the members of the church of
Chicago, requested of his Holiness a minster for our church who would
fulfill all the tenets and requirements of the church. He, Rev. Tarwerdy
Esmail, was chosen by the members of the church . . .
By the desire and choice of all the congregation and by the

recommendation of Mar Timothy, Rev. Tarwardy Esmail was chosen to
fulfill all the duties of minister of The Eastern Holy Apostolic Catholic
Church.
These greetings we have sent to all the churches of America.
(AbsDefExh: Exh. 49; my stress)
The letter actually shows more than a glimmer of the American

congregationalist model at work, but the very circumstance that it was in a
letter to the Patriarch and his bishops, shows that they were striving to act more
in accordance with the other ecclesiastical model found in America, the
universalist one.
The second way in which the loyalists were able to counter the reformists
claim that they had established a free-standing church concerns the original
paperwork for the church. Although neither a charter nor articles of incorporation
ever did appear in the course of the proceedings, an affidavit, executed and
acknowledged by Mar Timotheus, did indeed show up in the plaintiffs (!)
exhibits as the Certificate of Incorporation, dated July 27, 1925 (PlaintExh).33
Curiously, it did not prompt any testimony, from either side.
Judge Prystalski, however, took the circumstance that Mar Timotheus had
been the one responsible for filing the affidavit as strong (if not clinching)
evidence for its affiliation with the said international Church of the East
(FinDec: 34). It is indeed ironic that it was the reformists who had submitted
this evidence that in the end did them in.
As for the third and final body of evidence that the church had continuously
been subject to the Mother Church: for the 15 years from the time of Mar
Timotheuss official establishment of the church (1925), until the arrival of the
Patriarch (1940), the loyalists had been producing minutes and other records that
documented the activities of the Executive Committee and General Convention
of the Church of the East in America. These documents revealed persistent
efforts to maintain allegiance to the Patriarch and follow Sunhadus. Finally, in
the late 1930s, correspondence between church leaders, including Sadook, and
Mar Shimun, as well as correspondence of the Episcopalian Bishop of Chicago,
George Craig Stewart, showed that whatever misgivings some of the members
may have had with Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun, they were consistently trying to
solicit his approval, especially in the matter of ordaining Sadook as priest in the
Church of the East.
In the face of all these and other data, the plaintiffs claim that the Chicago
church was a free and independent congregation from the beginning, without ties
33
A copy does appear in the Cook County Court Archives (CertInc).
to the Church of the East, or its Patriarch, just did not cut the mustard. Attorney
Brown argued in many ways and repeatedly that the majority of the
congregation, including the priest, Qasha Tarwardi, acted independently from
Mar Eshai Shimun, Mar Timotheus and the Executive Committee and General
Convention of the Church of the East in America. For example, they steadfastly
resisted the authority of Qasha Saul David Nissan (ReplicPlaint: 14). Nothing in
Sunhadus, he argued, could change Illinois law, and the congregation had
repeatedly refused to recognize any foreign power, prince, potentate, religious
of otherwise, including Mar Shimun (Ibid. 16). Such arguing clearly missed the
target so far as the judge was concerned: all that mattered were the intentions
behind the original incorporation of the church. The objections of the majority to
Mar Eshai Shimun and his followers, and their alleged lack (or loss) of interest in
Sunhadus or the institutions of the Church of the East, simply were immaterial.
I am not a lawyer, and am in no position to second-guess the strategy the

plaintiffs lawyer followed or, for that matter, to evaluate the wisdom of the
judges decree or the performance of the lawyers. It is curious, however, that the
judge omitted any reference to quite another argument the reformists dredged up
to exclude Mar Eshai Shimun and his followers from ownership of the Mar
Sargis property. This argument denied the legitimacy not only of Mar Eshai
Shimuns self-appellation as Patriarch of all Assyrians, but also of his claim to
be Patriarch at all.
It seems to me that the reformists may have had a better chance of

succeeding had they advanced this as their main argument. That is, they could
have (1) conceded that the Church of the East had established the Mar Sargis
Church in 1925 as its colony; (2) acknowledged that Mar Timotheus founded it
(as the loyalists in fact argued but the reformists unconvincingly denied); but
then (3) contended that Mar Timotheus, even though he was Regent of the
Church, was not acting at the command of Mar Eshai Shimun, who was a minor
at the time. Although the reformists did in fact make this last point (ReplicPlaint:
89), it carried no weight because they were also arguing (unconvincingly) that
Mar Timotheus had no direct role in incorporating the church in Chicago. Had
they acknowledged Mar Timotheuss role in founding the church, they could
have capitalized on the circumstance that Mar Timotheus had a long feud with
Mar Eshai Shimun: he had opposed, and regarded as illegitimate, the
consecration of Mar Eshai Shimun as Patriarch in 1920 (Mar Aprem: 7685).
From 1928, when the Mar Shimun family had him deported from Iraq back to
India, until 1938, he severed all his ties to Mar Eshai Shimun (ibid.: 13139).
Above all, there is evidence that in 1926, when the Chicago Church of the East
parish was in its infancy, trustees of the church spurned the authority of the Mar
Shimun family and sought the approval rather of Mar Timotheus.34 None of these
34
This can be found in a letter Shamasha (Deacon) Youash Y. DeKelaita wrote in 1926
to Mar Timotheus in India. DeKelaita was the first secretary of the Chicago church, had
details of Mar Timotheuss split with Mar Eshai Shimun found their way into the
courtroom, and so, from a legal perspective, this is all a moot point.
But the issue these details pertain to the legitimacy and authority of Mar
Eshai Shimun as the head of the Church of the East, and of all Assyrians was
indeed addressed in the court pleadings, as I noted, and is an issue of continuing
interest and importance to Assyrians. As regards the claim of Mar Eshai Shimun
and his followers that he was the head of all Assyrians, staunch disagreement
reigned. Outsiders involving themselves with Assyrians tended to see Mar Eshai
Shimun advertised as the Patriarch for Assyrians in general. For example,
prominent leaders of the Episcopal Church, both clergy and lay, identified Mar
Eshai Shimun in a leaflet distributed to raise funds for a new church in Chicago,
probably in 1941, as His Beatitude, Mar Shimun, Patriarch of the Church of the
East and of the Assyrians (ChEastAmer: [3]; my stress). More generally, the
loyalists argued explicitly during the litigation that the Church of the East and the
Assyrian nation were one and the same:
The original colonization of the Church of the East was among the
remnants of the Assyrian race which had survived the downfall of the
Assyrian empire, and from its inception the church and the Assyrian
nation have been considered as one and the same. (AnsCtrClm: 33)
The reformists begged to differ. Mar Eshai Shimuns claim to be Head of

the Assyrians, they argued, was misleading and untrue (ReplicPlaint: 2). In
support, they tallied the numbers of Assyrians who belonged to other Christian
independent Assyrian Churches. I give these numbers below in the 1942
column, the year they were pleaded to the court, and, for purposes of tracking
growth and decline, I add the numbers appearing on a handwritten note
(AssyrCenChi), probably from 1948, that clearly originated also from a reformist
source. In addition, I include the name of the pastor or priest of each
congregation, as of 1948, to aid identification. A note on AssyrCenChi makes it
clear that these tallies do not include children.
been the Metropolitans host during the latters visit to Chicago in 192425, and later
appeared as a witness for the loyalists. In the letter (reproduced by Mar Aprem: 11314),
DeKelaita gave an account of his churchs defiance of the Mar Shimun family, especially
as represented by Surma Khanem. As he reported, Surma had arrived in New York a few
days before, and had an American cable the Chicago church requesting that a
representative of the church come to meet her. The church council, or Mut, refused to
send anybody to see her unless she sent a cable and signed it herself. She then did. The
Mut sent a representative, but told him to have no business dealing with her or anyone
else except at the presence of our Chicago Mut. The Mut then agreed not to sign
any agreement with her, or to conduct any business at all with her, unless Mar Timotheus
(Your Grace) first approved. They would have preferred to have been left alone if they
[could] help it.
Church 1942 1948 Pastor/Priest

Independent Assyrian Churches
Assyrian Presbyterian 250 350 Rev. H. Ablahat
Assyrian Congregational 200 300 Rev. Paul S. Newey
Assyrian Roman Catholic35 125 150 Monsg. F. Thomey36
Assyrian Lutheran 40-50 37
Assyrian Pentecostal 40-50 125 Rev. J. Benjamin
Assyrian Plymouth Brethren 30-50 25 none38
Nestorian
St. Johns n.a. 175 Rev. Sadook de Mar
Shimun
Mar Shimun n.a. 50 Rev. David Neesan39
These numbers do not even include the many Assyrians who belonged to
other (multiethnic) churches. None of the independents, which included the
vast majority of the Assyrians of Chicago, acknowledge[d] the claims of, or in
any manner recognize[d]. . . Mar Eshai Shimun as the Head of the Assyrians
(ReplicPlaint: 2; cf. AnsSad: 2).
Concerning the reformists more provocative charge that Mar Eshai

Shimun was only a pretender to the rank of Patriarch it was Qasha Sadook
who drove this home the most vociferously. He actually made two distinct
arguments (neither of which Judge Prystalski paid any attention to). First, there
had not been any system of law or canon law in effect in the Nestorian
Church.40 This was because the original Sunhadus, the body of laws, called for a
council of the people every 25 years and up to 100 years in times of trouble. If no
council were held for over 100 years, the acts, rules, decrees and laws would
become invalid (AnsSad: 1). In fact, Sadook contended, there had not been any
such council for 600 years. During virtually all of these past 600 years, the
Nestorian church had been dominated by Muslims, who subverted their system
of law:
35
AssyrCenCtr calls this Roman church: Assyro-Chaldean Catholic.
36
The note does not include the F. This is almost certainly the same priest as Fransis
Tum (or Toma), who was priest of this church as of January 1936 (ListOrgs/Spar), and
who remained priest until he died and Father Thomas Bidawid took over (Marshall
Joseph, personal communication).
37
I believe the only pastor ever to have headed this group was Luther Pera (Lutar Pra)
(e.g. Ibid.).
38
In the 1936 report, the name Brother Yako (Aun Yqo) appears (Ibid.).
39
This is the same as Qasha Saul David Neesan.
40
Sadook registered disapproval for the label, the Church of the East, which, he wrote,
invited ambiguity, since there were no less than 16 Eastern Churches (AnsSad: 1).
. . . [W]hen the Mohammedans took over the government of the Near

East where Nestorians had more or less gathered, the Nestorian
hierarchy became hereditary over against and in violation of the former
Sunhadus and this was encouraged by the Mohammedans who
themselves recognize and believe in hereditary government for Church
and State... (Ibid. 3)
During recent times, the Nestorian Church had been conducting itself in
accordance with Muslim civil and religious government, remote from Sunhadus
(Ibid.). In consequence of what was in effect a suspension of Sunhadus, Mar
Eshai Shimuns insistence that his orders were concordant with Sunhadus so
that to disobey his orders was to violate Sunhadus was unfair and invalid. Mar
Eshai Shimun, in effect, was spuriously upholding Sunhadus, for Sunhadus did
not apply.
The second argument put forward by Sadook presumed the continuing

existence of Sunhadus, which Sadook deemed the common law of the land
rather than as canon law (AnsSad: 1). "Eshai David alias Eshai Shimun" (Ibid. 7)
was improperly consecrated Patriarch, Qasha Sadook argued, for his ordination
violated Sunhadus on a number of grounds, in addition to other reasons.41 Firstly,
and most generally, Sunhadus ruled out any form of hereditary government, and
Mar Eshai Shimun was chosen by dint of belonging to the House of Mar Shimun,
which held the Patriarchate for 600 years.
Secondly, he was not elected by the majority of bishops, as required by

Sunhadus. No election at all had been held. Two-thirds of the bishops at the time
were actually opposed to his ordination. Not only the Assyrian Church of the
East, but also the British government refused to recognize the ordination. Both,
asserted Qasha Sadook, considered his actions as an insult to the government as
well as to the Christian religions generally (AnsSad: 1).42
41
In legalistic fashion, Qasha Sadooks argument itemizes the reasons that he claims
brand Mar Eshai Shimuns ordination as Patriarch illegitimate, in such a way that the
ordinary reader finds redundancy and hairsplitting (are those really two distinct reasons?).
Hence, I have mixed and matched, i.e. combined and rearranged his arguments,
without, I believe, altering the substance. Unwisely, I believe, Qasha Sadook included in
these reasons his point that Sunhadus had de facto been set aside in favor of practices in
accord with Mohammedan civil and religious government. If that were so, then why
bother to show why Mar Eshai Shimuns ordination violated Sunhadus?
42
The reader should be reminded that this is Qasha Sadooks interpretation. I do not
know how thoroughly its veracity can be corroborated. It is well-known that Eshai was
consecrated Patriarch at the Baqubah Refugee Camp, when many Assyrians were leaving
the camp to return to Urmia, and in Mandan Refugee Camp near Mosul. At the time of
his consecration, it is true that there were few bishops in the Church. Coakleys research
suggests that there were only five remaining at the time: Mar Yosip Khananisho (the
Matran, of Shamsdinan), Mar Abimalek Timotheus (whom I usually refer to as Mar
Thirdly, he was only 11 years old at the time of his consecration

(AnsSad: 3).43 Sunhadus did not permit the ordination of anyone under
21 as Patriarch (AnsSad: 1).
Fourthly, he was illiterate at the time of his ordination, and he passed no

mental or physical examination (ibid. 3). And finally, no other Eastern Church
would recognize a Church of the East Patriarchate, since the Church of the East
Patriarch had been excommunicated in 432 (ibid.).44
In short, Qasha Sadook argued that Mar Eshai Shimun was not only a
pretender in his claim to be Patriarch for all Assyrians; he was even pretender in
his more limited claim to be Patriarch of the Church of the East. He was not a
legitimate leader of anything.45
Timotheus), Mar Elia of Alqosh, Mar Zaya Sargis of Jilu, and Mar Yelda Yawallaha of
Berwar (Coakley, 1996: 18183). Only the Matran and Mar Sargis were known to be in
Baqubah at that time. Mar Timotheus was certainly in India. As reported above, the court
documents show that Mar Yawallaha was at the time actually in Chicago, where he had
been for two years, having been sent by Mar Polus Shimun (AnsCtrClm: 36;
PlaintAbsRec: 35354; AddAbsRec: 658, 78991, 88284).
43
Many accounts report that he actually was 12. For example, a leaflet put out on the
occasion of the 50th Anniversary of his Patriarchate gives his birth date as February 26,
1908, and the date of his consecration as June 20, 1920 (BioMarEshShim: 2021). For
further discussion about the discrepancies in the accounts of Mar Eshai Shimuns age at
the time, see Coakley (1996: 181, fn.12).
44
One might wonder about the relevance of this last point. What did it matter what other
Christian Churches have thought about the Church of the East? Qasha Saodoks point
here reveals a concern about what other Christians think about the Church of the East,
and a desire to bring the Church into the mainstream of Christianity. A perusal of Light
From the East, the periodical put out by Mar Eshai Shimuns Patriarchal Council from
1948 to 1952, will find the same proclivity. But this is all a topic for a different
publication.
45
It is still not well understood just how it was decided that Eshai be consecrated
Patriarch. In one interesting account, Mar Eshai Shimuns brother, Theodoros, reported
many years later that he remembered a visit by Malek Khnanu of Tkhuma to their family,
while they were at Baqubah, when the Patriarchate was vacant. Malek Khnanu requested
that the next Patriarch come again from their family. Theodoros and Mar Eshai Shimuns
mother, Esther (whom Theodoros neglects to mention was the sister of Mar Yosip
Khananisho), tried to rebuff him, saying the family had enough of supplying patriarchs.
But Malek Khnanu said, We will not accept a Patriarch outside of this family, and
added that the people would not go on up to Mandan Camp until a Patriarch was
consecrated. Colonel Cunliffe-Owen, of Baqubah Camp, tried to prevent the
consecration, saying is did not represent the will of the people. Then one Shamasha
Mushe (bar Yosip d-bt Markos of Ashitha) publicly challenged the colonel, explaining
that it the consecration of Eshai as Patriarch was canonical. He stressed that (1) the
British had no right to interfere with the canons of the Church of the East, and (2) these
canons are different from those of the Western churches (Isml 1964: 3, 16263). As it
turned out, the Assyrian people steadfastly backed Shamasha Mushe on this point,
The loyalists never responded directly to Sadooks charges that Mar Eshai
Shimun had been pretendedly ordained Patriarch. In their own pleadings, they
forcefully asserted that Mar Eshai Shimun was the unquestioned supreme
authority in Church matters:
. . . Mar Eshai Shimun, by apostolic succession, is the Catholicos

Patriarch of . . . [the Church of the East, the] Mother Church[,] and is
the supreme authority in whom are vested the ultimate powers of
disposition and decision in all matters concerning the church property,
fiscal affairs and religious services. (AnsCtrClm: 19)
Indeed, the loyalists did not need to rebut Qasha Sadooks charge that Mar
Eshai Shimun was a mere pretender. When Attorney Brown attempted to raise
the argument in front of Master Sullivan that Mar Eshai Shimun was an
illegitimate Patriarch, Mason, the loyalists attorney, objected that this was
irrelevant, since Brown had already argued in his replication that his whole
argument hinged on the point that the Patriarch had never been the Patriarch in
the eyes of the reformists, but only in the eyes of the loyalists. So, argued Mason,
the issue of the legitimacy of his authority over a Church, which the reformists
did not see as their own, was beside the point. Master Sullivan agreed with
Mason, and sustained his objection (AddAbsRec: 160708).
As suggested before, accusations of pretension were mutual: the loyalists

considered Sadook to be a mere pretender as well. Throughout the court
proceedings, they never deigned to identify him as a clergyman, but rather
referred to him consistently as Sadook Yokhanan.
Concerning the point that Sunhadus was no longer valid, and that it had
been co-opted, thwarted and superseded by the dominant Muslim powers, the
loyalists rejected this out of hand. As Qasha Saul K. David explained, Muslim
domination over the Assyrians did not supersede the authority of the Sunhadus
and the Patriarch, but rather reinforced it:
In the near east [sic] all the nationalities have their minority laws and
rights. Assyrians were ruled by the Patriarch who was the only channel
through which the government dealt with these people. He was
recognized by the government, whether Turkey or Persia or Arab
Sheiks or Caliphs or the Mongol Khans they all dealt with these
people through the Patriarch. It was not only the Assyrians; the
Armenians, Arabs, Yesids and all other minority nations had the same
thing. Therefore they have civil as well as religious laws. (ibid. 1349)
Colonel Cunliffe-Owen acquiesced, but he then appeared as a broken man (Mr[y] imon
[1991]: 14546).
These civil laws, Qasha Saul further explained, became incorporated into
the Sunhadus. For Qasha Sadook and the reformists, the domination of Muslim
regimes over the Assyrians undermined Sunhadus and reduced the Patriarch to a
feudal authority, whereas for Qasha Saul, Muslim domination left Sunhadus
intact, enriched it with civil laws, and broadened the Patriarchs authority. The
two sides agreed that the Patriarchate had long since gained temporal powers, but
spun this phenomenon differently: Qasha Sadook and the reformists saw it as
detrimental, whereas Qasha Saul and the loyalists considered it salutary
inasmuch as it reinforced Assyrian nationality while keeping the Church alive.
It is difficult to imagine just what kind of impression all the interpretations

of the role of Sunhadus in the history of the Church of the East, along with the
questions about the legitimacy, both spiritual and temporal, of Mar Eshai Shimun
and his familys dynasty, must have made on sitting Chicago judges in the 1940s.
In the end, these issues seemed to have little bearing on the case. All that
mattered was whether the original Mar Sargis Church was established in the
1920s as a colony of the Mother Church, or as an independent congregation.
Conclusion
The legal battles over a small piece of real estate in Chicagos Lincoln Park
neighborhood in the 1930s and 1940s has more significance than the
professionals involved in the case must ever have imagined. The documents, in
spite of being freighted with legal jargon, offer a fascinating glimpse into the
lives of newcomers to the United States, who had suffered greatly as members of
a small ethnic and religious minority in the Middle East, struggling to fulfill their
spiritual needs. Their challenges must have been overwhelming, for they were
trying to cling to their culture, traditions, and transnational social networks in a
milieu starkly contrasting that of their originating societies. To complicate their
plight, they had to work out their struggles while being stuck in the dire straits of
the Great Depression, and weighted down by the burdens of wartime.
This paper has made no attempt to paint a full picture of the challenges
immigrant Assyrian followers of the Church of the East faced and the efforts they
expended to overcome them. It has tried only to bring into sharp relief one of the
dilemmas they faced and how they tried to solve it. The first horn of the dilemma
was the felt need to keep up an ancient religious and cultural tradition in the
context of an apostolic church. The second horn was the yearning to fit in with
an American society in which individuals voluntarily choose to participate in the
religious groups that best fulfill their spiritual needs.
As the bickering in the Mar Sargis Church dispute shows, not all Assyrian
immigrants responded to the dilemma in the same way. This paper has identified
groups of individuals who faced the dilemma from different angles. Surely there
were many other differences in viewpoint and in personal religious practice, but
the available documents do not bring these out very clearly. One prototypical
response to the dilemma consists in what I have called the reformist view. On
this view, appropriate religious practices are ones that are based on rules agreed
to by the majority of the members of the congregation, in keeping with the local
laws of Illinois. These practices may grow out of tradition, but they are not in any
way subject to any customs, usages, rules, orders of any church, canons or
ecclesiastical laws, not to mention any particular patriarch, deacon, monk,
minister, or priest of a Mother Church (For a particularly clear statement of this
view, cf. ReplicPlaint: 3). Such a viewpoint presumes that religion is a
democratic matter, founded upon the choices of individuals. Many holders of this
view surely wanted to keep up traditions, but to them such traditions were
subordinate to the will of the local voluntaristic congregation. The congregation
chooses its leaders as indeed the reformists selected and groomed Sadook to
be their priest and these leaders serve at the behest of the congregation.
The opposite strategy of facing the dilemma can be found in the loyalist
position. From the point of view of loyalists, church practice was not a matter of
individuals freely choosing what to do. Rather, it was a matter of following the
orders of the leaders of the Mother Church leaders who were chosen
according to the traditional laws of apostolic succession. The local practicing
group was not a congregation, but rather a colony of the Mother Church (e.g.
AnsCtrClm: 1314). An attempt to express tolerance brings their attitude out in
sharp relief: the loyalists denied they had barred anyone from entering the church
and conducting services except insofar as such religious services and
instructions may be unorthodox and contrary to the customs, usages, ritual and
canonical law of the Mother Church and said incorporated congregation (ibid.
21). For them, acceptance of the authority of the Mother Church, with its leaders
determination of proper, orthodox practice, was the precondition for
participation in the local church. The members were to follow the clergy, not the
clergy serve at the pleasure of the congregation.
In the light of comparative data on other Eastern Christian churches, the

dilemma Assyrian immigrants faced was hardly unique. Clashes between
congregationally-minded adherents vs. colonially-minded ones ran through
many of these churches, and in many other cases such clashes led to legal
disputes over church property. It goes without saying that each ethnic group
involved gave their legal disputes their own special tinge. In the case of
Assyrians, an issue that resonated for a long time concerned the legitimacy of the
dynastic patriarchate of the Mar Shimun family in general, and the legitimacy of
Mar Eshai Shimun in particular. Both sides agreed that the Church of the East
had struggled for centuries as a result of its minority status and its weak political
position. The dynasty had, in the eyes of many, become not only a religious one
but a political one as well. As for the reformists, they explained their refusal to
accept the authority of the Mother Church on the grounds that its own leadership
was illegitimate. The loyalists rejected this view out of hand: for them, the
weakening of the Church as a result of World War I, including the shortage of

institutions for the proper training and consecrating of priests, had no bearing on
these issues of legitimacy.
From the perspective of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the issue of the
legitimacy of Mar Eshai Shimun and the Church of the East never came into
play. From the point of view of Judge Prystalski, the only question was whether
the Mar Sargis Church had been incorporated as a colony of the Mother Church
or as an independent congregation. The documents submitted to the court and the
testimony of those who had been involved in the establishment of the church
convinced him that it was indeed a church colony, rather than an independent
congregation. Despite the case dragging on for many years, it all came down to
this simple judgment.
If the judge ruled narrowly in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, etc. vs.
His Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, et. al. case, the reader should not suppose that
the scope of the legal documents is narrow. On the contrary, the St. Johns
Collection, together with the case files at the Cook County Court Archive, are
treasure troves of data for anyone interested in the history of the Church of the
East in the 20th century, as well as of the Assyrian immigrant experience in
America. The two collections are loaded with details of the original
establishment of Assyrian Church of the East congregations or colonies (take
your pick!) in America in the early 20th century.46 I would like to mention two of
the many interesting aspects of that history that are yet to be explored adequately,
on which the two collections would shed much light.
First, although I did mention that the rifts in the Mar Sargis Church in the
1930s were partly attributable to friction between plainspeople from Iran and
highlanders from Turkey, I only touched upon that topic. Especially in the
testimony of the dramatis personae, which can be found primarily in MastRep,
there are many little observations that likely would add up to an interesting story.
For example, at one point, Roman George, one of the key reformists, explained
to the court that Mar Eshai Shimun had meant little to him, for he had grown up
in Persia, whereas the Mar Shimuns had been seated in Turkey (MastRep: 308).
Second, there is much data in the two collections that would shed light on the
important relationship between the Church of the East, in particular the loyalists,
and the Episcopal Church of America. As the court testimony makes evident,
Bishop Charles P. Anderson, the leader of the Episcopal Church in Chicago,
actively encouraged Assyrians to reestablish their Church of the East practices in
America. In the 1930s, his successor, Bishop George Craig Stewart, clearly sided
with the loyalists, but it is not clear to me how important his role was. Later, in
the 1940s, the name of Irwin St. John Tucker, a prominent socialist, journalist,
46
Indeed, I am drawing on this material in Ch. 5 of my still unfinished Ph.D. dissertation.
and Episcopal priest, surfaces from time to time. For example, upon conclusion
of the 194248 case, Tucker proudly proclaimed, in a widely read church
newspaper, the signal victory for Mar Eshai Shimun against Sadook, whom,
according to Tucker, was often described by Assyrians as a Judas (Tucker
1948). The charge infuriated Sadook, as he reported to the executive secretary of
the Church Federation of Greater Chicago, Dr. John Harms (SdkHarmsLtr).
Tucker was a strong partisan of the loyalists, but his role is little understood
today.47
As I write these words (February 2008), there is another court case regarding
Church of the East property, in California. Surely the details of the case differ
considerably from those of the 1940s cases. Nevertheless, participants in the
current dispute and other interested parties would gain much from revisiting the
cases that are the subject of this paper. It is only natural for human beings who
are caught up in disputes to personalize their situations, to blame seemingly
intractable problems on the personalities involved. As I hope this paper has
shown, conflicts between personalities are like the sloshing of waves that are the
product of underwater currents. Apostolic, parish-based churches face enduring
challenges in modern, pluralistic societies such as the United States. Individuals
who experience the tension between carrying on a universalistic church tradition,
predicated upon the unity of its practitioners, and participating in a society
founded upon the principle of free choice, are bound to develop conflicting
convictions on how to transcend that tension. If, however, those who find
themselves rowing through the turbulent waters of religious practice in
democratic society master the underlying eddies and currents, they will be in a
better position to ferry themselves across successfully. And they will come to
sympathize with and respect others who have had to face the same challenge.
47
Tuckers voluminous papers can be found at the University of Illinois at Chicago
Library (http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/specialcoll/services/rjd/findingaids/ISTucker.pdf).
Bibliography
Court Documents
Most of legal documents examined for this study were found in what I call the
St. Johns Collection. These are documents that had been held in the files of
the St. Johns Church, 1421 W. Lawrence AVE, Chicago, and, as of the late
1990s, when I obtained copies of them, were in the possession of Attorney Mark
Thomas, who is the legal counsel for the Church of the East in Chicago. The St.
Johns Church, which had been independent since its founding in 1944, reunited
with the Church of the East in 1992, when the collection came into Atty.
Thomass possession. The bulk of the collection I examined concerns the original
legal case that lasted from 194248, namely Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, etc.
vs. His Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, et al.. A related case also surfaced in the
St. Johns Collection, David Adams, et. al. vs. St. Johns Church. Here are fuller
citations for the two cases:
Illinois, State of. Cook, County of. Circuit Court of Cook County in Chancery
Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the East (Assyrian Nestorian), an Illinois
Corporation vs. His Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, Patriarch of the East
and of the Assyrians, Rahana H. David, Joseph Hozana, Gabriel Odishoo,
Samuel Pera, Simon Jacob, and Jesse Solomon. Case 42 C 3763. Chicago,
[19421948].
Illinois, State of. Cook, County of. Circuit Court of Cook County David Adams,
Paul Joseph, et. al., Members of the St. Johns Church, a Religious
Association, Plaintiffs, vs. St. Johns Church, a Religious Association; David
Pera, Its Purported Chairman of the Board of Trustees; Its Alleged Trustees
and Officers, Defendants. Case 48 C 6399. Chicago, 1948.
In the following sections, documents are listed by court case and by archival
collection. The listing does not include all items in the relevant collections, but
only those that are cited in this paper.
Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, etc. vs. His Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, et
al.: Documents from the St. Johns Collection
Abstract of Defendants Exhibits. Abstract of defendants sworn list of
documents filed June 10, 1943. Typescript, 75pp. (cited as AbsDefExh).
Additional Abstract of Record: Proceedings Before the Honorable Harold E.

Sullivan, Master in Chancery of the Circuit Court. Supplementing Abstract
Of Record Of Plaintiffs Case in Chief Presented At Masters Hearings From
June 18, 1943, To July 13, 1944. Typescript, 208pp. (cited as AddAbsRec).
Affidavit of Change of Name. December 23, 1947. Ephraim A. Harton (affiant),

John A. Brown (notary public)., Typescript, 1pp. (cited as AffidChN).
Affidavit of Incorporation. January 15, 1944. John Y. Simon (affiant), John A.

Brown (notary public). From a certified copy (February 4, 1948), of
Document No. 13207811, recorded in Book 38728 of Records, p. 322.
Typescript, 2pp. (cited as AffidIncorp).
Alawerdy, S. A., untitled. February 16, 1948. Handwritten statement, 1 pp. (cited
as AlawLtr).
Answer and Counter Claim of Defendants and Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
and for Other Relief. May 15, 1942. Prepared by Attys. Mason and Mason,
for His Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, Patriarch of the East and of the
Assyrians, Rahana H. David, Joseph Hozana, Gabriel Odishoo, Samuel Pera,
Simon Jacob and Jesse Solomon (signed by Simon Jacob and Saul K.
David),. Typescript, 41pp. (cited as AnsCtrClm).
Census of Assyrian Churches in Chicago. Handwritten manuscript, [1948], 1pp.

(stapled together with letter from S. L. Brenner to Editor of Chicago Herald
Tribune, and with a newspaper clipping) (cited as AssyrCenChi).
Free Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (Assyrian Nestorian), Letter to Albert J.

Ushana. January 25, 1948. Signed by David Pera, Chairman of Trustees;
Ephraim A. Harton, Secretary of Trustees; Abraham Alawerdy, John Barho,
Alexander George, George Sargis, and Joel Ushana, Trustees; Rev. Sadook
de Mar Shimun; Abraham Babaian, Abraham Badal, Baba Benjamin,
Shirinsha David, Samuel Petros, and Joseph E. Ushanna. Typescript, 1pp.
(cited as FrChUshLtr).
Harrington, Judge Cornelius J., Order and Decree. June 5, 1942. Typescript, 5pp.
(cited as OrdDec).
Harton, Ephraim, Untitled minutes. dated November 2 and December 7, 1947,

and January 18, 1948. Handwritten manuscript (Assyrian and English), 6pp.
(cited as HartMin).
Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the East (Assyrian Nestorian), an Illinois

Corporation; David Adams; John A. Brown (Plaintiffs Solicitor), Bill of
Complaint. April 1, 1942. Typescript, 12pp. (cited as BillCompt1942).
Joseph, David and Urshan, Elisha, untitled. February 16, 1948. Handwritten
statement, 1 pp. (cited as JosUrshLtr).
Mar Shimun, Rev. Sadook de, Letter to Dr. John Harms, Exec. Secretary of the
Church Federation of Greater Chicago. July 26, 1948. Typescript, 2pp.
(cited as SdkHarmsLtr).
Mason, George A., Jr., Letter to George Mason Jr. March 22, 1948. Typescript,
1pp. (cited as MasUshlLtr).
Mason[, George A., Sr.,] and Mason[, George A., Jr.] (Attorneys), for His
Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, Patriarch of the East and of Assyrians, Rahana
H. David, et al., Motion to Dismiss Petition Filed January 23, 1948, to
Vacate Decree. Typescript, 4pp. (cited as MotDisPet).
Members of St. Johns Church. [1948?]. Handwritten Manuscript, 10pp. (cited as

MemLstHw).
Members of St. Johns Church. [1948?]. Typescript, 7pp. (cited as MemLstTs).
Order. March 2, 1948. Typescript (unsigned), 11pp. (cited as OrdMar1948).
Perley, David B. (Attorney), for David Adams (Chairman), Jacob Abraham,

Roman George (Assistant Secretary), Joe Baba, Elisha Urshan, Oshana
Sargis, Paul S. Joseph (Deacon), Sayad B. Jacob (Deacon and Treasurer),
Joseph Muschi, Elisha Muschi, Isaac Muschi, David Joseph, Peter Envia,
James E. Petros, Saul David, Joseph Daniels, David J. Isaac, Elisha Essa,
Daniel Essa, Vardi Elia (President of Ladies Society), Saul Elia, Alice
Tamraz, Norman Jacob, Nick Minus, Aziz Eddy, Absolom Eddy, Sam
Alewardy, and David Joseph, Petition of Certain Counterdefendants.
February 13, 1948. Typescript, 6pp. (plus exhibits) (cited as
PetCerCounDef).
Petition. February 7, 1948. Signed by Abraham Alawerdy, John Barho,

Alexander George, Ephraim A. Harton, David Pera, George Sargis, Joel
Ushana, Joseph E. Ushanna, trustees; Rev. Sadook de Mar Shimun; Abraham
Babaian, Abraham Badal, Baba Benjamin, Shirinsha David, and Samuel
Petros; attested by Albert J. Ushana (notary public). Typescript, 3pp. (cited as
PetAgstCst).
Petition to Vacate Decree. January 22, 1948. Typescript, 3pp. (cited as

PetVacDec).
Plaintiffs Exhibits. [n. d.]. Presumably by John A. Brown (Attorney for

Plaintiffs. Typescript, 2pp. (plus a handwritten draft of the second page)
(cited as PlaintExh).
Prystalski, Judge John, Final Decree. [November 24, 1947]. Signed by John A.
Brown (Attorney for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants), Mason and Mason
(Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants), and Harold E. Sullivan
(Master in Chancery). Typescript, 11pp. (cited as FinDec).
Sworn List of the Documents, Photographs[,] Books, Accounts[,] Letters and

Papers Which are or Which May Have Been in the Posession or Power of
this Plaintiff . . . . [Date given erroneously as June 17, 1940; must be 1943.
Typescript, 4pp. (including a cover page and letter from Mason and Mason)
(cited as SwnLDoc).
Transcript of Plaintiff Testimony Before Harold E. Sullivan, Master in Chancery.

Including Abstract of Record: Proceedings Before Harold E. Sullivan,
Master in Chancery, Beginning June 18th 1943, John A. Brown[,] Attorney
for Plaintiff. Mason & Mason, Attorneys for Defendants. Typescript, 59pp.
(cited as PlaintAbsRec).
Ushana, Albert J., Letter to George Mason Jr. April 12, 1948. Typescript, 1pp.
(cited as UshMaslLtr).
Ushana, Albert J., Letter to Rev. John W. Harms, Church Federation of Greater
Chicago. May 20, 1948. Typescript, 3pp. (incomplete) (cited as
UshHarmlLtr).
Ushana, Albert J. (Attorney), for Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (Assyrian

Nestorian), an Illinois corporation, Sadook Yokhanan, otherwise known as
the Reverend Sadook de Mar Shimun, Romeo David, plaintiffs and
counterdefendants . . . , Motion to Strike Petition of David Adams, Et. Al.,
Certain Counter-defendants, Filed by Order of Court on February 17, 1948.
February 19, 1948. Typescript, 4pp. (cited as MotStrPet).
Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, etc. vs. His Beatitude, Mar Eshai Shimun, et
al.: Documents from Cook County Court Archives
The following documents were found exclusively in the Archives of the Office of
the Circuit Court of Cook County:
Answer of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the East, (Assyrian Nestorian),
an Illinois Corporation to the Petition for a Rule Entered Against it on the
6th day of December 1943, to show cause why it should not be judged guilty
of contempt. December 13, 1943. Signed by David Adams and John A.
Brown (attorney). Typescript, 4pp. (cited as AnsHolyCath).
Certificate of Incorporation. Filed by Mar Timotheos, July 27, 1925, Chicago.

Typescript (cited as CertInc).
de Mar Shimun, Sadook, Answer of Sadook de Mar Shimun, to the Amended

Counter Claim of the Defendants. Typescript, 15pp. (cited as AnsSad).
Masters Report. Report, Record and Certificate of Proceedings ... Before Harold
E. Sullivan, Master in Chancery . . . beginning on the 18th day of June, A.D.
1943. 19421946, Typescript, 1680pp. (cited as MastRep).
Petition of Certain Defendants and Counterclaimants. December 4, 1943.

Typescript, 6pp. (cited as PetCerDefCtrClm).
The Replication of the Plaintiff to the Answer of the Defendants. June 3, 1943.
Typescript, 21pp. (cited as ReplicPlaint).
Report of Proceedings. Hearing before JudgeWalter J. LaBuy, January 13, 1943.

Typescript, 11pp. (cited as RepProc).
David Adams, et. al. vs. St. Johns Church

The documents on this case all come from the St. Johns Collection:
Perley, David B (attorney), for David Adams, et. al., Bill of Complaint. June 2,
1948. Typescript, 6pp. (cited as BillCompt1948).
Ushana, Albert J., Letter to David Perley, Esq. April 12, 1948. Typescript, 1pp.
(cited as UshPerlLtr).
Ushana, Albert J., Letter to George Potts, McCormick Theological Seminary.

April 2, 1948. Typescript, 2pp. (cited as UshPottsLtr).
Ushana, Albert J., attorney, Memorandum. October 25, 1948. Typescript, 11pp.
(cited as UshanaMemo).
[Ushana, Albert J., attorney (?)], Statement of Fact Concerning Litigation

Instituted by and Against Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun. March 17, 1949.
Typescript, 3pp. (cited as UshanaStaFct).
Other Sources
[Ado] d-Ormar, ama Binyamn (1916), ilmt d-Suryy b- ikgo
[Assyrian services in Chicago]. Maidn Suryy [Assyrian American
Herald] 1(31), 8 (cited as MS/2261916).
Ammerman, Nancy (1997), Congregation and Community. New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press.
Assyrian National Federation (1943), Constitution and By-laws of the Assyrian

National Federation. Chicago: Consolidated Press (cited as ANFConst).
Assyrian Voice of Canada (1998), Biography of His Holiness, the Assyrian

martyr, Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, Former Catholicos Patriarch of the East,
Prior his Assassination [sic]. His Holiness, The Assyrian Martyr, Mar Eshai
Shimun XXIII (1908-1975): Catholicos Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of
the East 1(1), [2024], Reprint of pamphlet, by Committee of the 50th
Anniversary of the Patriarchat of Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII (Chicago, 1970)
(cited as BioMarEshShim).
Binymn [d-t], Gwargs d-bt (1982), ay g yr w-l-addar min

yr [Life in Tyari and outside of Tyari]. Chicago: Mabat d-Nnw.
Coakley, J. F. (1988), The House of Mar Shimun: 18201920. Nineveh

Magazine 11(4), 35.
Coakley, J. F. (1996), The Church of the East since 1914. Bulletin of the John
Rylands University Library of Manchester 78(3), 179198.
Dolan, Jay P. (1994), Patterns of Leadership in the Congregation. In Wind,

James P. and Lewis, James W., editors (1994a), New Perspectives in the
Study of Congregations. Volume 2, American Congregations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 225256.
Isml, [Malik] Yaqo d-Mlik (1964), tory w-tray pl tily h.d.

tory min 1914 hal 1945 [The Assyrians and the two World Wars; i.e. the
Assyrians from 1914 to 1945]. Tehran: Mabat d-St Siprt d-Elm
tory (Assyrian Youth Cultural Society Press).
Kourides, Peter T. (1959), The Evolution of the Greek Orthodox Church in

America and its Present Problems. New York: Cosmos Greek-American
Printing Co.
Kuropas, Myron (1991), The Ukranian Americans: Roots and Aspirations 1884
1954. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
[Lawrence, Rev. William and Rev. William T. Manning, et. al.] ([1941]), The
Church of the East and the Assyrians in America: The New Church To Be
Built in Chicago. Leaflet, Apparently produced by a Sponsoring Committee
from the Episcopal Church. 3pp. (cited as ChEastAmer).
Mar Aprem [George Mooken] (1975), Mar Abimalek Timotheus: a Biography.

Trichur, Kerala, India: Mar Narsai Press.
Mr[y] imon, Tdoros d-bt ([1991]), Tat d-yubl d-Paryark Mr[y]

imon [History of the Patriarch Mar Shimun dynasty]. [Modesto,
California]: n.p.
Minassian, Oshagan (1974), A History of the Armenian Holy Apostolic Orthodox

Church in the United States: 18881944. Th.D thesis, Boston University
School of Theology.
Naff, Alixa (1985), Becoming American: the Early Arab Immigrant Experience.
Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary Online (2000+), 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press [URL: http://www.oed.com] (cited as OED).
Papaioannou, George (1994), The History of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of

the Annunciation. In Wind, James P. and Lewis, James W., editors (1994b),
Portraits of Twelve Religious Communities. Volume 1, American
Congregations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 520571.
Phillips, Jenny (1989), Symbol, Myth, and Rhetoric: The Politics of Culture in an
Armenian-American Population. New York: AMS Press.
Pozzetta, George E., editor (1991b), The Immigrant Religious Experience.

Volume 19, American Immigration and Ethnicity. New York and London:
Garland Publishing.
Rush, Alan de L. and Priestland, Jane, editors (2001), Records of Iraq, 1914
1966. [Slough]: Archive Editions, 15 volumes.
Saloutos, Theordore (1991), The Greek Orthodox Church in the United States
and Assimilation. In Pozzetta, George E., editor (1991b), The Immigrant
Religious Experience. Volume 19, American Immigration and Ethnicity. New
York and London: Garland Publishing, 307319, Orig. 1973.
Serafim, Archimandrite (1973), The Quest for Orthodox Church Unity in

America: a History of the Orthodox Church in North America in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Saints Boris and Gleb Press.
Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995a), Chap. 2 (Immigration and

Conversion) In Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995e), Orthodox
Christians in North America, 17941994. Wayne, NJ: Orthodox Christian
Publications Center [URL: http://www.oca.org/MVorthchristiansnamerica
.asp?SID=1&Chap=CH2], Accessed January 15, 2007.
Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995b), Chap. 5 (The Collapse of the
Immigrant Church) In Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995e),
Orthodox Christians in North America, 17941994. Wayne, NJ: Orthodox
Christian Publications Center [URL: http://www.oca.org/MVorthchristiansn
america.asp?SID=1&Chap=CH5], Accessed January 15, 2007.
Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995c), Chap. 7 (The Ethnic Churches)
In Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995e), Orthodox Christians in
North America, 17941994. Wayne, NJ: Orthodox Christian Publications
Center [URL: http://www.oca.org/MVorthchristiansnamerica
.asp?SID=1&Chap=CH7], Accessed January 15, 2007.
Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995d), Chap. 8 (Challenges to the

Ethnic Churches) In Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995e),
Orthodox Christians in North America, 17941994. Wayne, NJ: Orthodox
Christian Publications Center[URL: http://www.oca.org/MVorthchristiansn
america.asp?SID=1&Chap=CH8], Accessed January 15, 2007.
Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Leonid (1995e), Orthodox Christians in North

America, 17941994. Wayne, NJ: Orthodox Christian Publications Center.
lmon d-Tum, Gilyn (1916), Mut [Obituary (of Zary Dwd bar Hiku
d-Pg)]. Maidn Suryy [Assyrian American Herald] 1(29), 8 (cited as
MS/2121916).
Tucker, Irwin St. John (1948), Pretender. The Churchman 162(9), 26.
Unsigned (1936), uyd d-E[d]tt d-Nisorny d-ikgo [Union of the

Nestorian Churches of Chicago]. Kton [Assyrian Chronicle] 5(51), [2]
(cited as NestCh/Kta).
Unsigned (1936), Myaqr Rab adoq imony. Kton [Assyrian

Chronicle] 5(51), [9] (cited as Sadook/Kta).
Unsigned (1940), Assyrian Patriarch. Time Magazine 36(7), 42 (cited as

Time/Patr).
Unsigned (1940), Churchman. August 4. New York Times, [Sec. 4]2 (cited as
NYT2/Patr).
Unsigned (1940), Nestorian Leader Here: 119th Patriarch of Church of the East
to Visit Followers. July 31. New York Times, 14 (cited as NYT1/Patr).
Unsigned (1940), Only Hereditary Spiritual Ruler Speaks in City. October 21.
Chicago Tribune, 6 (cited as CT/Patr).
Unsigned (1963), Rev. Sadook de Mar Shimun Celebrates 25 Years. Assyrian

Star 12(9-10), 89, 24 (cited as Sadook/AsySt).
Warner, R. Stephen (1994), The Place of the Congregation in the Contemporary

American Religious Configuration. In Wind, James P. and Lewis, James W.,
editors (1994a), New Perspectives in the Study of Congregations. Volume 2,
American Congregations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 5499.
Warner, R. Stephen (1993), Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm for the
Sociological Study of Religion in the United States. American Journal of
Sociology 98(5), 10441093.
Wind, James P. and Lewis, James W., editors (1994a), New Perspectives in the
Study of Congregations. Volume 2, American Congregations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wind, James P. and Lewis, James W., editors (1994b), Portraits of Twelve
Religous Communities. Volume 1, American Congregations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Yonan, Gabriele (1978), Assyrer heute: Kultur, Sprache, Nationalbewegung der

aramisch sprechenden Christen im Nahen Osten. No. 59, Pogrom. Hamburg
and Vienna: Gesellschaft fr bedrohte Vlker.
Ynan d-Alan Jlu, Q imon (1917), Mabart tdtnta [Religious Notice].

Maidn Suryy [Assyrian American Herald] 2(32), 9 (cited as MS/224
1917).
Ynan d-Alan Jlu, Q imon (1919), [Note]. Maidn Suryy [Assyrian

American Herald] 4(19), 2 (cited as MS/4251919).

Wolk Church East Ja As

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wolk Church East Ja As

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This paper appeared in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 22(1): 1558. (2010).

This was the last

Church Colony vs. Congregation:

The controversy culminated in litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County

In contrast with this first model, which is conventionally associated with

Although the first, voluntaristic, decentralized ecclesiastical model began in

Christians, including members of Eastern Orthodox and other churches, such as

As these ethnic communities grew, so did the need for clerical

A Comparative Survey of Conflicts in Eastern Churches in the United States

In several cities the clergy [of the Armenian-American Diocese] and

necessitating the presence of law enforcement officers to restore peace

Among those who came to be called Ukrainian or Ukrainian-Americans,

Early History of the Church of the East in Chicago: A Brief Sketch

Matters changed in 192425, when Mar Timotheus, the Metropolitan of the

Church of the East parish an assignment he claimed to have been authorized

Ever since Mar Timotheuss visit to America (Chicago), bitter disputes

Some of the friction within the church can be attributed to cultural

reformists and loyalists, respectively. Both sides were resourceful in their

A History of the Case

Mar Eshai Shimun circa 1950

Qasha Sadook De Mar Shimun circa 1937

Neither prelate was in a position to exercise authority over the day-to-day

Mar Eshai Shimuns loyalist followers in America tried to fill this

. . . [A]t the instigation of Rev. Esmails committee, the lawyer [John

Esmail sent a letter saying that he did not want to be a member of an

Emanual Odishoo was permitted by Rev. Esmail to join him in

As a result of the Assyrian Tragedy of 1933, Sadook had to flee Iraq in

Sadook was intent upon receiving a proper theological education. In 1937

refused to recognize or approve said Sadook as a priest of the

On one of Mar Eshai Shimuns trips to Chicago in 1940, a long-awaited

Accordingly, the loyalists went on the offensive. On December 8, 1941,

Even more dramatically, Mar Eshai Shimun publicly excommunicated

As the reference to the peoples of Assyrian descent suggests, and as further

The implementation of the decree had to withstand a few more ripples of

Ushana immediately filed a Petition to Vacate Decree [PetVacDec] (i.e. a

. . . [Such a] deletion of the word Nestorian and the injunction

Despite Ushanas doggedness, he and his independent reformists did

They were not, however, so fortunate. The neo-loyalists, namely David

opening up a new case [48 C 6399] (BillComplaint1948).26 In it they complained

Points at Issue in the Case

Normally, the original charter, or articles of incorporation, would have made

As a consequence of the absence of a charter, the court had to determine

When Mar Timotheus subsequently came, in 192425, to establish a church

First, they showed correspondence between Mar Timotheus and members of

By the desire and choice of all the congregation and by the

The letter actually shows more than a glimmer of the American

I am not a lawyer, and am in no position to second-guess the strategy the

It seems to me that the reformists may have had a better chance of

The reformists begged to differ. Mar Eshai Shimuns claim to be Head of

Church 1942 1948 Pastor/Priest

Concerning the reformists more provocative charge that Mar Eshai

. . . [W]hen the Mohammedans took over the government of the Near

The second argument put forward by Sadook presumed the continuing

Secondly, he was not elected by the majority of bishops, as required by

Thirdly, he was only 11 years old at the time of his consecration

Fourthly, he was illiterate at the time of his ordination, and he passed no

. . . Mar Eshai Shimun, by apostolic succession, is the Catholicos

As suggested before, accusations of pretension were mutual: the loyalists

It is difficult to imagine just what kind of impression all the interpretations

In the light of comparative data on other Eastern Christian churches, the

weakening of the Church as a result of World War I, including the shortage of

Additional Abstract of Record: Proceedings Before the Honorable Harold E.

Affidavit of Change of Name. December 23, 1947. Ephraim A. Harton (affiant),