This article was written in 1993 as a requirement in my course in Missiology at Asian Center for Theological Studies and Mission (ACTS)
The Filipino Methodists have historically cherished the need for an autonomous structure of the United Methodist Church in the Philippines, and this was manifested in the overwhelming number of votes in the 1926 Annual Conference and of the annual conferences which voted for it again in 1977. However, those quests for autonomy was thwarted by serious flaws and technicalities in the past.
Again the autonomous movement is coming back to the scene. In the 1992, 1996 and 2000 Philippines Central Conferences, it was a hot issue on the floor, and even at the back of the sanctuary. On the floor, it was an issue brought by, primarily, the “bishopables.” Some of the bishopables are just riding on the issue, and some are maybe true in the movement. However, some of the proponents are just taking the issue in order to catapult the “bishop-for-life,” Dr. Emerito P. Nacpil, from the episcopal throne which I believe a shallow foundation of the movement. It seems that their struggle is tainted with , if not full of, hate, envy, and jealousy in which I believe ungodly and unethical.
Some of the proponents are just riding on the growing nationalism in the country. Listen to what they say:
The history of the Filipino people has been the history of a continuing struggle for the realization of genuine independence and sovereignty. It was a tradition where people and communities struggled for self-hood and self-determination. It was a struggle against foreign domination.
Although it is not bad, but it should not be the prime foundation of the autonomous movement.
In this missiological treatise, I want to suggest that our movement should be founded primarily with the indigenous principles. However, it does not deny the nationalist spirit of some proponents, but categorically denies the hate, arrogance, and selfish ambition of some proponents of the Philippine autonomous movement.
Before I proceed to my thesis, let me put the word “indigenous” on the spotlight. The word indigenous is come from the Latin words indigenus (Late Latin), and indigena which means “born in a country, native.” These Late Latin words are probably come from the Old Latin words, indu, in, and gignere which may mean “to produce or bear fruit within a country.” Thus, the word was referred primarily to plants. Plants that are living naturally in a country or climate which is suitable for them. This term and concept are applied to missionary work, thus, the word “indigenous” means that, As a result of missionary effort, a national church has been produced which shares the life of the country in which it is planted and finds within itself the ability to govern itself, support itself, and reproduce itself.
An illustration may be drawn from the plant life. Some plants grow well in certain areas, but not in other areas, since they do not have the natural ability to adapt themselves to foreign climate. The banana (Tagalog, saging) is indigenous to the Philippines, to the tropical climate. The banana lives so naturally in the Philippines because of its suitable climate that is why we can see a lot of bananas everywhere in the Philippines, and in fact we are exporting them, and earning a lot through them. Bananas do not need special care, they grow naturally in our climate, but if one transplants them, for example, in Korea, they cannot live there naturally, they need there an extra care, since when the winter comes they cannot endure the freezing climate.
THE INDIGENOUS CHURCH: A MISSIOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING
As already mentioned the indigenous church has three-self principles, namely; self-government, self-supporting, and self-propagation. In order for a church to be called an indigenous church, it should possess these three-self principles. Some of the popular proponents of these indigenous principles are, namely: Rufus Anderson (1796-1880), Henry Venn (1796-1873), John Nevius, Melvin Hodges and Jun Ho-Jin. Anderson was the one who conceptualized the so-called “holy method” of mission principles which is now well-known as the “three-self formula.” This concept was adapted by the Korean church through Nevius although he never attributed its origin to Anderson or to Venn. Anderson claims that this indigenous method was the method of Apostle Paul. This is also the contention of Melvin Hodges, a professor of the Assemblies of God Graduate School of Theology and Missions, he says that Paul is the model missionary for indigenous principles:
Accompanied by Barnabas or Silas, and sometimes by two or three other workers who joined the party along the way, he traveled slowly through the Mediterranean area, never remaining in one place for more than two years (Ephesus) and sometimes for only a few weeks. Yet in each place he was usually able to leave behind him a group of believers which he had formed into a local church.”
Let me discuss the three-self formula one by one:
1. The Self-government Principle
This principle is encouraging the national church to become independent from foreign mission or foreign sister church. Independent in the sense that the national church has the total or full freedom to exercise its leadership capabilities without any intervention from General Conference, foreign mission or missionaries. The national church has the full right to govern itself, to determine its goals, to set its own standard, to make policies and laws suitable to its particular orbit, and in relation to its concern, to administer its own discipline, to guard its own prerogatives carefully, to establish appropriate offices for its life and missions.
In Korea, the church has indigenized ecclesiastical government by establishing the offices of pastor (moksanim), evangelist (chondosanim), ruling elders (changnonim), substitute elders (yungsoos— this office is already phased out in the structure), senior deaconess (konsanim–for Methodist only), and deacons or deaconesses (chipsanim). This is true to every denomination in Korea: Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Pentecostal. Further, there is no paternalism from the foreign missionaries or foreign church in the Korean church. It has full ecclesiastical authority over all churches and groups, “Whether cared for by Korean pastors or by Korean helpers under [foreign] missionary supervision. There are no churches or groups over which the missionary has authority except in so far as it is given by the presbytery.”
2. The Self-supporting Principle
This principle is encouraging the national church to become a good steward, and support its own missions, and programs. The national church should give the salaries of its bishops, district superintendents, pastors, evangelists, deaconesses, and other church workers. The Apostle Paul says:
For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you are not even more? (I Cor. 9: 9-12, NKJV).
Since the ecclesiastical officers or workers are “employees” of the national church, they should be paid by the national church, whether it has the capability to support them or not. And the church members should support their workers, missions and programs according to the grace of God which has given to them. Further, they should not expect or depend on outside support. Hodges notes that the frequent obstacle to the development of the indigenous church “has been the introduction of foreign funds into the structure of the work, with the result that the church depends on foreign aid for its support and advancement. This weakens the spiritual and moral fiber of the converts and dulls their sense of responsibility.” The Macedonian churches (Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea) are the good paradigm in this case. Paul reports to the Corinthian church:
We make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. and not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God (II Cor.8: 1-5, NKJV, italics supplied).
The Macedonian churches had produced a model example of generosity and self-support in modern missions and church life. It also reveals that poverty has nothing to do with the question of self-support. Indeed, the faith in the justice of self-support gives the national church the power to accomplish the mission of God with dignity.
3. The Self-propagation Principle
As a sign of a healthy church, it has to reach other people in its community and even outside the nation, and a church which does not propagate itself will soon die out. Marlin Nelson, a mission professor at Asian Center for Theological Studies and Mission (Korea), claims that “missionary sending churches are usually growing churches.” That “sending” to the church orbit or outside the nation symbolizes that the church is still alive, and still a church, since being a church is being in missions. The church is called and chosen by God in order to bear the wholistic mission, indeed, the church is the bearer of the whole gospel of the Lord and it is obliged to propagate it in its best and available ways.
Charles Brock, a missionary to the Philippines, emphasizes to “think reproducible” in the church planting or self-propagation, and I think it is indispensable also to “re-think” it in every local church, particularly in the Philippines. He says that in the early stage of church planting, the church has to learn why and how to reproduce itself. Brock also teaches us that the church planter (a missionary, pastor, layperson, or even youngster) should use materials in missions which are available in the community.
The strategy the church planter uses concerning material things must be tailored to the economy of the local area. it must be possible for the local church, once it is born, to reproduce itself. The planter should not use anything which the people cannot provide for themselves. The planter is always teaching unspoken lessons concerning church planting.
Brock also adds that the church planter should not take anything to the people, or practice any strategy which the local people cannot reproduce or imitate. Anything the planter does in teaching, praying, singing, worship should be reproducible by the local church.
Brock reminds us that in self-propagation, we should use our local resources (material, financial, and human) in missions. This principle encourages every Christian to exercise his faith and spirituality, and totally depends on the power of the Holy Spirit, and not on “outside support.” This principle also affirms the “priesthood of all believers” (I Pet.2:5,9) which means that every Christian is a living mediator between a sinner and the Lord.
The indigenous principles have been proven significant, effective, and indispensable in church growth and missions in the different nations, namely: Korea, USA, Nagaland, India, and China. William Smalley testifies:
Judged in terms of reaching men for Christ, many indigenous churches are marvelously effective. The rapidly Pentecostal-type indigenous movements in Latin America simply cannot be matched by the churches which belong more closely to the Euro-american Protestant tradition. These groups often grow by splintering. They worship by participating. God is alive. He speaks to them. He heals them. Theirs is a highly emotional religion, but it has enormous vitality.
Indeed, churches should introduce and exercise the indigenous principles in order to awake people’s self-respect, self-dignity and self-responsibility.
Furthermore, to become “selves” or to become indigenous does not mean total relying to oneself, but instead total reliance to God. The church’s indigeneity is an expression of that total reliance. That is why our movement should not be called autonomous in the first place, but instead “christonomous or theonomous.” However, becoming indigenous does not contradict of becoming christonomous.
THE INDIGENIZATION: MISSIONARIES’ DREAM FOR THE PHILIPPINES
Indigenization is not new in the Philippine Methodism. When the American missionaries came in the Philippine archipelago in 1899, they dreamed of establishing an indigenous Methodist church, “indigenous in leadership, support, and propagation and that would relate itself deeply to the life of the people.” In this way the missionaries saw that part of their missions is to help “fulfill the noblest aspirations of Philippine nationalism for self-development and self-direction.” So since the beginning of the Philippine Methodism, foreign missionaries were dreaming of having a Methodist indigenous church which was not against to the emerging nationalism in the early time.
When the first regular Methodist missionaries came in the Philippines in 1900, one factor in the success of their mission work was the fact that they were using indigenous principles. Richard Deats, a former missionary professor to the Philippines, says that the early missionaries work “spread rapidly as [they]…sought to build a church that was self-directing, self-supporting and self-propagating.” However, according to Deats, it was because of the two schisms in the church the rate and extent of indigenization had slowed down. There is a grain of truth here, but it is not the whole truth. Why I say so? Because as I read the history of Philippine Methodism, one big factor that hinders the indigenization is our maternal connection or close organic relationship with The United Methodist Church in America.
The Filipinos have capability to become indigenous or autonomous since the Philippine Methodism has developed many brilliant, spiritual leaders. Local churches have taught and practiced stewardship of giving although not in the fullest degree. Our bishops are still receiving high salary from the General Conference. In terms of self-reproduction, the Filipino Christians are very eager to do missions, even in the early beginning of the Philippine Methodism, although it is not in the fullest degree, since some pastors do not believe in evangelism (“soul-winning”), particularly those who graduated from the seminary. They prefer to “maintain” the local church, thus, some jokers are called them “maintenance pastors.” However, when Dr. Emerito Nacpil became a bishop, that “maintenance” is balanced or shaken by his drive of missionizing the archipelago, particularly his episcopal area (Manila). Through his leadership, The United Methodist churches in his area envision, plan, and do mission in their respective parishes. The seemingly unending church growth now in the Philippines might not hamper if the Philippine Methodism pursues the genuine indigenization and total autonomy.
THE INDIGENIZATION AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE
If the Philippine Methodism will really affirm the indigenization of its church, autonomy issue is not a problem on the Central Conference floor. Autonomy maybe realized through indigenization. Let us take a look some advantages of having an indigenous, autonomous Methodist church in the Philippines.
In terms of self-government, the Philippine Methodist church will have the full right and responsibility to govern itself, to determine its goals, to establish appropriate offices for the life of the church and its missions, to make its own Book of Discipline which is Filipino in character and content. Thus, the Filipino Methodists can make policies and laws suitable to their particular situation, and also guard their own Discipline. Eugenio Mendillo says:
If the very Discipline that governs the people is not wholly, fully, and wholeheartedly made and enacted by the people that is slavery! To strut in public bragging independence while dependent on foreign dictation is sheer kingly mendicancy.
Indeed, Mendillo contents that the US-made Discipline does not fully serve the needs of the Philippine Methodism.
In terms of self-support, the Philippine Methodist church will be having a self-pride and dignity because this time it will support its own bishops, pastors, deaconesses, and even its own programs and missions. Actually Philippine Methodism had been supporting its ministries. Filipinos, since the beginning, have been making strategies on how to support their ministries. Deats cites one example on this matter:
In 1915, one district reported the workers in the various circuits of the district were organizing into tithing bands. Twenty-seven of the thirty pastors and deaconesses in the district that year were themselves tithing and were emphasizing tithing among their people. These workers alone, through their personal tithe, were able to support a Filipino missionary to the tribal Negritos.
Mendillo also mentions that the Filipino Methodists are capable of shouldering their financial matters. He adds:
The people called Methodists in this country have long been generously paying the salaries of their pastors, deaconesses, women workers, office workers, district superintendents, yes 99.9 percent (except the salary and allowances of the bishop) of local, district and annual conferences expenditures are for a long, long time been shouldered by Filipino Methodist Christians, [so] financially we have been autonomous [self-supporting] for a long, long time!
If the Methodist churches will not expect any help from others, particularly abroad, their members, and pastors might be “forced” to exercise their stewardship and sense of responsibility.
In terms of self-propagation, the Philippine Methodism is not a green horn, since the launching of Methodism up to the present time the Methodist church has been self-propagating. It is proven by the multiplication of church workers, churches, and annual conferences. Deats counts that by 1933 a total of 91 ordained pastors and 49 local/lay preachers serving a Methodist community of 73,966. By 1960 this number had increased to 333 ordained pastors, and 189 supply pastors serving a total community of 117,232 people, including 71,973 communicant members. In the counting of A. Leonard Tuggy, an American Baptist missionary to the Philippines, and Rev. Ralph Toliver, a member of Overseas Missionary Fellowship and of the Research Team of Church-growth Research in the Philippines, between 1948 and 1968 the total number of ordained pastors rose in the same period from 185 to 305. In 1989, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) published and reported the following: as of 1988, there were 3 Episcopal Areas (Manila, Baguio, and Davao) with 12 Annual Conferences. There were 1,115 local churches with 923 pastors. There were 12 schools, 3 hospital and clinics, and 9 dormitories and student centers. Some figures are still the same to-day, the number of hospital, clinics, dormitories, students centers, and the number of Episcopal Areas. However, in the preceeding Central Conferences, many annual conferences organized, and the Filipino Methodists put up a new Wesley Divinity School which is missiological in character and orientation, and it has potential to be a Center for Wesleyan studies. The new seminary can be seen as an expression of indigenization, since it will be governed solely by the Filipino Methodists, and it will train and nurture mission-minded church workers. The idea and the would-be existence of the first Methodist seminary is an indication that the Filipino Methodist workers are growing and they need further training for the Methodist missions in the Philippines. The new Methodist seminary is timely since the Filipino Methodism is penetrating to various barangays, towns, provinces, agencies, institutions, and status of people, and the new converts need more pastors.
Meanwhile, let me invite the attention of the United Methodists in the Philippines on the increasing Filipinos abroad. There are many Filipino workers and helpers in Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, America, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, etc. I personally talked or communicated with some of them, and they said, indeed, they have money, but they are thirsty of the Word of God. They also need counseling and spiritual illumination since they have encountering some trials and sufferings in their places of jobs, and in addition to problems from their respective homes in the Philippines. In the missiological point of view this is the opportune time to reach our Filipino brethren for Christ. Unfortunately, there are very few Filipino missionaries who are evangelizing and ministering with them. Their host countries like Korea, Japan, Middle East countries cannot reach them because of the manifold barriers: language, cultural, racial. In Korea alone, there are thousands of Filipinos but there are very few Filipino pastors or missionaries who are working with them. I think it is opportune time for the Filipino Methodists to extend its missions outside the Philippines and reach Filipinos in diaspora. If the Philippine Methodism is self-propagating, it should propagate itself even in other countries.
SOME STEPS TOWARD FURTHER INDIGENIZATION
Any theory or principle without clear implementation is like a soul without a body. It is like these indigenous principles, if they would not apply in a certain context and time, they are just plain intellectual exercises. In order to materialize these principles in the Philippine Methodism, the early missionaries dreamed and applied these in the Philippine soil. We are reaping now from their fruits. However, in order to continue the indigenization, particularly in this modern time, we need to do the following:
1. We need to be totally autonomous from the “mother church,” from the U.S.-based General Conference. For the meantime, we must advocate for an autonomous affiliated Methodist church as provided by the paragraph 648-9 of the Book of Discipline. Thus, the Philippine Central Conference must petition the General Conference for an autonomous affiliated Methodist church. Barrister Teodoro Bernardo says more on this matter:
The Philippines is the only country in Asia which is not yet autonomous. Even Puerto Rico which is just a neighbor of the USA [the nation is a Commonwealth of the USA] became autonomous last General Conference  of the UMC. Our leaders should wake up and join other countries of Asia, Africa, North America and Europe in being autonomous. The dollar salary of the bishops should not be the determining factor in an issue that symbolizes national identity.
2. We need to adopt our own Book of Discipline binding only the Methodist churches in the Philippines. The US-made Discipline provides this anyway:
A Central Conference shall have authority to edit and publish a Central Conference Discipline which shall contain, in addition to the Constitution of the Church, such sections from the general Discipline of the United Methodist Church as may be pertinent to the entire church and also such revised, adapted by the Central Conference concerned under the powers given by the General conference (Par.638, sec.21, p.317).
Imagine the Methodist church in the Philippines has been under the Philippine Central Conference for more than 60 years now, but until now we have no Philippine-made Discipline. In this connection, I think the Philippine Central Conference should create an Ad-Hoc Committee for this matter.
3. We need to teach, preach, and plan for a genuine indigenization of the Philippine Methodism in our local churches, seminary, and conferences. Let our members taste the total freedom within the Church–freedom to determine their goals, freedom to govern themselves, freedom to take or uphold their financial responsibilities, and freedom to propagate their faith. Mendillo says:
Freedom from any form of bondage is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Faith is freedom, so to speak! You define man only in terms of man’s freedom. Diminish freedom and you strip man of the very essence of existence. To be free is to be self-determining–it means you can act by yourself decisively and with finality.
4. We need to regulate nowadays the flow of funds coming from the mission agencies abroad, since the continuous flow will hamper the indigenization in the Philippine church. Since our people will have the tendency to expect, rely or ask from the foreign support instead of the “inside support.” However, if the Philippine church really needs the assistance of our “co-partners” in missions, the agencies or missionaries can help by implementing the “subsidy principle.” That principle tries to help a weak or beginning local church in terms of, for example, pastoral support, but not the total support or salary of the pastor or worker, I suggest only 30 to 40 percent support, and the rest should be shouldered by the local church. This support should last only up to three years. By that time the pastor or worker is expected to evangelize more church members who will be co-partners in missions. In addition, the mission agencies or missionaries should send the money to the local church and it should be the responsible to disburse the appropriate amount. So that the loyalty of the pastor or worker will be to the local church, to his members and not to the mission agencies abroad. If his loyalty is to his members, indeed, he will sense that he is working for them, and not for the mission agencies.
Moreover, the influx of the Korean missionaries in the Philippines is unavoidable because of the growing mission consciousness in Korea nowadays. Most of the Korean seminaries nowadays train students who want to do foreign missions. It is also inhospitable for the Filipinos to throw them out of the country, and say: “Singkit, go home!” So in order for them to help and work with us, we must orient them to our programs and missions, particularly our concern of indigenization, and they should also help us to regulate the inflow of funds from their country. It is good if they will apply the “subsidy principle.”
5. The Philippine Methodist church should think to indigenize our structure and polity. How about having one bishop for each annual conference. Remember what Moses did when his father-in-law advised him to divide and distribute his jobs to his people, to those who are able men. Because of that timely idea his burdens were lessen, and the jobs became smooth. The leaders served the people better than before when Moses was alone. I think one bishop in one episcopal area (composed of three to five annual conferences) is not a healthy structure, since the bishop cannot visit and oversee them all with efficiency and effectiveness. I remember one story of Bishop Nacpil when he visited a place in Aurora province. Some members told him, “Oh, we did not know before that the bishop is also a man!” What does it mean? It means that for long time no bishop had visited them especially in a remotest area like their place. Although visitation is not the prime duty of the bishop, but the story helps us to understand that in every conference there are so many things to attend to, to give wise and effective attention and decisions.
Moreover, how about we elect our district superintendents, instead of just appoint them by the resident bishop? It is very important, since the loyalty of the Dss will go to their people, to those who trusted and elected them instead of those who appointed them. It seems that this system is pro-people, and democratic, and not autocratic. Isn’t it?
No doubt the Philippine Methodist church is growing nowadays in quantity and quality. It is due to the “natural instinct” of those genuine Methodists to witness for Christ in Word and in Works. Indeed, Methodism is Mission. Methodism existed and is still existing for Mission, strip its right to witness for Christ and it is not Methodism anymore. However, the growth of Methodism in the Philippines should not be hampered by its “string” from the General Conference, and also of its total or partial reliance on the foreign aid. Thus, the indigenous principles should further apply or implement in the Philippine soil, particularly in the Philippine Methodism.
Petition No.19-15-2 to the 1992 Philippines Central Conference of The United Methodist Church.
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary: Unabridged, s.v. “Indigenous.”
Melvin Hodges, “Why Indigenous Church Principles” in Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity, eds. Charles Kraft and Tom Wisley (Pasadena, California: William Carey Library, 1979), p.6.
Jun Ho-Jin, The Indigenous Principles of R. Anderson, H. Venn, and J. L. Nevius (Seoul, Korea: Asian Center for Theological Studies and Mission, n.d.), p.18.
Hodges, “Why Indigenous Church,” p.8.
Jun, The Indigenous, p.75.
T. Stanley Soltau, Korea: The Hermit Nation and Its Response to Christianity (London, England: World Dominion Press, 1932), p.26.
The Wesley Bible explains that “the ox was not muzzled, allowing it to eat some of the grain during the work of threshing. By this example God shows that those who work for the sake of the gospel should expect to benefit from that labor. Paul’s spiritual work with the Corinthians should result in material [or financial] support from them.” See note on I Cor.9: 9-11.
Hodges, “Why Indigenous,” p.12.
”In the midst of great affliction (see I Thess.1:6; Phil.1:29-30) the Macedonian Christians gave because of their joy in the Lord. This province was worse off economically than Achaia, in which Corinth was located. In spite of their poverty, the Macedonians gave far beyond what one would expect.” See note on II Cor.8: 2-3, The Wesley Bible. It is good if our churches will be awared and trained in this kind of giving. Giving amidst poverty is indeed pleasant in the sight of God.Take a look again the story of a poverty-stricken widow in the Gospel of Luke, it was her only money (two small coins), but still she gave it all to the Lord as a fruit of her thanksgiving. The widow earned much honor from Jesus than the rich men who gave large amount, but it was just an excess of their richness. Jesus says: “I tell you truly, this poor widow has put in more than any of them; for these have all contributed money they had over, but she from the little she had has put in all she had to live on” (Lk.21: 1-4, The Jerusalem Bible).
Marlin Nelson, Principles of Church Growth (Seoul, Korea: Seoul Bible College Press, 1991), p.32.
The Wholistic Mission is the missio dei, the mission of God, its aims are to save-liberate the humanity from sins, oppression, poverty,etc. thus, it is comprising of evangelistic mission and social missions (political mission, economic mission, ecological mission, educational mission, etc.).
Charles Brock, The Principles and Practice of Indigenous Church Planting (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1981), pp.55-61.
William Smalley, “Cultural Implications of an Indigenous Church,” in Readings, p.48, italics supplied.
Richard Deats, Nationalism and Christianity in the Philippines (Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1967), p.121.
Rev. Nicholas Zamora, the first ordained Methodist minister in the Philippines, defected from the Methodist Episcopal Church on February 28, 1909, and he established the IEMELIF or La Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en Las Islas Filipinas. In 1933, the Rev. Cipriano Navarro’s group was separated from the Methodist Church and established the Philippine Methodist Church. Deats explains the reasons behind the two schisms:
The 1933 schism, like the Zamorista schism, was largely the result of a conflict between the church in the Philippines and the church in America and its representatives. The rise of the dissatisfaction over a particular ecclesiastical ruling. The real issue was self-determination of Filipino Christians in their religious affairs.
Ibid., pp. 134-145, italics supplied.
According to Professor Eugenio Mendillo of the Union Theological Seminary, who was once a district superintendent of Bishop Nacpil, if one is elected bishop in 1992 his salary is S2,200 or P54,120 a month, excluding the travel and office allowances provided by the General, and annual conferences. See Focus, November 1992, p.3.
Deats, Nationalism, p.124.
Deats, Nationalism, p.126.
A. Leonard Tuggy and Ralph Toliver, Seeing the Church in the Philippines (Manila, Philippines: OMF Publishers, 1972), p.34.
National Council of Churches in the Philippines, Church Profiles (Quezon City, Philippines: Research and Documentation Office, 1989), pp.54-58.
Teodoro Bernardo, “MRM Proposals to the Philippines Central Conference,” The Crusader, April-June 1992, p.2.