THE RISE OF THE PHILIPPINE METHODIST CHURCH

At the Annual Conference held in San Nicolas, Pangasinan, in 1933, there occurred the second major split of Methodism in the Philippines. The first took place in 1909, with the formation of La Iglesia Metodista Evangelica en las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), under the leadership of the Rev. Nicolas Zamora. This second split, like the first, was to a significant degree determined by nationalistic feelings. The background of the later schism, however, is quite different.

In 1932, Melecio de Armas was expelled from the ministry on the charge of adultery. The expulsion had been ordered after the proper church authorities had carefully considered all the evidence available. However, upon the appeal of de Armas, this action was sent to the Apellant Committee of the General Conference. This, Committee likewise weighed the evidence carefully and judiciously, but, unlike the decision in the Philippines, the opinion it handed down stated that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charges and it ordered Melecio de Armas restored to his former status.

At the following Annual Conference, held in San Nicolas, the Rev. Cipriano Navarro raised the question of the right of the General Conference to reverse the de Armas decision. Herbert Welch, the presiding bishop of the 1933 session, ruled, however, that there could be no further discussion of the case for it was a closed matter. The basis of his decision, as he stated at that time, was as follows:

A Bishop has no power to review or reverse any act of the General Conference....General Conference is not only our highest legislative body but also our Supreme Court, and is therefore the only judge of the legality of its own actions. There is no appeal against the decision of a General Conference. A Bishop is empowered to decide all questions of law involved in proceedings pending in an Annual Conference; i.e., to interpret the law made by the General Conference. But when presiding in the General Conference, he may express opinions, he may protest, but he cannot rule on a question of law. That power remains with the General Conference itself.

This general view of the limitations of the right of a Bishop to rule on a decision of the General Conference is confirmed by specific rulings of the Bishops of the General Conference.

In November, 1924, the Bishops were asked to decide whether certain legislation by the General Conference was constitutional or not. They responded, "This is a question to be answered by the General Conference, and not by the Board of Bishops," implying that they had no power to pronounce on the constitutionality of General Conference legislation.

At the same session, another question was raised as to the legality of a General Conference act, and the answer was still more explicit, "The General Conference has done this; it is therefore legal."

To the same effect, was the response of the Bishops in 1920 with reference to the validity of a call for certain Lay Electoral Conferences issued by the preceding General Conference. The Bishops said, "The call is valid because it was made by the General Conference. It is not within our province to pass upon the legality of acts of the General Conference..."

The Bishops further ruled that a statement of the grounds for appeal from the Bishops' ruling should be presented to this Annual Conference and sent up to the General Conference with the appeal.¹⁰⁶

The statement of Bishop Welch failed to satisfy Navarro and a number of others at the Conference. Prior to this conference, some members of this same group had been unhappy, not only over the de Armas reversal, but they also felt that Bishop Welch had been inefficient in his administrative responsibilities. The missionary pastor of Central Students' Church, the Rev. S.W. Stagg, was among those who felt this way. It should be noted that during this same time, the Board of Foreign Missions-due to the severe financial difficulties resulting from the Depression – had recalled a number of missionaries in various countries. The Staggs had been among those asked to return to America. However, the Staggs strongly desired to remain in the Philippines and refused to be recalled. Thus, on the Friday of the Conference, the Conference body passed a resolution protesting the recall of the Staggs and commended the effectiveness of their ministry.¹⁰⁷

The next day, Bishop Welch again stated his position, saying that there was no way to over-rule the General Conference. At that time the Rev. Navarro stood, saying he wished to surrender his ministerial credentials, but then adding:

I am not going to give you these credentials, Bishop; they are too dear to me. But I offer this motion: "Whereas, the course of events had made it clear that connectionalism with the General Conference in America and supervision of our churches in the Philippines as provided by such Conference is no longer a source of true inspiration and wise leadership, I therefore move that we here and now declare ourselves independent from the American General Conference.¹⁰⁸

As recorded in the Conference Journal, Bishop Welch stated:

I promptly declared the motion out of order and declined to put it, whereupon Mr. Navarro himself called out, "All who favor this motion will say “Aye!” In response, a shout of "Aye" came from a number not counted. No negative was called for. I then stated, "Of course such a vote has no effect, whatsoever, The Annual Conference has no power to declare itself independent of the General Conference, which created it, any more than you would have power here and now to declare yourselves independent of the American Government without the consent of Congress." A motion followed for another adjournment, which I declined to entertain, on the ground that it was simply a dilatory motion, intended to impede the work of the Conference. I added, "The Conference will go on with its work. If there are any who do not wish to share in that work, they are at liberty to withdraw," whereupon about 30 members of the conference, accompanied by some others present, withdrew from the room...¹⁰⁹

The next day, Saturday, March 25, the Annual Conference reconsidered its previous action asking that the Rev. and Mrs. Stagg be retained on the field. In its new action, it went on record as favoring the Board of Foreign Missions' recalling them, by a vote of 45 to 2.¹¹⁰

At that time, Dr. Jorge Bocobo, then Dean of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines, stated in a letter that if the Church was to have any stability and order, it would have to abide by the decision of the General Conference.¹¹¹ Most pastors and lay members agreed with him in that conviction. However, those who did not-twenty-seven ordained ministers, five American missionaries and some deaconesses and Bible women- left the Conference, held a meeting of their own, and organized "The Philippine Methodist Church", with the purpose of "preaching Methodism free from the control of the mother Church" in the United States.¹¹²

By 1941, this Church had 12,000 members, 87 congregations, 64 pastors, 334 women workers, and 107 lay preachers.¹¹³ In 1948, it became one of the founding bodies of the United Church of Christ in tbe Philippines; it and Cipriano Navarro was elected as one of the four bishops of the new Church.

Writing in the Philippine Observer in 1933, Bishop Welch said that the dissident group could have appealed to the General Conference for still another review of the de Armas case. If, after such a procedure, they were still unhappy and desirous of autonomy, the General Conference would have granted it, even while continuing to support the work.¹¹⁴ From a legal point of view, this is an important factor to remember. At the same time, the psychological and historical factors involved should also be taken into account. The 1933 split, like the one in 1909, was not caused by one particular ecclesiastical ruling. The underlying issue was self-determination by the Filipinos in their religious affairs, an issue that the experience of Philippine history has made especially strong.

Go to Next Section: Union Theological Seminary

Back to Table of Contents