Introduction

After the time of the Ancient Christianity to the Medieval Era of Church History, the church had
experienced a great deal of transformation. The changes that took place varied from modifications in
liturgy to church polity, and to many other aspects (some were improvements to better suit the milieu,
yet others were considered to be for the worse). So much has been done to transform the church from
its original state, as it first was in the New Testament times. However attempts to reform especially
from within the church were constantly being made in a particular span of time, from the Reformation
Era till the Period of Rationalism and Revivals. Most popularly noted among these was the Protestant
Reformation, a “Back-to-the-Bible” movement, spearheaded by Martin Luther.(Cairns, Chapter 27) It was the
most phenomenal among the others because it had so much a lasting and life-changing effect among
people. Another was the radical reformation of the Anabaptists, who were exclusivists in their
ideals.(Chapter 28, p. 305) Also included in this category were the Puritans of 16th-17th century. They were a
religious group who advocated for more purity of worship and doctrine in the church. (Chapter 30, p.335) All
these given examples have one thing in common: these reformers eagerly desired to restore, as purely
as possible, the underlying characteristics of the New Testament Church, whether in doctrine or in
practice.

The focus of this study will primarily be on the Restoration Movement, a movement that had the same
sentiments with all other reformation movements mentioned above, as far as restoring the church of
Christ to the N.T. Church is concerned. The latter part of this study will focus on its impact and
missionary endeavors of the Christian Churches/ Churches of Christ to the Philippines as a branch of the
Restoration Movement.

The Background of the Restoration Movement

What is Restoration Movement?

Before we discuss further it is first important to give a simple definition or description of Restoration
Movement.

Restoration Movement is a fellowship of churches that “sought to reform the existing churches by a
restoration of the first church” (p.96, Roots of Reformation), the New Testament Church, and to unite all Christians
regardless of diversities in opinions. This movement, which was led by two Christian leaders namely,
Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, sprang up from the time of the religious/spiritual revival in
1820s-1830s known as the Second Great Awakening in the American frontier. The Restoration
Movement accepted the following tenets (from p. 96 of the article, Roots of Reformation by Dan Turner):

• Appeals to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith

• Claims to be Christians only, but not the only Christians

• Practices the three slogans (from…),

1. “In Essentials – Unity, In Opinions – Liberty, In All Things – Love”

1
 2. “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

3. “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love.”

For the Restorationists, “Evangelism had top priority. Evangelism needed the unity of Christians to
succeed. Unity… became their plea; restoration became their method to accomplish reformation.” (p. 96,
Roots of Reformation)

The Beginnings of Restoration Movement

In the period of North American Christianity, Secularism was becoming a trend among the colonies, and
men were developing irreligious attitudes.(Cairns, p. 357) In midst of this spiritual crisis, came the First Great
Awakening (1730s to 1740s). This began with the occurrence of dynamic sermons given by men like
Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. Consequently, series of revivals were prevalent, and men
were revived of their passion and enthusiasm for religion thus becoming more serious with their
relationship with God. After a short span of years, as eighteenth century drew to a close, this spiritual
awakening gradually faded away and secularism began creeping up into the scene again. Men became
saturated with Rationalism that led to the popularization of the philosophical belief called Deism, which
teaches that God left the world he created. People were skeptic about, and most of the time
disinterested in religion. Greatly influenced by works of renowned thinkers, such as Voltaire, Volney and
Paine(Murch, p.20), America, during this time experienced again a great decline of morality and interest in
religious piety. Also with the influx of Roman Catholicism in the country (instigated by the American
Revolution and the World War I) the country has never been more pluralistic and secular than
before.(Cairns, p.417) This declension left America so morally emaciated that many, with minds poisoned by
the godless philosophical milieu and liberalism, were engaged in acts of lasciviousness, profanity, and
other practices of wickedness of various kinds. Dr. Timothy Dwight, then president of Yale, (as quoted by
James DeForest Murch in his book Christians Only: a History of the Restoration Movement) wrote:
“Youths, particularly those who have been liberally educated, and who, with strong passions and feeble
principles, were votaries of sensuality and ambition, delighted in the prospect of unrestrained
gratification, and panting to be enrolled with men of passion and splendor, became enamored of the
new [infidel] doctrines.” (p. 20)

The church was tranquilized to impotence and again became as irrelevant to the people as it was before
the First Great Awakening.

In midst of this tragic display of moral and spiritual declension arose the Second Great Awakening, which
became the cradle that fostered to the beginnings of Restoration Movement.

The Second Great Awakening: The Cane Ridge Revival

Were the revivals directly the cause for the establishment of the Restoration Movement? This question
will be dealt with throughout this chapter of this paper.

The historic awakening came as a revitalizing fire to the subsiding ember of the Church. Revivals were
first evident in colleges, one of which is Yale, in 1802, under the leadership of President Dr. Timothy

2
Dwight. Dwight played a very significant role in the starting of the revivals, mainly through his
evangelistic and apologetic sermons. These sermons were greatly instrumental in hindering the
continuous popularization of the “infidel philosophy of their day”(p.24, Murch), and in the evangelization of
many college students who were so much secularized in their thinking. One very famous message that
he delivered on a baccalaureate service in 1796 was his sermon on “The Nature and Danger of Infidel
Philosophy”, based on the text, Colossians 2:8. As James DeForest Murch properly puts it:

“In this sermon he put these [infidel] philosophers, as it were, in a procession. He made them
march, one by one, before his listeners as he unfolded their teaching and the character it
produced.”(p. 24)

The preachings of Dwight were a jumping board to the much greater symptoms of the revival, as he led
hundreds of students to a personal relationship with Christ, and influenced many others to do the same.

Eventually the revival spread like a great bushfire, powerfully sharing the passion of moral/spiritual
reform to men in different places. In the West, a man named James McGready, a Presbyterian minister,
was instrumental in initiating the revival by calling out prayer meetings. Prior to this, he himself first
experienced a personal transformation, through self-examination and prayer.( Murch, p. 27) Being the
preaching pastor of three local Presbyterian churches in Logan county (in Kentucky)– Gasper River,
Muddy River and Red River – he earnestly shared his passion and “called on people to examine
themselves, confess their short-comings, and give testimony to their Christian Faith as requisite to
participation in the Lord’s Supper”( Murch, p. 28) in revival meetings to which another Presbyterian minister,
Barton W. Stone, who served at Concord and Cane Ridge at Bourbon County, interestedly came to
attend to. Stone wrote his friends at home:

“There on the edge of a prairie in Logan County, Kentucky, the multitudes came together and
continued a number of days and nights encamped on the ground… The scene was new to me and
passing strange… Many, very many, fell down as men slain in battle and continued for hours
together in apparently breathless and motionless state, sometimes for a few minutes reviving
and exhibiting symptoms of life by a deep groan or a piercing shriek, or by a prayer of mercy,
fervently uttered… The gloomy cloud that had covered their faces seemed gradually and visibly
to disappear, and hope in smiles brightened into joy. They would rise shouting deliverance, and
then would address surrounding multitudes in language truly eloquent and impressive. With
astonishment did I hear men, women and children declaring the wonderful works of God and the
glorious mysteries of the Gospel” (Quoted from James DeForest Murch, as quoted by Candler in
his book, Great Revivals and the Great Republic).

Not long after, on August 7-12, 1801, very similar were the scenes in Stone’s own churchyard as he
witnessed various unusual activities such as (it was then called): the falling exercise, the jerks, the
dancing exercise, the barking exercise, the laughing and singing exercise, etc.(p.29, Murch) Many came,
“saints and sinners” alike from different places. “Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists all shared the
preaching, many preaching at the same time!”(Roots of Reformation, article by Dan Turner).

It was said that although the revival per se was approved by Stone, he repudiated the many other things
that were happening. Actually James DeForest Murch said that, “This revival was not characteristic of

3
the Restoration Movement, yet is significant in that it was responsible for certain thought reactions of
Restorations leaders. Unquestionably, the revival created an atmosphere favorable or unfavorable to
the Christian religion which immensely facilitated the progress of the Restoration.”(Murch, p.31)[emphasis
mine] Therefore, we can conclusively say that the revival of the Second Great Awakening (specifically
the Cane Ridge revival) was not the direct cause of the beginning of the Restoration Movement. It was
only a stimulus, an eye-opener to the leaders of the Restoration, in a way that it prepared the
Christianity in America to the invasion of many immigrants who were prospective to the power of the
Gospel. Thus it provided for the atmosphere favorable to the Restoration Movement, being a movement
that sought to evangelize towards the unity in faith and practice.

The Restoration Movement primarily began from the union of two distinct movements, which will be
called, Stone movement and Campbell movement.

The Stone Movement

Barton W. Stone was one of the renowned leaders of the Restoration Movement. He was born in
Maryland in 1772 and his parents were members of the Anglican Church. After his father died his family
moved to Pittsylvania County, Virginia.

Stone was originally a Calvinist. He studied at David Caldwell Academy near Greensboro, North Carolina,
a school that was predominantly Calvinistic in inclination. Although Stone was trained as a Presbyterian
minister with the teachings of Calvinism, he did not really develop sympathy for it (he was skeptic of the
fact that salvation was necessarily preceded by a new birth in the individual that only God could give).
Upon hearing a preacher named William Hodge who preached about the text, “God is Love”, he finally
resorted to reject what was being taught by the Presbyterian Church concerning salvation. Nonetheless
he was still ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1798 and was assigned to the churches at Cane Ridge
and Concord, in Kentucky.

The occurrence of revival that happened in Cane Ridge (which was discussed earlier) was not only a
phenomenon that marked the beginning of a new period of spiritual awakening, but was also a turning
point in Stone’s life as a minister of the Lord. Upon hearing of what had happened in Cane Ridge that
time through the publishing of the Stone’s biography as a “sympathetic and extensive” report, many of
his Presbyterian brethren misinterpreted him and accused him of becoming “the ringleader in these
disorders”, thinking that he was a participant to the, what I decided to call, “weird activities” – singing,
“shouting and demonstrations never ending”. In addition to this, most of what he said in his preaching
“proclaimed that Jesus Christ died for everyone and that anyone could be saved.” Dan Turner even goes
as far as to say that, “this was not good Calvinistic doctrine!” Following this, after six years of serving as
a Presbyterian minister, he finally had the courage to confess to his congregations that he “could no
longer conscientiously preach to support the Presbyterian Church.” For this, on September 7 1803 the
Synod of Kentucky was called together to discuss the issues.

“After feeble efforts at reconciliation, the Synod voted September 13, 1803, to suspend the
signatories [Stone and his associates] on the ground that the dissenters (1) had separated
themselves from the jurisdiction of the synod; (2) had seceded from the Confession of Faith [of

4
 the Presbyterian Church]; (3) had refused to return to the doctrines and standards of the church;
and (4) had constituted themselves into a separate presbytery.” (Murch, p. 87)

This made him establish a new branch of the Presbyterian Church, which he called the Springfield
Presbytery. The Springfield Presbytery lasted for 9 months, and then Stone wrote “The Last Will and
Testament of the Springfield Presbytery” to finally end his and his new group’s affiliation with the
Presbyterian Church. He changed his group’s name to Christians.

The Campbell Movement

Two other proponents of the movement were Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell.
Thomas was born in Ireland in February 1, 1763 (his parents were originally from Scotland. They moved
to County Down, the place where he was born). Attracted to the “society of the more rigid and
devotional Covenanter and Seceder Presbyterians”( Murch, p. 35), he joined them and left his Episcopalian
tradition. Eventually, due to “much worry and heavy workload”(p.99, Roots of Reformation) Thomas Campbell was
compelled to move to America in May 1807, leaving his family including his son Alexander who will later
be partnering with him. He was immediately assigned to a church in Western Philadelphia as he arrived.

As he ministered in a new church, he saw how divided the Christians were in America. He wanted the
Christians to be united so he instituted the Lord’s Supper and invited every Christian in that place,
regardless of their difference in denominations. This was, of course, unacceptable to his denomination
and so they rebuked Campbell for this. Campbell eventually resigned as a minister to the Seceder
Presbyterian Church. Even though he broke away from his denomination as a minister, he was still as
eager to restore the “union of the divided church on the basis of the Bible and the Bible alone.” He
started meetings that he held under trees and soon established a “clear-cut Christian Fellowship with an
increasing need for a permanent organization”(Murch, p.40, Christians Only)

“On August 17, 1809, they formed the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania and on
September 7, 1809 they adopted a small book written by Campbell, called the Declaration and
Address as a statement of their purpose and principles. By May 4, 1811, this small group of
believers considered themselves as an independent church and built a building near Brush Run”
(Turner, p. 99)

As to his son Alexander, Dan Turner writes:

“Born in Ireland in 1788, Alexander became a teacher at his father’s school at age 17… Alexander
stayed home with the family when Thomas sailed to America. In 1808, the Campbell family set
sail for America. During a violent storm, the ship sank and they were forced to temporarily live in
Scotland. Alexander took advantage of this time and attended the University of Glasgow until
they could continue their journey the following year. Alexander, separated from his father,
developed the same intense dislike for the strife he saw in the church. During his stay in
Scotland… [Alexander] broke with the Presbyterian Church.” (p. 99)

Alexander and the rest of the family arrived in New York in 1808 and Alexander was, after a long time,
reconciled to Thomas again. They joined together in the ministry in Thomas’s Brush Run Church. They
were now considered an independent congregation. In fact, they sought fellowship and found it more

5
closely with the Baptist denomination than the Presbyterians. Although they have partnered for so
many years with Baptists, it became clear that there were just too much difference between the two
groups. By 1830, Campbell decided to withdraw from the Baptist Church, and together with him were
some Baptists. He then called the new group that he formed apart from the Baptist church, the
Disciples. (Notice that both the Stone movement and the Campbell movement preferred to use
“biblical” names to call their congregations: Christians and Disciples.)

The Two Movements Unite

An account of how the Christians, the Stone movement, and the Disciples, the Campbell movement
unites into one movement was written by Dan Turner in his article, Roots of Reformation: A Survey of
the Principles and Practices of the Restoration Movement:

“There were friendships developing between the followers of Stone (the Christians) and the
followers of Campbell (the Disciples)… In 1832, at a joint service I Georgetown and Lexington
Kentucky, a very emotional service took place involving Barton W. Stone, and Racoon John Smith,
from the disciples. Both agreed to talk of the need for unity but either knew what the other was
going to say… Smith ended his sermon by saying, ‘Let us, then, my brethren, be no longer
Campbellites and Stoneites, New Lights and Old Lights, or any other kind of lights, but let us all
come to the Bible, and to the Bible alone, as the only book in the world that can give us all the
Light we need.’ Stone then shocked the crowd when, during his sermon, he extended his hand to
Smith as a sign of fellowship. When Smith responded, the crowd broke into a spontaneous
singing of a hymn and the union became a reality.

It was not an easy union… Representatives of both groups traveled together throughout the
countryside proclaiming the unity. But there were still differences… Yet they remained brothers
of their desire to bring unity among God’s people through a return to the church of the New
Testament.

How did two different men, with obvious doctrinal disagreement, begin a unity movement?
Racoon john Smith said, ‘While there is one faith, there may be ten thousand opinions, and
hence if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one in faith and not in opinion.’ Stone had
said, ‘let Christian unity be our polar star.’ They simply did not let traditions, opinions, and
human differences divide their fellowship. In the words of a later preacher, they agreed to
disagree without being disagreeable. [emphasis added]

Alexander, hearing of this, expressed his conciliatory sentiments by writing to the brethren about his
approval.(p. 95) Their congregation was called either, “Christian Church”, “Church of Christ” or “Disciples
of Christ.”

For quite a number of years since the union of the two major branches, the Restoration Movement had
experienced growth. “By 1865”, Dan Turner writes, “the movement had grown from about 25,000
members to 191,000! [As of year 2000] Most of these new converts were by conversion!”

Recent Divisions

6
What has now become of this “union of believers”? How did the Restoration Movement cope up with the
changes that it had undergone? In the period between when the movement first became till the present
time, so much had already happened, aside from church growth and developments, that contributed
many changes in the Restoration Movement, even the emergence of schisms. Various factors may be
considered. The Civil War, for one, made an impact to the movement in such a way that its social and
economic results left Americans with a new lifestyle. As reported, “Rough log cabins were turned into
beautiful sanctuaries with wallpaper, imported furniture and fixtures decorating the interiors. Churches
divided between those who could afford such luxuries, and those who could not.” (p.102, Turner)
Controversies within the movement were also evident. Some other problems the Christians were
dealing with were the advent of instrumental music (the use of piano and organ in worship), and the
exclusivist tendencies of some of the brethren (the slogan, “Christians Only But Not The Only Christians”
was partly fading into oblivion). In 1900’s, arose the prevalence of Liberalism. School/colleges and
churches under the umbrella of Restoration Movement were split, for more and more preachers started
accepting and teaching a new “modernistic gospel.”(pp. 102-103, Turner) These factors all contribute to what
has resulted to be the most recent divisions in the movement.

Today the Church of the Restoration Movement is divided into three main divisions (as enlisted by Dan
Turner): (1) The Church of Christ (Non –Instrumental); (2) The Disciples of Christ; and (3) The Christian
Churches and The Churches of Christ

*From Dan Turners article, Roots of Reformation, pp. 103-104

1. The Church of Christ ( Non-Instrumental) – This group always refers to their churches by the title, Church of
Christ and do not use instruments in worship. They, themselves, have split again into at least 27 recognizable
factions, but at least 75% of their brotherhood are in full fellowship with each other. At one time the fastest
growing church in America, they have experienced a steady decline in membership for the past 19 years. They do,
however, show a slight increase in membership these past years. Today, they have around 13,364 churches with a
membership of 1,275,533. Although general trends are not true in every case, several congregations appear to be
moving towards a less dogmatic position. Several of the ministers and leaders of the Non-Instrumental group
began annual unity discussions in 1984 with leaders of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Obvious
differences in biblical hermeneutic remain but discussions are still continuing…

2. The Disciples of Christ – These churches are commonly called Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). They seldom
use the title Church of Christ. The disciples are experiencing serious membership decline. A large majority of their
congregations did not report a single baptism in 1981.The restructure of the denomination was never completely
solved. Is the authority of the church in the local congregation, regional assembly, or General assembly? They do
not know. The machinery of the denomination is in the hands of a chosen few, yet the local congregations retain
considerable freedom. A personal observation is that most people in the local church are not aware of, or
concerned about, the liberalism of their denomination. Today, Disciples of Christ have 794,326 members in 4,386
churches. Disciples have sought repeatedly to merge with other denominations such as the Baptists and the United
Church of Christ. About 2,000 of their congregations have indicated that they would not enter into a merger but
keep their distinct heritage. Cooperational unity is a future possibility.

3. The Christian Churches and The Churches of Christ [sometimes the word Independent is added]– Somewhat
confusing, we call our congregations both Christian Church and Church of Christ. Yet those who call themselves
Christian Church have no association with the Disciples, nor do those who call themselves Church of Christ refuse

7
to use the piano or have association with the Non-Instrumentals. We have about 1,069,425 members in 45,636
congregations. We occupy the center ground between the conservative (and sometimes dogmatic Non-
Instrumental Church of Christ and the liberal restructured Disciples of Christ… Understandably, our churches
wrestle with the problem of maintaining the balance between truth and love (Ephesians 4:13), dogmatism and
liberalism, unity and restoration… We are experiencing growth as a movement but this growth is coming from only
one-third of our churches. The other two-thirds have not significantly grown for many years. The principles of
restoration movement are largely unknown by our people within the local congregation…

Another group which was derived from Disciples of Christ which was not enlisted above, merged with
other Evangelical denominations to form United Church of Christ in May of 1948. (Isagani Deslate, p. 50)

Missionary Endeavors to the Philippines

We have ended the brief overview of the beginnings of Restoration Movement and some current
updates concerning its present state. Now, we come to the point of discussing how the Restoration
Movement, specifically the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, came to the
Philippine Islands.

The establishment of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ in the Philippine Islands happened years
after the beginning of the American occupation and the coming of Protestantism to the Philippines,
marked by the arrival General Dewey and his troops and their victory at Manila bay in May 1898. Mr.
and Mrs. Hermon Williams, Chaplain of Iowa regiment of the United States expeditionary force in the
Philippines, was the first missionary sent under the commission of Foreign Christian Bible Society*(refer to
ENDNOTES, p. 11)
to start a Christian mission under the banner “Church of Christ” in August 3, 1901 together
with Mr. and Mrs. W.H. Hanna. As soon as the missionaries settled, they started missions work among
Filipinos in Manila (Ermita, Azcarraga, etc.) and gained their first Filipino converts on the night of August
8, 1902. Because there were no territories officially allotted for the Williams and the Hannas, they were
forced to move out. Mark Maxey writes of the agreement of the Evangelical Union in 1900 to the
division of zones for various mission groups:

“Our missionaries had not yet arrived and thus were not party to the agreement and had no
territory assigned to them.”(Maxey, p.14)

The missionaries, still so much eager to continue their missionary work in the country decided to
relocate to Laoag. There they devoted themselves to learning the Ilocano dialect and to evangelization.
As the missions work persisted and as more missionaries came to aide them, the work of the Lord
flourished and even extended to Vigan (fifty miles south) in 1904, and eventually back to Manila, with
the arrival of Mr. and Mrs. Bruce L. Kershner in 1905. Concerning statistics, Maxey writes:

“The number of churches reached fifteen [15], membership seven hundred eighteen [718], with
three hundred nineteen [319] baptisms reported for the year.” (Maxey, p. 17)

Yet the prime of the history of the missionary endeavors of the Churches of Christ to the Philippines had
still not happened until 1907, with the arrival of Mr. Leslie Wolfe, “probably the most prominent and
remarkable persona in the early history of the Philippine Churches of Christ Mission.”(Dan Turner, p. 109, Roots of
Reformation)

Mr. Leslie Wolfe was a minister at Zearing, Iowa. He was an exceptional believer and was a zealous
missionary of God; he was also noted to be an eloquent and dynamic preacher, and translator. He
together with his wife, Mrs. Wolfe, decided to heed God’s call for them to do missions in the Philippine
Islands as they read of the need for missionaries in the Christian Standard (p. 17, Maxey). The missionary

8
couple arrived at Manila in October 29, 1907 and teamed with the Kreshners in doing missionary work
and Christian services. Concerning the growth of the missions work in 1907, Archibald McLean,
president of the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, comments (as quoted by Maxey):

“That year saw marked progress in the work. The Society bought a large and well-located
building, for which it paid $16,000. For a time practically all the work for the Mission in Manila
was carried under its roof. The building afforded homes for two families, a chapel capable of
seating four hundred, classrooms, an office for the Mission, a bookstore, space for the press, and
a hotel that accommodated twelve students. In the chapel the gospel was preached in Tagalog,
in Ilocano, in English, and sometimes in Spanish. The Lord’s Supper was partaken of on the first
Sunday of the week. Two Sunday schools were conducted. The American church worshipped in
one of the parlors. There were day classes and night classes for such as could not attend in the
(Maxey, p. 18)
day. The subjects were adapted to the attainments and desires of he pupils.”

The progress of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ in the Philippines in that year was
remarkable. “During the year,” Maxey writes, “there were eleven missionaries [11], twenty nine
churches [29], and a membership of two thousand five hundred and five [2,505], with nine hundred
forty-three [943] baptisms reported.” The exceptional skills and talents, and deep love for God’s word,
coupled with the indispensable Divine enablement, became the formula for this tremendous outcome.
Truly God has been faithful in keeping His promise of being with his people always “to the ends of the
earth”, and “to the very end of the age”, even to the emissaries of the Restoration Movement.

Evaluation

The Indigenization of the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ In the Philippines /
Philippine Churches of Christ.

As we have gone over a brief overview of the history of the beginnings of the Philippine Churches of
Christ, we now shift our focus to a very important aspect of the church: the process of its Indigenization.
The indigenous church, as described by T. Stanley Soltou, quoted by Dr. Edilberto Banzuelo in his book,
The Beginnings of Evangelical Christianity in the Philippines, is “a church that is self-governing, self-
supporting, and self-propagating.” In retrospect, we see no definite mark in the church’s timeline as to
indicate the official initiation of its indigenization. Though, it is evident that the church expresses certain
characteristics of an indigenous church. Along the line, even as new foreign missionaries were sent to
the country (like the Allisons in 1933, Mr. James Willis Hale and Mrs. Velma Hale in 1940 and others),
“great leaders” began to emerge from the Filipino community of the Philippine Churches of Christ in the
following years who were as diligent in the task of sharing the gospel and the carrying out of various
ministries to serve the church and the community. Among them were Diego Romulo, Conrado
Montefalcon, Erasto Sulit, Panfilo Pel, Eleazar Conte, and many others.This proved the church and its
ministry extensions to be already capable of self-propagation. However, problems come to surface
when we bring up the subject of indigenization in the aspects of self-governance and self-support.
Today, some institutions under Church of Christ are still governed by American and foreign missionaries
and some are still dependent upon their foreign benefactors for financial support.

For one is Manila Bible Seminary (MBS), the first institute for Bible training established under the
Philippine Churches of Christ, in 1926. At present time, MBS administration is under the governance of a
foreign missionary in the person of Mrs. Jeanne McElroy Hoffman. She is the only member of the
school’s Board of Trustees, and the whole roster of workers of the institution, who is a foreigner. The
president operates under the Board of Trustees and administers all the other Departments under her
control. (refer to Appendix B) The MBS is a “non-stock, non-profit corporation”, which makes it totally

9
dependent upon financial support from Churches of Christ in the United States (100% of its funding is
supported by foreign means). (refer to Appendix A) God’s Word To Every Home Ministries, International
(GWTEHMI), is another of the parachurch organizations under Philippine Churches of Christ. GWTEHMI,
which was founded by Panfilo Pel, a Filipino minister, and is currently run by the acting president, Amiel
B. Pel, started as a foundation, then turning into a ministry organization that seeks to propagate the
Bible and at the same time, support ministers who handle Bible studies. GWTEHF is also supported by
Churches of Christ in the U.S., up to 75% of its funding. (refer to Appendix A)

Upon considering these examples, one thing is certain: that the missionaries of the former times were
not able to successfully impart (either due to purposeful neglect or accidental overlooking of the
situation) to the Filipino Christian community the values of being able to autonomously support and
govern the church and institutions. The risks can fall off to either of the two possibilities: 1) a revolt on
the part of the Filipino church against the foreign leadership (having in mind the example of Nicolas
Zamora and the IEMELIF church)(p.68, The Beginnings of Evangelical Christianity in the Philippines, Dr. E. Banzuelo), or 2) over-
dependence upon the financial support.

It is undeniably true that God has gifted enough the Philippine Church of Christ with able and faithful
men who can, without question, lead the church even in an autonomous condition. He has provided for
the arsenal of preachers and ministers who will be the church’s self-propagating hands. Will He not
much more provide for the needs of His beloved Filipino Church, as a part of Christ’s body? “Is the
LORD’s arm too short?” Indigenization is not an easy task. But with much faith and perseverance, its
results will truly be rewarding. Now, in the words of Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians,
Chapter 3, verses 20-21, do we put our full confidence:

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according
to his power that is at work within us,
to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and
ever! Amen.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

Indeed the Restoration Movement has had a great spiritual impact in the lives of many, and even to the
places far from where it had its origins, such as the Philippines. It is to God and God alone do we
attribute this success. May He also continue to guide, not only the Churches of Christ, but everyone of
His Church in the Philippines, so that they may eventually become what Christ has always wanted them
to become: a Church united under “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is
above all, and through all, and in you all”!

As to the Indigenization of the Philippine Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, It is recommended that

the Philippine Churches of Christ endeavor to be more independent of foreign governance; “otherwise,”
wrote Dr. Banzuelo, “it could stagnate so as to result in superficial impact.” For who is more fitting to
serve and care for the Filipino Christians, than the person who has the same sentiments, views, frame of
thinking and cultural traditions with them, that is the Filipino leader himself? And concerning financial
support, it would be better for the Filipino churches and institutions to be supported by their own
people, so as to implement a “no strings attached” condition, which is a sound policy concerning the
financial aspect, and to avoid complications in the ministry. However, it should also be clarified that we
are not accusing these missionaries of religious colonialism, but we are trying to take advantage of what
history has to teach us regarding these things.

10
ENDNOTES

*Sources are inconsistent in this record of events. Dr. Banzuelo cites the Disciples Mission Board as the
mission board that appointed Mr. Hanna and Mr. Williams as missionaries to the Philippines. (p. 19, The
Beginnings of Evangelical Christianity in The Philippines)
Mark Maxey mentions a Foreign Christian Missionary Society
instead of the former. (p. 14, History of the Philippine Mission: Churches of Christ and Christian Churches) The writer has resolved to
cite the latter (Foreign Christian Missionary Society) for the purpose of being consistent with the sources
that were used in this section of the study, and not because the facts presented from the other were
considered spurious. As to accuracy in data concerning this inconsistency, there still is no certainty.

11
BIBLIOGRAPHY

History of the Philippine Mission: Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. Mark Maxey
Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement. James DeForest Murch
Christianity through the Centuries. Earle E. Cairnes
Selected articles from The 2001 Centennial Celebration and 92nd National Convention of the Churches
of Christ/Christian Churches of the Philippines Yearbook:
• The Declaration and Address. Thomas Campbell (compiled and summarized)
• Roots of Reformation: A Survey of the Principles and Practices of the Restoration Movement.
(Compiled by Daniel Turner and edited by Larry p. Arienzano)
• History of the Churches of Christ in the Philippines. (Written by Charlie M. Ayuno and edited
by Larry p. Arienzano)
The Beginnings of Evangelical Christianity in the Philippines. Dr. Edilberto V. Banzuelo
Interviews:
Supplement to Chapters in Philippine Church History. Chapter 24. Unity in Diversity: The Birth of The
United Church of Christ. Isagani V. Deslate
Mr. Dan Sulit, Manila Bible Seminary
Manila Bible Seminary Catalog 2004-2006
Manila Bible Seminary Organizational Chart
Pastor Amiel B. Pel, God’s Word to Every Home Ministries, International
Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by The International Bible
Society. All rights reserved.

12
APPENDICES (A-B)

Appendix A. Interviews with Mr. Dan Sulit and Pastor Amiel Pel

INTERVIEWS

Interview with Mr. Dan Sulit, Finance Officer, Member of Board of Trustees, Manila
Bible Seminary

Question: “What is the present state of Manila Bible Seminary, as an educational

institution under the banner of Philippine Churches of Christ, concerning its governance
(administration)?”
Answer: “Since 1926, MBS administration has been under the governance of foreign
missionaries with the purpose of training the Filipino Christians towards competence in
the ministry. Now, a Jeanne McElroy Hoffman stands as incumbent president of the said
institute. Before, most of the faculty and staff, and board members were foreign
missionaries. At present, Mrs. Hoffman remains as the only foreign missionary in the
Board of Trustees of Manila Bible Seminary.”

Question: “How about the funding or financing of the seminary? Where does support
come from?”
Answer: “Funding is 100% supported by from the Churches of Christ in the United
States.”

Interview with Pastor Amiel B. Pel, Acting President, God’s Word To Every Home
Ministries, International

Question: “What is God’s Word To Every Home Ministries, International?”

Answer: “GWTEHMI started as a foundation (then, God’s Word To Every Home
Foundation), then turning into a ministry organization that seeks to propagate the Bible
and at the same time, support ministers who handle Bible studies, by supplying them
with Bibles.”

Question: “Where does GWTEHMI get its funding?”

Answer: “Roughly up to 75% of its financial support comes from the brethren (Churches
of Christ) in the States. Around 25% is raised through donations.”

13
Appendix B. Manila Bible Seminary Organizational Chart

14