Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Why J and My Family Are Not Schimatics

[Schism] is evil in itself. To separate ourselves from a body of living Christian, with
whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the law of love. It is the nature
of love to unite us together; and the greater the love, the stricter the union. And
while this continues in its strength, nothing can divide those whom love has
united. It is only when our love grows cold, that we can think of separating from
our brethren. And this is certainly the case with any who willingly separate from
their Christian brethren. The pretences for separation may be innumerable, but
want of love is always the real cause; otherwise they would still hold the unity of he
Spirit in the bound of peace. It is therefore contrary to all those commands of God,
wherein brotherly love is enjoined... (John Wesley, SERMON 75 - ON SCHISM)
I have always opposed the sin of schism, from the time my father, the Rev. Anacleto Guerrero
recruited me to help him write against the proposal of affiliated autonomy. Even after he died,
and both my brothers left the United Methodist Church to become Baptists, I remained loyal
to the UMC, accepting and upholding her order, liturgy, doctrine and discipline. I remained
loyal to the UMC, despite the fact that (in general) her laity are hostile to her order, liturgy,
doctrine and discipline. I remain loyal to her liturgy, doctrine and discipline, but I am now
under the sad necessity of leaving the UMC, I and my family are Absolved from all Allegiance
to the order of the United Methodist Church.
Does this therefore make myself, my wife and my daughter schismatics, committing the very
sin that we have condemned for so long? No, I do not think that we should not be charged
with the sin of schism when we left the United Methodist Church because our separation from
the UMC cannot be defined Scripturally as schism.
WHAT IS SCHISM? A SCRIPTURAL AND WESLEYAN DEFINITION
The whole body of Roman Catholics define schism, a separation from the Church
of Rome; and almost all our own writers define it, a separation from the Church of
England. Thus both the one and the other set out wrong, and stumble at the very
threshold. This will easily appear to any that calmly consider the several texts
wherein the word schism occurs: from the whole tenor of which it is manifest,
that it is not a separation from any Church, (whether general or particular,
whether the Catholic, or any national Church) but a separation in a Church.
(SERMON 75 - ON SCHISM)
Even though I acknowledge and believe that schism is an evil sin, for to separate ourselves
from a body of living Christian, with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the
law of love, I, my wife and my child should not be charged with the sin of schism when we left
the United Methodist Church because our separation from the UMC cannot be defined
Scripturally as schism. This John Wesley makes very clear in his exegesis of the texts where
the word occurs.
Let us begin with the first verse, wherein St. Paul makes use of the word. It is the
tenth verse of the first chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Words
are, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus, that ye all speak the

same thing, and that there be no schisms" ( the original word is schismata)
"among you." ... Of what nature this schism at Corinth was, is still more clearly
determined (if anything can be more clear) by the words that immediately follow:
"Now this I say," -- this is the schism of which I speak; you are divided into
separate parties; some of you speaking in favor of one, some of another preacher,
-- "Every one of you saith," (verse 12) "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of
Cephas," or Peter. Who then does not see that the schism for which the Apostle
here reproves the Corinthians is neither more nor less than the splitting into
several parties, as they gave the preference to one or another preacher? And this
species of schism there will be occasion to guard against in every religious
community. (SERMON 75 - ON SCHISM)
In other words, what schism means in Scripture means what we now call personality cults
or, especially now in the UMC, partisan politics, that is, political loyalty to a particular person
or group of persons. But our leaving the UMC is not because of any loyalty to particular
persons, nor is it because we are displeased with particular persons in the local church.
Others, indeed, have left the UMC because they had a fight with individuals or whole families,
but this was not our motive for leaving.
The second place where the Apostle uses this word is in the eighteenth verse of the
eleventh chapter of this Epistle: "When ye come together in the Church," the
Christian congregation, " I hear that there are division" (the original word here
also is schismata, schisms) "among you." But what were these schisms? The
Apostle immediately tells you: (Verse 20) "When you come together," professing
you design is "to eat of the Lord's Supper, every one of you taketh before another
his own supper," as if it were a common meal. What then was the schism? It
seems, in doing this, they divided into little parties, which cherished anger and
resentment one against another, even at the solemn season. (SERMON 75)
Another reason why our separation from the UMC cannot be defined Scripturally as schism
is that our leaving was not causeless:
I mean, "A causeless separation from a body of living Christians". There is no
absurdity in taking the word [schism] in this sense, though it be not strictly
scriptural. And it is certain all the members of Christian communities should be
carefully guarded against it. For how little a thing soever it may seem, and how
innocent soever it may be accounted, schism, even in this sense, is both evil in
itself, and productive of evil consequences. (SERMON 75)
We did not leave the UMC for no cause whatsoever. In fact, I was compelled to take my family
away from the UMC for a weighty cause, for very important reasons.
THE MARKS OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH AND WHY THE UMC-MEA ISNT ONE
Article XIIIOf the Church
The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure
Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to
Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

The most important reasons why we left the United Methodist Church (something we did not
do willingly, but were compelled to do) is because we could not continue therein with a clear
conscience; we could not continue without sinning against the Holy Ghost, and being forced
to break a commandment of God. I speak now of the prevalent practice of re-baptism in the
Manila Episcopal Area of the UMC this areas hostility to the discipline of weekly Communion.
First, despite the fact that the UMC BOD forbids re-baptism, putting it on the same level as
the celebration of a homosexual union, clergy in the MEA still re-baptize.
2012 UMC-BOD 342.7. No pastor shall re-baptize. The practice of re-baptism
does not conform with Gods action in baptism and is not consistent with
Wesleyan tradition and the historic teaching of the church. Therefore, the pastor
should counsel any person seeking rebaptism to participate in a rite of reaffirmation of baptismal vows.
Of course, these clergy would say that they are not re-baptizing, but are officiating in a rite of
confirmation or a reaffirmation of faith. To this claim, I showed them the following:
The basic meaning of confirmation is strengthening and making firm in Christian
faith and life. The ritual action in confirmation is the laying on of hands as the
sign of Gods continuing gift of the grace of Pentecost. Historically, the person
being confirmed was also anointed on the forehead with oil in the shape of a cross
as a mark of the Spirits work. The ritual of the baptismal covenant included in
The United Methodist Hymnal makes clear that the first and primary confirming
act of the Holy Spirit is in connection with and immediately follows baptism.
(Resolution 8013: By Water and Spirit, UMC Book of Resolutions 2012).
CONFIRMATION OR REAFFIRMATION OF FAITH
12 Here water may be used symbolically in ways that cannot be interpreted as
baptism, as the pastor says:
Remember your baptism and be thankful. Amen.
(UM Hymnal 37 and UM Book Of Worship 92)
Notice that in the UMC rite of confirmation and reaffirmation of faith, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO
USE WATER IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN BAPTISM. And yet that is exactly what these
clergy do every time they hold a confirmation class or a summer camp. They confirm people
by immersing them in a pool, AN ACT THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS BAPTISM.
, baptizo, bap-tid'-zo. From a derivative of , bapto, bap'-to.
A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament
only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of ones
person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - dip; to make whelmed (that is,
fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially
(technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

Indeed, the word baptism means immersion. To immerse in adulthood those who were
baptized as infants is to re-baptize them, even though one may call it either confirmation or
reaffirmation. And this is, I believe, a sin against the Holy Spirit, a sacrilege, as it implies
that the previous baptism was not a real baptism, and thus denying the action of the Holy
Spirit in that baptism.
S. Mark iij. 28-30 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of
men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of
eternal damnation. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
If one is influenced by Anabaptist/Baptist theology, such a denial is often accompanied by
denouncing infant baptism, a grievous sin against the Holy Spirit on the same level as the
Pharisees denying the role of the Holy Spirit in Christs exorcisms. This especially if one says
that Roman Catholic baptism (a genuine Trinitarian baptism) is not a real baptism at all but
a pagan or idolatrous ritual that must be renounced as demonic, as is often the case when
re-baptizing those who left the Roman Catholic Church. Verily, a sin against the Holy Ghost.
Acts ij. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship,
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
And they continued steadfast - So their daily Church communion consisted in
these four particulars: Hearing the word; Having all things common; Receiving the
Lord's Supper; Prayer.
1 Corinthians x. 16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread.
Another reason why we were constrained to separate from the UMC is because we could not
continue therein without being forced to break Christs commandment to break bread and
bless wine to remember him. And if the above Scriptures is correct, the example to be followed
as given by the apostles themselves is that Holy Communion, the Lords Supper, the Eucharist
should be ideally done every day.
The first reason why it is the duty of every Christian so to do is because it is a plain
command of Christ. That this is his command appears from the words of the text,
Do this in remembrance of me: by which, as the Apostles were obliged to bless,
break, and give the bread to all that joined with them in those holy things, so were
all Christians obliged to receive those signs of Christs body and blood. Here
therefore the bread and wine are commanded to be received, in remembrance of
his death, to the end of the world. ... if we consider the Lord's Supper as a
command of Christ, no man can have any pretence to Christian piety, who does not
receive it (not once a month, but) as often as he can. (John Wesley, SERMON 101
THE DUTY OF CONSTANT COMMUNION)

Here have I experienced the greatest hypocrisies regarding this obligatory duty. The official
UMC position is that Holy Communion should be celebrated AT LEAST every week on
Sundays. From the UMC 2012 Book Of Resolutions, Resolution 8014: This Holy Mystery:
Principle:
The complete pattern of Christian worship for the Lords Day is Word and
Tablethe gospel is proclaimed in both Word and sacrament. Word and Table are
not in competition; rather they complement each other so as to constitute a whole
service of worship. Their separation diminishes the fullness of life in the Spirit
offered to us through faith in Jesus Christ.
Practice:
Congregations of The United Methodist Church are encouraged to move
toward a richer sacramental life, including weekly celebration of the Lords Supper
at the services on the Lords Day, as advocated by the general orders of Sunday
worship in The United Methodist Hymnal and The United Methodist Book of
Worship.
Indeed, in many parts of the UMC, in the USA, in Europe and in both the Baguio Episcopal
Area and Davao Episcopal Area, the Holy Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday. But this is not
the case in the Manila Episcopal Area, in other parts of the USA or in most of the African
UMC. This is because they interpret the word encourage as suggest, thereby implying that
weekly Eucharist is but an option, not a duty as expressed by John Wesley. Indeed, the more
charismatic/pentecostal a local church, district or annual conference is, the more hostile it is
to the concept of weekly Eucharist. But the Manila Episcopal Area even more so.
I, in my capacity as chairperson of the Committee on Ritual and Liturgy, attempted to
gradually introduce the study of Resolution 8014. On the three times I have attempted it, I
was blocked by no less than the district superintendent himself. The interim bishop made no
attempt to defend me. When I introduced weekly communion in the local church I was
assigned, I was opposed by mine own senior pastor, who called weekly Holy Communion a
means of disgrace. What made this especially telling was that this ordained elder hailed from
the Baguio Episcopal Area, where constant communion was supposedly the norm.
When I was transferred to another local church, my attempts to invite the Order of St. Luke to
lecture on the duty of constant communion was blocked yet again by my senior pastor and the
district superintendent. They slandered the OSL, calling them a cult, with the district
superintendent hypocritically saying that he has to defend his district from false doctrine. I
told him, I showed him in the Book Of Discipline, that weekly Eucharist was a duty, not an
option, not a suggestion. He insulted my intelligence, saying I misunderstood the words.
For these false shepherds, one must first obtain the consent of the local congregation to start
weekly communion. But why? WHY MUST THE CONGREGATION GIVE THEIR
PERMISSION TO OBEY A DIRECT COMMAND OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST?
Once again, the bishop was made aware of my predicament. Rather than defend me, defend
the standards of doctrine of the UMC as expressed in the BOD, this bishop chose to indulge in
petty politics. I applied for ordination as an elder, so that I may celebrate the Eucharist at any
time. Instead, I was ordained as a mere deacon with no sacramental authority whatsoever.

Deacons in the UMC cannot celebrate the Eucharist unless with the written consent of the
bishop, the district superintendent, and of the pastor-in-charge, i.e., the senior pastor. This
was prior to the 2016 General Conference. What greater injury can be conceived than making
it nigh impossible to promote and practice weekly communion without the joint permission of
these very same men who oppose the duty of constant communion?
CONCLUSION: WHY I AND MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY HAD TO LEAVE THE UMC
If this was the case, you could not be blamed for separating from that society. ... it
would be your bounded duty to leave that community, totally to separate from it. ...
I will make the case my own: I am now, and have been from my youth, a member
and a Minister of the Church of England: And I have no desire, no design to
separate from it, till my soul separates from my body. Yet if I was not permitted to
remain therein without omitting what God requires me to do, it would then
become meet and right, and my bounden duty, to separate from it without delay.
To be more particular: I know God has committed to me a dispensation of the
gospel; yea, and my own salvation depends upon preaching it: "Woe is me if I
preach not the gospel." If then I could not remain in the Church without omitting
this, without desisting from preaching the gospel I should be under a necessity of
separating from it, or losing my own soul. In like manner, if I could not continue
united to any smaller society, Church, or body of Christians, without committing
sin, without lying and hypocrisy, without preaching to others doctrines which I did
not myself believe, I should be under an absolute necessity of separating from that
society. And in all these cases the sin of separation, with all the evils consequent
upon it, would not lie upon it, would not lie upon me, but upon those who
constrained me to make that separation, by requiring of me such terms of
communion as I could not in conscience comply with. (SERMON 75 - ON
SCHISM)
So you can see that although I acknowledge and believe that schism is an evil sin, (for to
separate ourselves from a body of living Christian, with whom we were before united, is a
grievous breach of the law of love,) I, my wife and my child should not be charged with the sin
of schism when we left the United Methodist Church for two main reasons.
First, our separation from the UMC cannot be defined Scripturally as schism. We left not for
merely personal reasons, though there were enough reasons of a personal nature that made
leaving the UMC especially desirable. But it was not for those reasons that we left.
Furthermore, we did not leave willingly; we fought to remain, hoping that someone in
authority in the UMC hierarchy would see the justice of our cause and defend us. But none
did, many instead criticizing us for not educating the laity enough for them to want weekly
communion. Yet have I not done this very thing, through sermons, Bible studies, seminars,
personal appeals and letters, both circular and private. I did more to educate those whom
God has given me to educate.
The real reason is that these same laity, knowing that weekly communion is a duty and
understanding it to be a Methodist doctrine and discipline, have rejected it in favor constant
entertainment and constant money solicitation. They want choir cantatas, band concerts, film

showings, fund raisers and such, as nothing is more important to these idolaters than bringing
money into their bank accounts.
But most importantly, we were constrained to separate from the UMC, because we could not
continue therein with a clear conscience; we could not continue without sin, and being forced
to break a commandment of God. I was forced several times to participate in the sin of rebaptism, my refusal to do so they called a bad attitude and a lack of humility. My desire for
weekly Holy Communion they interpreted as presumption and pride.
To make me humble they denied my application to be ordained as elder and instead given
the lesser ordination as deacon. They tell me that a deacon is equal in status to an elder, but
who are they fooling? As a deacon, I cannot validly celebrate Holy Communion weekly unless
allowed by the very people that oppose it. Where is the justice in all of this? They try to flatter
me by saying that a deacon has more freedom than an elder: that may be so, BUT I WOULD
GLADLY GIVE UP THAT FREEDOM IN ORDER TO VALIDLY CELEBRATE THE
EUCHARIST AS OFTEN AS I CAN.
They will tell me still that I have now committed the very thing that my esteemed father
opposed. I answer that I did not leave the MethodistsTHEY THEMSELVES DID. They left
the Methodists when they began re-baptizing and opposed weekly Eucharist. They may
remain in the United Methodist Church as visible members, but they are not real Methodists.
But then, if these false shepherds and wolves and sheeps clothing are not the real Methodists,
why then should we loyal children leave the United Methodist Church?
This is because the United Methodist Church itself, in its inability on unwillingness to defend
those who have promoted her order, liturgy, doctrine and discipline, and its tolerance of those
who either re-baptize or celebrate homosexual unions (despite the fact that they claim merely
to confirm or reaffirm, or just grant a church blessing to a civil union of homosexuals), shows
that the UMC as a whole does not really believe in its doctrines.
They ask me: Why not just apply for a transfer to the Baguio Episcopal Area or to anywhere in
the UMC that will not force you to participate in a re-baptism or allow you to celebrate the
Eucharist every Sunday? I answer: The powers that be will forbid it, seeking to further teach
Jordan humility and a proper attitude by deliberately giving me tasks I am unsuited for,
squandering the gifts God gave me, and forcing me to participate in the dissemination of the
cultic doctrines of the cultic G12 Vision with its idolization of the false prophet Cesar
Castellanos and his disciple, the false bishop Oriel Ballano.
Besides, the same poison that infected the MEA is there already: that false bishop Ballano is
allowed and welcomed to teach and disciple there. And it was a BEA ordained elder who
opposed constant communion, calling the practice of weekly Eucharist a means of disgrace.
Furthermore, because I am not an Ilocano speaker, that predominantly Ilocano episcopal area
will be prejudiced against me, as they have been when we were in the seminary.
In other words, I am not welcome anywhere in the UMC here in the Philippines. So I have
elected to leave with my family: why should anyone stay where he is not only unwelcome, but
actively humiliated, misrepresented, opposed and slandered? And all because I happened to
oppose re-baptism and believe in celebrating a weekly Holy Communion?