The Political Ideologies of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) Under the Marcos Regimes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers a clear and well-organized analysis of the UCCP’s political positioning under Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Ferdinand Marcos Jr., using Demeterio’s modified ideological spectrum. The comparative dimension is valuable, and the historical arc from restraint to activism is presented coherently. The clarity of the writing and the use of pastoral statements as primary sources make the argument accessible and concrete.

That said, several areas could be strengthened:

1. While the ideological spectrum you employ is useful for political analysis, it relies entirely on secular political categories (progressive–retrogressive, libertarian–authoritarian). For a study of a Christian ecclesial body, this runs the risk of reducing the Church’s mission to political activism or passivity. It would enrich the work to integrate theological-pastoral frameworks — for example, from Gaudium et Spes, Evangelii Nuntiandi, or Centesimus Annus — which balance the Church’s prophetic role with her primary mission of evangelization and sacramental life.

2. The paper seems to assume that increased political activism (“prophetic resistance”) is a sign of ecclesial maturity, while earlier restraint is “passive complicity.” This judgment could be nuanced by acknowledging legitimate prudential reasons for restraint (e.g., avoiding politicization of the Gospel, protecting the faithful in hostile regimes). Catholic social teaching recognizes both the duty to speak against injustice and the need to maintain the Church’s distinct witness above partisan agendas.

3. The engagement with political theory is strong, but the paper would benefit from more sustained dialogue with theological sources and ecumenical perspectives on church–state relations. Even if the UCCP is a Protestant body, Catholic and Orthodox sources could provide comparative depth and situate your findings in a wider Christian tradition.

4. At times, the conclusion reads as if the Church’s value lies primarily in political activism. This risks an instrumentalist view of the Church, where her worth is measured by political effect rather than faithfulness to her mission. I suggest clarifying whether the analysis is descriptive (tracking ideological change) or prescriptive (advocating for a particular stance), and if the latter, grounding that prescription in theological anthropology and ecclesiology.

5. Other suggestions:

   • Ensure that all pastoral statements cited are contextualized within their historical and ecclesial setting.

   • Consider explaining why Demeterio’s model is particularly suitable for religious analysis, or acknowledge its limits when applied to theological discourse.

   • A brief note on the UCCP’s doctrinal identity and ecclesial polity would help readers unfamiliar with Philippine Protestantism.

Overall, the work makes a valuable contribution to the political study of religion in the Philippines, and its comparative approach between two regimes is a strong point!

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper offers a clear and well-organized analysis of the UCCP’s political positioning under Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Ferdinand Marcos Jr., using Demeterio’s modified ideological spectrum. The comparative dimension is valuable, and the historical arc from restraint to activism is presented coherently. The clarity of the writing and the use of pastoral statements as primary sources make the argument accessible and concrete.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your positive assessment of the paper’s clarity, methodology, and use of primary sources.

Comment 2: While the ideological spectrum you employ is useful for political analysis, it relies entirely on secular political categories (progressive–retrogressive, libertarian–authoritarian). For a study of a Christian ecclesial body, this runs the risk of reducing the Church’s mission to political activism or passivity. It would enrich the work to integrate theological-pastoral frameworks — for example, from Gaudium et Spes, Evangelii Nuntiandi, or Centesimus Annus — which balance the Church’s prophetic role with her primary mission of evangelization and sacramental life.

Response 2: In revising the manuscript, we further clarified the scope and limitation of our study to highlight that our analysis is situated within Demeterio’s political-philosophical spectrum, which is primarily concerned with mapping ideological positions. We fully acknowledged that relying solely on secular political categories risks overlooking the Church’s broader pastoral and sacramental mission. At the same time, we intentionally focused on the political dimension of the UCCP’s pastoral statements, since our objective is to trace their ideological trajectory across two Marcos administrations. We also noted in our study that while there is a rich body of literature examining pastoral statements through theological frameworks, there remains a need to analyze these pronouncements from a socio-political perspective, particularly by employing Demeterio’s ideological spectrum. Nevertheless, we agree that theological-pastoral frameworks such as Gaudium et Spes, Evangelii Nuntiandi, and Centesimus Annus provide indispensable insights into the Church’s prophetic and evangelizing role. While incorporating these in full is beyond the present article’s methodological scope, we have integrated this important suggestion into our recommendations for future research, noting that subsequent studies may profitably engage these frameworks to complement our political-philosophical analysis. In this way, the reviewer's feedback has not only helped us sharpen the boundaries of our own framework but also opened concrete directions for future inquiry. Please check pages 5-6, 10, 30-31. 

Comment 3: The paper seems to assume that increased political activism (“prophetic resistance”) is a sign of ecclesial maturity, while earlier restraint is “passive complicity.” This judgment could be nuanced by acknowledging legitimate prudential reasons for restraint (e.g., avoiding politicization of the Gospel, protecting the faithful in hostile regimes). Catholic social teaching recognizes both the duty to speak against injustice and the need to maintain the Church’s distinct witness above partisan agendas.

Response 3: In response to this insightful comment, we have nuanced our discussion to avoid suggesting that political restraint is simply “passive complicity” or that prophetic resistance is the sole marker of ecclesial maturity. We clarified that our analysis of “restraint” and “resistance” is framed within Demeterio’s ideological spectrum, which maps political positioning rather than offering a theological judgment on ecclesial maturity. At the same time, we now acknowledge in the revised text that restraint may also stem from legitimate prudential reasons, such as protecting the faithful under hostile regimes or preventing the politicization of the Gospel. We believe this clarification allows us to remain faithful to our chosen framework while presenting the UCCP’s trajectory in a more balanced light. Please check page 10. 

Comment 4: The engagement with political theory is strong, but the paper would benefit from more sustained dialogue with theological sources and ecumenical perspectives on church–state relations. Even if the UCCP is a Protestant body, Catholic and Orthodox sources could provide comparative depth and situate your findings in a wider Christian tradition.

Response 4: We agree that situating the UCCP’s pastoral statements within a broader ecumenical and theological conversation on church-state relations would enrich the study and highlight resonances across Christian traditions. In revising the manuscript, we have clarified that our framework is deliberately focused on Demeterio’s political-philosophical spectrum, and thus does not undertake an extensive theological or ecumenical analysis. Nevertheless, we have noted in the recommendations that future research may draw from Catholic social teaching and Orthodox perspectives on church–state relations to provide comparative depth and situate the UCCP within a wider Christian discourse. Your feedback has helped us identify this as a promising direction for further scholarship beyond the present scope. Please check pages 10, 30-31. 

Comment 5: At times, the conclusion reads as if the Church’s value lies primarily in political activism. This risks an instrumentalist view of the Church, where her worth is measured by political effect rather than faithfulness to her mission. I suggest clarifying whether the analysis is descriptive (tracking ideological change) or prescriptive (advocating for a particular stance), and if the latter, grounding that prescription in theological anthropology and ecclesiology.

Response 5: In revising the conclusion, we clarified that our analysis is primarily descriptive which seeks to trace the ideological shifts in the UCCP’s pastoral statements through Demeterio’s political-philosophical spectrum. We recognize that at times our language may have suggested that the Church’s value lies in its political activism. We have therefore nuanced the conclusion to emphasize that our intent is not to measure the Church’s worth by political effect but to analyze how its public witness has been articulated in response to historical contexts. We also acknowledge that any prescriptive claims about ecclesial mission would require theological grounding in ecclesiology and theological anthropology, an important task, though one beyond the present scope. Please check page 30. 

Comment 6: Ensure that all pastoral statements cited are contextualized within their historical and ecclesial setting.

Response 6: We ensured that each pastoral statement cited is more explicitly situated within its historical and ecclesial setting. We added contextual notes that highlight the political circumstances under which the statements were released, as well as the UCCP’s internal and ecumenical concerns at the time. We believe this contextualization not only clarifies the intent of the statements but also strengthens our analysis of their ideological trajectory. For clarity, we also assigned codes for each pastoral statement that will guide the readers in the Analysis section. We ensured that each pastoral statement cited is more explicitly situated within its historical and ecclesial setting. We added contextual notes that highlight the political circumstances under which the statements were released, as well as the UCCP’s internal and ecumenical concerns at the time. We believe this contextualization not only clarifies the intent of the statements but also strengthens our analysis of their ideological trajectory. For clarity, we also assigned codes for each pastoral statement that will guide the readers in the Analysis section. Please check pages 6-8, 17-26. 

Comment 7: Consider explaining why Demeterio’s model is particularly suitable for religious analysis, or acknowledge its limits when applied to theological discourse.

Response 7: In revising the methodology section, we clarified why Demeterio’s modified ideological spectrum is particularly suitable for this study. It provides a systematic tool for mapping the political dimensions of pastoral statements, which are themselves interventions in public discourse. At the same time, we acknowledged the limits of this framework when applied to theological discourse. Demeterio’s model does not capture the full sacramental, ecclesial, and pastoral dimensions of the Church’s mission, and thus our analysis should be read primarily as a political-philosophical mapping rather than a comprehensive theological evaluation. We believe that making both its usefulness and limitations explicit helps strengthen the transparency and rigor of the study. Please check page 10. 

Comment 8: A brief note on the UCCP’s doctrinal identity and ecclesial polity would help readers unfamiliar with Philippine Protestantism.

Response 8: We have added a brief note in the background section introducing the UCCP’s doctrinal identity and ecclesial polity. We clarified that the UCCP is a mainline Protestant denomination formed through the union of Presbyterian, Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and other Protestant traditions in the Philippines, with a Reformed theological orientation and a presbyterial-synodal form of governance. We believe this addition provides essential context for readers unfamiliar with Philippine Protestantism and helps situate the pastoral statements within the UCCP’s ecclesial identity. Please check page 3. 

Comment 9: Overall, the work makes a valuable contribution to the political study of religion in the Philippines, and its comparative approach between two regimes is a strong point!

Response 9: We sincerely appreciate this feedback and assure the reviewer that we have exerted our best efforts to address all the valuable comments and suggestions. We are grateful for the constructive insights, which have helped us refine the manuscript and strengthen its contribution.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very good article with significant ramifications with strong evidence and scholarship. I agree that more research can be done, although it is not necessary in this article. For example, what was happening in the UCCP in the several decades between the Marcos regimes that led to such a change in prophetic outlook? What was going on in churches and seminaries that contributed to the change? There was obviously a theological shift. What were the sources for that shift in particular? Etc. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Very good article with significant ramifications with strong evidence and scholarship. I agree that more research can be done, although it is not necessary in this article. For example, what was happening in the UCCP in the several decades between the Marcos regimes that led to such a change in prophetic outlook? What was going on in churches and seminaries that contributed to the change? There was obviously a theological shift. What were the sources for that shift in particular? Etc. 

Response 1: We are grateful for your affirming comments regarding the article’s significance and evidence base. We also appreciate your thoughtful suggestions concerning the theological and institutional developments that shaped the UCCP in the decades between the Marcos regimes. We agree that questions such as the role of seminaries, the sources of theological shifts, and the internal processes of ecclesial formation are highly relevant for understanding the Church’s prophetic trajectory. While these are beyond the scope of the present article, which focuses primarily on the analysis of pastoral statements within Demeterio’s political-philosophical framework, we recognize them as promising avenues for further research. In the revised manuscript, we have noted in the recommendations section that future studies could investigate the theological and educational sources of the UCCP’s shift, particularly in relation to seminary formation, ecumenical engagement, and liberationist influences.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article sets an unambiguous goal - it aims to analyze the statements of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) under the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Jr., i.e., in the years 1965-1986, concentrating on the Martial Law era (1972-1983) and 2022-2025. This goal is realized skillfully, providing an overarching analysis of the relevant documents. The positive features of the article are the following characteristics:

• It focuses on the changes in the mindset of the UCCP in the periods mentioned above, from silent resistance to outspoken criticism;
• It highlights the Scriptural and other sources of the relevant documents;
• It makes use of only one theoretical frame, the taxonomy of Feorillo Demeterio, in its various modifications, a frame not known to most scholars outside the Philippines, but provides on page 8 a convincing overview of the theory;
• It explains why it focuses on the UCCP (other religious communities being silent on social issues), but also gives some impressions of the attitude of the Catholic Church (p. 4 and elsewhere), thus making possible a modest comparison of various Christian communities;
• It focuses on issues that are clearly presented (labor practices; population control policies; free speech; memory policies etc.);
• It provides useful and concise summaries of some relevant Church documents.

It is very difficult to name negative features of the text, as it is really excellent; if I should name some, I would mention the following ones:

• It refers to contemporary Filippinos on page 2 (line 65), but refers to literature from 1978 and 2006;
• It tends to repeat itself, especially concerning the maturation and change of the UCCP  (p. 13, 22 etc.), but such repetitions are not disturbing;
• On page 14, line 575 is asserts the truism of authoritarianism and conservatism not being identical, and this remark should be modified;
• on page 15, line 618 the author talks about "autocratic practices" - the political evaluation of the current situation of the Philippines should be more complex, drawing on a variety of evaluations in the local and international context.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article sets an unambiguous goal - it aims to analyze the statements of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) under the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Jr., i.e., in the years 1965-1986, concentrating on the Martial Law era (1972-1983) and 2022-2025. This goal is realized skillfully, providing an overarching analysis of the relevant documents. The positive features of the article are the following characteristics: It focuses on the changes in the mindset of the UCCP in the periods mentioned above, from silent resistance to outspoken criticism; It highlights the Scriptural and other sources of the relevant documents; It makes use of only one theoretical frame, the taxonomy of Feorillo Demeterio, in its various modifications, a frame not known to most scholars outside the Philippines, but provides on page 8 a convincing overview of the theory; It explains why it focuses on the UCCP (other religious communities being silent on social issues), but also gives some impressions of the attitude of the Catholic Church (p. 4 and elsewhere), thus making possible a modest comparison of various Christian communities; It focuses on issues that are clearly presented (labor practices; population control policies; free speech; memory policies etc.); It provides useful and concise summaries of some relevant Church documents.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the constructive and affirming feedback on the article. We deeply appreciate the recognition of the clarity of the study’s goal and its overarching analysis of UCCP statements under Marcos Sr. and Jr., as well as the focus on the Church’s changing mindset from silent resistance to outspoken criticism. Your positive remarks on the integration of Scriptural and other sources, the consistent application of Demeterio’s theoretical taxonomy with a clear overview for international readers, and the rationale for concentrating on the UCCP while modestly comparing it with the Catholic Church affirm that the framing was communicated effectively. We are likewise grateful for the observations on the clarity of issue presentation, such as labor, population control, free speech, and memory policies, and the concise summaries of key Church documents, which were intended to make the article more accessible to scholars unfamiliar with the original sources. The generous assessment not only affirms the strengths of the article but also encourages us to continue refining its accessibility and clarity for a broad readership.

Comment 2: It is very difficult to name negative features of the text, as it is really excellent; if I should name some, I would mention the following ones: It refers to contemporary Filippinos on page 2 (line 65), but refers to literature from 1978 and 2006. 

Response 2: We acknowledge that the current claim appears to be in tension with some of the supporting literature previously cited. To address this, we will strengthen our argument by integrating more recent and relevant scholarship while retaining the existing references to provide historical grounding and continuity. In doing so, we aim to ensure that our claims are substantiated by both updated evidence and established sources. 

Comment 3: It tends to repeat itself, especially concerning the maturation and change of the UCCP  (p. 13, 22 etc.), but such repetitions are not disturbing.

Response 3: We acknowledge that some ideas, particularly on the maturation and change of the UCCP, may appear repeatedly in the text. We have revised the manuscript by improving sentence structures to minimize redundancy while still preserving the authors’ intention to underscore the importance of these arguments. Please check pages 11-29. 

Comment 4: On page 14, line 575 is asserts the truism of authoritarianism and conservatism not being identical, and this remark should be modified.

Response 4: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion and will revise the structure of the statement on page 14, line 575 to provide greater clarity and precision in distinguishing between authoritarianism and conservatism, ensuring that the remark avoids sounding like a mere truism.

Comment 5: On page 15, line 618 the author talks about "autocratic practices" - the political evaluation of the current situation of the Philippines should be more complex, drawing on a variety of evaluations in the local and international context.

Response 5: We acknowledge that the initial use of the term “autocratic practices” risks oversimplifying the current political landscape of the Philippines. In revising the section, we integrated a more nuanced discussion by drawing on both local and international evaluations. For instance, Freedom House (2025) classifies the Philippines as “Partly Free,” highlighting weaknesses in accountability and civil liberties despite continued electoral participation. Similarly, International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy (2025) places the Philippines in a mid-range category, noting robust citizen engagement but persistent deficiencies in the rule of law and anti-corruption measures. These findings resonate with longer-term critiques by Miranda et al. (2011), who argue that unresolved questions of national identity, a politicized military, weak electoral governance, and oligarchic resilience continue to undermine democratic deepening. Taken together, these perspectives suggest that the Philippines is best understood as a hybrid regime where democratic procedures coexist with autocratic tendencies, reflecting both progress and persistent vulnerabilities.