the biblical examination of factors responsible for divisions in the churches

Description

Abstract

The main aim of the research is to determine if the difference in belief is the major cause of church division, the study made use of primary data from the information obtained from the distribution of research questionnaire. The study made use of a total population of 200. The sample of 133 was considered for the study, the data hypothesis was analyzed using the chi-square method. The study concluded that the difference in belief is the major cause of church division. Proper recommendations were made to assist the Pentecostal churches, the catholic churches and its member on the factors responsible for the divisions in the churches

TABLE OF CONTENT

Title page

Approval page

Dedication

Acknowledgment

Abstract

Table of content

CHAPETR ONE

1.0   INTRODUCTION 

1.1        Background of the study

1.2        Statement of problem

1.3        Objective of the study

1.4        Research Hypotheses

1.5        Significance of the study

1.6        Scope and limitation of the study

1.7       Definition of terms

1.8       Organization of the study

CHAPETR TWO

2.0   LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPETR THREE

3.0        Research methodology

3.1    sources of data collection

3.3        Population of the study

3.4        Sampling and sampling distribution

3.5        Validation of research instrument

3.6        Method of data analysis

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introductions

4.2 Data analysis

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Summary

5.3 Conclusion

5.4 Recommendation

Appendix

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

• Background of the study

The will of God for us is that we are united, that is why Jesus prayed in John 17 that his disciples would have unity. He prayed in verses 20-23, “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those alsowho believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father,are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believethat You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, thatthey may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may beperfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them,even as You have loved Me”.

This prayer he madedid not just focus on the eleven remaining disciples but alsoto those who would reach discipleship through their ministry(Britney; 1994). The Bible lets us know that Christ Jesus is crediting his disciples with the numbers that will beproduced. Theprimary concern Jesus expresses at this time of his impending death is the issue ofunity among the disciples as their unity will most definitely be a vital prerequisite fortheir subsequent mission (Jessica; 2004:497).Disunity and division are threatsfound among the members of the Body especially as the Church increases and grows in numbers. As Christ is definitely supplicating theFather with references to God and himself, it is clear the unity herein described ismore transcendent than that of “simply human fellowship or the harmonious interaction of Christians” (Ebere; 1970). The external expression of this unity is to be the evangel of the Church to the world, which attests to the sending of Christ by the Father.

In 1 Corinthians 1:10 he exhorts, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment”, here Paul states this directive and takes a hard stand against division and factions in the Church Body, in light of both personal division and in light of doctrine. Unfortunately, Paul himself falls victim to one of these chasms of opinion in his relationship with Barnabas. Paul’s terminology to address doctrinal differences (1 Corinthians 11:19 and Galatians 5:20) is hairsis, denoting a difference of sound doctrine, even to the point of being an unjustified group (Accordance 2010). Just prior to the prayer in John 17 Jesus had established the institution of the Lord’s Supper in light of the Passover celebration, an institution given in great part to exhibit and foster unity with the Godhead, and unity as members of the Body of Christ. Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 10:16, that the pinnacle of this desired oneness of communion, or church is displayed materially in the act of the Lord’s Supper, as it is a “sharing” in the blood and the Body of Christ. Mounce holds that the term church conveys the idea of fellowship, communion, participation and sharing (Mounce 2006:127, 247). Paul subsequently uses the term only in a religious sense rather than a secular one to denote something greater than a society, to denote a fellowship of a higher level; he as well uses this term to express a “religious fellowship (participation) of the believer in Christ and Christian blessings for the mutual fellowship of believers” (Hauck 1983:804). 1 John 1:3 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 affirm that church is also held with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in addition to the communion of the saints, it is the Holy Spirit alone however, who brings believers into this fellowship (Prime 2008:105). This evidence of church is an external, physical expression of the spiritual fellowship that is enjoyed by the Body being knit together with the Godhead (Hunsinger 2009:347). Thus, church is the internal religious fellowship or participation of sharing in the benefits of a relationship with Christ, yet manifesting itself at times in a physical expression through the Body of Christ. Schmitz cites homothumadon as being infused with ”togetherness”, such as is evidenced in the visible, inner unity of a group faced by a common duty or danger; it is a unity, or unanimity, not embracing a personal agenda, “but on a cause greater than the individual” (Schmitz 1986:908-909). Hence, descriptive of the early Church, it is used in Acts all but one other time in the New Testament, in an effort to accentuate the internal unity of the group.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Church of Jesus is increasing in division instead of unity. This disunity mostly comes in form of cell division. Churches are splitting, division in church seminars are increasing as reconciliation consultants are succeeding, while division abounds (Raymond; 1996), and denominations continue to growin number due to social division as the causal mechanism.Theoretically, orthodoxy would confess that unity is possiblethrough the giving of Christ’s glory. The Church as a whole is rightly able to proclaim theological truths, but is also expected to evidence them to the world through its witness, asdeclared unity is not merely positional (Carson 1980:201).Christianity todaysuggests a proactive separation may be in order as only a sentimental unity remainsamong major denominations (Christianity Today 2004:23). Bloomberg asserts that indeed this unity is difficult to acknowledge in light of the many splintering factions (Bloomberg 2008:224). As a result, the observed lack of unity in the Body of Christ isa devastating witness to the world.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The chief objective of this study is to examine the factors responsible for divisions in the churches.

• To know the biblical and theological justification which support divisions of fellowship within the Body of Christ.
• To know what tolerances of division are biblically justifiable, or permitted in the scope of Scripture and
• To know whether the Church is actually in alignment with Scripture, and how that should affect the behavior of Christians today in their role of glorifying God

1.4   RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What kind ofbiblical and theological justification exists to support divisions of fellowship within theBody of Christ?
• What tolerancesof division are biblically justifiable, or permitted in the scope of Scripture?
• What needs to be defined is whether the Church is actually inalignment with Scripture, and how that should affect the behavior of Christians today in their role of glorifying God.

1.5   RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Ho: difference in belief is not the major cause of church division

Hi: difference in belief is the major cause of church division

Ho: the inability of churches to align with scripture does not impact negatively on the behavior of Christian

Hi: the inability of churches to align with scripture impact negatively on the behavior of Christian

1.6   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will contribute to the body of knowledge of Christian’s obedience in lightof Scripture in that it seeks to identify and then justify that paradigm of acceptableschisms or, permissible divisions. It then seeks to answer the question, “To whatdegree are Christians in accordance with Scripture in tolerating separations in theBody of Christ?”

The researcher aimed at identifying the implicationsof clearer understanding so that believers who are participating in any acts ofdivision may understand the error or validity of their actions. Division in churchesmust be clearly defined if it is permitted in the scripture. This research has components that benefit on many levels: personal,professional, academic and practical.

1.7   SCOPE/LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study centers onthe biblical examination of factors responsible for divisions in the churcheswith a view of finding a lasting solution to the problem.

Limitations of study

Financial constraint– Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

Time constraint– The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

1.8   DEFINITION OF TERMS

Division:disagreement between two or more groups, typically producing tension or hostility

Churches:a building used for public Christian worship

Christian:a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Unity:the state of being united or joined as a whole.

Disunity:disagreement and division within a group

1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This research work is organized in five chapters, for easy understanding, as follows Chapter one is concern with the introduction, which consist of the (overview, of the study), statement of problem, objectives of the study, research question, significance or the study, research methodology, definition of terms and historical background of the study. Chapter two highlight the theoretical framework on which the study is based, thus the review of related literature. Chapter three deals on the research design and methodology adopted in the study. Chapter four concentrate on the data collection and analysis and presentation of finding.  Chapter five gives summary, conclusion, and recommendations made of the study.

CONCEPT OF UNITY

Augustus Hopkins Strong asserts in regards to unity, “It is a rope of iron fillings held together by a magnetic current” (Strong 1907:904). In order for an adequate analysis of permissible division in koinōnia, a sufficient understanding of what unity is, in and of itself, must be sought if there is to be a proper appreciation for the severity of division of the Body. For this, the Church need only to look to the “dynamic interrelationship” (Kregel 2005:151) between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as the perfect model of relational unity or oneness which precedes any human existence (EFCA 2011:156); it is found in the eternally existent Trinitarian Godhead. D.A. Carson concedes that, “the Bible actually gives us very little about the ontological Trinity but rather in the revealed nature of the Trinity, the economic Godhead” (Carson 2012). The three persons of the Trinity eternally existed in perfect loving unity, perfect governmental order and perfect relational harmony within the being of God. There was no division between the persons of the Trinity, only distinction (Calvin 2008:78). Tertullian likens this “unity of nature” as a ray of the sun, which cannot be divided nor diminished as it never departs from the source (Tertullian 1953:105-109). Erickson builds upon this in claiming that they are numerically distinct, so as to be counted, yet, they are “manifestations of a single indivisible power”. Hence, there are distinctions but no divisions or separations (Erickson 2003:358). This imagery was borrowed, in part, from the likes of Tatian and Justin Martyr who claimed that though the Word and Father are distinct, they were as unable to be separated as light is unable to be separated from its own source (Erickson 2003:358). Thus, the unity of essence was a doctrine embraced and affirmed centuries before the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. Knight asserted that this plurality of persons in the Godhead could be likened to drops of water, which hold quantitative distinction, yet are qualitatively of the same substance, and in total, comprise the entire being of God (Knight 1953:20). Hence, they are quantitatively diverse, though qualitatively unified. The Council of Constantinople sought to further refine and clarify this understanding of the unity of the Godhead. The resultant understanding was defined as “one ousia in three hupostaseis”, asserting the Godhead exists simultaneously inthree modes of being (Erickson 2003:361). They are distinct in the relationship they have for each other as “the capacity for relationship is at the heart of the notion of ‘person’ when used of the members of the Trinity” (EFCA 2011:42). Homoousion is this understanding of oneness of ousia, or substance, which affirmed that any activity of any one of the persons of the Holy Triad, meant that the others were included as well to some degree in that activity. Gunton holds that this concept allows God to share his being without serving to subvert his unity (Gunton 1995:938). As such, they can be distinguished numerically in their persons, yet are indistinguishable in essence or being (Erickson 2003:362). Finally, Erickson confirms that, following Aristotelian doctrine, only what is material is quantitatively divisible, hence the essence cannot be trisected (Erickson 2003:362). This divine relationship of unity in love was his alone for eternity past to savor long before he ever created a world to love (EFCA 2011:43). Jesus thoroughly references this eternal, intimate, internal union in his High Priestly prayer of John 17:24. The eighth-century monk John of Damascus built upon this and asserted that although the Persons of the Trinity were distinct, they were able to mutually indwell one another and “interpenetrate” (EFCA 2011:43). This teaching, later to be termed perichoresis, introduced the idea of “coinherence”, which stated that the Godhead exists “undivided in divided persons” (Erickson 2003:361). Twombly insists that this perichoresis transfers to the hypostatic union of Christ, that there is in some great mystic sense a perichoresis element in the incarnation, and that John of Damascus embraces this thought, but tacitly moves more toward the language of “participation” in his teaching (Twombly 2013). It is perhaps with caution that this thought is pursued, but if there were indeed a perichoretical element to the hypostatic union, then it would argue against any form of Apollinarianism, Arianistic, Nestorian or monophysitistic theology, as it would both explain and affirm the possibility of mutual indwelling of the two natures. The matter of whether mankind enjoys a perichoretical relationship with God, or whether that koinōnia is the kind of relationship for which Christ is praying is however unclear (Twombly 2013). In the midst of a perfect and nurturing relationship, God additionally desired a relationship with man for his glory, so much so that he created him in his image to facilitate such a relationship. Mankind was created for relational unity and mutual indwelling; mankind was created for relational communityThough all members of the Trinity are equal in authority, eternality and divinity, they vary in function as they work together within the Godhead for the very purpose of creation and, subsequently for redemption through the Gospel, as he is love (1 John 4:8, 16). The Trinity is a relational being evidenced by the “personal relationships of love within himself” (EFCA 2011:42). The Father establishes the plan of salvation for mankind by sending his Son (the Gospel), “the Gospel is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and is accomplished through the work of Christ and becomes effective in and for us through the application of Christ’s work by the power of the Holy Spirit” (EFCA 2011:20). The Father initiates a plan of redemption, the Son obeys to the point of death and the Spirit initiates regeneration. In all cases in the Old Testament, it can be established that God is relational and seeks relationship with his creation, mankind. Even after the fall God consistently sought to redeem a people for himself, which he had chosen from eternity (EFCA 2011:20). This model of unity in the Godhead is announced for the benefit of the Church as unity applied to the Church and each individual member is defined by Holloman as, the “practical interpersonal outworking of the oneness in and with Jesus Christ that comes with membership in Christ’s body” (Kregel 2005:561). He further asserts that because this bond of unity is issued of God “the resulting unity transcends mere good will, theological agreement on non-essentials, common interest, or ecclesiology” (Kregel 2005:562); in fact it is this unicity, this aseity which identifies God and God alone. Grudem affirms that this ecumenical unity is described as follows: “The unity of the church is its degree of freedom from divisions among true Christians” (Grudem 1994:874). Horton identifies this Church body as being “one”, in unity, and “catholic”, of the universality of the saints in agreement with Küng, and “holy” or positionally sanctified. He argues that it is corporately engaged in the process of progressive sanctification, the “ongoing process in which the Church is being constantly provoked, challenged, renewed, and reformed by the Spirit, conformed to the image of Christ through God’s Word” (Horton 2011:861). Hence, God had once again redeemed a people to himself, through the work of Christ with whom he can share spiritual union in some sense similar to that of the relationship between himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Kregel 2005:562). Kossé announces that unity in general as follows:Unity may be defined as the condition in which something forms an organic whole. Although different elements are involved, the whole is characterized by agreement and internal coherence. The definition also applies to the unity of believers to the extent that they share a common foundation of faith and practice (Kossé 2010:1314). This unity extends to the individual members as well, those within the Body of the Church as they become “one spirit” with Christ and with each other emanating at the perichoretical genesis of being baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). As such, a particular transcendent unity is enjoyed among the redeemed, or “community of saints” regardless of external, or physical factors. Horton writes that the “called out” community, or the Church, “does not come together as an aggregate of individuals who have determined to form such a society, but is summoned, gathered, and called out by God’s electing, redeeming, justifying, and renewing grace” (Horton 2011:828). Again, Grudem holds the simple notion that, “the unity of the church is its degree of freedom from divisions among true Christians” (Grudem 1994:874). The purpose of this unity is clarified as Hunsinger notes rightly, drawing from John 17 that the trueness of the fact that Christ was sent from God is assured, made visible by the unity expressed in the Body. Therefore, Christ issued some measure of glory to the Body which had been given to him by the Father to aid in that measure (Hunsinger 2009:346).

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction

It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was to ascertain the factors responsible for division in the churches.

In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations made which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefits in addressing the factors responsible for division in the churches

5.2 Summary

Let us put the shoe on the proper foot: whatever ecclesiastical division the Christian Reformed denomination suffers is not the result simply of a synodical decision which a few malcontents are refusing to swallow. The truth is rather this: the synodical decision to permit women’s ordination has brought to the surface the already existing division resulting from incompatible views of Scripture’s authority and incompatible methods of Bible interpretation. Our central point, then, is that the hermeneutic of women’s ordination has been, is, and will remain, A Cause of Division. This claim is not first a prediction for the future, but an assessment of the present. We pray fervently that the LORD will see fit to use this pamphlet to awaken our Christian Reformed readers to humble submission to His Word, that they may return to that Word’s authority and full teaching. And we sincerely hope that the LORD will use these pages to warn and alert our non-Christian Reformed readers of the pitfalls and snares into which they too may fall, if they fail to be diligent in spiritual devotion and discipline.

5.3 Conclusion

The fact that the true Church of Christ has multiplied into so many denominations has in effect made impotent the value, and even the ability to implement and sustain the true act, and benefit of excommunication. The profit of excommunication therefore, is seldom realized, as there is no lack of fellowship experienced on the part of the excommunicated. As a result the effectiveness of church discipline has been eroded to a lesser stature and significance; as a consequence, church discipline has been compromised. The responsibility of discipline and excommunication has taken on that of a secondary doctrine, and even more times than not, been exhibited as an antiquated or obsolete practice.

5.4 Recommendations

Haven completed the study, the researcher recommends that church needs to encourage sound Bible teachings for all church members. This will afford them the opportunity of knowing biblical position on issues. There should be adoption of policy on systematic discipleship training for all church members especially the leaders.41 Introduction of training, seminars and conference activities into the church schedules will help to expose church membership to basic truth that will make them effective and good leaders. Special training can be organized for different department of the church to increase effectiveness in the service of God. Also, there is the need for good communication between the leaders and the followers. A leader’s communication must be consistent, clear and courageous.42 He must also be a good listener. The contemporary church leaders need to use modern management principles, tools, and techniques in administration. The importance of information communication technology cannot be overemphasized for any church that wants to remain relevant in this age. Leadership must avail them the opportunity of the managerial software for efficient and effective communication.