[Editor's Note: The following article on Factionalism by Forrest D. Moyer was written in 1963 for a local bulletin, and then published in 1969 in the Gospel Guardian. This is the second of three articles.]
The Sin of Factionalism by Forrest D. Moyer
(Reprinted from the on-line edition of Focus Magazine http://www.focusmagazine.org )
Throughout the New Testament factionalism is condemned. Various words are used to suggest the extent of the factionalism and the sinfulness thereof. By considering some of these words, we can understand the nature of it.
1. SECT from hairesis. Vine suggests that "it properly denotes a predilection for a particular truth, or for a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage; hence a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of 'the truth' held in toto; a sect is a division developed and brought to an issue." (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, Vol. III, p. 335).
Thayer gives five headings for the word. Among them he suggests: "3. that which is chosen, a chosen course of thought and action; hence one's chosen opinion, tenet; acc. to the context, an opinion varying form the true exposition of the Christian faith (heresy) ... 4. a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets (a sect or party): as the Sadducees, Acts 5:17 ... 5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims: Gal. 5:20; 1 Cor. 11:19." (Thayer, p. 16).
It is obvious that whatever falls into this category is sinful and those who persist therein shall not go to Heaven. Please observe the thoughts that are suggested by this word:
a. When one chooses an opinion or tenet that is either not in the truth or that is an extreme application of some principle and presses that point to the pulling away of a group, he has become guilty of factionalism.
b. The resulting group is a sect of division developed and brought to an issue. It is a dissension that has arisen from diversity of opinions and aims. How many times have congregations been divided because of such as this? Many times gospel preachers are alienated because of this very spirit. These things ought not so to be. If every Christian would do all in his power to avoid this party spirit, we could help to curb factionalism in the church.
What can we do? First, let us never press an opinion beyond what it is - simply an opinion. Let us not isolate some truth and build our whole teaching around that - this, too, could develop into factionalism. Secondly, let us warn those who begin traveling a course that is conducive to this factionalism. Sometimes one begins to press his opinions without realizing that he is doing so. He must be warned lest he lead others into the sin of division. Let us be faithful in studying our Bibles, so that we might know the truth and then plant our feet firmly on that truth. Let us turn neither to the right nor to the left. We dare not lose our souls through the sin of factionalism.
2. FACTION from erithia. Vine says that erithia "denotes ambition, self-seeking, rivalry, self-will being an underlying idea in the word; hence it denotes party-making" (Vol. II, p. 68). Thayer says that "in the N. T. a courting distinction, a desire to put one's self forward, a partisan and factious spirit which does not disdain low arts; partisanship, factiousness: Jas. 3:14, 16, Phil. 2:3" (p. 249).
Perhaps the idea suggested by Thayer is one of the most prolific sources of factionalism - "a desire to put one's self forward." Human ambition - a desire to be recognized as outstanding - has led many to actions that make parties or factions. Some want to be champions and resort to "low arts" and partisanship in order to attain such. Their preaching and writings are designed to achieve the image they have in mind. They do not hesitate to cut down a brother or create doubts about him in the mind of brethren. It is a course of factionalism.
Meyer suggests that the word erithia carries the thought of "desire of intrigue, pursuit of partisan courses" (Comment of Rom. 2:8). The word is found in such passages as 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; and James 3:14, 16. There are some church members who definitely fall into this category. They have a "desire for intrigue." Their interest is always in some new thing. Having found something which they think is new or unique, they then "pursue partisan courses" in their exploitation of the "intriguing" doctrine. Consequently, a faction arises from this course. The church is divided; souls are lost; Satan howls with glee. Clearly it is sinful to be guilty of factionalism.
3. DIVISION from dichostasia. Vine says that this mean, "lit.
a standing apart" (Vol. I, p. 329). The word indicates a
division in its completed form and some are thus "standing
apart" from others.
Here we see even more the result of the factional thinking suggested
in our previous studies. The desire of putting one's self forward,
the making of opinion into law - these foster the standing apart.
It is tragic but true that brethren are too often standing apart
over trivialities - things that do not affect the worship, organization,
or purity of the church. At most these might affect the individual.
Why have a "standing apart" over such things? The division
is sinful and damning.
When clashes come between brethren, each so often has his following. Friends and others rally to support someone involved and to the opposition of those on the "other side." Splits and factions follow. Motives are impugned; the honesty of others is called in question; name-calling and abusive language is heard. This is factionalism! It is a work of the flesh just as much so as fornication and adultery. It leads men to damnation.
Brethren, the place to cut off division is before it ever reaches
such a stage as a "standing apart." Let us resolve to
teach only God's word - that and nothing more. But let us also
maintain the proper disposition as we do so.
(1963: published in Gospel Guardian, Vol. 21, No. 30, November
27, 1969)
If I Were The Devil by Paul Harvey
(Contributed by S.Tegg)
I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world.
I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from
man's effort, instead of God's blessings.
I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people,
instead of the other way round.
I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their
state revenue.
I would convince people that character is not an issue when it
comes to leadership.
I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies.
I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and
invent machines to make it convenient.
I would cheapen human life as much as possible to that the life
of animals are valued more than human beings.
I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of
His name was grounds for a lawsuit.
I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the
young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them.
I would get control of the media, so that every night I could
pollute the mind of every family member for my agenda.
I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation. I would
make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family
crumbles, so does the nation.
I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies
on canvas and movie screens, and call it art.
I would convince the world that people were born homosexuals,
and that their life style should be accepted and marveled.
I would convince people that right and wrong are determined by
a few who will call themselves and authorities and refer to their
agenda as politically correct.
I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out
of date, and the Bible is for the naive.
I would dull the minds of Christians and make them believe that
prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are
optional.
I guess I would leave things pretty much like they are
PARTING THOUGHT
Remember that the faith that moves mountains always carries a
pick. --Anonymous.