Pathways to Peacebuilding: Staurocentric Theology in Nigeria's Context of Acute Violence

By Uchenna D. Anyanwu and Amos Yong

Given the consistent challenge of Islamist acute violence, particularly in Nigeria, this monograph attempts to respond to the question: How can Jesus's followers pattern response to violence after Jesus's model demonstrated in his triumph over death, evil, sin, and violence through staurocentric pathways? And how can Jesus's followers in Nigeria adopt the same staurocentric model in order to not only overcome acute violence within the country but also to extend hands, heads, hearts, and homes of staurocentric forgiveness, hospitality, and other practices toward Muslims? In this study, I posit that peacebuilding contextual theology be grounded on the mystery of the cross (σταυρός-stauros)--a theologico-theoretical framework that the church in Nigeria should espouse in order to position herself to extend hands, heads, hearts, and homes of staurocentric practices, whose appropriation must be undertaken through constructive and critical integration of the God-given African peacebuilding concepts autochthonous to Africa's mosaic cultural contexts. The pivotal thesis is that the staurocentric model remains the triune God's instrument for triumphing over violence, and thus should be espoused by Jesus's followers in every era and context for peacebuilding in contexts of violence through a triadic constructive and critical integration of indigenous peacebuilding concepts.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Nov 30, 2022
• ISBN: 9781666798340

Uchenna D. Anyanwu

Uchenna D. Anyanwu is a missiologist and an ordained Anglican minister. One of his peer-reviewed articles, “Pneumatological Considerations for Christian-Muslim Peacebuilding Engagement,” appeared in Pneuma 40.3 (2018).

Book preview

1

Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

Ethnic, political, and religious acute violence have remained a challenge to Nigeria since the country gained its independence from Britain in 1960. Among these three categories of violence, the latter (religious violence) occupies the top rank of Nigeria’s history and timeline of acute violent incidents. Richard Bourne and Nigerian-born distinguished historian, Toyin Falola, chronicle some of Nigeria’s incidents of violence in their respective works.¹ Another researcher, Ioannis Mantzikos, in an article particularly chronicles Boko Haram’s attacks in Nigeria and her neighbors.² The onus for resolving such violent conflicts in Nigeria has often rested solely upon the Nigerian governing authorities. As may be expected of the political authorities of most countries, the Nigerian government is known to have the proclivity toward the use of military force for quelling such violence. Kenyan-born scholar, John Mwaruvie, underscores the same observation asserting that the proclivity to call on the government for intervention is based on the notion that the government has the resources and coercive machinery that can be used to solve the conflict . . . [and that] [t]he government’s intervention in most cases involves sending the armed forces to fight those assumed to cause trouble.³ The use of military force has, however, often produced only momentary solutions to conflicts, thus making sustainable peace elusive. Furthermore, complications are introduced when the aggressor also happens to come from the ruling ethnic group and the government becomes reluctant to respond to the crisis to safe [sic] the victims⁴ —a scenario that is indeed the case in Nigeria’s contemporary experience of acute violence because the aggressors (Islamist groups like Boko Haram and Muslim Fulani herdsmen) belong to the same religious group as Muhammadu Buhari—the current Nigerian President. It is widely acclaimed in Nigeria that Muhammadu Buhari’s government and his security apparatus have not demonstrated much concern to intervene in the silent mayhem and jihad being perpetrated by Fulani herdsmen in the country. In the face of such a scenario, government actors must, therefore, not be the only actors to depend upon for peacebuilding actions.

Allan Gerson, a scholar in the field of conflict resolution, argues that in order to reduce the challenges of acute violence, [n]ew players—particularly the private sector, as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—must be enlisted in a new approach to. . . peace building.⁵ Here, private sector and nongovernmental organizations include all non-state actors in the society. In this optic, therefore, the involvement of the church in Nigeria needs be encouraged and harnessed in order for the church in Nigeria to become a major contributor toward peacebuilding in a country that has been beleaguered with acute violence.

Undeniably, religion is strongly engrained and plays a vital role in the life of many Nigerians. Whereas, there are cases of conflict in Nigeria that are religious, there exist others which are ethnic or political or a mélange of two or more of those elements. One of the factors that trigger ethnic conflicts, for example, is dispute over land for cattle grazing and agriculture.⁶ But in cases of acute violence orchestrated by Islamists in Nigeria, the influence of religious convictions has often been one of the underlying factors that birth them. If the church in Nigeria will become involved in any meaningful way in peacebuilding within its borders and beyond, then articulating and enacting a robust peacebuilding-contextual theology cannot be ignored. Moreover, in becoming agents and catalysts of peacebuilding, the church will not only reflect the peace of Jesus Christ whom she professes and confesses as Lord, but also will be fulfilling the less traveled road (in matters concerning peacemaking and peacebuilding) of its calling to be a sacrament, a sign and an instrument of the missionary triune God.⁷

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, Boko Haram (self-identified as: Jama‘atu Ahl as-Sunnah li-Da‘awati wal-Jihād) has been the Islamist group in Nigeria that has occasioned incidents of Islamists’ acute violence in the country. Boko Haram is, however, not the only Islamists group in Nigeria that has lashed out series of acute violent incidents in Nigeria’s history. In the 1980s it was the Maitatsine group⁸ and in the 2000s and 2010s it has been Boko Haram. The Ansaru group is another Islamists organization splintered out of Boko Haram and lashing its own genre of acute violence in Nigeria.⁹ Since 2016, Nigerian news reports have been highlighting attacks and killings in many Nigerian villages by Fulani herdsmen in Benue, Enugu, Kaduna, and Nasarawa States of Nigeria.¹⁰ These attacks have wasted and murderously terminated scores of lives. Conclusively, we may then assert that should the current active Islamists violent groups be quelled by means of military action, other groups would most likely emerge in the future. In the 2030s or 2040s it could be another Islamist group morphing into a different form, name, and structure. Thus employing military apparatus to swash Islamist insurgent groups in Nigeria will not ensure sustainable peace.

The foregoing background forms the basis from which the research question being posed in this study emerges. The question is: In what ways can the church in Nigeria articulate a staurocenteric peacebuilding-contextual theology in its context of acute violence to contribute toward transformational peacebuilding within the country? As will be later defined, staurocentric peacebuilding theology refers to a peacebuilding-contextual theological model of the cross—stauros, a word derived from Koiné Greek σταυρός meaning cross. Put differently, given the context of Islamist acute violence, particularly in northeastern Nigeria, what staurocenteric peacebuilding-contextual pathways can the church in Nigeria adopt in order to position herself as God’s sacrament, sign and instrument for catalyzing transformational peacebuilding? Thus, this study focuses primarily on three church denominations that have been worst-hit by Islamist acute violence in northeastern Nigeria namely: The Church of Christ in Nations in Nigeria (COCIN); the Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA); and the Ekklesiyar Yan’uwa a Nigeria (EYN), which is the Church of the Brethren in Nigeria. We will attempt a succinct historical review of the emergence of each of these three denominations in Nigeria later in the next chapter.¹¹ Staurocentric pathways to peacebuilding-contextual will be proposed. Methodologically, recourse is given to the analysis of ethnographic in-depth individual interviews with leaders, theologians, and seminary students, and focus group interviews of participants from the three denominations—one focus group interview per denomination.

1.2. Statement of Research Problem: Research Subproblems and Propositions

Finnish-born constructive systematic theologian, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, affirms that the pervasive phenomenon of plurality creates several challenges, and that it is hard to fathom the uttermost difficulty of doing theology in and for the ‘post-’ world.¹² Islamist acute violence—epitomized in contemporary times by Islamists’ acts of violence—is one of the myriad of the challenges created by the pervasive phenomenon of plurality in our twenty-first century world. Artisans of peace in such contexts of Islamist violence and, indeed, within other non-Christian religious contexts will, therefore, have to grapple with and unravel the complexity of engaging the other in a pluralistic world. Insofar as it concerns the church in Nigeria, this challenge to engage the other within the context of Islamist violence forms the grounds for this study. Evidently, missiologists cannot turn a blind eye to issues in our world and society—issues that engender violence, human suffering, injustice, inter alia. As a follower of Jesus from Nigeria, the violent killings of several hundreds of people by the Islamist jihadist group globally known as Boko Haram, the attacks, sacking and ravaging of villages in some parts of Nigeria by Muslim Fulani herdsmen (also known as Miyetti Allah), and the displacement of tens of thousands from their homes, villages, places of work, farmlands and schools, have been of deep personal concern.

Thus, the research problem, to which this study seeks to make contribution, is posed by the question: In what ways can the church in Nigeria articulate a staurocenteric peacebuilding-contextual theology in its context of acute violence to contribute toward transformational peacebuilding within the country? In other words, given the context of Islamist acute violence, particularly in northeastern Nigeria, what staurocenteric peacebuilding-contextual pathways can the church in Nigeria adopt in order to position herself as God’s sacrament, sign and instrument for catalyzing transformational peacebuilding? As will be defined shortly, Islamist acute violence has affected both Muslims and non-Muslims in Nigeria. It is not violence against non-Muslims alone. Rather, both Muslims and non-Muslims in Nigeria all suffer the devastation such violence perpetrate.

The scope of the study is limited to peacebuilding-contextual theology within Nigeria’s context of violence orchestrated by Islamists in northeastern Nigeria. The theologico-theoretical framework for this study is the staurocentric model of Jesus’s death on the cross and resurrection with a critical and constructive integration of African concepts of peacebuilding and resources of peacebuilding from Islamic perspective. Before we define our terms, we first delineate the research problem stated above and break it down into manageable smaller units.¹³ We identify five subproblems in the research design for this study namely: a review of Nigeria’s political and religious histories insofar as they contribute to Nigeria’s context of acute violence (especially as orchestrated by Islamists); contextual theologies and peacebuilding; Islamic concepts and Muslims’ perspectives for peacebuilding; African concepts of peacebuilding; and staurocentric peacebuilding model.

1.2.1 Subproblem 1: Evaluating Nigeria’s Political and Religious Histories

The question the first subproblem seeks to answer is: How do Nigeria’s political and religious histories interact and contribute to acute violence in the country?

Proposition 1: Nigeria’s Political and Religious histories contribute to acute violence.

Two historical elements mesh to exacerbate acute violence in Nigeria namely political and religious histories. The political axis consists of the British colonial infringement, while the religious consists of the forceful establishment of Islam in northern Nigeria through Usman dan Fodio’s jihad and the encounter of Islam with Christianity. An inquiry into this subproblem is undertaken in chapter 2: An Overview of Nigeria’s Political and Religious Histories.

1.2.2 Subproblem 2: Contextual Theologies and Peacebuilding

For the second subproblem, the investigation seeks answers to the question: What current contextual theologies exist in African contexts and which of them (if any) may drive peacebuilding in the context of Islamist acute violence?

Proposition 2: African contextual theologies exist but a peacebuilding-contextual theology that constructively and critically integrates African concepts is yet to be articulated.

There are existing contextual theologies in Africa but a peacebuilding-contextual theology is yet to emerge. The Anabaptists’ nonviolence peacebuilding ethics can serve as pointers to an African peacebuilding-contextual theology. This is the task we undertake in chapter 3: Contextual Theology and Nonviolence Peacebuilding Ethics.

1.2.3 Subproblem 3: Islamic Concepts and Muslims’ Perspectives for Peacebuilding

The third subproblem seeks to answer the question: What peacebuilding resources or tools exist in Islam and from the perspective of Muslim artisans of peace that can be integrated and employed in formulating a peacebuilding-contextual theology in context of acute violence?

Proposition 3: Peacebuilding concepts from Islamic and Muslim Perspectives exist and can be harnessed for peacebuilding in the context of acute violence.

There are concepts for peacebuilding in Islam and from the perspective of some Muslim artisans of peace. These concepts are resources or tools that can be constructively and critically integrated into formulating peacebuilding-contextual theology and this forms the focus of chapter 4: Peacebuilding Concepts from Islamic and Muslims’ Perspectives.

1.2.4 Subproblem 4: African Concepts for Peacebuilding

The forth subproblem sets to respond to the question: What are the African concepts for peacebuilding that may be critically and constructively integrated and employed for conceptualizing a peacebuilding-contextual theology in contexts of acute violence?

Proposition 4: A number of Africans concepts for peacebuilding exist.

There are a number of African concepts for peacebuilding that are already being employed in Africa for peacebuilding in contexts of acute violence. Chapter 5, African Concepts for Peacebuilding-Contextual Theology, and chapter 6, Peacebuilding Concepts from Nigeria’s Ethnolinguistic Cultures, make a modest attempt to provide an answer to the question of this research subproblem.

1.2.5 Subproblem 5: Staurocentric Peacebuilding model

The question this subproblem seeks to find answer is: What model can the church in Nigeria adopt for peacebuilding in the country’s context of Islamist-orchestrated acute violence?

Proposition 5: The triune God’s model of Jesus’s cross is God’s method and means for triumphing over evil, sin and violence, and can be adopted by Jesus’s followers in contexts of violence. This forms the subject of focus in chapter 7: Staurocentric Pathways to Peacebuilding-Contextual Theology. A constructive integration of this model with Islamic and African concepts of peacebuilding is then attempted in the final chapter: Peacebuilding Carrefour: Staurocentric Contextual Theology and Praxis in African Contexts of Acute Violence.

Bibliographical and ethnographic research data from the investigation defined by the above subproblems crystalize into the formulation of staurocentric pathways put forth in this study. But before diving into that investigation, it is fitting we define our terms; outline the scope, limitations, and assumptions; and state the missiological and personal significance of the study.

1.3 Defining the Terms

It is fitting we define a few of the principal terms used in this book. They include: peacebuilding, σταυρός–stauros and staurocentric pathways, peacebuilding-contextual theology, Islamist acute violence, and the church in Nigeria.

1.3.1 Peacebuilding

Different terms or expressions are being used in scholarly circles to refer to peace actions. Among them are peacemaking, conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The question is: Is there a dividing line between these terms? For example, Kenyan-born scholar John Mwaniki Mwaruvie points to the difference between peacemaking and peacebuilding, observing that [p]eacemaking is concerned with ending specific conflicts, but peacebuilding objective is to address the underlying causes of the conflict in the society.¹⁴ On his part, renowned peacebuilding scholar, John Lederach, employs the term conflict transformation—what Johan Galtung calls peacebuilding.¹⁵ Abraham Adu Berinyuu holds that peacebuilding has to do with post conflict settlement process . . . [which entails] the stage by stage as well as sector by sector process of embedding and nesting changes.¹⁶ Catherine Morris provides the historical emergence of the term peacebuilding, linking it to "the widespread use after 1992 when Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then United Nations Secretary-General, announced his Agenda for Peace."¹⁷ Morris’s one definition of peacebuilding is rather a description of what it involves namely:

building the capacity of non-governmental organizations (including religious institutions) for peacemaking and peacebuilding . . ., emphasis on . . . structural transformation, with a primary focus on institutional reform . . . a full range of approaches, processes, and stages needed for transformation toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships and governance modes and structures . . . building legal and human rights institutions as well as fair and effective governance and dispute resolution processes and systems.¹⁸

With these reflections in mind, I have come to define peacebuilding as the proactive, conscious and structured efforts geared toward establishing the parameters that create a peace (שָׁלֹֽום"—shalom) culture and prevent conflict, acute violence, or war. It is preventive, intentional, and is not a reaction or response to crisis that has already begun, which is the domain of peacemaking. Peacebuilding does not wait for a context of conflict before it begins."¹⁹ In my definition of peacebuilding, I underscore the intrinsic purpose of the triune God to redeem, restore, and re-instate his creation into a shalom relationship, not only along the human–God axis of relationship, but also along the human–human and human–creation axes in their multifaceted forms.²⁰ Hence, peacebuilding must be understood as encompassing contexts of conflict as well as where there is none. It is broader than conflict resolution and peacemaking because it seeks to create a culture that will prevent potential conflict. However, where a conflict situation already exists, peacebuilding works towards reconciliation, resolution, and peacemaking, but does not stop at that. The goal of peacebuilding is not limited to resolving an existing conflict but to install a culture that will prevent further aggression and conflict between parties.

1.3.2 σταυρός—Stauros (the cross) and Staurocentric Pathways

The Greek word σταυρός—stauros is defined as (a). pale, stake, erected for a palisade . . . [or] used for a foundation; [and (b).] stake used as an instrument of punishment.²¹ Figuratively, it refers to the crucifixion [of] Christ, whose suffering on the cross became a means of salvation and redemption of human sin.²² Thus, σταυρός—stauros is an instrument of torture for serious offences.²³ Symbolically, it was represented by the Greek letter τ (tau) ~ T.²⁴

In this volume, we use the term σταυρός—stauros to refer to the cross of Jesus Christ and the resurrection life it produces, not only in regard to it as an instrument employed for Jesus’s crucifixion for the redemption of humans and for the reconciliation of the human–God relationship, but also as the triune God’s instrument and method for defeating death, evil, sin, and violence, and for redeeming, restoring and re-instating God’s entire creation from all dimensions of broken relationships. Thus, by extension "staurocentric pathways" refers to postures and actions that cohere with Jesus’s attitude when he faced the cross-event. Elements of staurocentric pathways will include, for example (but not limited to), forgiveness, demonstration of God’s self-giving love (agape) in practice, compassion and praying for (not against) and blessing agents and perpetrators of violence and injustice, et cetera. In the light of the above definition, therefore, the staurocentric model is a trinitarian theological model that reflects the triune God’s model of the cross (σταυρός—stauros) to overcome evil and violence. It is manifested in the kenotic model set by the incarnate Word—Jesus Christ. It is a model based on Jesus’s giving of himself as a grain of wheat that fell to the ground, died and multiplied (John 12:24–25). It is a theological model of the cross built upon the kenosis principle.²⁵ This model requires a preparedness to die to oneself and a readiness to suffer in order that that the other may attain true life and peace.

1.3.3 Peacebuilding-Contextual Theology

Two elements are involved in our definition of peacebuilding-contextual theology. The first relates to the incarnational aspect, and the second to the attempt to apply contextual theology for peacebuilding. In regard to the first element, Wilbert Shenk maintains that "[t]he theological precedent for contextualization is the Incarnation—God in Christ entering history and culture . . . [and its] existential imperative is the missio Dei, in which the church is called to follow Jesus Christ in redemptive engagement with the world."²⁶ This incarnational aspect is further connected to the cross (σταυρός—stauros) because without Jesus’s incarnation the cross-event would not have been possible. In the same manner that Jesus’s incarnation prepared the grounds for his stauros event, peacebuilding-contextual theology must also take the incarnational aspect seriously.

In regard to the second element, peacebuilding-contextual theology seeks to apply the principles of coherence theory to search for a contextual theology for transformational peacebuilding, by engaging not only theological resources but also cultural, religious, sociopolitical, and other resources.²⁷

Thus, we define peacebuilding-contextual theology as incarnational contextual theology for peacebuilding within a given context that takes into consideration cultural contextual methods (in that context) reflecting biblical concepts—particularly the trinitarian model as demonstrated in the triune God’s method for defeating evil, death, sin and violence through Jesus’s incarnation, life, death on the cross, and his resurrection. Peacebuilding-contextual theology will also, in addition to the consideration of local cultural concepts, include historical elements which formed the foundations for the contexts and how those elements continue to impinge upon the present.

1.3.4 Islamist Acute Violence

Scholars have defined violence in different ways. Finnish-born constructive systematic theologian, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, puts forth a minimum definition of violence . . . [as] harm done to another human being (or group of people or even the whole humanity) with evil intentions or at least without thinking of the best of the other.²⁸ Norwegian sociologist and peacebuilding scholar, Johan Galtung, defines it as harming and/or hurting,²⁹ and underscores the assumption upon which that definition holds as the existence of something that can experience being harmed and being hurt.³⁰ Violence can be physical, psychological, and/or systemic and it can manifest in social, political and economic structures—forms of violence Galtung calls indirect violence.³¹ Along the same perspective, Roman Catholic scholar, Robert J. Schreiter, asserts that there are various forms of violence of which direct physical violence, which involves assault on an individual or a group³² is the most evident.

Drawing from the understanding of violence enunciated by these scholars, we point to the dimension of violence whose perpetrators possess a religious Islamic vision. Islamist acute violence is a re-rendering of acts of violence undertaken by militant Islamic extremists. It is a phenomenon of violence encompassing human bloodshed, suicide bombing, destruction of properties, burning of villages, kidnapping/abduction of people et cetera. Islamists are Muslims who tie "din (religion) with dawla (state) in a shari’a-based political order."³³ One of the leading authorities on Islamic law and Islam, Khaled Abou El Fadl uses the term Muslim puritans³⁴ to refer to Islamists.³⁵

In this study, Islamists are extremist Muslims consumed with the vision of seeing the establishment of Allahcracy³⁶ (hikimiyyat Allah—Allah’s control or rule) in the entire world. Their commitment to this vision situates them to employ all means including acute violence even when that implies laying down their own lives in the process of shedding the blood of others, to see the fulfillment of that vision because they are convinced that Allah will honor them for striving in his path. Islamists must not be confused with peace-loving Muslims who are equally committed to the vision of Islam’s rule in the world but reject violence and espouse peacemaking as alternative approach.

1.3.5 The Church in Nigeria

For the purpose of this study, three church denominations (Church of Christ in Nations (COCIN) of Nigeria; the Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA); and the Ekklesiyar Yan’uwa a Nigeria (EYN)—the Church of the Brethren in Nigeria) form the primary focus of research. These three have been delineated to be representative of the church in Nigeria. The rationale underlying their choice for research is undergirded by the fact that they are predominant in northeastern Nigeria where Boko Haram-orchestrated acute violence has been most felt. We undertake a brief historical review of each of these three church denominations (COCIN, ECWA, and EYN) in chapter 2 to outline their emergence in Nigeria’s religious history.

Northeastern Nigeria is the region in Nigeria that has been adversely affected by Islamist acute violence. Three states particularly worst-hit by the violence are Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States (see Map 1).

This study focuses on the context of these three states. There are, however, other states in northern Nigeria that have also been affected by Islamists’ acute violence, such as Bauchi, Kaduna, Kano, Plateau, Taraba—see Map 1. The state capitals of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe where the COCIN, ECWA and EYN churches are located are respectively Yola, Maiduguri and Damaturu.

1.4 Scope of Study, Limitations, and Assumptions

The study resulting in this monograph is not an investigation of the sociological, political, economic or psychological undertones of the phenomenon of Islamists’ acute violence on Muslim and non-Muslim communities in Nigeria. There are reports and works that have done some work in this domain.³⁷ The scope of the present study is confined to theological reflection and articulation of peacebuilding taking contextuality into consideration.

Peacemaking initiatives may take political factors into consideration. This study, however, primarily focuses on the contextual theological elements that may inform and shape the formulation of a Christian theology that will drive peacebuilding in the context of acute violence in northeastern Nigeria. The study does not so much delve into socio-political elements of peacebuilding, not because they are irrelevant, rather its focus is on contextual theology that will position the church in Nigeria to contribute to the gains which socio-political factors bring to the table of peacebuilding.

The church in Nigeria is made up of a mosaic of denominations and independent initiated churches and organizations. The scope of this study is primarily limited to three church denominations—COCIN, ECWA and EYN. Secondarily, participants whose church denominations are none of these aforementioned church denominations whom we happen to have met during our fieldwork and considered their contribution relevant were also interviewed. Focus groups participants in the study were a mixture of members of the three denominations of primary focus as well as from other denominations.

The study seeks a contextual theological approach for peacebuilding that may be consistent with the staurocentric model in the context of acute violence in northeastern Nigeria.

A limitation imposed on this study is that Muslim participants were not interviewed given the focus on Christian theological perspectives. Nonetheless, one participant in our study is a follower of Jesus from a Muslim background, whose knowledge and familiarity with Islamic concepts are indeed substantive. In addition, bibliographical research undertaken in chapter 4 provides insightful sketches from some Muslim scholars’ concepts of peacebuilding from Islamic scriptural texts.

A basic assumption in this study is that contextual theological approach that entails the integration of African concepts for peacebuilding in the context of acute violence in northeastern Nigeria has not been a priority in the ranks of many churches in Nigeria. This is not to say that there have not been efforts at conflict resolution in the region. What is evident, however, is that the quest for peacebuilding only surfaces when conflicts occur. This study seeks to propose pathways for peacebuilding that go beyond incidences of conflict or violence.

Furthermore, given recent regional demands for political restructuring of Nigeria, this study assumes that Nigeria will remain a unified political entity. In other words, Nigeria as a political entity will not disintegrate into two or more countries. This assumption is necessary because in the event of a secession, such as has happened in the Balkans, what will become of northeastern Nigeria—to which part of a disintegrated Nigeria it may fall—can only be left to mere conjecture. Moreover, in the event of disintegration, some northern states in Nigeria are most likely to declare themselves an Islamic State under strict shari‘a (Islamic law).

1.5 Significance of the Study and Contribution to Knowledge

This study is personally significant in some respects. First, Boko Haram Islamists killed one of my colleagues in cold blood in a village in Borno State. This colleague (whom we can call Marcus³⁸) had completed a discipleship class with new believers in the village where he was serving among an unreached peoples group. After the new believers left the place of meeting, the Islamists swamped upon him with machetes and killed him. Marcus’s death left behind his widow with two young children. There are other missionaries from other organizations serving in the same region who have paid the ultimate price, dying as a result of Islamists’ acute violence in northeastern Nigeria.

Secondly, there are several Muslims who have lost members of their families to Islamists’ acute violence as well. According to a global report on terrorism released at the end of 2015 Boko Haram [alone] was responsible for 6,644 deaths . . . [and it is considered] the deadliest terrorist group in 2014.³⁹ The pain and suffering of fellows affected by such acute violence have also become mine. A contextual theological model for peacebuilding that the church in Nigeria could employ to inform peacebuilding engagement in Nigeria will be an enormous benefit to future generations of Christians and Muslims alike in the country. And lastly, such peacebuilding engagement will reduce the phenomenon of Internally Displacement of Persons (IDPs) that has resulted from acute violence.

In regard to missiological and theological significance, the theological framework of this study is grounded upon its missiological relevance and significance. Nigeria, being the most populous nation in Africa has regularly experienced ethnic, political, and religious acute violence since its independence in 1960. Until now, the onus of resolving such violent conflicts has often rested solely upon the shoulders of the governing authorities. God’s mission, however, entails the involvement of the church in God’s intrinsic purpose to redeem, restore and reinstate his creation into a relationship of shalom with the triune God. As we posit in chapter 7, the redemption, restoration and reinstating into a relationship of shalom is three-dimensional—between humans and the triune God, between humans themselves, and also between humans and other creation. James R. Krabill asserts in this optic that it is God’s vision to reconcile all things and set them right.⁴⁰

Thus, the missiological significance of this study lies in the fact that it provides a peacebuilding-contextual theological model germane to the Nigerian context. Beyond providing such a model, churches in Nigeria can employ it as they interact with the practices of the [Nigerian Muslim communities] with a view to ensuring and enabling faithful participation in God’s redemptive practices in, to and for the world.⁴¹ With such a model, the church in Nigeria will also play its role as God’s instrument, sign and sacrament in a context beleaguered with acute violence.

The church will remain handicapped in its participation in God’s mission where acute violence continues to prevail. A contextual model that informs, installs and promotes peacebuilding (shalom) will be missiologically significant (1Tim 2:1–4). Its relatedness to missio Dei is evident since God’s purpose to redeem, restore and reinstate his creation into a relationship of shalom with the triune God is three-dimensional—restoration, redemption and reinstating of relationship of shalom between humans and the triune God; between humans (or peoples or nations); and also between humans and creation (ecological relationship). These facets of relationships are encapsulated within the mission of God (missio Dei). Redemption, restoration and renewal of shalom are concepts within that mission. Jesus, upon whose staurocentric model this theological framework is based, experienced violence on the cross (σταυρός— stauros), and yet he brought ­shalom.

That said, the theological framework that serves as a roadmap for this study is the trinitarian model of staurocentric peacebuilding. Justification for selecting this model lies in the historical and theological evidence of its efficacy. The staurocentric model has been employed by the missionary triune God in overcoming violence and death, as argued in chapter 7. A longitudinal phenomenological perusal of how it has transformed lives, communities and peoples since the historical and spiritual event of Jesus’s death on the cross (σταυρός) and his resurrection, attests to its validity. It may then be argued that the triune God has left the staurocentric model as a model for Jesus’s followers to emulate, but, hardly have we appreciated its efficacy and potency in overcoming evil and violence. There are overwhelming historical evidence that support the model. Jesus’s death on the cross has resulted in the transformation of people’s lives, people groups, and nations in diverse ways. Iconic missiologist and the father of the church growth movement, Donald McGavran, argued that the gospel of Jesus Christ brings to people both redemption and lift.⁴² This lift arguably includes the peace, love, forgiveness and a sense of belongingness to one family,⁴³ which Jesus Christ imprints upon the lives of his followers through the Holy Spirit and the written word of God.

With that said, what might be the contribution of this study to knowledge? The response to Islamists’ acute violence in Nigeria from the part of the Nigerian ruling authorities and the Nigerian church has often been majorly reactionary and retaliatory.⁴⁴ Certainly, there have been several efforts of peacemaking in Nigeria’s contexts of acute violence. Preventive peacebuilding that integrate contextual African concepts for peacebuilding are, however, yet to become praxis both in the society and in the church—not only in Nigeria, but also in many African countries. The lack of such preventive peacebuilding methods, at least from the side of the church in Nigeria, may be informed by the lack of a peacebuilding-contextual theology required to drive it. Furthermore, the theology of most churches in Nigeria has remained a mere replication of model inherited from the house of Western theologies. Thus, this study is a contribution to knowledge to bring to the fore a peacebuilding-contextual theology that constructively and critically integrates African concepts of peacebuilding and that coheres with Jesus’s staurocentric model.

1.6 Research Methodology

What follows is the synopsis of the methodology adopted for this study, explaining very briefly the research procedure used during the fieldwork and the reasons justifying the choice of the adopted methodology. A short discussion on the procedure of narrative data analysis and integration of the concepts are also laid out in this section.

1.6.1 Synopsis of Methodology

This study involved human participants majorly from three Nigerian church denominations geographically located in northern Nigeria. Methodologically, in-depth ethnographic unstructured⁴⁵ individual and focus group⁴⁶ interviews were employed and combined with field-notes taken during the fieldwork. The period of fieldwork was from mid-Sept to mid-November 2018. There were two sets of interviews—individual and focus groups. A total of eighteen individual interviews were conducted as well as three focus groups, each group consisting of between 7 and 12 participants. Scholars identify three methods commonly used for Grounded Theory research namely: participant observation, interviews and collection of texts and artifacts.⁴⁷ During the fieldwork, method was limited to interviewing and collection of texts. Participant observation is a method that requires long period of field work for substantial data to emerge and be collected. Since the length of time in the field did not exceed two months, participant observation was, therefore, not employed for this study. Thus, the ethnographic aspect of the research is restricted to narrative data extracted from individual and focus group interviews and from bibliographical data.

Before outlining how I undertook the fieldwork, it is necessarily to acknowledge that I, the principal investigator for this study, I am a Nigerian follower of Jesus from a Christian background. As it is required of every researcher, I sought to keep in mind the chances of biases and endeavored to be as objective and fair as possible in my judgment and interpretation of data in this study.

1.6.2 The Research Procedure

I laid down the research procedure in the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol submitted, vetted and approved by the Human Subject Research Committee (HSRC) at Fuller Theological Seminary. For brevity, I outline the key outlines from that document.

The key focus of the study involved three church denominations in northeastern Nigeria: The Church of Christ in Nations of Nigeria (COCIN); The Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA); and The Ekklesiyar Yan’uwa a Nigeria (EYN). Given their context of Boko Haram-orchestrated violence, I sought to find out how they have responded to the violence in relation to Jesus’s teaching and model. These three church denominations (COCIN, ECWA and EYN) are among the church denominations worst-hit by Islamist acute violence in northeastern Nigeria.

Method 1 of the study involved bibliographical research. Method 2 focused on conducting ethnographic in-depth individual interviews with leaders, pastors and laypersons. For Method 3, I conducted three focus group interviews, one group per church denomination. The three focus grops were conducted at the respective theological seminaries beloging to the three denominations, namely: Gindiri Theological Seminary (COCIN), Jos ECWA Theological Seminary (JETS), and EYN Kulp Theological Seminary, Kwarhi. Focus group participants were randomly recruited in the three theological seminaries. All participants were at least 21 years old or above, and included both male and female participants. I personally moderated the three focus groups. English language was used for all interviews. A breakdown of the number of participants are shown in the table below.

Participants for the unstructured individual interviews included church leaders, pastors, teachers and missionaries who have lived experiences of peacebuilding within the context under study. Focus group participants consisted of seminary students.

The narrative data for this study was collected from Nigerian Christians who come from states in northern Nigeria—particularly but not limited to the three states worst-hit by Boko Haram’s activities of acute violence. The key states of focus were Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States (Map 1). However, during the fieldwork I observed that due to incessant Islamist attacks many Christians and Muslims from Yobe and Borno states (particularly) had relocated to Abuja, Plateau State, and other locations in the country. Thus, some participants interviewed are no longer resident in their States of origin due to displacement caused by violence. Some participants were also included who do not necessarily belong to the three key church denominations of focus but who have equally experienced the context of violence and are involved in responding to it. This group of participants are categorized as D4 in the table above.

I developed a list of interview questions used in the interviews. Interviews were in-depth non-structured interviews. Clarifying questions not included in the list were asked during each in-depth interview. Experience from initial pilot interviews conducted to refine the interview questions for this study revealed that an investigator may forget to ask some questions during a given interview—questions Bernard referred to as probing.⁴⁸ In order to make up for such gaps, I followed-up participants later and responses to probing questions (where necessary) were received using information communication systems that included telephone calls, email, and WhatsApp.⁴⁹ The idea of follow-up is attested to be used more to improve response rates when questionnaires are used as the method.⁵⁰

Each interview session was audio-recorded and later transcribed. All recorded interviews (individual and focus groups) were securely stored and kept in an encrypted Online Dropbox folder. From the transcribed texts of the interviews, analytical categories or themes were extracted and coded. The process of extracting recurring structural themes in narrative/text analysis is referred to as coding themes.⁵¹ Important themes extracted from the transcribed texts were then highlighted—"a technique [Corbin and Strauss] call in vivo coding."⁵² I analyzed the narrative data gathered by extracting such themes. The consistency and connectedness of these themes were compared to the staurocentric theological model. Similarly, African concepts for peacebuilding extracted from the narrative data were critically evaluated to determine staurocentric elements (if any) and how they might be constructively integrated into peacebuilding in the context of acute violence.

In respect to citation from transcribed interviews, the following annotation is followed: Tyriaka, D1#4, is the code name for Participant Number 4 in Denomination 1. The fieldwork consists of both individual interviews and three different focus groups. References to narrative data from either individual interview participants or from focus groups interview participants are indicated as the case may be. Pseudonyms are adopted for participants alongside the code number for either the denomination or focus group. This is done to conform with the Human Subject Research requirements for this study.

Citations from transcribed individual interviews are, therefore, referenced according to the church denomination of the participant interviewed, order of interviews, and line numbers of the transcribed text. For example: Tyriaka D1#4:150–156 refers to an individual interview with a participant to whom I assigned a pseudonym, Tyriaka. D1 indicates that this individual is from Denomination 1, and #4 indicates that he or she is the fourth participant from Denomination #1 interviewed. The range of numbers 150–156 indicates the line numbers of the transcribed interview. In conformity with the ‘Informed Content Letter’ and the document approved by the Human Subject Research Committee (HSRC), pseudonyms of all interviewed participants are used for the purpose of their security. Denomination numbers—D1, D2, D3, and D4—are randomly assigned. The same principle is employed in the citation from transcribed texts of focus group interviews. Since we had three focus groups, Focus Group 1:340–346 (for example) will imply that the text is taken from Focus Group Number 1, lines 340–346. With these annotations in place, we proceed in the next segment to present the justification for the methodology adopted in this study.

1.6.3 Justifying the Methodology: Why Individual and Focus Group Interviews?

According to H. Russell Bernard, unstructured interviewing is used equally by scholars who identify with the hermeneutic tradition and by those who identify with the positivist tradition. It is used in studies that require only textual data and in studies that require both textual and numerical data.⁵³ When one wants to understand the lived experience⁵⁴ of people this method is recommended. On another note, at the heart of most ethnographic research⁵⁵ lies the matter of understanding the insiders’ perspective of reality. This is the emic perspective. Both Bernard and David Fetterman agree that one of the tools ethnographers