1.1 Why Cultural Anthropology?

Historically, theology and anthropology (in general terms) have operated in a relationship which is at best “awkward,” and at worst polarized.⁴ However, this relationship is currently enjoying a fruitful and transformative development with theologians and anthropologists alike investing in pursuing an open and optimistic dialogue between the two disciplines.⁵ An aspect of this developing relationship has been in ethnographic theology where research and fieldwork provide a self-reflection for theologians as they observe theology in practice amongst everyday Christians.⁶ This anthropologically informed reflexivity is vital for a theological discussion about how the church responds to polarization internally and externally, but how might this lead to a change in formation and practice? The answer lies, in part, in cultural anthropology being a discipline that studies human cultural activity, cultural processes, cultural changes, and cultural development, although the discipline’s understanding of itself has been under scrutiny over the last fifty years: reflexivity has resulted not only in the questioning of how to define ‘culture’ but also what constitutes anthropology as a discipline.⁷ However, for the purposes of this study it may be understood “as an academic discipline that analyses cultures and uses all resources available, including theology, to do more thorough analysis.” In this view, anthropology can offer important insights into how to engage culturally with diverse groups of humans. This is because anthropology can unsettle all kinds of cultural and religious beliefs held by an individual or group of individuals which have been deliberately chosen, or inherited and largely un-examined, or even the subtle implications of those beliefs in different cultural settings. This unsettling ultimately reveals the root of what makes anthropology different from theology, and in doing so, leads to a new awareness of self.⁸ In fact, it is this difference which can aid a theological reflection on polarization. Given this complex relationship, the other part of the answer to bringing in cultural anthropology is that the discipline also provides a lens through which to view ‘the other;’ in this case, the ‘other’ is broadly the Reformed theological tradition, and specifically Neo-Calvinist theological developments.

1.2 Why Abraham Kuyper?

In this chapter the distinctive theology in dialogue with anthropology is Neo-Calvinism, with a specific focus on Abraham Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty. At first view it may appear that Kuyper’s view of society consisting of divinely appointed, organically related spheres which operate in their own right can only exacerbate polarization; for example, where sphere sovereignty has been used as a justification for apartheid.⁹ Nevertheless, if sphere sovereignty is intended to operate for the mutual flourishing of all human beings as an outworking of God’s common grace, then it may be helpful in considering whether any aspect of ‘otherness’ can be perceived. Certainly, any response by the church to polarization in society may be considered part of the “redeemed cultural activity” necessary for cultural renewal—a commitment which lies at the heart of Kuyperianism.¹⁰ As I will explore later, just as God has ordained the various spheres in society to live up to their unique callings, so has he ordained individuals to do the same. This is not only the basis for liberty of conscience but also for equal rights, and for an ‘otherness’ that is similar to that which is found in anthropology. ‘Otherness’ in anthropology also carries with it a sense of future possibilities, where individuals and cultural groups are not bound by ethnographic interpretations of their past or by colonial ideas of development.¹¹ The interplay between Kuyperian and anthropological ideas of ‘otherness’ will provide the foundation for considering how the church might employ ‘otherness’ in responding to polarization.

2.1 Awareness of ‘the Other’

Theologian and anthropologist Louise Lawrence writes, “Anthropology helps us straddle the divide between seeing “others” as cultural copies of ourselves and, on the other hand, seeing them as radically “other” from us.”¹² This straddling of the divide between two extreme views of ‘the other’ means that it is not appropriate to project our cultural assumptions onto ‘the other.’ Neither is it appropriate to dismiss any difference or priority of ‘the other’ by refusing to engage. It keeps us from both over-emphasizing our preconceived notions of difference and from assimilating ‘the other’ into ourselves; both approaches result in losing all sense of difference through an attempt to dominate and colonize. Instead, Lawrence writes, “Our dealings with ‘others’ are to be methodologically sophisticated, wary of any attempt to objectify them and sensitive to their diversity and individuality.”¹³ In this view, no encounter with those who are culturally ‘other’ to us should be simplified or avoided. There is no room for imposing either unyielding uniformity or polarization in our social relationships.

2.2 Cultural Complexity: “The Death of Culture”

Anthropology also helps us consider what we mean by ‘culture’ in our encounters with the cultural ‘other.’ In anthropological debates surrounding the meaning of culture, the idea that cultures can be decoded and defined absolutely has resulted in what theologian and anthropologist Mario Aguilar refers to as “the death of culture.”¹⁴ He explains that although human beings share some similarities “they do not share a culture.” To say that someone belongs to the British ‘culture’ or the American ‘culture’ is to undermine the complex cultural realities experienced by that person on a daily basis.¹⁵ ‘Culture’ as a single, indivisible entity is a myth. Instead, human beings are constantly part of and influenced by fluctuating cultural realities, cultural processes, cultural works, and cultural contexts. Using the term ‘culture’ to bind people-groups to territories and ethnicities can trigger catastrophic power relationships.¹⁶

For this reason, when engaging with ‘the other,’ whether they are members of other cultural communities or our own, it is not appropriate to use language that binds them to our notions of what we think they are like, which is precisely why theological methodologies in approaching any kind of cultural engagement need to be sophisticated. Both the theologian’s and the church’s language about ‘the other’ and the communities to which they belong must be specific, true to their accounts of themselves, and with an awareness that the anthropologist, the theologian, and the everyday church member brings their own partiality to bear on cultural engagement.¹⁷ We always view ‘the other’ through our own particular set of cultural lenses.

2.3 From ‘the Other’ to ‘Otherness’

A prioritization of ‘the other’ in our social relationships leads to forming a sense of ‘otherness.’ Anthropologist Joel Robbins describes an important difference between anthropologists and theologians: on the one hand, anthropologists collect data about how ‘the other’ lives. On the other hand, theologians focus on how ‘the other’ might live differently.¹⁸ Robbins describes this focus as ‘otherness.’¹⁹ That is because in anthropology, ‘otherness’ is associated with allowing ‘the other’—whoever they may be—to live differently and innovatively, rather than as a result of repeated cultural traditions. For example, Will Rollason writes in his anthropological collection Pacific Futures that in order to explain what is happening among Pacific peoples today “we need to produce an account of what Pacific people are doing to secure their futures.”²⁰ This is not an account of what anthropologists think the future of Pacific peoples will be based on the traditions of the past, but an account by Pacific people about the way they imagine specific futures for themselves.

2.4 Unbinding of ‘the Other’

Rollason describes how, in collecting their data, traditionally anthropologists have imposed their own version of the future upon Pacific people. This version has partly been influenced by colonial discourses of development that are based on what a future ‘good life’ looks like economically.²¹ It has also partly been influenced by the opposite anthropological approach: the pursuit of cultural relativism. In cultural relativism, diversity is celebrated, and the reproduction of indigenous traditions is sacrosanct. The result of both anthropological approaches is the same: anthropologists do not expect Pacific people to produce anything new and different in their futures that sits outside of either cultural reproduction or modern notions of development.²² What is called for is a more sophisticated methodology, following Lawrence: anthropologists need to cultivate a sense of ‘otherness’ where the specific desires of ‘the other’ are prioritized and give accounts of the specific aspirations of Pacific peoples regarding their futures.²³ Rollason summarizes this succinctly: “Just because you can interpret what someone does in terms of the past and a cultural tradition doesn’t mean that you must do so.”²⁴

2.5 Prioritizing ‘the Other’ in Times of Polarization

Lawrence, Aguilar, Rollason and Robbins demonstrate that a pursuit of ‘otherness’ in our encounters with different cultural communities requires us to leave behind culturally relativistic perceptions and expectations of ‘the other.’ Whether anthropologist, theologian, or church member, we cannot impose our versions of reality upon others, either forcing them to be the same as us or defining them by the ways in which they are different from us. A prioritization of ‘the other’ leaves no room either for polarization or for a collapsing of distinctions. This prioritization of ‘the other’ must be active, standing in contrast to the “activity of dividing” that is inherent in polarization.²⁵ ‘Otherness’ will enable us to be specific in our cultural encounters and to a resist the fear of ‘the other’ that leads to hostility, separation, segregation, and polarization. Replacing fear of ‘the other’ with a sense of ‘otherness’ will lead to a straddling of the divide between polarization and sameness. Moreover, as anthropologist and theologian Michael Rynkiewich writes, “The ability to see the world through another’s eyes has long been linked to the capacity for ethical living.”²⁶ Of course, it is this implicit desire for ‘otherness’ and for seeing the world through the eyes of ‘the other’ that lies at the heart of the National Stephen Lawrence Day, because it is meant to encourage communities to imagine different futures for themselves and each other that are not bound to a past history of polarization but where all ‘others’ can mutually and freely flourish.

3.1 ‘The Other’ in Sphere Sovereignty

In Kuyperian sphere sovereignty, not only are spheres equal and necessary for the flourishing of society, they also have a divinely given identity that no other sphere has the right to encroach upon.²⁹ Kuyper saw this sovereignty as having been delegated from God’s personal sovereignty.³⁰ Just as God is free to be God without coercion or manipulation, so he has granted that the different spheres in society should be free—that is, free from manipulation or coercion by a dominating sphere—to create a flourishing organic society where there is cultural development in line with God’s original purposes for creation.³¹ However, this notion of sovereignty also exists on an individual level. In the final chapter of his book Rooted and Grounded, Kuyper says this by way of metaphor: “Each person’s calling is not merely to be a human being but to have one’s own character.”³² Here is the essence of sphere sovereignty: not only does sphere sovereignty uphold the freedom of other spheres to live up to their God-given calling, it also upholds the freedom of the individual ‘other’ in their specific calling. This concern for the individual in their own right is at the heart of sphere sovereignty. When he speaks about the role of the state in upholding “the free movement of life in and for every sphere,” Kuyper is not just referring to abstract ideas or institutions; he specifically refers to the individual members of those spheres and the vital importance of preserving their distinctiveness, “not to suppress life nor to shackle freedom but to make possible the free movement of life in and for every sphere.”³³ By extension, it is possible to relate this to a sense of ‘otherness’ similar to that found in the anthropological discussions above.

3.2 The Danger of Separateness

However, there are vital caveats to put in place with any discussion of Kuyperian sphere sovereignty because of the dangers of the distinctions between spheres stretching to become concrete separations. Instead of upholding civil liberty for all citizens of society through the equality of distinct spheres, a notion of separateness can lead to superiority, coercion and injustice, particularly when undergirded by colonialism and paternalism. Once the separateness of sphere sovereignty becomes institutionalized in the church, and enshrined in law, then what follows includes discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, social and economic backgrounds, racial segregation, and ultimately a system of apartheid.³⁴ This pathogenic seed of separation contained within Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty cannot be ignored and calls into question the validity of using this worldview when discussing polarization.

3.3 Recontextualizing Sphere Sovereignty

However, I suggest that, in view of the caveats issued above, it is still helpful to refer to Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty in this discussion because of the view that ‘the other’ is both distinct from and equal to us. What is required is a recontextualization of Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty.³⁵ In terms of relating to ‘the other,’ recontextualization of sphere sovereignty must include an ‘otherness’ that operates on both an individual and community level, and a prioritization of ‘the other’ that upholds Kuyper’s other commitments to freedom of conscience and equal rights.³⁶ For example, there is a legitimate and distinctively Christian ‘otherness’ in Kuyper’s exhortation for Christians to alleviate the suffering of the poor, in which he recalls the sacrifice of Christ who suffered for and with human beings. He believed it was the God-given duty of Christians to alleviate conditions of the working classes, not merely through aid, leadership, and whatever else was in their power, but more importantly through a change of heart that viewed “the poorest” as their “own flesh and blood.”³⁷ A recontextualization of sphere sovereignty will involve tempering and reshaping through these other commitments, as well as a return to Kuyper’s upholding of societal pluralism that finds its unity in Christ.³⁸ A contemporary example of this can be found in Neo-Calvinist Matthew Kaemingk’s study of Muslim immigration in 21st-century USA: a recontextualized sphere sovereignty is implicit in the way Kaemingk describes how following Christ means to seek not just the good of those who belong to different belief-systems in terms of relief, aid, education and so on, but in seeking the restoration of their human dignity and their ability to be cultivators of creation in their own way and in their own right.³⁹ Kaemingk’s work demonstrates how important it is that Kuyper’s understanding of Christ as holding nature and grace together as Creator and re-Creator must find an outworking in sphere sovereignty that seeks not to simplify and separate on the grounds of creational difference and diversity, but to provide visible unity in pluriformity that has its foundation in Christ as reconciler of both.⁴⁰ In this regard, Kuyper must be ‘re-Kuypered’ through a greater development of his Christology, whereby visible unity through Christ (being in himself the continuity between creation and new creation, nature and grace) is brought to the fore and tempers the idea of distinctions based on creational difference. This is resonant with Vos’s description in the introduction to this volume of “rediscovering the continuum” whereby formerly united parties are reunited post-polarization.⁴¹ There is value too in tempering the inclusion of sphere sovereignty in this discussion with a dialogue with cultural anthropology in which the principle of “straddling the divide” can help guard against principles of separation and aid theological self-reflection and critique in the Neo-Calvinist, Reformed tradition.

4.1 Commonness Guards against Separation

In this regard, the pursuit of commonness as part of developing a sense of ‘otherness’ can guard against polarization in our cultural encounters. In Kuyperian terms it means that we pursue justice for ‘the other,’ freedom, equality, and mutual flourishing. In anthropological terms there is no wider ‘culture’ into which other ‘cultures’ should be assimilated. Instead, commonness and ‘otherness’ should lead us to step into ‘the other’s’ shoes and learn to live inside their skin.⁴⁷ Commonness and ‘otherness’ act as lenses upon our understanding of ourselves and our versions of reality. Pursuing the common good enables ‘the other’ to share the table with us. A sense of ‘otherness’ asks what kind of table ‘the other’ imagines sharing. For this purpose, the church not only needs to gather data about other ways to live and reflect critically on how they are distinct from our own perceptions, it also needs to take off its shoes of assumption and step reverently into other cultural worlds to discover better ways of living together. This Kuyperian ‘otherness’ shields ‘the other’ from any kind of tyranny; instead, the church pursues on behalf of ‘the other’ “freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of worship; but above all these freedoms: freedom of conscience.”⁴⁸

5.1 Christ, the Source of ‘Otherness’

Therefore, it is in the confession of Christ’s work in all areas of life that the church may pursue ‘otherness’ in its response to increasing polarization in society. Kuyper too located the rescue of society in Christ. At the same time as upholding sphere sovereignty, he was deeply moved by the plight of the working classes in the Netherlands. As a statesman, he was committed to establishing just labor policies, as a Christian pastor he was troubled by the souls of the poor, and as a theologian he was concerned with the response of the church in society to inequalities between human beings.⁵³ These commitments were due to his unshakeable belief in the sovereign rule of Christ, in whom unity and diversity hold together, nature and grace are reconciled, and all things in creation are restored.⁵⁴ This is the Christ of Bavinck’s confession, the Christ who stooped down from heaven to step inside our skin and interacted with empathy with ‘the other’—his creatures.⁵⁵ In confessing Christ, we confess how he manifested ‘otherness,’ that he is the source of ‘otherness.’ In Christ alone lies the power for transformation, for restoration, and for cultural diversity in creational unity, and the answer to polarization. Through this participatory activity of confession, the church may rediscover its purpose, which is, in Pieter Vos’s words, “a community gathered around Christ which practices a Christ-like attitude in dealing with conflict and polarization.”⁵⁶