1 Introduction
On April 22, 2019 the UK marked the first National Stephen Lawrence Day. Stephen Lawrence, a black teenager, was killed in 1993 in an unprovoked racist attack as he waited at a London bus stop. His murder sparked a revolution in the law, in tackling institutional racism within the police force, and in combatting that same racism across communities.1 Part of the purpose of the instituting of this national day is to inspire British young people to build âan inclusive society for everyone to live their best life regardless of gender, race, sexuality, religion, disability or background.â2 This hopeful vision, established in memory of a black teenager, is for a non-polarized British society where the freedom of those who are considered âotherâ is respected and upheld across all kinds of diverse communities, and where young people can thrive and flourish equally, whoever they are.
As Pieter Vos describes in his introduction to this volume, polarization is an increasing challenge within and across diverse societies and communities, but is the Christian church equipped to deal with such a challenge, given that also âthe church worldwide and locally is often deeply divided on highly contested issuesâ?3 Polarization penetrates right to the heart of the church itself, raising questions about the character of Christ that is portrayed by his people within the church and in society. From a conversation between cultural anthropology
For the purposes of this paper, I will draw on anthropological ideas of âthe otherâ and âothernessâ from the work of anthropologists Louise Lawrence, Mario Aguilar, Joel Robbins, and Will Rollason. I refer to anthropology in a theological discussion in order to highlight themes of self-awareness, the meaning of culture, and language that binds âthe other.â This anthropological theme will extend into the theology of Abraham Kuyper in a discussion of how a sense of âothernessâ might be perceived in Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty, albeit with vital caveats, in the form of a respect for âthe otherâ in their own right. Certainly, a sense of âothernessâ is found in the idea of âcommonnessâ as discussed by Kuyperian scholar Richard Mouw; I will place this âcommonnessâ alongside a Kuyperian commitment to freedom of conscience, equality, and justice. Finally, remaining in the neo-Calvinist tradition to consider how a distinctively Christian âothernessâ might be formed in the church, I will turn to a section of Herman Bavinckâs confessional spirituality in The Sacrifice of Praise. My goal in bringing together anthropological and neo-Calvinist theological insights in this paper is to demonstrate that the church does indeed have a calling in times of polarization, and how in formation and practice the church may exercise this calling to Christian âothernessâ as it engages with all kinds of cultural communities.
1.1 Why Cultural Anthropology?
Historically, theology and anthropology (in general terms) have operated in a relationship which is at best âawkward,â 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
1.2 Why Abraham Kuyper?
In this chapter the distinctive theology in dialogue with anthropology is Neo-Calvinism, with a specific focus on Abraham Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty. At first view it may appear that Kuyperâs 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 Godâs common grace, then it may be helpful in considering whether any aspect of âothernessâ can be perceived. Certainly, any response by the church to polarization in society may be considered part of the âredeemed cultural activityâ necessary for cultural renewalâa 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 âothernessâ that is similar to that which is found in anthropology. âOthernessâ 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 âothernessâ will
2 Cultural Anthropological Insights into âthe Otherâ and âOthernessâ
2.1 Awareness of âthe Otherâ
Theologian and anthropologist Louise Lawrence writes, âAnthropology helps us straddle the divide between seeing âothersâ as cultural copies of ourselves and, on the other hand, seeing them as radically âotherâ from us.â12 This straddling of the divide between two extreme views of âthe otherâ means that it is not appropriate to project our cultural assumptions onto âthe other.â Neither is it appropriate to dismiss any difference or priority of âthe otherâ by refusing to engage. It keeps us from both over-emphasizing our preconceived notions of difference and from assimilating âthe otherâ into ourselves; both approaches result in losing all sense of difference through an attempt to dominate and colonize. Instead, Lawrence writes, âOur dealings with âothersâ are to be methodologically sophisticated, wary of any attempt to objectify them and sensitive to their diversity and individuality.â13 In this view, no encounter with those who are culturally âotherâ 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: âThe Death of Cultureâ
Anthropology also helps us consider what we mean by âcultureâ in our encounters with the cultural âother.â 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 âthe death of culture.â14 He explains that although human beings share some similarities âthey do not share a culture.â To say that someone belongs to the British âcultureâ or the American âcultureâ is to undermine the complex
For this reason, when engaging with âthe other,â 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 theologianâs and the churchâs language about âthe otherâ 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 âthe otherâ through our own particular set of cultural lenses.
2.3 From âthe Otherâ to âOthernessâ
A prioritization of âthe otherâ in our social relationships leads to forming a sense of âotherness.â Anthropologist Joel Robbins describes an important difference between anthropologists and theologians: on the one hand, anthropologists collect data about how âthe otherâ lives. On the other hand, theologians focus on how âthe otherâ might live differently.18 Robbins describes this focus as âotherness.â19 That is because in anthropology, âothernessâ is associated with allowing âthe otherââwhoever they may beâto 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 âwe need to produce
2.4 Unbinding of âthe Otherâ
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 âgood lifeâ 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 âothernessâ where the specific desires of âthe otherâ are prioritized and give accounts of the specific aspirations of Pacific peoples regarding their futures.23 Rollason summarizes this succinctly: âJust because you can interpret what someone does in terms of the past and a cultural tradition doesnât mean that you must do so.â24
2.5 Prioritizing âthe Otherâ in Times of Polarization
Lawrence, Aguilar, Rollason and Robbins demonstrate that a pursuit of âothernessâ in our encounters with different cultural communities requires us to leave behind culturally relativistic perceptions and expectations of âthe other.â 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
3 âOthernessâ in Neo-Calvinism
These anthropological insights into âothernessâ are valuable for a critical theological reflection on the churchâs response to polarization. However, it is the task of theology to locate this âothernessâ in the Christian gospel.27 Specifically, this paper turns to Neo-Calvinist theology for this task, with a focus on Abraham Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty. Sphere sovereignty relies on the premise that God has ordained pluriformity in society with many-varied spheres, sovereign in their own right and ruled by freedom of conscience; at the same time the spheres are related organically to each other under the sovereignty of Christ.28
3.1 âThe Otherâ 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
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
3.3 Recontextualizing Sphere Sovereignty
However, I suggest that, in view of the caveats issued above, it is still helpful to refer to Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty in this discussion because of the view that âthe otherâ is both distinct from and equal to us. What is required is a recontextualization of Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty.35 In terms of relating to âthe other,â
In bringing the insights of cultural anthropology into âothernessâ and Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty, I have suggested that the upholding of both liberty of conscience and cultural complexity can lead to a prioritization of âthe otherâ as the church responds to increasing polarization. This prioritization leads to an upholding of the individual âotherâ in their specificity equally and in freedom, without coercion or manipulation. It allows âthe otherâ to flourish in their own right and leads to an attitude of âothernessâ that does not bind âthe otherâ to preconceived or colonial notions about their past or their future. However, there is a further, related idea which enables a cultivation of âothernessâ in a discussion about polarization, namely the idea of âcommonness.â Commonness comes from the theological idea of the togetherness of a shared humanityâregardless of salvific statusâwhich has its origins in Kuyperâs doctrine of common grace.42
Commonness relies on shared experiences by a shared humanity, where common ground becomes the place for true relationships and meaningful encounters.43 Meaningful encounters between members of different cultural communities are especially important, given that from an anthropological perspective no one is ever a member of just one cultural community. In his book Adventures in Evangelical Civility, Richard Mouw explains his willingness to âbracketâ key evangelical concerns so that genuine dialogue may take place between his community and âthe other.â44 This puts oneself into the mindset of âthe otherâ in empathy. Mouw explains that âa spirit of genuine learningâ may lead to a meaningful and respectful engagement.45 However, this must also
4.1 Commonness Guards against Separation
In this regard, the pursuit of commonness as part of developing a sense of âothernessâ can guard against polarization in our cultural encounters. In Kuyperian terms it means that we pursue justice for âthe other,â freedom, equality, and mutual flourishing. In anthropological terms there is no wider âcultureâ into which other âculturesâ should be assimilated. Instead, commonness and âothernessâ should lead us to step into âthe otherâsâ shoes and learn to live inside their skin.47 Commonness and âothernessâ act as lenses upon our understanding of ourselves and our versions of reality. Pursuing the common good enables âthe otherâ to share the table with us. A sense of âothernessâ asks what kind of table âthe otherâ 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 âothernessâ shields âthe otherâ from any kind of tyranny; instead, the church pursues on behalf of âthe otherâ âfreedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of worship; but above all these freedoms: freedom of conscience.â48
5 Being Formed into âOthernessâ
âOthernessâ challenges the church to take into account diverse and complex cultural realities as they are actually experienced by âthe other.â I have argued that a re-imagining of Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty can give us the tools to do that. However, Neo-Calvinism is rich in theology which can allow our engagement with âthe otherâ to be anthropologically post-cultural in character. In other words, in leaving behind bounded notions of âcultureâ and expectations of the behavior of âthe otherâ based on religious or cultural assumptions, the church is able to allow for the possibility of imagining present and future cultural transformation in new ways and resists binding cultural communities to
In his chapter on the diversity of confession, Bavinck prioritizes Christâs kingdom. He explains that the Christian gospel is not primarily a philosophy to resolve social problems, neither is Christ a political leader nor the Church a political authority.49 Instead, the Christian gospel is far greater; as Savior, Christ is able to restore all nature by grace and therefore nothing is rejected.50 In saying this, Bavinck goes further than Kuyper in demonstrating the implications for visible unity in the restoration and recreation of nature and grace in and through Christ, and helps in the work of âre-Kuyperingâ mentioned above. If Christ recreates âall natural ordinancesâ by âthe new spirit,â then seeking âothernessâ and âcommonnessâ in our engagement with those who are culturally âotherâ to us becomes an expression of Christâs work.51 It is an intentional, spiritual, confessional, and participatory activity. The Christianâs response to Christ is to confess him in all areas of life, and towards all peoples: âHe who believes, confesses. His life itself becomes a confession, a living, holy, God-pleasing sacrifice in Christ Jesus.â52 âOthernessâ is part of this confession; by confessing we are formed into âotherness.â
5.1 Christ, the Source of âOthernessâ
Therefore, it is in the confession of Christâs work in all areas of life that the church may pursue âothernessâ 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
6 Conclusion
Divine compassion, sympathy, a suffering with us and for usâthat was the mystery of Golgotha. You, too, must suffer with your suffering brothers. Only then will the holy music of consolation vibrate in your speech. Then driven by this sympathy of compassion, you will naturally conform your action to your speech. For deeds of love are indispensable.60
Bibliography
Aguilar, Mario I. âChanging Models and the âDeathâ of Culture: A diachronic and positive critique of socio-scientific assumptions.â In Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, eds. Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar, 299â313. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2004.
Bavinck, Herman. The Sacrifice of Praise, trans. Rev. John Dolfin. Grand Rapids: Louis Kregel, Publisher, 1922.
Bielo, James S. âAn Anthropologist is Listening: A Reply to Ethnographic Theology.â In Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. J. Derrick Lemons, 140â155. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Boesak, Allan. Black and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation, and the Calvinist Tradition. New York: Orbis, 1984.
Botman, H. Russel âIs Blood Thicker Than Justice? The Legacy of Abraham Kuyper in Southern Africa.â In Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyperâs Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Luis E. Lugo, 342â361. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
Bratt, James D. Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2013.
Clifford, James. âIntroduction: Partial Truths.â In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, eds. James Clifford and George E. Marcus, 1â26. California: California University Press, 1986.
Davies, Douglas J. Anthropology and Theology. Oxford: Berg, 2002.
âIndependent Report: The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry,â Home Office, Gov.UK. Accessed December 4, 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-stephen-lawrence-inquiry#7.46.
Kaemingk, Matthew. Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2018.
Kang, Min. âAbraham Kuyper in Korea: hartstochtelijk hervormer, een begrip onder presbyteriaanse predikanten,â TussenRuimte 10:3 (2017): 26â31.
Kuyper, Abraham. A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Kuyper, Abraham. Collected Works of Public Theology, Series 1 and 2, eds. Jordan J. Ballor and Melvin Flikkema. Bellingham, Washington: Lexham Press.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. n.p.: CreateSpace, 2012.
Kuyper, Abraham. The Problem of Poverty, ed. James Skillen. Iowa: Dordt College Press, 2011.
Kuyper, Abraham. The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. Henri De Vries. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1900.
Lawrence, Doreen. âOn the first Stephen Lawrence day, letâs admit our communities are still unequal.â The Guardian, UK. Accessed December 4, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/22/stephen-lawrence-day-british-society-doreen-lawrence.
Lawrence, Louise J. âIntroduction: A Taste for âthe Other.â Interpreting Biblical Texts Anthropologically.â In Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, eds. Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar, 9â25. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2004.
Lemons, J. Derrick. Ed. Theologically Engaged Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Lemons, J. Derrick. âIntroduction: Theologically Engaged Anthropology.â In Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. J. Derrick Lemons, 1â7. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Mouw, Richard J. Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2011.
Mouw, Richard J. Adventures in Evangelical Civility: A Lifelong Quest for Common Ground. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016.
Robbins, Joel. âAnthropology and Theology: An Awkward Relationship?â Anthropology Quarterly 79:2 (2006): 285â294.
Robbins, Joel and Sarah Coakley, âAnthropological and Theological Responses to Theologically Engaged Anthropology.â In Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. J. Derrick Lemons, 355â76. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Rollason, Will. âIntroduction: Pacific Futures, Methodological Challenges,â in Pacific Futures: Projects, Politics and Interests, ed. Will Rollason, 1â27. Berghahn Books, 2014.
Rynkiewich, Michael A. âAthens Engaging Jerusalem.â In Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. J. Derrick Lemons, 211â225. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Schilder, Klaas. Christ and Culture, trans. G. van Rongen and W. Helder. Winnipeg: Premier Printing, 1977.
Skillen, James W. âWhy Kuyper Now? in Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyperâs Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Luis E. Lugo, 365â372. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
âIndependent Report: The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry,â Home Office, Gov.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-stephen-lawrence-inquiry#7.46 (accessed December 4, 2019).
Doreen Lawrence, âOn the first Stephen Lawrence day, letâs admit our communities are still unequal,â The Guardian, UK, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/22/stephen-lawrence-day-british-society-doreen-lawrence (accessed December 4, 2019).
As Pieter Vos explains in the Introduction, 2, these divisions appear in issues of sexuality and gender, race and immigration, tradition and theology, amongst many other contested and deeply held beliefs.
Modern anthropological study has traditionally kept theology at the margins but in 2006 anthropologist Joel Robbins published an influential paper calling for a deeper engagement between the two disciplines, even though the relationship between them remains complex and âawkward.â See Joel Robbins, âAnthropology and Theology: An Awkward Relationship?â Anthropology Quarterly 79:2, 2006, 285â294 and J. Derrick Lemons, âNew Insights from an Old Dialogue Partner,â Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. J. Derrick Lemons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), Chapter 2.
For example, Joel Robbins comments that any thinking about how anthropology may be informed by theology would benefit by being reciprocated by thinking about how theology may be informed by anthropology. Joel Robbins and Sarah Coakley, âAnthropological and Theological Responses to Theologically Engaged Anthropology,â in Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. Lemons, 355â76, 355.
Anthropologist James Bielo traces the development of ethnographic theology back to the early 2000s when âpractical theologians and ethicistsâ began looking âfor a more dynamic exchange between the people in the pews and formally trained theological scholars.â Bielo is considerate of the points of overlap and difference between ethnography in theology and anthropology and highlights the possibilities inherent in the development of dialogue between the two disciplines. James S. Bielo, âAn Anthropologist is Listening: A Reply to Ethnographic Theology,â in Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. J. Derrick Lemons, 140â155, 141.
J. Derrick Lemons, âIntroduction: Theologically Engaged Anthropology,â in Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. Lemons, 1â7, 5. See also Kim Fortunâs description of the transition in cultural anthropology from universalist methods to ethnographic reflexivity: Kim Fortun, âForeword to the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition,â in Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, eds. James Clifford and George E. Marcus (California: California University Press, 2010), VIII.
Anthropologist Douglas Davies describes theology and anthropology as having different starting points: while theology presuppose the existence of God, anthropology requires no such presupposition as it is simply the study of human behavior. However, bringing anthropology to bear upon theology creates a new awareness of self which brings about a âphilosophical distressâ because it requires a critical reflection on our perception of reality. Douglas J. Davies, Anthropology and Theology (Oxford: Berg, 2002), 1, 3â4.
South African minister and theologian H. Russel Botman explains that Kuyperâs notions of âdifferenceâ and âseparatenessâ are rightly indicted in the theological underpinnings of apartheid in South Africa. H. Russel Botman, âIs Blood Thicker Than Justice? The Legacy of Abraham Kuyper in Southern Africa,â in Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyperâs Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Luis E. Lugo (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 342â361, 351.
Richard J. Mouw, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2011), 15.
For example, anthropologist Will Rollason locates the problem in the attitude that to be poor is to lack something: âDevelopment takes the liberal, democratic, consumer societies of the North as the norm, and defines âthe poorâ as figures of lackâ¦Their future as people who have, or should have âmoreâ is never in doubt.â This attitude colors the ethnographic accounts of Pacific peoples and subsequently puts limits on their futures. Will Rollason, âIntroduction: Pacific Futures, Methodological Challenges,â in Pacific Futures: Projects, Politics and Interests, ed. Will Rollason (Berghahn Books, 2014), 1â27, 4.
Louise J. Lawrence, âIntroduction: A Taste for âthe Other,â: Interpreting Biblical Texts Anthropologically,â in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, eds. Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2004), 9â25, 22.
Lawrence writes that âthe otherâ is neither a âcompletely open bookâ nor âforever foreign to the interpreter,â Lawrence, âIntroduction,â 11.
Mario I. Aguilar, âChanging Models and the âDeathâ of Culture: A diachronic and positive critique of socio-scientific assumptions,â in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, eds. Lawrence and Aguilar, 299â313, 307â308.
Aguilar, âChanging Models,â 307.
Aguilar associates the danger of using the term âcultureâ with genocidal crises such as the Holocaust, the Balkans war, and the Rwandan civil conflict. It happens when âother culturesâ are âperceived as foreign, inadequate, dangerous and subject to scrutiny.â Aguilar, âChanging Models,â 308.
James Clifford, âIntroduction: Partial Truths,â in Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, eds. James Clifford and George E. Marcus (California: California University Press, 1986), 1â26, 18.
Robbins calls this âthe critical force of theologyâ that mocks anthropology by its confidence that an awareness of a different way to live can lead to transformation. Robbins, âAnthropology and Theology,â 288.
Robbins borrows this term from John Millbankâs Theology and Social Theory in which Millbank draws a contrast between an âontology of violenceâ of social thought and an âontology of peaceâ of Christianity. Robbins, âAnthropology and Theology,â 291â292.
Rollason, âIntroduction,â 2.
Rollason, âIntroduction,â 4.
Rollason explains that because Pacific peoples function not through a system of capitalism and consumerism but on systems of relationships, they do not envision their futures in terms of economic growth and development. Rollason, âIntroduction,â 3.
Rollason describes how normative development discourses define the poor as lacking something: Western development. This is a modern, colonial narrative imposed upon indigenous peoples. Rollason, âIntroduction,â 4.
This is in reference to anthropologist Mark Moskoâs account of Melanesians interpreting change and innovation only in reference to their cultural past, which makes it impossible for real transformation to take place in the future. Rollason, âIntroduction,â 7â8.
In understanding polarization as an âactivity of dividingâ it is easier to discern patterns of behavior, attitudes, and language that bind âthe otherâ to various divisions in society, and in oneâs own thinking. See Pieter Vos, âIntroduction,â 4.
Michael A. Rynkiewich, âAthens Engaging Jerusalem,â in Theologically Engaged Anthropology, ed. Lemons, 211â225, 233.
Robbins argues that it is possible to recover anthropological âothernessâ without having to convert to Christianity or recognize the existence of God. Robbins, âAnthropology and Theology,â 293.
James D. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2013), 130.
Abraham Kuyper, âSphere Sovereignty (1880),â in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 468.
In talking of sovereign authority in his political manifesto, Our Program, Kuyper writes âthat the source of sovereign authority does not reside in the law of the will of the people but in God.â Abraham Kuyper, Our Program: Christian Political Manifesto, ed. and trans. Harry Von Dyke, in Abraham Kuyper Collected Works of Public Theology, Series 1, eds. Jordan J. Ballor and Melvin Flikkema (Bellingham, Washington: Lexham Press), 19.
For Kuyper, it was only through the fulfillment of Godâs purposes for creation that humanity could reach its fullest potential. Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (n.p.: CreateSpace, 2012), 53. This sits in tension with Kuyperâs advocacy of freedom of conscience and against discrimination in society based on what a person believed or did not believe. Abraham Kuyper, Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto, 69.
Kuyper, Rooted and Grounded, 32.
Kuyper, âSphere Sovereignty,â 468.
Botman, âIs Blood Thicker Than Justice?â 351.
This is not a new idea in the development and application of Kuyperian thought in the 21st century. For example, South Korean pastor Min Kang highlights the growing interest in Kuyperâs sphere sovereignty amongst Protestant Christians in South Korea as the church grapples with living out the Christian faith in all spheres of life. Min Kang, âAbraham Kuyper in Korea: hartstochtelijk hervormer, een begrip onder Presbyteriaanse predikanten,â TussenRuimte 10:3 (2017), 26â31. Translation of the paper âAbraham Kuyper for Korean Protestantism: from the perspective of a Korean Presbyterian Pastor,â https://www.academia.edu/35765279/Abraham_Kuyper_for_Korean_Protestantism_from_the_perspective_of_a_Korean_Presbyterian_Pastor. In this case, the recontextualization of sphere sovereignty is being done not by academic theologians but by everyday Christians living out their everyday Christian lives.
Botman explains that Kuyper has also been influential on liberative movements because of his commitment to social justice. Botman, âIs Blood Thicker Than Justice?â 347. In addition, a Kuyperian pursuit of freedom of conscience justified âconscientious disobedienceâ on behalf of black South African churches. Allan Boesak, Black and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation, and the Calvinist Tradition (New York: Orbis, 1984), 34â35, 49.
Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty, ed. James Skillen (Iowa: Dordt College Press, 2011), 67.
For example, James Skillen suggests that Kuyper still has much to contribute to critiquing current dominant ideologies, because of the underlying pursuit of justice inherent in sphere sovereignty. James W. Skillen, âWhy Kuyper Now? in Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyperâs Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Luis E. Lugo (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 365.
Moreover, Kaemingk is explicit that Christians who claim to follow Christ should seek the good of their Muslim neighbors regardless of whether or not such encounters result in Christian conversions. Matthew Kaemingk, Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2018), 179.
Kuyperâs theology demonstrates a bias towards creation and re-creation without explicitly addressing what happens to creational differencesâboundaries between spheres, for exampleâin Christâs redemptive work: âThis is why Scripture continually points out to us that the Savior of the world is also the Creator of the worldâindeed, that the reason he could become its Savior is only because he was its Creator.â Kuyper, Common Grace, Vol. 1, 271.
Vos, âIntroduction,â 6.
The idea of the âtogethernessâ of humanity is taken from Klaas Schilderâs sunousia which may be thought of as a concession to Kuyperâs common grace, a doctrine which Schilder heavily criticized. Klaas Schilder, Christ and Culture, trans. G. van Rongen and W. Helder (Winnipeg: Premier Printing, 1977), 7, https://spindleworks.com/library/schilder/ChristnCulture.pdf. However, Richard Mouw makes the connection between common grace and the commonness of humanity which creates a basis for social, cultural, and political engagement. See, e.g., Richard J. Mouw, Adventures in Evangelical Civility: A Lifelong Quest for Common Ground (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016), 32.
Richard Mouw cites the apostle Paulâs encounter with Athenians in Acts Chapter 17 as an example of how an appeal to commonness can help facilitate theological encounters. Richard Mouw, Adventures in Evangelical Civility: A Lifelong Quest for Common Ground (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 194.
See, e.g., Mouw, Adventures, 183.
Mouw, Adventures, 186.
Mouw, Adventures, 186.
Louise Lawrence writes that âbestowing us with âA Taste for the Other,â anthropology also teaches that until we seek to know others, we can never have a balanced view of our own identity.â Lawrence, âIntroduction,â 22.
Kuyper, Our Program, 69.
Christ is Savior first and foremost. Yet, because he is Savior, he is able to restore nature by grace. Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, trans. Rev. John Dolfin (Grand Rapids: Louis Kregel, Publisher, 1922), 79â80.
Bavinck writes that this does not include the âworks of the devilâ which have corrupted creation. This is a similar idea to those cultural activities which stem from an orientation away from Godâs original intention for creation. Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, 81.
Christ has restored all things; Christians appropriate them biblically and prayerfully. Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, 83.
Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, 58.
Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty, 67.
Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 53.
Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty, 68.
Vos, âIntroduction,â 10.
Lawrence, âIntroduction,â 22.
Kuyper describes a united, inclusive church organism in Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. Henri De Vries (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1900), 550â551.
Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace: Godâs Gift for a Fallen World, Vol. 1, The Historical Section, eds. Jordan J. Ballor and Stephen J. Grabill, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman and Ed M. van der Maas, in Abraham Kuyper Collected Works of Public Theology, Series 2, eds. Jordan J. Ballor and Melvin Flikkema (Iowa: Acton Institute; Lexham Press, 2016), 172â173.
Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty, 69.