Interfaith dialog faces obstacles<\/p>\n
By Th. Sumartana<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): An interfaith dialog, in the context of
\npluralism, cannot be conducted today the way Socrates and his
\ncontemporary Greek philosophers did in the past.<\/p>\n
For 2,000 years, religious doctrines have undergone a
\nstandardization which clarifies their doctrinaire positions
\ntoward various important historical and social issues. In other
\nwords, religions have established doctrines, institutions, a
\nleadership structure and related activities.<\/p>\n
Within this context, today's interfaith dialogs have no option
\nbut to bring together openly, honestly and completely, all these
\nissues. Of course, this task is made more difficult and complex
\nbecause religions have painful, even traumatic, historical
\nexperiences from their contact with other religions. These
\nencounters have spilled over into rivalries, conflicts and even
\nwars.<\/p>\n
The resulting prejudices, misperception, misconception and
\nmisrepresentation about other religions have been internalized in
\nthe form of opinions.<\/p>\n
These bad experiences have also shaped and formed part of the
\ndoctrines which are incorporated in a religion's theological
\nsystem.<\/p>\n
The question is: can a dialog be held and what are its limits?<\/p>\n
Ignas Kleden's article \"Interfaith dialog: is it possible?\",
\n(The Jakarta Post, Aug. 8, 1997), was indeed a treat for dialog
\nenthusiasts.<\/p>\n
Kleden is a first rate sociologist who has a convincing
\nknowledge of Western philosophical schools and a mastery in the
\nepistemological area. In addition, he possesses a linguistic
\ncompetence not often found among social scientists.<\/p>\n
His article reminded us of something we often forget: an
\ninterfaith dialog must always be a dialog between theology and
\nother social science disciplines. Without this dialog it will be
\nfutile.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, without this exchange, it may be difficult for
\ntheology to find a suitable framework and formula to express its
\nconcerns. A scientific approach to a religious phenomenon, in
\nparticular, will broaden the nuances of understanding and will
\nprovide certain perspectives for the religious doctrines.<\/p>\n
This is so because theology is inseparable from scientists'
\nunderstanding of humans and society. Usually this understanding
\nis determined by studies contributed by non-theological
\ndisciplines. Without dialog, particularly with other social
\nsciences, theology will be isolated and sterile.<\/p>\n
Theology is not an independent science. Indeed, it can be
\nindependent as long as it is still \"the crown\" and \"the master\"
\nof all sciences. This era has passed and will never return.
\nNowadays, theology is in the domain of other sciences.<\/p>\n
Just like a work of art, theology is undeniably man-made
\nalthough it may contain some inspiration or element of divine
\nrevelation. Theological thinking is the product of humankind's
\neffort to express itself. As a product, just like any other,
\ntheology is very much influenced by context and environment.<\/p>\n
So, each theology is the product of an age which is very
\ndependent on prevailing thinking, technical terms, location and
\nthe needs and challenges found within a given society.<\/p>\n
Usually, theological thinking is sensitive to and aware of the
\nactuality and dynamism of social change. This is because one of
\nthe main factors promoting the growth of theology is its need to
\nbe a reflection, in the closest possible manner, of social
\nreality. Theology loses its relevance once it is severed from
\nsocial life.<\/p>\n
A religious dialog implies the existence of a plural society.
\nThe awareness of social pluralism will give birth to a need for
\nreligious dialog. Society is no longer homogeneous. Religious
\ninstitutions are no longer monocentric but have become
\npolycentric religious communities. It is in this context that
\ndialog presents an avenue for religion to survive.<\/p>\n
Religions which continuously bicker and cause social conflicts
\nwill some day lose their credibility. Dialog has become a matter
\nof survival for religions. Due to globalization, dialog will be
\nthe most human and most civilized way of survival. Dialog has
\nbecome an alternative to confrontation.<\/p>\n
However, in reality, politicians have not been supportive of
\nefforts to start an interfaith dialog. In fact, religious
\npoliticians or, more appropriately, politicians making use of
\nreligion to support their political career, have put up barriers
\nto religious dialog.<\/p>\n
These politicians are sometimes carried away by, and benefit
\nfrom, a system where theological dialog is nonexistent. They
\nperceive that dialog will distract their mind-set and impede
\ntheir routine tasks. These people are familiar with a political
\nmethod aimed at overthrowing all opponents.<\/p>\n
The level of intergroup distrust is chronic and techniques of
\npolitical engineering, to paralyze one's opponents, are rife.
\nSuch politicians are not comfortable with open systems of
\nthinking.<\/p>\n
Hence, the biggest challenge to interfaith dialog is exclusive
\nprimordialism with religious nuances. It is discouraging indeed
\nto find that this has become the basis of political life in this
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
But in the absence of dialog, political life in Indonesia
\ncannot be steered toward a democracy because the nation is often
\ncolored with distrust, revenge and intergroup fear. Opponents are
\nconsidered eternal rivals in the struggle for power.<\/p>\n
A religious nuance in this political conflict or, perhaps more
\naccurately, the politicalization of religion goes along side
\nefforts to win power.<\/p>\n
Religions offer their believers the meaning of life and
\nsalvation. Interfaith dialog offers the peaceful coexistence of
\nreligions in society.<\/p>\n
Kleden, in his article, also mentioned that there are two
\nreasons for today's inter-religious conflicts. First, greater
\nsignificance is attached to the path toward salvation than the
\ngoal of salvation.<\/p>\n
Second, theoretical things in theology are considered to be of
\ngreater importance to the religious praxis in daily life.<\/p>\n
I can support Kleden's first argument because, by attaching
\ngreater significance to the steps toward salvation, every
\nreligion will have a tendency to consider itself the absolute or
\nonly way. An interfaith meeting will then turn into a discussion
\non who can better provide salvation.<\/p>\n
However, I have to make a critical note on the second
\nargument.<\/p>\n
In my opinion, the theories in theology provide the vehicle
\nfor overcoming and prevent conflicts. They provide a critical
\ndistance between existing scientific theories and a religious
\npraxis meeting a dead end.<\/p>\n
Theories provide the opportunity to rethink, more clearly and
\nrealistically, the existing theological formulations. There will
\nalso be an opportunity to transcend the inability of the old
\ntheological construct which has been plunged into a vicious
\ncircle of conflict.<\/p>\n
A new theological construct will be needed to escape from the
\nshadows of unfavorable prejudices, enmity and fear. This theology
\nwill be more appreciative of other religions and liberate the
\ncommunity from the shackles of defeats and despair.<\/p>\n
Theories in theology must indeed be brought forward so that
\nthe old construct may be replaced and the praxis revised.<\/p>\n
Therefore, alongside encouraging interfaith dialog, there is
\nalso an effort to reconstruct what is called theologia religionum
\n(the theology of religions).<\/p>\n
This quest is for a new intellectual basis to establish
\nattitudes which are more appreciative of other religions. The old
\nor existing formulation of the theology of religions is usually a
\ndefensive effort which tends to belittle other religions and it
\nconducts a praxis which is irrelevant to the needs of the
\ncommunity. Therefore, the theology of religion is a potential
\nmeans to correct an erroneous perspective, either at the
\ntheological level or at the social praxis level of religions.<\/p>\n
Of course there are limits to a dialog.<\/p>\n
However, nobody can set the limits of the dialog before the
\nprocess begins. It will determine its own realistic limits. The
\nprocess may even alter previous limits, narrowing or widening
\nthem.<\/p>\n
Dialog requires an open attitude, nothing more, nothing less.<\/p>\n
The writer is the director of the Institute for Interfaith
\nDialog in Indonesia, Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n
Window A: Religions which continuously bicker and cause social
\nconflicts will some day lose their credibility. Dialog has become
\na matter of survival for religions.<\/p>\n
Window B: In fact, religious politicians or, more appropriately,
\npoliticians making use of religion to support their political
\ncareer, have put up barriers to religious dialog.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/interfaith-dialog-faces-obstacles-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}