Interfaith dialog: Is it possible?<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Given that religious truths are perfect but
\nhuman knowledge of them is not, any attempt to bridge the gap is
\na worthy undertaking.<\/p>\n
And with the proposed publication of a bibliographic survey on
\nreligious publications in Indonesia since 1960, what better time
\nfor interfaith dialog.<\/p>\n
A discussion on the findings of the annotated bibliography was
\nheld at a seminar, organized by the Center for Social Development
\nStudies at Atmajaya University in Jakarta, last month.<\/p>\n
Dr. Th. Sumartana, a specialists in comparative religion, made
\nan interesting point when he questioned the criteria used to
\nselect the 246 titles of books and journal articles to be
\nincluded in the bibliography. It contains not only research
\npapers and research findings but also reflective essays, think-
\npieces, and even position papers on various aspects of religious
\nlife in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Needless to say, this is not an outstanding achievement in the
\nstudy of religion (which averages eight titles every year).
\nReligions and religious affairs are essential to the private and
\npublic life of people in this country.<\/p>\n
It is also worth mentioning that not all titles are from the
\ncontributions of Indonesian experts and researchers, since there
\nare also 26 titles in foreign languages (English, Dutch and
\nGerman).<\/p>\n
The study itself was motivated by the idea of enhancing and
\npromoting interreligious dialog. To facilitate this end, the
\nbibliography provides a systematic description of what has been
\ndone so far, in an attempt to improve interreligious relations
\nthrough better understanding among the followers of different
\nreligions in the country.<\/p>\n
The underlying assumption is that most of the religious
\nconflicts originate in the fact that the followers of one
\nreligion tend to misunderstand the substantive content of other
\nreligions.<\/p>\n
The crucial question, then, is: Where does the
\nmisunderstanding actually originate? Does it hail from the
\ninability to understand correctly or rather from the
\nunwillingness to do so? Is the reason for misunderstanding an
\nepistemological one which pertains to true knowledge or a moral
\none which relates to good intention? This is a very difficult
\nquestion to answer satisfactorily.<\/p>\n
It seems that the question of interreligious dialog can be
\ntaken up at two different levels. The first assumption is that
\ninterreligious dialog can be carried out because it is
\nprincipally possible. The second assumption is that
\ninterreligious dialog should be made possible because it is
\nhistorically necessary.<\/p>\n
Interreligious dialog is principally possible because, though
\nthere are fundamental differences among religions, there are
\nnonetheless basic similarities. Dogmatic principles and
\nexplanations as well as guidelines in spiritual life, for
\nexample, tend to be different from one religion to the other. And
\neven they could be different from one school of thought to the
\nother within the same religion. This makes each religion a system
\nunto itself and something which cannot be simply derived from
\nanother. In that sense, every religion, has its own integrity and
\nidentity.<\/p>\n
If every religion has a system of its own, with different
\ndogmatic principles and different teachings about the way to
\nperfection, how could a dialog be carried out among those
\nrelatively closed doctrinal bodies of beliefs and knowledge?<\/p>\n
Some people believe that it is not only possible but also
\nnecessary. They further believe that such a dialog can be
\nexecuted even at theological level to bring about an exchange of
\ntheological insights, as Dr. Sumartana put it.<\/p>\n
Such an exchange is expected to correct prejudice and
\nmisunderstanding about other religions, mostly due to wrong
\nperceptions and characteture ideas about other religions.<\/p>\n
Besides that, serious and well-meaning opinions which are
\nproduced by the different theological stances of followers of
\ndifferent religions, might enlighten many aspects of one's own
\ntheology. These points are usually taken for granted without
\nsufficient examination and without necessary substantiation.
\nDifferent outlooks might produce an \"added value\" in one's own
\nunderstanding of one's religion and faith.<\/p>\n
Keeping in mind that every religion has its integrity and
\nidentity, such a dialog at theological level would not and should
\nnot end up in a sort of syncretic amalgamation of everything from
\nevery religion.<\/p>\n
The case is similar to the common social interaction, whereby
\ntwo individuals who meet and interact are aware of the otherness
\nof their counterpart without losing their own identity. Instead
\nit becomes a part of their own personality.<\/p>\n
However, such exchange of theological insights will produce
\nbetter enlightenment only under certain conditions. Namely, if
\nthose who are involved are well equipped with theological know-
\nhow and, still more important, with theological humility.<\/p>\n
People who meet and talk together have to see themselves not
\nas the owners of religious truths in the first place but rather
\nas ones who are in common search of them.<\/p>\n
This is to say such a theological dialog cannot be performed
\nby anybody who happens to be interested but does not meet the
\nnecessary prerequisites. It could instead bring about more
\nserious misunderstanding and bitter mutual contempt if those
\ninvolved have no theological training at all, do not even know
\nhow to clarify their own theological position or do not know how
\nto approach other theological stances properly.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, interreligious dialog is not only a matter
\nof principal possibility or impossibility. In a country like
\nIndonesia, where at least five world religions exist side by
\nside, such a dialog is an urgent necessity. This is owing to
\nseveral reasons.<\/p>\n
First, such a dialog could eliminate unnecessary prejudices
\nwhich originate in the suspicion of the otherness of the other
\nside. What is different must not necessarily be bad. If such
\nprejudices can be eliminated or at least mitigated, the
\npossibility of interreligious conflict will thereby be reduced.<\/p>\n
Second, one has to keep in mind that besides fundamental
\ndifferences between religions, there are also basic similarities
\namong them as far as their commitment to morality is concerned.<\/p>\n
In the face of injustice, moral decadence, enmity and
\nhostility, violence and murder, indifference towards other people
\nand lack of compassion, every religion, generally speaking,
\nassumes the same position. Or at least there are no basic
\ncontradictions in their attitude towards moral problems.<\/p>\n
Why is this the case? Because in relation to human beings, all
\nreligions have the same message: salvation. Of course, there is
\na different emphasis on some aspects of salvation: love and
\ncompassion, justice and equality, non-violence and peace, good
\nconduct and liberation or devotion and faith.<\/p>\n
What makes the message of religious salvation different from
\napolitical message or economic message of salvation, is that in
\nthe latter cases are based on man-made theories and doctrines.
\nWhereas religious salvation is believed to be based on God's
\npromise and is conveyed in the name of God.<\/p>\n
Given the basically similar moral principles, this can be a
\ngood starting point for the followers of different religions not
\nonly to carry out a continuous interreligious dialog but also an
\ninterreligious collaboration.<\/p>\n
Instead of debating the doctrinal substance of justice, for
\nexample, it would be more productive if all religions go hand in
\nhand to fight the very obvious injustices which need no
\nsophisticated conception to understand or perceive.<\/p>\n
The common struggle against the use of violence, which has
\nbecome the order of the day, is more useful and implementable
\nthan spending a seminar debating the substantial nature of peace
\nfrom a theological point of view.<\/p>\n
This is easy to understand because theology is primarily a
\ntheoretical matter, whereas religion is a praxis. One cannot
\nbecome religious simply by contemplating the catalog of
\ndefinitions of the Holy or the Divine.<\/p>\n
It is devotion which makes one religious. It is not the
\nprecise concept of peace which will make our world more peaceful,
\nbut the real actions taken to prevent conflicts, direct attempts
\nto eliminate prejudice and suspicions as well the openheartedness
\nto accept differences without reliance on violence.<\/p>\n
Why is it that despite the fundamental moral similarities,
\nthere are so many religious conflicts? I would argue, this is due
\nto two related reasons.<\/p>\n
First, it is because the methods for salvation are treated as
\nmore important than the goal of salvation. Second, it is because
\nthe theoretical matters in theology are treated as more important
\nthan the real praxis of religion in everyday life.<\/p>\n
With regard to the first reason, many conflicts emerge because
\nthe followers of one religion do not see themselves as being in
\nsearch of religious truths but rather as too self-confident
\nowners of those truths. This attitude is the main reason for
\npeople to feel entitled to force others to use their methods of
\nattain salvation.<\/p>\n
With regard to the second, one might run the risk of equating
\ntheological propositions with the articles of faith. I, for one,
\nbelieve that theology is an exercise to build tentative theories
\non religious beliefs, but are never identical with religious
\nbeliefs. It is comparable to sociological theories about a
\nparticular society, which are not identical with society under
\nstudy.<\/p>\n
This is the reason why a dialog about theological theories is
\nmore likely than a dialog about the articles of faith. Because
\nfaith is something which is based not solely on discursive ground
\nbut it also transcends it. At some point everybody has to accept
\nor else rejects it. Acceptance in the matter of faith is
\nobviously a great deal more than logical reasoning as a
\nprerequisite to accept a conclusion.<\/p>\n
This implies that an interreligious dialog is possible but
\nthis it is not without limits. It is something very human and
\ncomparable to social interaction. Our meeting with other people,
\nevidently, can bring about new experiences and new understanding
\nabout what and how they think.<\/p>\n
Even between two people with a very intimate relationship
\n(such as between husband and wife) the understanding of one's
\npartner is never exhaustive. There are always some places within
\na personality which remain unknown and even undetectable.
\nEverybody is an identity and an integrity, or analogically
\nspeaking, an island. There are some parts of the island which
\nalways escape our search.<\/p>\n
Granting that every religion has an identity and an integrity
\nof its own, it is also logical that many parts of the religion
\nremain hidden, not only for the outsiders but also for its most
\ndevoted followers. There are some places in religion where
\nquestioning does not help, discourse comes to its limit and one
\nis left to choose between intellectual admiration or silent
\nadoration.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/interfaith-dialog-is-it-possible-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }