Pluralism, a stance for true interfaith dialogs in Indonesia<\/p>\n
Y. Bambang Riyanto, Jakarta<\/p>\n
In following the discourse about the conflicts between the
\nCatholic Sang Timur foundation and its neighboring Muslim
\nresidents in The Jakarta Post two weeks ago, in which Pandaya and
\nTangerang Mayor Wahidin Halim both expressed opinions, a long
\nexisting problem on interfaith dialog came to mind. Is it really
\npossible to have a genuine interfaith dialog in this country?
\nThis article, however, will neither refer to the case in detail
\nhere nor discuss the political aspects of it, but will consider
\nthe conditions needed to establish a genuine dialog.<\/p>\n
A dialog among the parties involved, considered the best
\nsolution by Wahidin, seems to be a short-term solution. Such a
\ndialog probably could lead to a return to a semblance of
\nnormalcy, but for how long? Perhaps similar problems will occur
\nin other places, or even in the same place, as the roots of the
\nproblem will not have been dealt with at all.<\/p>\n
Pandaya aptly points out that an intensive interfaith dialog
\nshould reach the people at the grassroots level. Further
\nquestions are: What kind of dialog would help in establishing a
\nharmonious society? Who will be responsible for it?<\/p>\n
With no intention to undermine the role of the people, it is
\npossible to say that most religions in this country still rely
\nheavily on their leaders -- clerics, priests etc. -- to encourage
\npeople and foster any sort of discourse, though they are not the
\nonly ones. As key figures, their understanding of religion and
\nits relationship to others should play a vital role, for what is
\nconveyed to the people depends on their stance.<\/p>\n
There are at least three positions that religious leaders
\nusually hold: Exclusivism, constitutive inclusivism, and
\npluralism.<\/p>\n
An exclusivist holds that his\/her religion is the only
\nreligion carrying salvation and its founder is the only bearer of
\neternal life. The second position is considered inclusive because
\nit holds that salvation is available to all humankind; but it is
\nconstitutive as it postulates that only a particular religion is
\nthe cause of this salvation. A pluralist formally embraces the
\nplurality of religions and the salvation mediated through them by
\nconsidering that all of God's salvation can be on a par to each
\nother.<\/p>\n
It is hard to imagine a legitimate religious leader clinging
\nto exclusivism. When people appreciate their religion as the only
\ntrue religion and the single bearer of God's truth, they will
\nvehemently reject other religions. In such a situation, an
\ninterfaith dialog would be out of the question, and would achieve
\nnothing if it were to take place at all.<\/p>\n
A better position is held by constitutive inclusive religious
\nleaders. With such a stance, it is possible to develop a
\ntolerance towards and dialog with other religions. Yet, such a
\ndialog would not likely be authentic, for each of them, in spite
\nof everything, declares their religion above the others and its
\nfounder the central medium of ultimate reality. The dialog would
\njust be superficial.<\/p>\n
An authentic dialog would only be possible among pluralists.
\nIn one of his books, Roger Haight, a theologian, proposes a
\nthesis that the normativity of one's religion and its mediator
\ndoes not exclude a positive appraisal of religious pluralism. A
\npluralist would regard other religions as true, in the sense that
\nthey serve as mediations of God's salvation.<\/p>\n
The basic assumption of the pluralism stance is the awareness
\nof historicism in every human understanding of truth. One's
\nattempt to comprehend God, who is absolute, can never be
\nseparated from one's context or standpoint, and is always bound
\nup with language. Human knowledge of God, then, remains imperfect
\nand provisional. Accordingly, because of the limited character of
\nhuman understanding and the transcendent quality of the religious
\nobject, truth by its nature is relational. God's truth should be
\ndiscovered in the convergence of different experiences and
\nexpressions which can be found in the diversity of religions. It
\nis somewhat inconsistent, then, to claim one's religion as the
\nsole bearer of God's truth, or to pretend to grasp fully the
\nmystery of God.<\/p>\n
Besides, by asserting that God is exclusively present only in
\na single religion, does it not mean that God is being confined
\nand domesticated into human parameters? On the one hand, we claim
\nGod as the tremendous great God, Allahu Akbar; on the other hand,
\nwe keep a tight rein on God's greatness by limiting God's
\nrevelation into a single religion.<\/p>\n
If we recognize the immensity of God's love and compassion to
\nhumankind, should we not also recognize the possibility that God
\ncould manifest God's self in diverse ways to facilitate human
\nsalvation? The divine plan for humanity is one, but multifaceted.
\nGreat figures in each religion could be the \"true\" but \"not the
\nonly\" bearer of God's salvation.<\/p>\n
When those arguments are solved, there will be an urgent need,
\nthen, to foster a paradigm shift, i.e., from the esoteric to
\nexoteric level regardless of one's belief system. In this sense,
\nreligions could be considered as means or instruments for the
\njourney of people to their goal. The focus is not the means, but
\nthe end, which is commonly recognized by most human beings, for
\nthere is only one Great Mystery.<\/p>\n
Though the responsibility establishing an interfaith discourse
\nrests on all people, religious leaders, however, bear a major
\nresponsibility to convey the right understanding of religion and
\nattitudes toward other people of different religions. It is so
\nbecause hierarchical systems are willy-nilly present in almost
\nall great religions. The voice of the leaders serves as a
\nnormative mandate for their congregation.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, when a problem of religion crops up, as it did
\nin the Sang Timur case, it is unfair to put all the blame on the
\nshoulders of the masses. A further inquiry should be posed: Is
\nthe conception of those particular religious leaders, with regard
\nto their own and other religions, appropriate? Has any kind of
\neffort been made to enhance an interfaith dialog based on the
\npluralism perspective? Reflecting upon such questions will
\neventually lead to the roots of the problem.<\/p>\n
The writer is a student of theology at Driyarkara of School of
\nPhilosophy, Jakarta, after finishing study on philosophy at
\nAteneo de Manila University in 2002. He can be reached at
\nbambangsj@jesuits.net<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/pluralism-a-stance-for-true-interfaith-dialogs-in-indonesia-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}