Reflection of dry religiosity<\/p>\n
Membakar Rumah Tuhan, Pergulatan Agama Privat dan Publik
\n(Burning Down God's House, A Private and Public Stuggle of
\nReligion); By Ulil Anshar-Abdallah; PT Remaja Rosdakarya Bandung,
\n1999; XXI and 257 pages including index; Rp 19,500<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The burning down of places of worship,
\nespecially churches in Situbondo, East Java, between 1996 and
\n1997, showed the shallowness of theological understanding about
\nplaces of worship. That most of people here still have something
\nagainst other people's places of worship is true. Cases in
\nSitubondo and Tasikmalaya, West Java, are the best examples.<\/p>\n
Places of worship actually have the same function. Hans Kung,
\na liberal Christian theologist, says that they are only a medium
\nused by worshipers to express themselves.<\/p>\n
It is Jehove according to Jews, Jesus according to Christians,
\nAllah according to Islam and so on.<\/p>\n
If places of worship are referred to as a medium to transform
\nreligious values to God, why are there people who destroy other
\npeople's places of worship?<\/p>\n
This book tries to get to the core of the problem, if not
\noffering a solution about the tension between different
\nreligions.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, Ulil Abshar-Abdallah points out two elements
\nthat have caused aggression, from religion versus religion to
\npeople versus others of different religions.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the burning down of places of worship is a vulgar
\nform of preaching. Preaching, in its truest sense, is an
\ninvitation to attend a supreme reception with the intention of
\ndelivering a mission just like during the early period of the
\nProphet Muhammad in Mecca. With the development of religion, that
\nhas started to show normative limits (of teachings) and an
\nempiric socio-history (of religious institutions), preaching
\nbegan to transform.<\/p>\n
There are plenty of logical impacts (even the worst) caused by
\npreachings that have faced transformation. One that needs to be
\nmentioned is the death or the disappearance of the congregation's
\ncritical ability because of the one way communication method.<\/p>\n
This method benefits preachers who offer the congregation
\nreligious arguments they consider valid. In fact, real intention
\nis often mixed up with political interests: to provoke or even to
\ncorner other groups. As a result, conflicts among worshipers --
\nwhich are often marred by the burning down of places of worship
\n-- are a by-product of preachings that are filled with political
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
Secondly, because of religious politicking religion has been
\nused as a means of political bargaining to fulfill certain
\npurposes. \"God's house\" (place of worship) is not free from such
\npractices.<\/p>\n
Ulil gives an interesting description of the use of places of
\nworship as a means of political bargaining. Ulil calls such
\nplaces \"fake God's houses\".<\/p>\n
\"There are thousands of fake mosques and hundreds of fake
\nchurches that have lost their auras, because they are filled with
\npolitical interests that have deadened religion,\" he says (page
\nxix).<\/p>\n
Two main assumptions expressed by Ulil in this book are not
\nnew. Theological problems that have caused misunderstanding
\nbetween worshipers up until today have been raised long before
\nthis book was written.<\/p>\n
The book is simply a collection of thoughts spread in the mass
\nmedia. It focuses on chronological events based on the time of
\ncertain occurrences, just like the Situbondo and Tasikmalaya
\ncases. In some parts, one will even find repetition of arguments
\npublicly expressed by intellectuals in the mass media or in their
\noriginal works.<\/p>\n
However, one will also find sharp analysis from the young
\nscholar who does not want to be trapped by thinking consumers.<\/p>\n
So, the compilation of works is not morally bad, but many
\ntimes, has resulted in cynicism from readers. It creates an
\nimpression that Indonesian intellectuals, although not all of
\nthem, are not serious in studying analysis, only part of it.<\/p>\n
Essays that are compiled into books are not too important,
\nconsidering the content of the analysis. Essays usually are not
\ntoo in-depth because the content is either explained globally or
\nsignificantly related to limited spaces provided by the media.<\/p>\n
In the first part of Burning Down God's House, one cannot find
\nan in-depth and thorough explanation concerning theological
\nhandicaps within worshipers themselves. It is also the same with
\nexcuses expressed by the religious and bureaucracy elite. No
\nmatter what, essays always deal with both.<\/p>\n
But the book, at the very least, is a contribution to
\nIndonesian intellectualism. Regarding cases of the violation of
\nreligious people's human rights, the book can be used as a
\nstarting point to develop those who have dignity and do not shy
\nfrom religious awareness.<\/p>\n
The entire book calls every group, such as religious leaders,
\nbureaucrats and sociologists, to work together actively. Ulil's
\nefforts to understand theological problems in the book is not a
\none sided work, like the method used in preaching, but the work
\nof many sides. One of them is dialog because in dialog, due to
\nits two-way communication process, there will be no tyrant of the
\nminority or majority.<\/p>\n
-- Chusnul Murtafiin<\/p>\n
The reviewer is a student of religious comparison at the
\nState Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Sunan Kalijaga in
\nYogyakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reflection-of-dry-religiosity-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}