Interfaith dialog can promote a plural society

Interfaith dialog can promote a plural society

Th. Sumartana, Institute for Inter-Faith, Dialog in Indonesia,
Yogyakarta

Since its establishment in 1999, the Institute for Inter-Faith
Dialog in Indonesia (Interfidei) has been fully engaged in
popularizing inter-faith dialog, particularly during the unstable
late 1990s.

Because of its nature, Interfidei has greater freedom to
develop its vision and mission.

In January, Interfidei organized a seminar and workshop in
Malino, South Sulawesi, attended by some 80 people from about 56
inter-faith institutions. The crucial question was, what can
religions do to adequately respond to social pluralism,
particularly when it is accompanied by violence?

Pluralism may be a blessing when it can be positively
accepted, but it can turn into a curse when rejected and
negatively responded to. Clashes in Java, Papua, Aceh, East
Timor, Maluku, West, Central Kalimantan and Poso, Central
Sulawesi, have proved our inability to change our attitudes and
manage our pluralism. The community is pluralistic and dynamic,
but we continue to apply a standard, as if we live in a
homogeneous and static community.

Our "multi-dimensional crisis" is a situation in which the
entire community finds it difficult to survive. We are going
through economic, cultural, political, security, religious and
other crises. These crises do not befall religions individually
but all at the same time. Today, religions are bound and united
but are also subjected to a common crisis.

In the 1930s, the world was swept by an economic crisis of an
unusually great magnitude. This recession destroyed the pillars
of international life, paralyzing international relations.
International political and ideological relations led to
confusion, prompted by racism, fascism, authoritarianism and
totalitarianism. A world war became inevitable.

Afterwards, there was a common desire to rearrange a common
life in a new manner. The United Nations was set up and the Human
Rights Declaration was issued. New international religious
institutions came into being, focusing themselves on efforts to
establish inter-religious communication, peace and cooperation.

We are in a similar condition today. In the face of the
crises, there is a tendency toward communalism, partisanship,
tribalism, exclusivity, sectarianism and even fascism.

The crisis has paralyzed all social institutions. Violence,
prejudice and animosity are widespread. The community has lost
its flexibility and disintegrated as there are no longer cohesive
elements. There is not a single sociopolitical institution
capable of providing reconciliation.

Religious institutions also tend to be isolated and remain
bureaucratic, dogmatic, exclusive and dysfunctional. They are
plagued by fragmentation. Religions are the storehouses of social
enigmas and contain paradoxes and ambivalences. Yet there is
strong competition to recruit, due to political partisan
disputes.

There is no longer freedom to express differences of opinion.
Our community has lost its ability to anticipate and manage
conflict. There is no awareness of the need to cooperate. Worse
still, religions have often played their part in aggravating the
situation.

It is now time to bring together our more promising common
ideas on vision, mission and values. Our problem now is how to
place the relationship of these two poles in a perspective that
promises hope. All this turmoil has come about because we have
interpreted pluralism negatively and perceived it as a
destructive force.

For a long time, religions have not done their job properly.
However, there are still reasons why we must continue to support
them. We must draw up a new map of how different religions fare
in our country, carefully taking into account the state of inter-
religious communities. They are the seeds of reform.

First, religions are the oldest institutions in our society
and also the most pluralized. These institutions contain a
potential balance of destructive and constructive forces.

Second, religions are popular here. Religions exist as a way
to receive "blessings for all creatures" and all religions gain a
moral legitimacy in their respective communities.

Third, religions have undergone a revival and have given rise
to inter-faith communities.

It is these inter-faith communities that serve as an arena
where religions "vie with one another to be virtuous". The
morality of a religion is rooted in an awareness of
responsibility. Hope lies in this awareness of responsibility and
orientation to the future (eschatology). It is this moral value
that we need to confront an immoral society, one which fears
change.

Why do we continue to pin hopes on an inter-religious
community? First, such a community is trained in holding dialog
and therefore respects differences in opinion. Second, a
religious path encourages people to compete in being virtuous.

Third, it is a non-governmental organization, which involves
the grass roots. Fourth, an inter-faith community is oriented to
the future.

The intrinsic nature of the morality of every religion is to
aim to improve society. A religion may become an embryo for a
civil society underlined by emancipation, democracy, human
rights, gender equality and so forth.

Fifth, an inter-faith community is not inimical to formal
religions and has no pretensions to replace a religion, but
serves instead as a force for social reform, which includes the
reform of religious people within their internal circles.

The institutions for inter-religious dialog have become an
embryo for the emergence of a civil society in Indonesia.

Inter-religious dialog will at least be able to solve some of
the country's problems. We face relentless challenges to reform
our society. It is in this transition that efforts must
continuously be made to translate our hope into reality.

The above is a condensed version of the writer's presentation
at the seminar on "Living in a Pluralistic Society," held last
month by Muhammadiyah Youth and the British Council in Jakarta.