Interfaith dialog faces obstacles

By Th. Sumartana

YOGYAKARTA (JP): An interfaith dialog, in the context of pluralism, cannot be conducted today the way Socrates and his contemporary Greek philosophers did in the past.

For 2,000 years, religious doctrines have undergone a standardization which clarifies their doctrinaire positions toward various important historical and social issues. In other words, religions have established doctrines, institutions, a leadership structure and related activities.

Within this context, today's interfaith dialogs have no option but to bring together openly, honestly and completely, all these issues. Of course, this task is made more difficult and complex because religions have painful, even traumatic, historical experiences from their contact with other religions. These encounters have spilled over into rivalries, conflicts and even wars.

The resulting prejudices, misperception, misconception and misrepresentation about other religions have been internalized in the form of opinions.

These bad experiences have also shaped and formed part of the doctrines which are incorporated in a religion's theological system.

The question is: can a dialog be held and what are its limits?

Ignas Kleden's article "Interfaith dialog: is it possible?", (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 8, 1997), was indeed a treat for dialog enthusiasts.

Kleden is a first rate sociologist who has a convincing knowledge of Western philosophical schools and a mastery in the epistemological area. In addition, he possesses a linguistic competence not often found among social scientists.

His article reminded us of something we often forget: an interfaith dialog must always be a dialog between theology and other social science disciplines. Without this dialog it will be futile.

Furthermore, without this exchange, it may be difficult for theology to find a suitable framework and formula to express its concerns. A scientific approach to a religious phenomenon, in particular, will broaden the nuances of understanding and will provide certain perspectives for the religious doctrines.

This is so because theology is inseparable from scientists' understanding of humans and society. Usually this understanding is determined by studies contributed by non-theological disciplines. Without dialog, particularly with other social sciences, theology will be isolated and sterile.

Theology is not an independent science. Indeed, it can be independent as long as it is still "the crown" and "the master" of all sciences. This era has passed and will never return. Nowadays, theology is in the domain of other sciences.

Just like a work of art, theology is undeniably man-made although it may contain some inspiration or element of divine revelation. Theological thinking is the product of humankind's effort to express itself. As a product, just like any other, theology is very much influenced by context and environment.

So, each theology is the product of an age which is very dependent on prevailing thinking, technical terms, location and the needs and challenges found within a given society.

Usually, theological thinking is sensitive to and aware of the actuality and dynamism of social change. This is because one of the main factors promoting the growth of theology is its need to be a reflection, in the closest possible manner, of social reality. Theology loses its relevance once it is severed from social life.

A religious dialog implies the existence of a plural society. The awareness of social pluralism will give birth to a need for religious dialog. Society is no longer homogeneous. Religious institutions are no longer monocentric but have become polycentric religious communities. It is in this context that dialog presents an avenue for religion to survive.

Religions which continuously bicker and cause social conflicts will some day lose their credibility. Dialog has become a matter of survival for religions. Due to globalization, dialog will be the most human and most civilized way of survival. Dialog has become an alternative to confrontation.

However, in reality, politicians have not been supportive of efforts to start an interfaith dialog. In fact, religious politicians or, more appropriately, politicians making use of religion to support their political career, have put up barriers to religious dialog.

These politicians are sometimes carried away by, and benefit from, a system where theological dialog is nonexistent. They perceive that dialog will distract their mind-set and impede their routine tasks. These people are familiar with a political method aimed at overthrowing all opponents.

The level of intergroup distrust is chronic and techniques of political engineering, to paralyze one's opponents, are rife. Such politicians are not comfortable with open systems of thinking.

Hence, the biggest challenge to interfaith dialog is exclusive primordialism with religious nuances. It is discouraging indeed to find that this has become the basis of political life in this country.

But in the absence of dialog, political life in Indonesia cannot be steered toward a democracy because the nation is often colored with distrust, revenge and intergroup fear. Opponents are considered eternal rivals in the struggle for power.

A religious nuance in this political conflict or, perhaps more accurately, the politicalization of religion goes along side efforts to win power.

Religions offer their believers the meaning of life and salvation. Interfaith dialog offers the peaceful coexistence of religions in society.

Kleden, in his article, also mentioned that there are two reasons for today's inter-religious conflicts. First, greater significance is attached to the path toward salvation than the goal of salvation.

Second, theoretical things in theology are considered to be of greater importance to the religious praxis in daily life.

I can support Kleden's first argument because, by attaching greater significance to the steps toward salvation, every religion will have a tendency to consider itself the absolute or only way. An interfaith meeting will then turn into a discussion on who can better provide salvation.

However, I have to make a critical note on the second argument.

In my opinion, the theories in theology provide the vehicle for overcoming and prevent conflicts. They provide a critical distance between existing scientific theories and a religious praxis meeting a dead end.

Theories provide the opportunity to rethink, more clearly and realistically, the existing theological formulations. There will also be an opportunity to transcend the inability of the old theological construct which has been plunged into a vicious circle of conflict.

A new theological construct will be needed to escape from the shadows of unfavorable prejudices, enmity and fear. This theology will be more appreciative of other religions and liberate the community from the shackles of defeats and despair.

Theories in theology must indeed be brought forward so that the old construct may be replaced and the praxis revised.

Therefore, alongside encouraging interfaith dialog, there is also an effort to reconstruct what is called theologia religionum (the theology of religions).

This quest is for a new intellectual basis to establish attitudes which are more appreciative of other religions. The old or existing formulation of the theology of religions is usually a defensive effort which tends to belittle other religions and it conducts a praxis which is irrelevant to the needs of the community. Therefore, the theology of religion is a potential means to correct an erroneous perspective, either at the theological level or at the social praxis level of religions.

Of course there are limits to a dialog.

However, nobody can set the limits of the dialog before the process begins. It will determine its own realistic limits. The process may even alter previous limits, narrowing or widening them.

Dialog requires an open attitude, nothing more, nothing less.

The writer is the director of the Institute for Interfaith Dialog in Indonesia, Yogyakarta.

Window A: Religions which continuously bicker and cause social conflicts will some day lose their credibility. Dialog has become a matter of survival for religions.

Window B: In fact, religious politicians or, more appropriately, politicians making use of religion to support their political career, have put up barriers to religious dialog.