Interfaith dialog faces obstacles

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.