Interfaith dialog: Is it possible?

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): Given that religious truths are perfect but human knowledge of them is not, any attempt to bridge the gap is a worthy undertaking.

And with the proposed publication of a bibliographic survey on religious publications in Indonesia since 1960, what better time for interfaith dialog.

A discussion on the findings of the annotated bibliography was held at a seminar, organized by the Center for Social Development Studies at Atmajaya University in Jakarta, last month.

Dr. Th. Sumartana, a specialists in comparative religion, made an interesting point when he questioned the criteria used to select the 246 titles of books and journal articles to be included in the bibliography. It contains not only research papers and research findings but also reflective essays, think- pieces, and even position papers on various aspects of religious life in Indonesia.

Needless to say, this is not an outstanding achievement in the study of religion (which averages eight titles every year). Religions and religious affairs are essential to the private and public life of people in this country.

It is also worth mentioning that not all titles are from the contributions of Indonesian experts and researchers, since there are also 26 titles in foreign languages (English, Dutch and German).

The study itself was motivated by the idea of enhancing and promoting interreligious dialog. To facilitate this end, the bibliography provides a systematic description of what has been done so far, in an attempt to improve interreligious relations through better understanding among the followers of different religions in the country.

The underlying assumption is that most of the religious conflicts originate in the fact that the followers of one religion tend to misunderstand the substantive content of other religions.

The crucial question, then, is: Where does the misunderstanding actually originate? Does it hail from the inability to understand correctly or rather from the unwillingness to do so? Is the reason for misunderstanding an epistemological one which pertains to true knowledge or a moral one which relates to good intention? This is a very difficult question to answer satisfactorily.

It seems that the question of interreligious dialog can be taken up at two different levels. The first assumption is that interreligious dialog can be carried out because it is principally possible. The second assumption is that interreligious dialog should be made possible because it is historically necessary.

Interreligious dialog is principally possible because, though there are fundamental differences among religions, there are nonetheless basic similarities. Dogmatic principles and explanations as well as guidelines in spiritual life, for example, tend to be different from one religion to the other. And even they could be different from one school of thought to the other within the same religion. This makes each religion a system unto itself and something which cannot be simply derived from another. In that sense, every religion, has its own integrity and identity.

If every religion has a system of its own, with different dogmatic principles and different teachings about the way to perfection, how could a dialog be carried out among those relatively closed doctrinal bodies of beliefs and knowledge?

Some people believe that it is not only possible but also necessary. They further believe that such a dialog can be executed even at theological level to bring about an exchange of theological insights, as Dr. Sumartana put it.

Such an exchange is expected to correct prejudice and misunderstanding about other religions, mostly due to wrong perceptions and characteture ideas about other religions.

Besides that, serious and well-meaning opinions which are produced by the different theological stances of followers of different religions, might enlighten many aspects of one's own theology. These points are usually taken for granted without sufficient examination and without necessary substantiation. Different outlooks might produce an "added value" in one's own understanding of one's religion and faith.

Keeping in mind that every religion has its integrity and identity, such a dialog at theological level would not and should not end up in a sort of syncretic amalgamation of everything from every religion.

The case is similar to the common social interaction, whereby two individuals who meet and interact are aware of the otherness of their counterpart without losing their own identity. Instead it becomes a part of their own personality.

However, such exchange of theological insights will produce better enlightenment only under certain conditions. Namely, if those who are involved are well equipped with theological know- how and, still more important, with theological humility.

People who meet and talk together have to see themselves not as the owners of religious truths in the first place but rather as ones who are in common search of them.

This is to say such a theological dialog cannot be performed by anybody who happens to be interested but does not meet the necessary prerequisites. It could instead bring about more serious misunderstanding and bitter mutual contempt if those involved have no theological training at all, do not even know how to clarify their own theological position or do not know how to approach other theological stances properly.

On the other hand, interreligious dialog is not only a matter of principal possibility or impossibility. In a country like Indonesia, where at least five world religions exist side by side, such a dialog is an urgent necessity. This is owing to several reasons.

First, such a dialog could eliminate unnecessary prejudices which originate in the suspicion of the otherness of the other side. What is different must not necessarily be bad. If such prejudices can be eliminated or at least mitigated, the possibility of interreligious conflict will thereby be reduced.

Second, one has to keep in mind that besides fundamental differences between religions, there are also basic similarities among them as far as their commitment to morality is concerned.

In the face of injustice, moral decadence, enmity and hostility, violence and murder, indifference towards other people and lack of compassion, every religion, generally speaking, assumes the same position. Or at least there are no basic contradictions in their attitude towards moral problems.

Why is this the case? Because in relation to human beings, all religions have the same message: salvation. Of course, there is a different emphasis on some aspects of salvation: love and compassion, justice and equality, non-violence and peace, good conduct and liberation or devotion and faith.

What makes the message of religious salvation different from apolitical message or economic message of salvation, is that in the latter cases are based on man-made theories and doctrines. Whereas religious salvation is believed to be based on God's promise and is conveyed in the name of God.

Given the basically similar moral principles, this can be a good starting point for the followers of different religions not only to carry out a continuous interreligious dialog but also an interreligious collaboration.

Instead of debating the doctrinal substance of justice, for example, it would be more productive if all religions go hand in hand to fight the very obvious injustices which need no sophisticated conception to understand or perceive.

The common struggle against the use of violence, which has become the order of the day, is more useful and implementable than spending a seminar debating the substantial nature of peace from a theological point of view.

This is easy to understand because theology is primarily a theoretical matter, whereas religion is a praxis. One cannot become religious simply by contemplating the catalog of definitions of the Holy or the Divine.

It is devotion which makes one religious. It is not the precise concept of peace which will make our world more peaceful, but the real actions taken to prevent conflicts, direct attempts to eliminate prejudice and suspicions as well the openheartedness to accept differences without reliance on violence.

Why is it that despite the fundamental moral similarities, there are so many religious conflicts? I would argue, this is due to two related reasons.

First, it is because the methods for salvation are treated as more important than the goal of salvation. Second, it is because the theoretical matters in theology are treated as more important than the real praxis of religion in everyday life.

With regard to the first reason, many conflicts emerge because the followers of one religion do not see themselves as being in search of religious truths but rather as too self-confident owners of those truths. This attitude is the main reason for people to feel entitled to force others to use their methods of attain salvation.

With regard to the second, one might run the risk of equating theological propositions with the articles of faith. I, for one, believe that theology is an exercise to build tentative theories on religious beliefs, but are never identical with religious beliefs. It is comparable to sociological theories about a particular society, which are not identical with society under study.

This is the reason why a dialog about theological theories is more likely than a dialog about the articles of faith. Because faith is something which is based not solely on discursive ground but it also transcends it. At some point everybody has to accept or else rejects it. Acceptance in the matter of faith is obviously a great deal more than logical reasoning as a prerequisite to accept a conclusion.

This implies that an interreligious dialog is possible but this it is not without limits. It is something very human and comparable to social interaction. Our meeting with other people, evidently, can bring about new experiences and new understanding about what and how they think.

Even between two people with a very intimate relationship (such as between husband and wife) the understanding of one's partner is never exhaustive. There are always some places within a personality which remain unknown and even undetectable. Everybody is an identity and an integrity, or analogically speaking, an island. There are some parts of the island which always escape our search.

Granting that every religion has an identity and an integrity of its own, it is also logical that many parts of the religion remain hidden, not only for the outsiders but also for its most devoted followers. There are some places in religion where questioning does not help, discourse comes to its limit and one is left to choose between intellectual admiration or silent adoration.

The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.