Interfaith dialog: Is it possible?

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.