Pluralism, a stance for true interfaith dialogs in Indonesia
Pluralism, a stance for true interfaith dialogs in Indonesia
Y. Bambang Riyanto, Jakarta
In following the discourse about the conflicts between the
Catholic Sang Timur foundation and its neighboring Muslim
residents in The Jakarta Post two weeks ago, in which Pandaya and
Tangerang Mayor Wahidin Halim both expressed opinions, a long
existing problem on interfaith dialog came to mind. Is it really
possible to have a genuine interfaith dialog in this country?
This article, however, will neither refer to the case in detail
here nor discuss the political aspects of it, but will consider
the conditions needed to establish a genuine dialog.
A dialog among the parties involved, considered the best
solution by Wahidin, seems to be a short-term solution. Such a
dialog probably could lead to a return to a semblance of
normalcy, but for how long? Perhaps similar problems will occur
in other places, or even in the same place, as the roots of the
problem will not have been dealt with at all.
Pandaya aptly points out that an intensive interfaith dialog
should reach the people at the grassroots level. Further
questions are: What kind of dialog would help in establishing a
harmonious society? Who will be responsible for it?
With no intention to undermine the role of the people, it is
possible to say that most religions in this country still rely
heavily on their leaders -- clerics, priests etc. -- to encourage
people and foster any sort of discourse, though they are not the
only ones. As key figures, their understanding of religion and
its relationship to others should play a vital role, for what is
conveyed to the people depends on their stance.
There are at least three positions that religious leaders
usually hold: Exclusivism, constitutive inclusivism, and
pluralism.
An exclusivist holds that his/her religion is the only
religion carrying salvation and its founder is the only bearer of
eternal life. The second position is considered inclusive because
it holds that salvation is available to all humankind; but it is
constitutive as it postulates that only a particular religion is
the cause of this salvation. A pluralist formally embraces the
plurality of religions and the salvation mediated through them by
considering that all of God's salvation can be on a par to each
other.
It is hard to imagine a legitimate religious leader clinging
to exclusivism. When people appreciate their religion as the only
true religion and the single bearer of God's truth, they will
vehemently reject other religions. In such a situation, an
interfaith dialog would be out of the question, and would achieve
nothing if it were to take place at all.
A better position is held by constitutive inclusive religious
leaders. With such a stance, it is possible to develop a
tolerance towards and dialog with other religions. Yet, such a
dialog would not likely be authentic, for each of them, in spite
of everything, declares their religion above the others and its
founder the central medium of ultimate reality. The dialog would
just be superficial.
An authentic dialog would only be possible among pluralists.
In one of his books, Roger Haight, a theologian, proposes a
thesis that the normativity of one's religion and its mediator
does not exclude a positive appraisal of religious pluralism. A
pluralist would regard other religions as true, in the sense that
they serve as mediations of God's salvation.
The basic assumption of the pluralism stance is the awareness
of historicism in every human understanding of truth. One's
attempt to comprehend God, who is absolute, can never be
separated from one's context or standpoint, and is always bound
up with language. Human knowledge of God, then, remains imperfect
and provisional. Accordingly, because of the limited character of
human understanding and the transcendent quality of the religious
object, truth by its nature is relational. God's truth should be
discovered in the convergence of different experiences and
expressions which can be found in the diversity of religions. It
is somewhat inconsistent, then, to claim one's religion as the
sole bearer of God's truth, or to pretend to grasp fully the
mystery of God.
Besides, by asserting that God is exclusively present only in
a single religion, does it not mean that God is being confined
and domesticated into human parameters? On the one hand, we claim
God as the tremendous great God, Allahu Akbar; on the other hand,
we keep a tight rein on God's greatness by limiting God's
revelation into a single religion.
If we recognize the immensity of God's love and compassion to
humankind, should we not also recognize the possibility that God
could manifest God's self in diverse ways to facilitate human
salvation? The divine plan for humanity is one, but multifaceted.
Great figures in each religion could be the "true" but "not the
only" bearer of God's salvation.
When those arguments are solved, there will be an urgent need,
then, to foster a paradigm shift, i.e., from the esoteric to
exoteric level regardless of one's belief system. In this sense,
religions could be considered as means or instruments for the
journey of people to their goal. The focus is not the means, but
the end, which is commonly recognized by most human beings, for
there is only one Great Mystery.
Though the responsibility establishing an interfaith discourse
rests on all people, religious leaders, however, bear a major
responsibility to convey the right understanding of religion and
attitudes toward other people of different religions. It is so
because hierarchical systems are willy-nilly present in almost
all great religions. The voice of the leaders serves as a
normative mandate for their congregation.
Accordingly, when a problem of religion crops up, as it did
in the Sang Timur case, it is unfair to put all the blame on the
shoulders of the masses. A further inquiry should be posed: Is
the conception of those particular religious leaders, with regard
to their own and other religions, appropriate? Has any kind of
effort been made to enhance an interfaith dialog based on the
pluralism perspective? Reflecting upon such questions will
eventually lead to the roots of the problem.
The writer is a student of theology at Driyarkara of School of
Philosophy, Jakarta, after finishing study on philosophy at
Ateneo de Manila University in 2002. He can be reached at
bambangsj@jesuits.net
Y. Bambang Riyanto, Jakarta
In following the discourse about the conflicts between the
Catholic Sang Timur foundation and its neighboring Muslim
residents in The Jakarta Post two weeks ago, in which Pandaya and
Tangerang Mayor Wahidin Halim both expressed opinions, a long
existing problem on interfaith dialog came to mind. Is it really
possible to have a genuine interfaith dialog in this country?
This article, however, will neither refer to the case in detail
here nor discuss the political aspects of it, but will consider
the conditions needed to establish a genuine dialog.
A dialog among the parties involved, considered the best
solution by Wahidin, seems to be a short-term solution. Such a
dialog probably could lead to a return to a semblance of
normalcy, but for how long? Perhaps similar problems will occur
in other places, or even in the same place, as the roots of the
problem will not have been dealt with at all.
Pandaya aptly points out that an intensive interfaith dialog
should reach the people at the grassroots level. Further
questions are: What kind of dialog would help in establishing a
harmonious society? Who will be responsible for it?
With no intention to undermine the role of the people, it is
possible to say that most religions in this country still rely
heavily on their leaders -- clerics, priests etc. -- to encourage
people and foster any sort of discourse, though they are not the
only ones. As key figures, their understanding of religion and
its relationship to others should play a vital role, for what is
conveyed to the people depends on their stance.
There are at least three positions that religious leaders
usually hold: Exclusivism, constitutive inclusivism, and
pluralism.
An exclusivist holds that his/her religion is the only
religion carrying salvation and its founder is the only bearer of
eternal life. The second position is considered inclusive because
it holds that salvation is available to all humankind; but it is
constitutive as it postulates that only a particular religion is
the cause of this salvation. A pluralist formally embraces the
plurality of religions and the salvation mediated through them by
considering that all of God's salvation can be on a par to each
other.
It is hard to imagine a legitimate religious leader clinging
to exclusivism. When people appreciate their religion as the only
true religion and the single bearer of God's truth, they will
vehemently reject other religions. In such a situation, an
interfaith dialog would be out of the question, and would achieve
nothing if it were to take place at all.
A better position is held by constitutive inclusive religious
leaders. With such a stance, it is possible to develop a
tolerance towards and dialog with other religions. Yet, such a
dialog would not likely be authentic, for each of them, in spite
of everything, declares their religion above the others and its
founder the central medium of ultimate reality. The dialog would
just be superficial.
An authentic dialog would only be possible among pluralists.
In one of his books, Roger Haight, a theologian, proposes a
thesis that the normativity of one's religion and its mediator
does not exclude a positive appraisal of religious pluralism. A
pluralist would regard other religions as true, in the sense that
they serve as mediations of God's salvation.
The basic assumption of the pluralism stance is the awareness
of historicism in every human understanding of truth. One's
attempt to comprehend God, who is absolute, can never be
separated from one's context or standpoint, and is always bound
up with language. Human knowledge of God, then, remains imperfect
and provisional. Accordingly, because of the limited character of
human understanding and the transcendent quality of the religious
object, truth by its nature is relational. God's truth should be
discovered in the convergence of different experiences and
expressions which can be found in the diversity of religions. It
is somewhat inconsistent, then, to claim one's religion as the
sole bearer of God's truth, or to pretend to grasp fully the
mystery of God.
Besides, by asserting that God is exclusively present only in
a single religion, does it not mean that God is being confined
and domesticated into human parameters? On the one hand, we claim
God as the tremendous great God, Allahu Akbar; on the other hand,
we keep a tight rein on God's greatness by limiting God's
revelation into a single religion.
If we recognize the immensity of God's love and compassion to
humankind, should we not also recognize the possibility that God
could manifest God's self in diverse ways to facilitate human
salvation? The divine plan for humanity is one, but multifaceted.
Great figures in each religion could be the "true" but "not the
only" bearer of God's salvation.
When those arguments are solved, there will be an urgent need,
then, to foster a paradigm shift, i.e., from the esoteric to
exoteric level regardless of one's belief system. In this sense,
religions could be considered as means or instruments for the
journey of people to their goal. The focus is not the means, but
the end, which is commonly recognized by most human beings, for
there is only one Great Mystery.
Though the responsibility establishing an interfaith discourse
rests on all people, religious leaders, however, bear a major
responsibility to convey the right understanding of religion and
attitudes toward other people of different religions. It is so
because hierarchical systems are willy-nilly present in almost
all great religions. The voice of the leaders serves as a
normative mandate for their congregation.
Accordingly, when a problem of religion crops up, as it did
in the Sang Timur case, it is unfair to put all the blame on the
shoulders of the masses. A further inquiry should be posed: Is
the conception of those particular religious leaders, with regard
to their own and other religions, appropriate? Has any kind of
effort been made to enhance an interfaith dialog based on the
pluralism perspective? Reflecting upon such questions will
eventually lead to the roots of the problem.
The writer is a student of theology at Driyarkara of School of
Philosophy, Jakarta, after finishing study on philosophy at
Ateneo de Manila University in 2002. He can be reached at
bambangsj@jesuits.net