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