11.2 Philosophical and Theoretical Aspects
As one of the efforts in developing ethics of social interaction for higher education students of various religious backgrounds, we need to
begin with fundamental questions on our existence and the existence of religious communities different to us in the face of God. Here, it is
important to understand the paradigm of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. This can be explained through the existing religious courses,
such as Introduction to Islamic Studies which is an obligatory course to all students of UIN State Islamic University Sunan Kalijaga
Yogyakarta, without needing to separately create a new course. Prior to discussing these three paradigms, it is important for us to
mutually realize that the use of these terms or labels is definitely not without risk or problem, especially if we were to label it to individuals
or groups. Firstly, these labels can be easily interpreted as value judgements; secondly, when we label certain group as exclusive, as an
example, we are often led to include several categories that are not entirely theological; thirdly, certain groups we label might not agree
with our labelling. Nevertheless, as a paradigm in interreligious interaction, it is
important to shed understanding to university students regarding the three theological categories above. Several scholars, including Paul
Knitter 1995, Douglas Pratt 2005, and Raimundo Panikkar 1999, have offered theological categories that have similarities between one
another although not exactly. However, in the history of my lectures for the course Interreligious Dialog, both at UIN Sunan Kalijaga and the
Centre for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies CRCS, Gadjah Mada University, I think Diana Eck’s writing is the most helpful to the
students in shedding understanding upon the three paradigms above. In one of her writing titled “Is Our God Listening?” Eck 2005:21
questioned:
“Is ‘our God’ listening to the prayers of people of other faiths? If not, why not? What kind of God would that be? Would the one we
Christians and Jews speak of as maker of heaven and earth not give ear to the prayer of a man so earnestly, so deeply in prayer?
On the other hand, if God is listening, what are we all about? Who are we as a people who cherish our own special
relationship with God? If we conclude that ‘our God’ is not listening, then we had better ask how we are to speak of God at
all as people of faith in a world of many faiths. But if we suspect that ‘our God’ is listening, then how are we to speak ourselves as
people of faith among other peoples of faith?” In response to the above question, Eck explained that the exclusive
group would opine that “our community, our tradition, our understanding of reality, our encounter with God is the only truth”.
Therefore, in answering the question “Is ‘our God’ listening?” the exclusive group would have no doubt at all to speak of ‘our God’ or of
‘the truth’. The inclusive group would opine that “in reality there are indeed
many communities, traditions, and truths, nevertheless our point of view is the apex of other point of views, better than the others, or at least vast
enough to include the others in it.” Hence, in response to the question “Is ‘our God’ listening?” the inclusive group would say that surely our
God listens to prayers from all communities of different faiths, however, it is “Our God” that listens, and not “your God” or “their God”.
Meanwhile the pluralist group would opine that “truth does not belong to a certain community or tradition. Thus, differences in community,
tradition, understanding of truth and of God are not problems that need to be resolved, but are in fact opportunities for us all to conduct mutual
dialog.” Hence in response to the question “Is ‘our God’ listening?” the pluralist group would state that there is no God that could be claimed as
“Our God” because we could not limit God to the God that we know. God does not belong to us, it is rather a way to discuss reality.
As a lecturer in the Interreligious Dialog course, I am often asked by students “Which category are you in?” when introducing the three
paradigms above. The students often question about pluralist attitude, or even the definition of pluralism. It is indeed undeniable that the MUI
Fatwa on “Pluralism, Liberalism, and Secularism of Religion” Gillespie, 2007:202-240 year 2005 had a role in advancing several
students’ reluctance to have a pluralist attitude, or to empathize other people’s decision to be pluralists, although the definition specified in the
fatwa is not grounded on academic debate. Once again, I feel that the definition of religious pluralism and pluralist attitude in conducting
religion proposed by Diana Eck has proven to be of sufficient in helping students understand:
As scholars, we are suspicious of universalizing harmonies and of the rush to find common ground and agreement. Perhaps this
is the place to make clear, at the outset that religious pluralism is not primarily about common ground. Pluralism takes the reality
of difference as its starting point. The challenge of pluralism is not to obliterate or erase difference, nor to smooth out
differences under a universalizing canopy, but rather to discover ways of living, connecting, relating, arguing, and disagreeing in
a society of differences Eck, 2007: 743. Then, does this mean that lecturers should “lead” all students to have
a pluralist attitude? I think if we agree on the definition proposed by Eck that a pluralist approach is in fact initiated by the courage to respect
differences and promote dialog, then pluralist attitude in conducting religion is the attitude which needs to be promoted. However, one thing
that we should be concerned about is the possibility of making religious pluralism an absolute condition and negating other point of views,
because we will instead be confined in a form of religious exclusivism.
The discussion on the three paradigms above can be completed with discussions on “Rules for Interreligious Dialogue” Panikkar, 2003.
Although the rules were made in the context of interreligious dialog, several among them can be adopted in the context of higher education in
Indonesia. One of the rules that in my opinion could be very useful in creating interaction among students of various religious backgrounds is
what Leonard Swidler proposed: “Each participant must come to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. Conversely each
participant must assume a similar complete honesty and sincerity in the other partners”. In discussions with my students in class, we realize that
this is not easy to do. Each of us grew up with various prejudices and stereotypes on groups of certain religion, culture, and ethnicity. That is
why honesty and sincerity are the key words. Another rule proposed by Leonard Swidler is: “In interreligious,
interideological dialogue we must not compare our ideals with our partner’s practice, but rather our ideals with our partner’s ideals, our
practice with our partner’s practice” Swidler, 2003. Often times we are unconsciously comparing teachings of our religion to religious practices
conducted by our friends of different religions. This could be a thorn in social interaction among higher education students. Both rules above,
for instance, could be a part of our learning contract with the students so that there is an atmosphere of mutual respect in the learning and
teaching process.
11.3 Lecturer and Student Aspect
What about the roles of lecturers and students in developing ethics of interaction among academic members of different religions? My
experiences teaching students of different religious background, either in Indonesia or abroad, show that we need to consider not only
perspectives, teaching materials, teaching methods, and assignments that
we give to students, but also preparation in facing various critical questions regarding doctrines of one religion, including our own.
The opportunity to teach Interreligious Dialog course at CRCS Gadjah Mada University since 2005 provided numerous valuable
experiences in connection to ethics of interreligious interaction. Every batch, students of CRCS comes from various religious and cultural
backgrounds, although almost always filled with Muslim majority. As a lecturer I also have the chance to engage in team teaching with other
lecturers of different religion. When I taught with Professor Bana Wiratma from Duta Wacana Christian University, we made a course
description as follows: This course is an introduction to dialogue and an attempt to
conduct a constructive dialogue. It will not only discuss theological issues related to dialogue but will also critically
analyse realities related to dialogue, including conversion and proselytization. Even though some aspects of inter-religious
dialogue in Indonesia will be explored, some cases of inter- religious dialogue at the international level will also be
discussed. The course will be based on dialogue of life as experienced by
the participants. The whole process of the course will be shaped in dialogue. The participants will converse with other
participants and with people of other faiths through written materials. The participants will also dialogue with hisher own
faith traditions. The description above explains a number of important points
regarding ethics in interaction between lecturers and students, and among fellow students. As lecturers, we must firstly respect the variety
of differences in the students’ religion and beliefs. We turn the class into a place to practice dialog among students of various religious and
cultural backgrounds, and as a place for each student to conduct dialog
with their respective faith. In practice, our classes are definitely always interesting with various critical questions and contribution of ideas from
both Indonesian and foreign students. The organization of teaching materials also has an important
standing since it needs to be designed with considerations to the developing theories or paradigms in interreligious dialog studies. We are
fully aware that the course we offer must be taught academically, so that although it includes broad perspectives from various religions, we do not
lead students to choose one particular perspective. These perspectives of various religions are presented to provide better opportunity for students
to conduct dialog not only with fellow students of differing religious background, but also with writers of various books and articles who
come from different religions and cultures See Durham Jr., 2008:229- 239.
In the Interreligious Dialogue course we supervise at CRCS, aside from the task of reviewing the teaching materials we distribute, we also
request students to make a mini project which we describe as follows: From the beginning of the course, each student has to initiate a
mini project on interreligious dialogue as a group assignment. This mini project aims at giving the opportunity to the students to
understand the complexity of the issue of interreligious dialogue at the grass root level. This will also help the students to conduct
empirical research so that it will not produce moralistic discourse. This project is to be presented as a group report.
However each student has to submit an individual report which later to be developed and submitted as a final paper.
The object of the mini project on inter-religious dialogue could be: daily life experiences, institutions, symbols, or religious
teachings as observed within the community. It is important to explore interreligious dialogue which is deeply rooted at grass-
root experiences. What is specific about Indonesian experience
Kategori