Hongsok Lee

The Wednesday forum, held on February 28, 2024, at the Graduate School Building of Universitas Gadjah Mada, was an interesting presentation entitled “The Joke is on Me (God).” The speaker, Prof. Robert Setio, is the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Universitas Kristen Duta Wacana and a faculty member of the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies.

The presentation began by listening to the song “I started a Joke” by the Bee Gees together and discussing the meaning of the lyrics. The presenter went on to quote Søren Kierkegaard on irony: “Irony limits, finitizes, and circumscribes and thereby yields truth, actuality, and content; it disciplines and punishes and thereby yields balance and consistency.” Through his examination of the role that humor about God can play in uncovering the irony of religion and the meaning of humanity, he argues that humor about God can be a good tool for understanding the complexity and diversity of religion and humanity.

Humor can be a great tool to help us see another side of a story that we may have missed because we were only seeing one side. Using the crucifixion of Christ as an example, the presenter emphasized that although people tend to focus more on the value of suffering and take it more seriously, it is important to remember that the joy behind suffering is equally valuable.

Throughout his presentation, he shared several examples of religion-related or religious humor. These examples made the audience laugh while clearly demonstrating the similarities and differences between different religious traditions. Here are two examples of humor from the presentation, which clearly show the similarities and differences between different religious traditions in a way that is profound but not serious and boring.

A Christian asked a Zen Buddhist, “What is the essence of your teaching?” The Zen Buddhist replied, “What is the essence of your teaching?” The Christian said, “To love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.” The Zen Buddhist nodded and said, “We also have that teaching, only we add: No one and nothing is your neighbor.”

As Professor Robert intended, the humor in the Zen Buddhist monk’s short answer clearly illustrates the similarities and differences between religions. The essential Christian teaching of love of God and love of neighbor, or the Golden Rule, can be found in many other religious traditions. The differences found among religions are in the ways in which they practice them. The audience may have laughed at the Zen Buddhist monk’s answer for a moment, but then thought more deeply about the religious meaning behind it—that’s how humor can help us discover deeper meaning in religion.

Here is another story.

I went to an inter-religion integration seminar.

The Bishop came, laid his hands on my hand and said, “By the will of Jesus Chrst, you will walk today!” I smiled and told him I was not paralyzed.

The Rabbi came, laid his hand on my hand and said, “By the will of God Almighty, you will walk today!” Less amused, I told him there was nothing wrong with me”

The Mullah came, took my hands and said, “Insha Allah, you will walk today!” I snapped at him, “There’s nothing wrong with me”

The Hindu sadhu came and said, “Beta, you will walk on your legs today!” I said, “Babaji – nothing wrong with my legs”

The Buddhist Monk came, held my hands and said, “By the will of The Great Buddha, you will walk today!” I rudely told him there is nothing wrong with me.

After the Seminar, I stepped outside and found my bicycle had been stolen.

The story features leaders from different religious traditions. As the protagonist meets and talks with the leaders of each religious tradition, he encounters a rather unusual situation: each of them uses the terminology of their respective religious tradition, but in the end, they all testify to the same thing: the protagonist’s bike has been stolen and he has to walk. Sometimes, the similarities between different religious traditions can be uncomfortable for some people, and they may not want to talk about them. However, humor has the power to make the atmosphere much lighter, allowing the audience to see the other side of the coin.

Given his position as an academic who teaches theology and religious studies in a country where religion holds an important place, the topic of the day may seem a bit risky. The atmosphere of the lecture, which was attended by scholars and students from various religious traditions, was light and full of laughter. This was perhaps a practical demonstration of the role of humor in interfaith relations that the presenter was trying to show.

Rezza Prasetyo Setiawan
Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Religions co-constitute parts of the Earth’s history and they continue to influence the current state of the world. Religions exist not only in thoughts or words, but also in actions, all of which reverberate far beyond human perception and understanding. Therefore, the significant role of religions in co-constituting reality should not be limited only as a means to explain the current state of marginalization and oppression but also as a force of change against injustice. This article will reframe the Marxist understanding of interreligious engagement that is based upon a conventional materialism within the neo-materialist paradigm to expand the understanding of interreligious engagement as entanglements of material-discursive struggle against capitalist homogenization.

Religions within Capitalism and Marxism

Here, the plural term “religions” is intended to highlight that homogenization is one of the challenges that capitalism brings to the originally-diverse Earth. King has explored how religions in India were put inside a homogenized label of “Hindu” which reflects the paradigms not of the colonized but of the colonizers. Recently, Northcott has also shown how the religiously-entangled agricultural practices in Bali were ignored in favor of the modern industrial mode of agriculture. Homogenization is simultaneously the mode and the result of modern capitalist oppression. Therefore, promoting diversity is both the weapon and the objective in the struggle against capitalist homogenization.

Against capitalism, Marxism prevails as the most prominent ideological contender. However, Marxist philosophies have been notoriously known for their pessimism toward religions. Through this perspective, religions should be abolished as they are mere myths that cloud the eyes of the proletariat from the reality of class struggle.

Bakunin poetically wrote in his book, “the ideal … is but a flower, whose root lies in the material condition of existence”. Marx also framed religions through this materialist lens. The diverse religions take root and bloom upon the bloodied soil of economic oppression. They are not only insignificant for the class struggle against capitalism, they are also seen as parts of the enemy. As a result, religious diversity and interreligious engagement garner less attention and occupy a lesser level of significance. Religious diversity is viewed largely as the side-effects of different socio-economic material conditions. Religious diversity and interreligious engagement are only the collision of different worldviews without any real implication. Religions are only ideational, so interreligious engagements are also ideational.

However, materialism itself has been lacking in its capability to tackle the growing intersectional issues of economy, social, politics, and environment. The accelerating development of technology that sprung from sciences based on materialist paradigms could not seem to cure these problems. Ironically, they seem to have accelerated the environmental destruction instead. That is because materiality is only one aspect of the problem.

Neo-Materialist Reading of Religious Diversity

Anthropocentrism in conventional materialism is one of the main causes of socio-ecological degradation. Conventional materialism treats matter as inert and passive objects, ignoring their active agency in co-producing reality. As Merchant highlights in her book, The Death of Nature, this paradigm frames matter, including the Earth, as passive objects incapable of their own agency. As a dead object to use and as wilderness to conquer, it is up to humans what to do with Earth’s mineral deposits, forests, oceans, and other ecosystems because the Earth is in chaos and rational humans are here to sort this problem. Exploitation emerges from the false assumption that matter is without agency.

Neo-materialism assumes that matter and meaning are inseparable. Barad has argued in their book that matter does not precede meaning and vice versa, because matter and meaning are in co-constitutive entanglements. It means each entity only exists in relation with other entities, and therefore meaning is produced through these relationships. There is no separation between the material and the ideal, nature and culture, etc. These separations are exploitative and are further manifested through the primacy of language (discourse) and words over matter in the representationalist philosophical traditions. Instead, Barad argues that both the material and the discursive aspects of phenomena perceived by humans are actually a single manifestation of a reality constituted through the entanglement of various and countless agential matters.

Applied to religions, this means that religions should not—and cannot—be treated by separating its material and discursive aspects. Barad coined the neologism “material-discursive” to emphasize this inseparability between matter and meaning, between the material and the discursive aspects. Hence, the social, politics, and religions are actually both the flower and the soil in Bakunin’s metaphor, because both are inseparable and one does not precede the other. There is neither primacy of the material over the discourse as in the conventional materialist traditions, nor primacy of the discourse over the material as in the structuralist and representationalist traditions.

Therefore, the Marxist view of religions as a hegemonic tool that promotes injustice is not shared by the neo-materialist paradigm. A religion is a particular way of existing that results from the entanglement of material-discursive entities. Here, religion is a certain way of co-constituting material reality.

If a religion is material-discursive, then religious diversity is the diversity of many material-discursive realities. Here, interreligious engagements can be understood more clearly as the meeting of the various co-constitutions of realities. Interreligious engagements demonstrate the entanglements among people from different material-discursive, collaborative constitution of realities. The plurality of worlds that meet through interreligious engagements critically responds to the problem of homogenization brought by capitalism.

Interreligious entanglement as a struggle against capitalism

By understanding religions as the various ways of co-constituting realities, the hegemonic pattern of religions that functions in favor of oppression can be viewed critically as a force of silencing the agencies of other entities and their specific material-discursive traditions. Capitalism works by marginalizing, silencing and denying the agency of entities. The Earth is framed as a dead rock, ready to be used and exploited; non-capitalist traditions are viewed as primitive and backward, needing modern capitalist developments; the diverse religious traditions are bagged under overgeneralizing labels and names. Therefore, embracing and promoting diversity is the preferable way of fighting the homogenizing force of capitalism.

Religions do not act as an opiate that diverts the struggle against oppression and exploitation. Interreligious entanglements are ways to emphasize the significance of religious diversity and collaboration among those various material-discursive worlds. Through the awareness of interreligious material-discursive entanglements, the struggle against capitalist homogenization and silencing of agencies becomes a collaborative struggle because the existence of one community is always entangled with other communities.

To summarize, a neo-materialist reinterpretation shifts the Marxist understanding of interreligious engagements from a mere engagement of worldviews without any material significance against capitalist injustice to material-discursive entanglements of various worlds that collaborate as a struggle against the hegemonic and oppressive homogenization and silencing of agencies under capitalism.

Athanasia Safitri

Religion and Global Society in collaboration with the London School of Economic and Political Sciences (LSE) and the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS), held a workshop event entitled “Agama Menghadapi Perubahan Lingkungan” (Religion Dealing with Climate Change). It was supported by the British Embassy in Jakarta and held in Solo on March 18, 2024. Twenty-two participants come either from religious communities or environment-based organizations in the Yogyakarta and Surakarta regions.

The workshop aims to bring together religious leaders and environmental practitioners to explore the contribution of religion in mitigation and adaptation to the impacts of climate change in Indonesia. It also seeks to learn from the participants through discussions to communicate recent environmental issues, especially from various cases that occurred in the mentioned areas. This feedback will later be used both within and between religious communities to tackle environmental problems developing in Indonesia with related actors at the national and international levels.

Dr. Chris Chaplin and Kristian Noll from LSE shared their insights based on the experiences they had from the previous workshop in Rome a week before. The same activity was also held in Jakarta and Cairo last year but with a slightly different approach. They looked forward to collaborating on issues related to religion and the environment at the grass-roots level to affect environmental policy. By involving religious leaders, LSE designates new methods to confront environmental issues with the participation of the British Embassy in giving feedback for future programs initiated by the UK and Indonesian governments on environmental issues, both bilaterally and internationally.

The workshop was divided into three sessions where discussion took place on concerns about: 1). society living in vulnerability due to climate change and other environmental problems; 2). exploration of religious teachings to remind people to care for nature and the environment; and 3). highlighting concrete actions people can take to deal with environmental issues. The participants gathered in four groups, and the sharing of experiences and ideas was led by moderators; Dr. Samsul Maarif, Dicky Sofjan, MPP., M.A., Ph.D., Dr. Leonard Chrysostomos Epafras, and Dr. Dewi Candraningrum. The discussion of each session was concluded by the group presentation to ensure all participants learned from one another.

Living in vulnerability

The first session provided an understanding of natural disasters and how people realize their vulnerability by doing self-exercise, reflecting on religious texts and teachings, and then preparing for disasters. People’s ignorance of disasters and the dangers of climate change may be rooted in the global narrative, which focuses on the colonial approach. The literacy distracts attention from the fact that the issues may be prevented by technology. However, there have been findings that show climate change is not only caused by physical matter or biophysics but mostly by sociocultural and religious backgrounds. LSE research learns that motivation to react to climate change is not only based on physical science but can also be influenced by the afterlife reward people are drawn into.

Examples from Christian and Islamic teachings display the reflection that even through disasters and other trials of life, God gives us purpose and will be with us until the end of the day. Another text shows that people need to consider themselves as Musafir, a stranger on Earth who always does well while he is still on Earth. People tend not to be bothered if they’re not affected directly by climate change and other environmental problems. Religious teachings put people back to awareness at the grassroots level, from individual to family and later to society.

More teachings, both from world and indigenous religions, extend from people’s duty to maintain nature, such as water ecosystems, fruits, and plantations, up to religious traditions for the sake of body, mind, and earth purification. Different practices include self-acceptance that disaster is a sign for nature to regenerate, recognition of the process, and concrete ways of conducting Laudato Si (Pope Francis’ call to care for the environment) and Hasta Laku (eight attitudes in the local cultural values of Kejawen).

Mostly in all religions, there are commonalities with other human beings and always have respect for nature. Many cultural traditions also apply to the religious teachings, and the familiarization can be conducted in religious groups, societal groups, and above. Education and training therefore must be included in the system of perseverance of nature in all religious groups, even in the regular sermons, to ensure nature is maintained and remains everlasting for future generations.

Why do we care?

Participants were invited to determine particular religious teachings that encourage relations between human beings and nature, especially in terms of concerns for environmental change. Through the discussion, participants learned that the Confucians believe in the existence of the holy path—of God, humans, and nature—and that disaster may occur when the path is violated. In addition to that, one who wants to go ahead in nature also needs to think about others; he or she should not think only about themselves. The Buddhists take an example from the bees, which never damage the flowers, and that all beings must persevere with nature, whereas the Hindus understand that to reach happiness in life, one must have harmony with the Creator, with human beings, and with nature. The Christians later state that the story of God’s creation in Genesis always reminds them to balance the use and preservation of nature for today and the next generation.

From the perspective of indigenous religion, participants also shared that people need to remember their roots and where they head at the end of life; therefore, karma must be acknowledged and nature must be treated right. Traditional farmers also believe that people need to protect Mother Earth, so they should only eat what they plant and plant only what they eat to preserve the land. Other concerns raised are the mutual relation and dependency between nature and human beings, and nature should be under care since all beings have the same level. All members of society must participate in taking care of the earth, and it can be applied as an everyday tradition.

From the group presentations, it is understood that various religious teachings encourage active participation from religious people in caring for the environment. The stewardship concept of religious people toward nature, cleanliness of the surroundings, and ethics in religion play a significant role in taking care of nature. The awareness needs to be supported with sustainable projects at the local and national level, as well as in religious groups, in society, and between the state and community.

Concrete strategies to implement

Each group presented concrete strategies that were already implemented in their organizations. They cover actions that are conducted in three different spaces: within the religious community, at the national level, and in collaboration with the state.

In the religious community, strategy includes the ceremony of releasing pigeons, Quran reading, organic packaging that is made from natural and plant-based materials, the minimum use of plastic, local traditional ceremonies based on particular religious teaching, formation programs about the environment within the group or in praying houses, Green Ramadan, clean river program, and a culinary festival.

At the national level, there is a dance or cultural festival, an event of distributing fertilizer to the farmers, eco-enzyme training, youth live-in, especially in the area affected by industrial pollution or climate change, a social media campaign, a green campaign in the praying houses and education institutions, a program of green building, trading garbage with clothes in certain areas, raising donations, skill training for the community living in the waste dump area, a waste management familiarization program, and a religion forum of the G20.

In collaboration with the state: initiating the program of lorong sayur (vegetable gardening in the neighborhood), collaborating with Bank Sampah (a community-based organization to manage waste and garbage) with the Ministry of Trade, having discussions with other related state departments, having audiences with state representatives, giving away plant seeds, the familiarization of tanam pola asuh (plantation of vegetables with women group in the area as the caregivers), advocacy and land conservation (hutan wakaf), a consortium about the environment, and conducting policy briefing to recommend the G20.

These concrete actions will and should be discussed at an international level so everyone can learn from each other. Local context in the areas of Yogyakarta and Surakarta will bring richness to the programming process to involve religious groups in caring for nature and the environment. It is evidence that there is an urgency to reach out to the community at the grass-roots level to take practical and concrete action. People need to work more on collaborations with related parties based either on religion or environmental views.

Issues about the environment from a religious perspective are indeed eye-opening; therefore, more discussion touching on these two aspects need to be encouraged. Where strategy brought up in this event is more in practice already, ideas to create new initiatives must be stimulated through intense workshops participated by young people and the government. The most common problem with workshops is that there are not enough follow-up projects afterward to act on the issues listed. Hopefully, involvement from many parties can emanate concrete actions based on the feedback strategies discussed during the workshop, seen from a religious perspective.

m rizal abdi

Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies

The end of March 2024 becomes an important week for religious communities in Indonesia. During the week, we experience several holy days in sequence: Nuzulul Qur’an Day for Muslims and three holy days (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday) for Christians. The unique event is not merely a coincidence due to the rare meeting of two calendar modes that will not happen for many years to come. For Muslims and Christians in Indonesia, this is a momentous opportunity to deepen interfaith understanding and re-learn from one another.

It goes without saying that this type of “dual commemoration” is not new. In 2015, we also experienced Christmas and Mawlid celebrations that came together. However, this year is more challenging. Although there are annual polemics among the general public about whether Muslims may wish Christians a “Merry Christmas”, Muslims generally welcome the Christmas celebrations. In fact, several commentators, including Quraish Shihab, underlined that the Qur’an also recorded the greetings of the birth of Jesus. Saying “Merry Christmas” can be compared to congratulating the birth of Prophet Isa in Islamic tradition. However, Easter is a different case.

Crucifixion at the Crossroads

One of the crucial points that separates Christian and Islamic beliefs is the recognition of Jesus’ status—whether he is the son of God or simply an apostle (rasul) who brought a teaching (risalah). In the Christian tradition, without ignoring other narratives of Easter as a pass-over, the Easter holiday is closely related to the event of the crucifixion. At this point, Christian and Islamic traditions interpret the crucifixion in different ways. The majority of Islamic traditions believe that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but rather someone else on whom God has bestowed the likeness of Jesus. This view refers to Q.S. An Nisa: 157–8, which states, “They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, rather, it only appeared so to them.” Meanwhile, almost all Christian traditions state that it was Jesus himself who was crucified.

Out of the numerous references to Jesus found in the Qur’an, only one verse—An-Nisa 157—discusses his crucifixion. However, the existence of this only verse has been a central topic of relations between Muslims and Christians for centuries. The differences in the figures who were crucified were not just differences in identity, such as in the case of Isaac and Ishmael during the sacrifice of Abraham’s son. These differences have deep theological consequences. For Christians, the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the core events in Christian salvation history. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a redemption for human sins as well as a medium to restore a good relationship with God. Several other Christian traditions interpret Jesus’ sacrifice as God’s act to “understand” our suffering, a solidarity action (Gorringe, 2004: 373). In other words, Jesus plays an important role in God’s involvement throughout history in the world.

In contrast, Islamic tradition holds that the events of the night before the crucifixion demonstrate God’s might in saving his beloved prophet while at the same time refuting the hubris of the Jews, who believed they were capable of killing their prophet. Most Islamic traditions hold that Jesus was saved by ascending to His side rather than being executed. He will come back on Judgement Day and show the truth. Thus, the absence of Jesus’ crucifixion becomes an important and distinguishing narrative. In other words, Isa or Jesus is a great prophet born of the virgin Mary, not God or the son of God—because God, unlike humankind or any other creature, neither begets nor is begotten. Therefore, there is a barrier for Muslims to accept the series of Easter events, from the crucifixion to the resurrection of Jesus three days later. However, this does not mean that the door of dialogue is closed.

Qur’an and Jesus as the Word of God

Many people draw parallels between the Qur’an and the Christian Bible due to their status as sacred texts. As a result, these two are often compared, both dialogically and confrontationally. However, this comparison is not fully accurate. Based on each tradition, the Qur’an is the word of God revealed to Muhammad, while the Christian Bible comprises the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. In other words, the Bible is a collection of words about God, not a collection of God’s words to us. In line with Sayyid Hussein Nasr’s opinion, what is more appropriate to correspond to the Qur’an is Jesus himself, not the Christian Bible.

Whereas the Qur’an is considered the word of God in Islam, the Body of Christ is regarded as the word of God in Christianity. The existence of Jesus as the word of God is laid out in the familiar opening words of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It is made clearer in verse 14: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” This verse can be interpreted simply textual as God speaking to his creatures through Jesus. Some others interpret the verse by elaborating on the term “Logos”, Greek’s vocabulary for “word”. In Greek philosophy, logos refers to the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. Therefore, Jesus became a bodily embodiment of God, just as a spoken word is a physical manifestation of our inner thoughts.

A similar view is also seen in Q.S. Ali Imran 3:34 and Q.S. 4:171. These two verses state the existence of Jesus as kalimatim min Allah (a word from God) or kalimatuhu (His word). As shown by Muhammad Legenhausen, although the Qur’an did not use the specific phrase word of God (al-kalimah Allah), we can reasonably argue that God refers to Jesus as the Word of God in the Qur’an. This is because, among all human beings, the expressions mentioned above are used exclusively for Jesus.

In the same parallel, Muhammad’s existence is more accurately correlated with Maryam. The Prophet Muhammad was the medium for the presence of the Qur’an, just as Maryam was also the medium for the presence of Christ. It is perceived in Islam that the Prophet Muhammad had to be illiterate (ummy) to eliminate the impression of the Koran as His word. Correspondingly, virgin Maryam is a perfect vessel to purify Christ as His word. If the “word” is in the form of something verbal, then its purity is symbolized by the illiteracy of Muhammad. Should the “word” take the form of a man (Christ), his purity is symbolized by Mary’s virginity. When Muhammad was such a proficient reader and writer, it cast doubt on the Qur’an’s authorship. At the same time, when Mary is not a virgin, it can invalidate Christ’s purity as His Word.

The existence of the Qur’an and Jesus as the Word of God is a symbol that God never abandons us while living in this wonky world. God’s love is always present in human history and accompanies us in various forms and ways—whether in the form of merits or miracles, body or book.

Yet, having this common ground does not wash away the differences—in my opinion, such a practice would be devaluing of each believer. This article is an attempt to listen carefully and learn from each other. Finding common ground also means humbly realizing that even though we share the same cornerstone, we are standing at different points. If there are Muslims who sincerely wish Christians a happy Easter, that is something we need to respect. Likewise, when there are Muslims who do not want to say happy Easter because of their faith, it doesn’t mean they are intolerant or less inclusive. Both of God’s words teach us to be respectful, even when we do not agree.

Athanasia Safitri

The latest edition of Wednesday Forum discussed Kejawen on 20 March 2024 by Dylan Renca, a doctoral candidate and teaching fellow in cultural anthropology at Boston University, USA. His research focuses on Javanist voices of ethical selfhood, belonging, and multicultural recognition. His ethnographic fieldwork is taking place in the Banyumas-Cilacap region of Central Java. He argues that most Javanists (later to be called Kejawen) today position themselves along a spectrum between Indigeneity and Islam, with diverse practices of ethical self-formation. He seeks more evidence that some Kejawen orient themselves and their practices around Islamic precepts and ways of being, while others articulate indigenous positions based on non-Islamic ontologies.

Renca’s interpretations of Kejawen are diverse, since they came from many scholars’ perspectives. Some describe Kejawen as Muslims, some think of them as members of a new religious movement which is strongly influenced by Sufi teachings, while others consider Kejawen as indigenous persons. The identity of the Kejawen seems difficult to attain, since there are complex and unclear definitions of the term. Therefore, he wants to understand better how Kejawen describe themselves and whether the self identification of being a Muslim or Indigenous person resonates and the reasoning behind this. Many parts of Java have large Kejawen communities but the statistics state that Cilacap has the most Kejawen practitioners in Central Java. The research tries to find the many different ways Kejawen describe themselves and learn the religious practices.

The positionings and practices

From respondents with different ages, genders, and marital status, Renca learned that Kejawen describe themselves as people who live out the old traditions they received either from ancestors or previous Kejawen practitioners. They have deep interpretations in Javanese concepts as ethical people who care for oneself, for other humans, and for other visible beings and God. They continuously articulate their positionings and seek spaces for recognition of their own identity. Some may explain that they are not Muslims, and at the same time debate privately whether they are part of an indigenous community.

Many Kejawen practise Islamic teachings to be accepted as Muslims since the stigma of being a part of the forbidden communist movement of 1965. Others may practice Sufism, engage in membership within Nahdlatul Ulama, and/or affiliate administratively with a religion in order to avoid marginalisation due to the religion column in the ID card, otherwise they might be perceived as animist. Their self formation involves the practice of caring for themselves and others, by returning to the roots, cultivation of Kejawen concepts, seeking union with God, and showing respect toward other humans, honouring the ancestors’ spirit, and holding communal feasts. Therefore, their identity is floating in the spectrum between indigenous and Muslim positionings with no universal Kejawen self but shaped by the variety of practices.

Leap beyond the spectrum of Kejawen

The discussion after the presentation brought up several ideas related to Kejawen. One commenter asked if the definition of indigenous in the perception of Kejawen can be compared to the one explained about indigenous people in the Documents of Human Rights. Another person concerned about the development in the history of Kejawen said that there has been more acceptance of the existence of Kejawen from society these days. Interreligious dialogue was also mentioned since it might be interesting to learn about the relation between each Kejawen organisation, whether they have the same sense of positioning among themselves toward the other religious groups, and if they update one another on particular topics to complement each other.

As fascinating as it is to study Kejawen in the relation of the positionings and practices with ethical self formation, Renca’s research has contributed to mapping the identity and self-formation of Kejawen especially in the area of Banyumas-Cilacap. The result may not only provide a description of Kejawen’s spectrum from Indigeneity to Islam but may also set out an overview toward the changes and challenges of indigenous religions in cultivating their spiritual embodiment accordingly.

Athanasia Safitri

The first Wednesday Forum in March was carried out by an alumna from The Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies (CRCS) UGM on March 6. Leyla Adrianti Hermina talked about how youth may use religion as a coping mechanism and presented the results of her thesis research. She opened with the question “Do Youth Turn to Religion As a Coping Mechanism?”  as she wanted the audience to start their self-examination as to whether religion could be a solution amidst many problems youth are facing. She started by stating that according to Varkey Foundation (2017), Indonesian teenagers are ranked as the happiest as a result of their strong religiosity in 20 countries.

However, a recent report concluded that one in three Indonesian teenagers, which is 34.9 % of the youth population in Indonesia, has mental health issues (I-NAHMHS report, 2023). She continued by speaking about six student suicide cases in Yogyakarta in 2023 and how it challenged her to research whether religion could prevent mental health issues and suicidal thoughts among youth. She was eager to understand that religious activities the youth tend to engage in to distract them from mental health problems. She also looked for other things that help youth in the age range of 19-26 years old in coping with traumatic events in their life.

Youth mental health issues

Hermina argued that a developed sense of spirituality can act as a significant shield in protecting from mental health issues. According to research findings, youth face mental health problems due to grief and loss of someone dear in their life, financial issues, and academic struggles. These came from several respondents dealing with family issues, lack of communication with friends or relatives, economic challenges, and unreachable support systems. Most respondents coped with their problems by being more active in religious activities including prayer, spending time with friends, doing exercises both physically and mentally, as well a going to therapy.

Another finding suggested that some youth may not have a particular religious affiliation, but they work on their spiritual well-being to be able to deal with their mental problems. However, the important key in Hermina’s research was that all respondents found that the best support system, mainly from friends, has a significant role in helping them during difficult times, instead of their religious habits or traditions. She concluded that the urgency of having support systems is vital for young people. The activities cover sharing sessions, counseling, problem identification, and support groups so the youths may feel that they have support.

Accompaniment as a tool of support system

The audience during the discussion shared their experiences, ideas, and questions in response to the findings. One expressed concern about what kind of coping mechanism structure helps the most in academic struggles, and one person asked about the major cause of mental health problems so people can seek prevention. Another person examined the tendency of having mental health issues as a “Fear of Missing Out” trend in social media accounts, up to the awareness of public understanding where mental health problems are mostly seen as urban issues that need modern approaches. The glorification of certain coping mechanisms may be beneficial to specific groups while other methods may work best for other groups. It is not merely the active practice of religion but more in the level of mature spiritual well-being of a person, along with a good support system.

As Hermina herself stated, further research is needed to better understand the relation of religion to youth challenges and mental health problems. People today must look at collective accompaniment as a tool for coping. As religious teachings might be an issue for a neutral approach to life difficulties, personal spiritual growth will definitely be different from one person to the other, let alone one’s act on a particular topic. A more universal method must be initiated in many groups and levels of society, either in the family, educational institutions, workplaces, the neighbourhood, and religious communities. Support systems in the form of total accompaniment will only function best to beat mental health issues if it is done accordingly customised for the needy, regardless of spiritual, religious, economic, or sociocultural traditions.

 

Athanasia Safitri

The Wednesday Forum discussion series came back for its first session in 2024 on February 21 with Prof. Dr. Martin Rötting giving a talk on his research about spirituality in plural societies. Rötting is an Associate Professor and head of the Religious Studies program at the Centre for Intercultural Theology and Study of Religions at Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, Austria. His empirical study seeks to answer the question of how spiritual identity may develop in the personal journey and interreligious world. The research explores the changes of individuals and religious organisations through field research in Munich, Seoul, Vilnius, and New York.

Religion and spirituality may seem to be very clear for some people, yet can be complicated to the rest.According to Rötting, religions have made efforts to advertise themselves to convince people that they are everlasting. However, since humans have failures, religion and spirituality develop areas of crisis and dynamic transformation in plural societies. The process toward interfaith relations results in the creation of a puzzle of hope where every individual may wish for different elements and embrace the plurality.

Navigating our spiritual map

Through studies taking place in many parts of the world, Rötting presented that popular religion developed rapidly and it shifted the perspective of religion and spirituality. People can attend religious events without any spiritual intention nor religious purpose. Society may even view religions merely as actors in a theatre whose importance faded as the spotlight dimmed. People may call themselves spiritual but surely do not want to be associated with religions. Furthermore, new forms of religious groups, ideas, and practices of beliefs and spiritualities, including abuse and misconduct, also foster processes of transformation of established religious organisations.

Rötting underlined one of his findings that spiritual identity needs to be viewed as life-path navigation. When a spiritual map is divided into layers based on each spiritual growth or phase, he stated that there are three layers of colour (see video recording on the CRCS UGM YouTube, timestamped here). While blue represents our original map which marks the early stage of our spiritual identity, the next one is yellow that directs or changes our navigation as a result of either progress or decline. The updated and the last one is coded as green where our origin and growth blend together, or are completely changed as some may end up with a spiritual conversion. This navigation plays a pivotal role in determining the range of our spiritual identity.

Our future religion

Another point presented by Rötting was spiritual anamorphose where the perspective of life is seen in one picture, all the same for everyone. It makes people look at things related with spirituality exactly the way they see it in a special manner. Moreover, viewing from different angles prevents them from having a clear understanding about particular aspects in religion or beliefs. Spiritual journey from the concept of anamorphose could create a religion which keeps religious people in a certain track yet a different phase of religious maturity can hinder the community from growing collectively. It may work for spirituality or organised religion which includes stable formation on religious teachings, and accompaniment among the practitioners.

Future religion was predicted by Rötting to be a network of spirituality bubbles. As  bubbles symbolise the brief nature of life and the necessity of living in the present moment, he implied that people should learn to appreciate each moment while conducting their religious tradition. It prompts the practice of inter-religiosity since people must live side by side inevitably with each of their very own spiritual journeys. Furthermore, Rötting highlighted that nowadays people become comfortable in searching for space among other religions without having the urgency of converting. The concept of ‘dual-religion’ enables them to be open to interfaith dialogue and prayer for peace in different houses of prayer.

The presentation concluded with the understanding that interfaith relations may be a process to unite people. One religion in a plural society can cause irritation but multiple religious identities may come as a challenge as well. Interfaith and inter-religiosity can only occur when each religious community willingly shares a particular value in their teachings and reciprocates the knowledge from other religious groups. In other words, each will see closely upon sharing and reflect in their own tradition when given similar value to that of other traditions. The appearing green map, complementing one another will be more intercultural, not only interfaith. At the end of the day, the big puzzle of hope will emanate and reshape the spiritual plurality.

Dicky Sofjan, Ph.D.

Core Doctoral Faculty, Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS), Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM)

Since its inception in 2006, ICRS has been generously supported by the Ford Foundation. That amounts to almost twenty years of collaboration from providing core support to funding projects on tolerance, pluralism, sustainability, urban resilience and now polarization. Currently, ICRS is managing a grant from the Ford Foundation entitled “The Impact of Religious Tolerance and Faith-based Polarization on the Promotion of Social and Environmental Justice in Indonesia” (2023-2025).

This is part of what it called the “Global Initiative on Polarization”, which is primarily managed by Ford Foundation and its main collaborator, the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT). IFIT is “an international non-governmental organization dedicated to helping fragile and conflict-affected states achieve more effective negotiations and transitions out of war, crisis or authoritarianism” (www.ifit-transisions.org). This initiative covers many countries and organizations around the globe that have been working on polarization, peacebuilding or conflict resolution.

On 7-9 February 2024, ICRS was invited to participate in the “Polarization Exploration Grantee Convening” in Cali, Colombia. One of the key objectives of the convening is to support organizations around the world “to design and implement programs that test strategic approaches to preventing and reducing polarization and its intersections with inequality, using learning-by-doing approach”.

The idea was to get the invited organizations to think together on how “the Solutions Spectrum”—a descriptive framework for solutions to polarization globally developed by the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), namely: dialogue and outreach, facts and narrative interventions, and structural reforms—can be useful as an analytical as well as a prescriptive tool.

Known as the birthplace for salsa dancing, Cali is a beautiful green city, which is located about an hour plane ride from Colombia’s capital city of Bogota. The lush green environment and clean river in the city provides a perfect getaway for the Ford partners to delve into the super complex and multidimensional problem that has beset many countries of the world.

Problematizing Polarization

It is said that polarization is a “hyper” or a “wicked problem” that requires multiple lenses and could potentially affect many domains and aspects of societal life. Yet, its definition is elusive. Both scholars and experts in the field have no agreement as to what exactly constitutes polarization, its boundaries, manifestations and implications to society. The whole group in Cali essentially agreed on a “bare minimum” agreement on the definition, which points to the clustering of groups in society.

Through various methods and techniques in the convening workshop, participants pro-actively engaged in an unconference, world café and fishbowl sessions, all designed to get the best of knowledge, insights and experiences from each and every participant, who came from different organizations, disciplines and contexts. Such an egalitarian practice may be quite common for international NGOs and CSOs alike, but academics tend to be stubborn at keeping the tradition of formal conferences, where senior scholars and experts are called in to present their views while others merely listen or pose questions to them. Thus, the Cali experience was enriching for both ICRS Core Doctoral Faculty Dr. Dicky Sofjan and Board of Trustees Member Dr. Agus Wahyudi, who represented ICRS.

Both Dr. Sofjan and Dr. Wahyudi shared the fact that Indonesia is a large country with 285 million strong population and is the largest archipelagic nation on earth with around 17,000 islands—stretched in three time zones. Of the 17,000 islands, 3000 of them are inhabited. Indonesia also has around more than 450 psycholinguistic and vernacular groups, each having their own customs and traditions. Although Indonesia is predominantly Muslim (87%), there are many other religions, including those that are served and not served by the central government. There is quite possibly also hundreds of indigenous beliefs stretching to all corners of the archipelago.

Indonesia is therefore inherently polarized. We have a mélange of races and ethnic groups, cultural practices, worldviews and political ideologies, which make the nation quite vulnerable to social disintegration and pernicious or toxic polarization. Fortunately, we have a number of unifying force that binds us together: 1) Bahasa Indonesia, which is taught in schools and tertiary education as our national language; 2) State ideology of Pancasila, which has played a strategic, moderating role for decades since its inception during the country’s independence in 1945; 3) historical seeds of tolerance, which has been transmitted through many generations.

Indonesians therefore like to see themselves as being a civilization that has been predisposed and deeply susceptible for more than a thousand years with influences from the Chinese, Arabo-Persian, Turkish, Indian, Austronesian-Melanesian, Malay and Western civilizations. Thus, diversity and pluralism are in our DNA. Even after centuries of brutal colonialism by European powers that be, Indonesia remains today quite an open and tolerant society with some flares of violence in different parts of the country during specific junctures of its modern nation-state history.

Today, Indonesia stands as the world’s largest Muslim populated country with the fourth largest population and the third largest democracy after India and the United States of America. Currently, we are number 16^th in terms of real GDP, and therefore we are part of the G20 powerful countries. Furthermore, based on many political-economic risk predictions, Indonesia will soon become the fourth, if not the fifth, largest economy in the world in terms of GDP.

Indonesia is also a capital city of social media with the top largest number of accounts in Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. It is estimated that while our population stands at 285 million, the number of active smartphones in use is more than 365 million. This means that many Indonesians carry more than one smartphone or gadget everywhere they go. For many countries, the wide and deep engagement in social media have become a grave concern, as they have contributed significantly to polarization.

In 1997/1998, Indonesia experienced reformasi, a mass movement to dethrone the military government of the autocratic Suharto, who had ruled the country for more than 32 years. With this reform movement comes democratization, media liberalization, decentralization and regional autonomy, and many things in between. The human rights law and ICCPR were ratified, free and fair elections have been held, thereby ensuring rotational government. But even so, almost every election cycle, a spike in toxic and pernicious polarization occurs.

Three Major Facets of Polarization in Indonesia

Having all the traits of a potentially disintegrative and polarized nation, it is quite surprising to see how Indonesia for almost 80 years has actually faired quite well in the world scale of polarization, and how it has survived the many challenges of decolonization process, ethno-religious violence, political-electoral conflict, socioeconomic protests, and others.

Despite the resilience of the nation, Indonesia remains vigilant and are still facing three major facets of polarization:

1. Religious-based Polarization

One tends to perceive that deep-seated religious conflicts are between and among religions based on the monopoly over absolute Truth. An extension to this problem has been clearly manifested in the struggle between the religion (agama) and the beliefs (kepercayaan), which for many decades have been secondary to religion. But we have also seen that religious-based polarization is internally located in each respective religion. Most religious conflicts are internal between the Catholics and Protestants, the Sunnis and Shi’as, the Buddhists and Taoists, the Hindus and their local variants. This is based on this idea of “dictatorship of authenticity”. Every religious person strives to achieve the authentic life and experience of religion. In Indonesia, religious polarization also occurs between the traditionalists (as represented by the Nahdlatul Ulama) and the modernists (as represented by the Muhammadiyah), although the latter has yet to turn to become pernicious.

2. Identity-based Polarization

Historically, Indonesia has been gripped by the polarization of many ideologies i.e. nationalist-secular, nationalist-religious, religious-traditional, religious-modern, liberal/progressive and other forms of persistent ideologies. This pattern of ideologies remains to be reflected in the Indonesian electoral politics. What is more, the reformasi had in fact brought about a “conservative turn”, which has spill-overed to manifest in many different forms of polarization, including in the electoral field. The case of the Jakarta Gubernatorial elections, involving the Chinese political incumbent Basuki Purnama Cahya (a.k.a. Ahok) provides a landmark case for such toxic polarization. The competition between the traditionalists and modernists with the Salafists/Wahhabists, as a representation of an ultra-conservative of affiliation wing of Islam. This category of polarization is also able to be mobilized using ethno-national sentiments to pit against the non-Javanese groups—as the predominantly Javanese ethnic group—and the ‘others’. Of late, gender has also made its way to pose a challenge to national unity or integration.

3. Environmental and Socioeconomic-based Polarization

Indonesia is a natural resource rich country with previously oil and gas deposits, minerals, gold, lithium, etc. These natural endowments unfortunately have become somewhat a liability for the Indonesian society, as they have created inequalities between the center (Jakarta) and periphery (Aceh, Papua, Moluccas and the likes of them). The socioeconomic disparity has caused violent resistance in a number of cases, especially when the interests of the local strongmen are denied or cancelled by the powers that be. As the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, it is undeniable that the polarization could turn to become permanently pernicious.

In light of the above, setting the context is also important, as it relates to the future of Indonesia’s democracy. At least three are important to note: a) the shrinking civic space; b) the weakening and cooptation of civil society through state capture; c) the rise of social media, which has exacerbated the digital divide, while further diminishing civic space and public discourse. The task at hand now is to ensure that polarization does not become the only game in town.