KonradAdenauerStiftung

ASEAN RELIGIOUS PLURALISMThe Challenges of

Building A Socio-Cultural Community

Edited by

lrntivaz Yusuf

/ISEliN RrL IGIOUS I'l.l)I~1I11S'1rile Chatlcnqcs of Bu,klll1g A Socio-Cutt ...ua! COl'lltHJlllly (iii)

ASEAN RELIGIOUS PLURALISMThe Challenges of Building A Socio-Cultural Community CONTENTS

c Konrad AdenclUcr Stiftung, Bangkok, 2014Introduction .. .. .. (v)

Editor : IIntiyaz Yusuf

Keynote Address - ASEAN Religious Pluralisl'l.

The Challenges of BUilding A Socio-Cultural Community

Surin Pitsuwen . ...... (XXII)Publisher!<onn;)d-/-\c!enauer-Stiftung Thailand Office

75/2 Sukhumvit Soi 61Klongtan, Wattana

Bangkok 10110ThailandPhone +66(0)2 714-12 07/8 1+66(0)2714-1306Fax +66(0)2 714-13 07Email: Office.Thailand@kas.de

The Buddhist Attitude to Religious PIUI'alism

Pini; Ratanakul.

Religious Pluralism and The Qur'an

Mahmoud Ayoub 14

Transcending Pluralism, Celebrating Friendship

Joas Adiprasetya .... 30

ISBN No: 978-616-90475-4-4 The Spirit of Democracy and Religious Pluralism in Thailand

Sompam Promta ............... 45

Application of Buddhism and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for

MOI-al Development through Information Technology via

Citizen Smart Card

Mano Mettanando Laohavanich ........... 56

Theology of Religions in the Context of Buddhist-Muslim Relations

Kieko Obuse .. 72

Managing Religious and Cultural Pluralism in Indonesia

Azyumardi Azra ....................... 86

Pluralism Before and After the State: Religious Diversity and

Difference in Malaysia from the Pre-Modern Era to the Present

Farish A. Noor . 106

Contributors ..... 121

30 TRANSCENDING PLURALISM, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP

TRANSCE~\lDING PLURALISM ,CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP

Joas Adiprasetya

The Inadequacy of Pluralism

"Pluralism" is a highly ambiguous term In religious circles, especiallysrnce the term "religious" is complex and multifaceted, James A. Beckford'smonumental work, Social Theory and Reliqion,' has clearly explained threedifferent meanings of religious pluralism: pluralism as the fact of diversity,

~Iurallsm as acceptance or recognition, and pluralism as value (Beckford 200374-81). His starting point in differentiating the three meanings is the distinctio~between the descriptive and normative usages of "pluralism" (Beckford

2003, 78). While the former refers to the fact of religious cliversity (pluralismor plurality), the latter comes closer to the evaluative position of the fact(pluralism). Of course, the debate among theorists about the clescriptive aspectof pluralism is reasonably less incend.arv than wnat they discuss about

the normative p.uralisrn. This paper deals with the normative dimension ofpluralism and focuses itself on the issues that have been discussed extensivelyand rntensivelv by theologians in the Christian tradition.

Discusslons among Christian theologians almost always employ thestandard tripolar typology. The typology distinguishes three attitudes among

Christians toward other religions: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism." Inthe Christian context, the exclusivist is one who believes that the ultimately

I James A. Beckford, Social Theory and Religion (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2003).

, Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology ofReligions, 2nd edition. (London: SCM Press, 1993).

TRANSCENDING PLURAU5r'1, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP 31

saving truth can only be found In and throuqh Jesus Christ, while the otherreligions cannot provide valid ways to salvation. Someone is an inclusivist if

she believes that Jesus Christ is the nonnative savior, although people fromother religious traditions could also be saved by Jesus Christ through their own

religious traditions. In the other words, other religious paths are considered

valid insofar as they are fulfilled by Christ's saving wor-k. The pluralist IS one

who believes that each religious tradition is an equally valid, effective, and finalvehicle of salvation.

It must be clear from the beginning that exclusivism and inclusivlsrn

have been the prirnarv competing positions since tile birth of Christianity.

Both argue that Jesus Christ is the only constitutive way of salvation(Christocentrism), although each ends up with a very different conclusion. In

exclusivism non-Christians are excluded from the circle of salvation, whereasinclusivisrn is willing to include them by virtues of Chnst's salviflc work. While

exclusivisrn and inclusivism serve as counterparts to each other, the entranceof pluralism into the discourse seems anomalous, at least theoretically.

In this classical typology, pluralism is a normative position held bythose who believe that different religious claims are mel-ely perspectives on

the single reality or truth, By using the I<antian-like distinction between thenoumenal and phenomenal, the proponents of pluralism argue that the divine(noumenon) is experienced through diverse phenomenal responses. The

attitude seems to be successful in unifying all religious differences under the

single ultimate canopy, and that is exactly where I find it difficult to agree withthe basic idea of the pluralist position.

By re-centering the category for clealing with diverse religions toGod or the Ultimate or the Real (theocentrism), the pluralists believe thatall salvific mediations proclaimed by diverse religious traditions Me valid

ways to the single ultimate truth or God. The problem is, while none of the

phenomenal responses or claims can be adequate and true in itself, what isbelieved as the ultimate Truth is only vaguely comprehended by any of thosereligious traditions in and of themselves. For example, Christians never express

faith in God by addressing the Lord's Prayer to "the Ultimate who is/are inheaven." Thus, the names of the divine in all reliqious communities fall awayand the single divine being of the pluralists becomes abstract, detached frornconcrete religious experiences that have long been nurtured by the varioustraditions. We therefore have to ask the pluralists: Whose truth? Which ultimacy!

32 TRANSCENDlNG PLURALiSM, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP

Pluralism is therefore anomalous for two reasons. First, its willingnessto include all religious mediations (Jesus, Buddha, etc.) into a more theocentric

approach has made pluralism come closer to inclusivism. Secondly, however, in

contrast with the popular view, pluralism turns to be another form of exclusivism

in the end. By promoting a neutral god above all particular divine names and

relativizing all those names, the pluralists seem to say that all those names

are partially true (meaning: partially untrue as well). All religions can be true

insofar as their particularities point to the ultimate reality preached by thepluralists.

In response to pluralism, It is necessary for me to lift up perspectivesfrom two of its critics. First, Gavin D'Costa provides a very harsh criticism of

pluralism by al'guing that the non-speciftc-tradition approach the pluralists

arc trvtnq to hold turns out, in fact, to be Itself a particular tradition 'specific

approach. "Despite their intention to encourage openness, tolerance, andequality," D'Costa maintains, "they fail to attain these goals, . because of the

traditlon specific nature of their positions. Their particular shaping traditionis the Entiqhtenrnent.'? Thus, the principle of neutrality that pluralists holdis basically a myth, while the failure to avoid their own tradition-specific

standpoint makes it clear that pluralists' gods are modern gods: Unitarian,deistic, or agnostic. Consequently, D'Costa continues, it is undeniable thatpluralism is in fact exclusivism and its proponents fail to fulfill their own goal,which is to promote better interreligious dialogue.

~\ simllar criticism is offered by S. Mark Helm, who maintains that

the most serious failure of pluralistic theologies is to be found in the waytheir statuses as theories of religion are positioned among other alternatives.Heirn maintains that in the final analysis they fall short of the principles they

trv to defend and end up with what they want to reject: inclusivism, if notexcluslvisrn." The reason for this is because they are unable to resolve theparaclox within their central principles. While acknowledging the possibility for

many faiths provide salvation through different paths, the pluralists insist that

Gavin D'Costa, The tvleettnc; of Religions and the Trinity (fvlaryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books,

2000), 2.., 5, Mark Helrn, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis

Books, 1995), 124, 131 Heim believes that the unmasking of the status of pluralistic

theories of religion is the first and most Important task in attaining a more adequate

view of I"eligious diversity.

TRANSCENDING PLURALISM, CELEBRATII~G FRIENDSHIP 33

it is possible only within a conceptual framework they have already constructed.Those who do not agree with the pluralists' plan ar-e in need of enlightenrnentand fulfillment. In other words, the acceptance of religious diversity by tile

pluralists is not as radical as they claim it to be. Religions are not accepted

as they are, on their own terms, but as already framed within the conceptual

understanding of the pluralists. In this sense, Heim's identification of the

"inclusivist posture" of pluralistic theologies IS inescapably correct

Even more, the pluralists' insistence on using a particular framework

beyond all particular traditions implies an exclusivist attitude, in which those

who do not agree with such a framework are in need of being converted Into

their "structure of ptauslcilttv." In so doing, the pluralists fall into what Heim

calls "exclusivism In the mirror." The conceptual frameworks predorntnant ill

pluralistic theologies are thus ambiguous. On the one hand, by forusinq 011 an

idea of the Ultimate Reality, the pluralists attempt to acknowledge as lllallYways of salvation as possible. On the other hand, these frameworks are soremote and abstract that they are positioned above or beyond any particularidea of salvation provided by religions. In short, they function as meta-theologiespretending to provide the "God's-eye view" of all religious traditions.

Heirn presents a harsh criticism of this kind of rneta-theoloqy." Heargues that the pluralistic meta-theology fails because pluralists clo not admit

the fact that their approach works from within a particular tradition 01 a"framework of commitment." On the contrary, they tend to mask this

tracition-based position by offerinq selected universal prtnciples. anplvinq themto all traditions, and using them to view I-eligions "on a different level and ill some

qualitative way beyond such particularitv." what is exactly tile tradition 011 whichthe pluralists base their theories

'Heim shows that the pluralistic meta-theoloqv

expresses "cultural structures of plausibility against which modem WestemChristianity has been defined.:" It therefore is not universal at all; r-ather, it is auniversalizing of a particular tr-adition to be imposed on others. In this sense,

as Heim strongly argues, "the old lamented triumphalist attitudes of Christiansremain in vigorous health, if in different forms.":"

" Ibid., 103.

" Ibid.,101 .7 Ibid, 104-107., Ibid., 105.9 Ibid., 103,10 Ibid., 109.

34 fHANSC[NDING PLURALISM, CELEBRAllNG I RILNDSHIP

Gavm D'Costa and S. r-iark Helm are two among many theologians whoreveal fundamental predicaments to religious pluralism as a normative theory.Moreover, I would argue that the problem of pluralism as an anomaly within

t.he classical typology has unavoidably leel scholars to question the validity of

the tvpoloqv Itself. Perry Schmidt-Leukel has done a very good Job surveying

t-he venous criticisms and mapping them Into eight major cateqories.

1. The typology has an Inconsistent structure, "because the

posruons are not of the same genre and do not address the

same question." 2 The typology is misleading, because itobscures 01- misses the real issues of a theology of reliqions.

3_ The typology 15 too narrow. There are more than three

options .. 4_ The typology IS roo broad. There are not reallythree options but only one ... 5. The typology is too coarse

or abstract. It does not do justice to the more complex and

nuanced reality of real theologies 6. The typology ismisleading, because it does not do justice to the radical diversityof the religions ... 7. The typology is offensive. 8 The typology

is pointless, because we are not in a position to choose any ofthese options and therefore have to refrain fr-om all of them."

In the Indonesian context, both in inter-religious and inter-ecclesial

settings, the widespread use of the pluralist typology is evident. I have to noteI hat, on the one hand, the seventh criticism provided by Schmidt-Leukel seemsmosL problematic rn creating heateel accusations towards others who reflect

different perspectives. On the other hand, those who employ the typology are

also trapped into thinking that there is no other possible way to reflect uponthe reality of religious diversity apart from the tripolar typology,

To sum up, firstly, we have seen the fundamental problems of the

pluralist theologies of religions. As Gavin O'Costa and S. Mark Heim haveargued, the promise of the pluralists to promote better interreligious dialogue

that respects the otherness of others has failed, precisely because they attemptto unify all differences under a single umbrella of "the Ultimate". Therefore,

pluralism has ambiguously developed either an inclusivist tendency to keep allreligious traditions under its noumenal center or an exclusivist inclination tohold its superiority as the only meta-theory against all other theories.

Perry Schrrudt-Leukel, "Exclusivism, mctusivtsrn, pluralism: The tripoler typology--

clarified and reaffirmed" in The Myth Of Religious Superiority: Multifaith ExplorationsOf Religious Pluralism, ed. Paul F.Knitter (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2005: 14-18).

Ii

TRANSClNDIN(, PIIIRALlS~1. CELtllilATINC I I," ND';IIII' 35

Secondly, we can also conclude that the usual process of discoursefor theology of religions using the classtcal tripolar typology has been proven

msufficrent This leads us to a point where we must look for new lanquaqes 10take us into more fruitful interrelicious encounters.

Transcending Pluralism

IIn order fOI-LIS to find new Ianquarjcs that deal with the filet of rcliqious

diversity, we must emphasize the importance of the tradrtion-specrnr point

of view. As Gavin O'Costa has already rnaintaincd, when criticrzing the mythof neutrality of pluralist theologies, one has to realize that unv reflection

ward religious diversrtv must be tradition specific. There IS no Goci's-eye view

or helicopter perspective through which one can have il neutral or objective

perspective over all reliqious traditions. S. Mark Helm JOIIlS 0 Costa's arqurnentby maintaining that there is no meta theory transcending <111particulartraditions that IS free from critical evaluauon.

Such perspectivism, I would al'\,Jue, both enables and 1II111tstheexpression of one's position from one's own rcuqrous tradition. It does notmean, however, that it is impossible for one to construct her or his universal

truth-claims. On the contrary, we must express our understanding of the wholereality, of universal truth, from our own IellglOus standpornt or perspective,

but at the same time we must also real17(" that whatever we <;,ly IS alwaysnon-absolute, precisely because it is a specific-tradition claim.

In this context, it would be valuable to heeo what Raimundo P(;)nikkar- says

about his version of perspectivism, throuqh which he argues that there areradically different perspectives on reality. To explain this notion, Panikkar usesthe windows metaphor. It will be helpful to quote what he says at length,

We should ... be aware that we see the tatum per pertern, the

whole through a part We will have to concede that the other,the non-Christian, for instance, rnav have a similar experienceand that the non-Christian Will have to say that the Chnstian

takes the pars pro toto, for from tile outside one only sees thepars, not the tatum-the window, not the panorama How tocombine these apparently contradictory statements? We will

have to say that the other is right in discovering that we take

the pars pro toto (because the outsider sees the window),but that we al-e also right in seeing the totum per pertem

36 TRANSCENDING PLURALlSM, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP

(because we see the panorama). It is a tatum for US, but perpartem, limited to our vision through the one window. We seethe tatum, but not toteliter one may say (because we do not

see through other windows). We see all that we can see. The

other may see equally the tatum through another window, and

thus describe it differently, but both see the tatum, althoughnot In toto, but per pertem.v

In another work, Panikkar explains his position in relation to his

rejection of the universal theory of realitv. After depictinq the principles ofperspect.vrsm throuqh the windows metaphor, 11(:' says,

Tlus means that we do not need a universal theory as if we

could enjoy a global perspective-which is a contradiction interms. It means that each one of us may be aware of the whole

unrtor one particular aspect-and not Just that we see onlya part of it. Both the subjective and objective models breakdown. There IS neither subjective nor objective i.niversalitv.We see all that we call see-one may g rant-but only all thatwe can see, our tatum. The whole is what is wholesome for" us

Something is complete when it has an inner harrnonv-vaswe shall still emphasize.:' (Panikkar 1996, 140)

Panikkar's rejection of any universal theory, thus, distinguisheshim from other pluralists, who assume that there should be an overarchingtheory that is universal enough to include any particularity. In the letter to

the editor' of' International Bulletin of t-tissioner» Research, Panikkar continueshis "distancill~( attempt from the other pluralists by saying, "The pluralism[ defend is in no way a negation of the centrality of Christ when we speak

Christian language, or when we think or write about the Christian economy of

salvation."!" The clause "when we speak Christian language" precisely refers to

Ii Rairnon Panikkar; Rairnundo Panikkar, and Harry James Cargas, Invisible ~/armony:

Essays on Contemplation and Responsibility (r-<linneapolis: Auqsburq Fortress

Pliblishers,1995),171-172.

Gerald T. Carney, "The Christie Principle and Pluralism" in Joseph Prabhu, Intercultural

Challenge of Raimon Panikkar (r-tarvknolt, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1996), 140.

11 Raimundo Panikkar, "Reader's response" in tntemetionet Bulletin of Missionary

Research Issuc 13:2, April 1989, p. 80

TRANSCENDING PLURALlS~l, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP 37

the perspectivist position that he holds. Again, he argues fOI" his perspectivistpoint of view, "Now, tile context in which the Christian text is meaningful-andfor a Christian, true-is not a universal context. Only Within one particular con-

text can Christian affirmations make sense, and be believed or disbelieved":"

Thus, if Panikkar is correct, we now have a more plausible version oj

pluralism-only if we still want to keep using the term-that is, a version that

we may call "perspectival pluralism."!" In such an approach, there is no neutral

or objective understanding of all religious traditions under an absolute truth.

Consequently, a Christian or a Buddhist can make a universal truth-claim from

his or her religious perspective Without: disrespecttnq truth claims other than 111~

or her own. In Helm's words, "It IS aPPI"OI1r1ate then 1'01" e,1C1l to ar9l1C for" andfrom its own universal View, so long as tnc diversity anti actualitv of reliqiousends al"e recognized."11 (Helm 1995, 215). Within such a un.versal Iramcworl..

Christians will argue that the Christian uttunacv is truly attainable ror 01; rstians.while "ultimacies" claimecl by other religions remain penultimate to the ChristianUltimate. Nevertheless, the distinction between ultimate and penultimate is v"lidonly from the side of that whicn claims its end as ultimate. Thoso IrOI11othertraditions could and should claim their r eiiqious ultirnacies-cponultimare in theChristian framework-c-as ultimate in theIr own rramewor«, while acknowtedqinq

the Christian ultimacy as penultimate to them. It IS within such a universal yel

". Ibid p. 80.

:I, Perspectival pluralism ,IS dernonstrareo in F'il",kkill·'S tneoloqv to 50 1"11 L' extent is

similar to what Nicl10las Roscher calls orientat.onal pluransrn, that 15, "a ;lo~itlon t!1C1rmaintains that philosophical positions hinge on diverse views re£drding matters of

cognitive-value, so that philosophical disaqveernunt becomes iuevrrabte" (Nicholas

Roscher, The Strife Of Systems: An Essay On The Ground, Aile/ Imp/'Cillinn" orPtiitosoptnco! Oiversi!», P'ttsllurgh, P,l.: Uruvers.tv or l',tt:;lJlwgll PI'ess, 19Wi), p. 1.2:0).

Tn Illy previous wOI'k ( Jcas Acliprasetya,. Toward a Pecictioret«: Thcoloqy or ,I,(!{i5]loI)S

Th D. Dissel"tatlon, Boston UIl1ve,-sity, School oi -r 11eo109Y. 2009), I atternot to rornbmc

Rescr-ers static charactenstic of orientat.onal oturaitsm with the 1Tl()I-C dvna.n«; 1(lcJ of

transversal rationality from Calvin Schl-ag's The Resources Of Rationality: A I'c,pol)sc

To The Postmodern Challenge. Studies In Continents! Thought. (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press. 1992) espcclatlv by lISlIlg tile classical idea of perichoresis to dealwith the issue of religious plurality.

17 Heim, Salvations, 215.

38 TRANSCENDING PLURALISt'" CELI:BRAT!f'<G FRIE',DSrl[P

pcrspec: Ivai iramcwot k 1I1dl we will hold a hcaltluer rcspec t for non ·Chllstianl)('ilL'V'~1 s and, at the same time, transcend the absolutist or "identrst " version

of plurahsrn III

How can this approach be workable? To answer this question it is

irnoortant to note that any theory or theology regarding religious diversity must

.rmnltancoustv fulfill at least two fundamental principles. First, it must maintain

ornmrtment to one's particular beliefs. Second, It must maintain opennesstoward other religious traditions on their own terms, that is, the auto-description

(If each tradition by its adherents. Such dialectic does not need to be resolved

hy chocsmq one over the other. While the commitment to the Chrrstian faith«nabrcs LIS to hold to the Christian perspective of Christian truth-claims, for

example, the openness to other religions allows us to respect religious Others

on their own terms. In the next section, I propose the idea of interreligious

i"rlenashlp and hospitality as an example of how Christians can creatively and

constructively maintain the dialectic.

Celebrating Interreligious Friendship

Friendship is a term found in both Cruistran and non-Christian worlds.

It is particularly Christian Insofar as it is placed within the larger structure ofIhe virtuous life as defined by a Christian. However, we might find the similarnotion of friendship In other religious traditions, whether it IS recognized as a

vrrtue or not. The question as to whether friendship is a universal virtue hasbeen addressed by James L, Fredericks, employing the idea of interreligious

friendship from the perspective of comparative theology. In answerinq the

question, he argues,

In the recent literature on the virtues, there is widespreadagreement that at least some virtues are universal. At the

same time, however, there is also Widespread agreement thatall virtues are intimately connected with particular cultural

contexts. Here, I have refrained from claiming that

interreliqious friendship should be recognized as a virtue within

, The term "identist pluralism" IS COined by Davrc Ray Gnffin In contrast to what he calls"deep pluralism" Oavid R. Gnffin, 2005. "'RelIgIOUSPluralism: GeneriC, Identist, AndDeep," II, Deep ReligiOUS Pluralism, ed. DilVld R. Gnffin (Louisville, I<Y: westrornster

John Knox P"ess) 3-38.

r non-Chnstian rehqious traditions. c'/l'r as I nave no(l>cl thut

all frtendships. including fncnclshlps that run ,1(rOS5 r('IIGIOUS

traditions, entail reciprocated love. Althouqh I enJOY the fllend

ship of several Budclhists, Buddhisrn as such may not t hin], ormterreliq.ous fl'lenclshlps as VII tuous .,

As a challenger ot pluralist theolog,es and as :,eli as ""\T theoloc.esof religions that use the ctassrcal tnpolar typology, Fredencks realizes the

cianger of qeneralizmo a certain concept-Inc.lucilllq frtcndslup= trorn Within a

particutar religious tradition, since the exact meaning of that concept should belocated in the "particular cultural contexts" of tile tradition At the same time,

Fredericks believes that all variants in the tnpolar typology, espectatlv pluralism,

do not help empower Christians "to cevetoo <ktlls ror Irving rc-rionsrb!v dnr.

creatively with non-Christian believers" dnd "to engage their non-Chr.suanneighbors creatively.'" Instead of starling With tneonzauon of other religions, asdemonstrated in theologies of reliqrons , Fredericks rnamrams rather that

Christians need an alternative that starts from "studying other Ieligions ontheir own terms and then explonng their own Christian faith usrnq what theyhave learned about other religions." I The alternative IS now Widely calledcomparative theology.

The idea of interreligious frlendship IS or great Importance for t'rcseworking in the field of comparative theology since it becomes a fruitful mediumfor Christians and non-Christians to engage With each other creatively. '[Tlhe

friend's religion becomes a living reality, no longer confined to tile pages of

the book, an embodied truth, not an abstract doctrine. Christianity exists notin books but rather in the actual lives of Christian believers. The same IS trueof all reliqions.":"

For Christians, the biblical and theological bases for mterrehqrousfriendship are plenty. The surprising statement from Jesus to reverse and replacethe SOCial "sacred order" (hierarchy-hieros + arche) with the "servant orrinr"

(doularchy-doulos + arche ) is onlv half-way, since the ideal SOCial relation

:,' James L. Fredencks, "Interrehqrous Friendshrp A New Theoioqrcat Vutue." Journal of

Ecumenical Studies 35/2 Spnng 1998, 173

'" James L. Fredericks. Faith Among Faiths: C/JrIS(I<ll1Ity ,,",the Other Rellglolls (I\C\'! YO"kPaulist Press, 1999), 163, 165.

.1 Ibid., 168 .

., Ibid, 176

40 rRANSCENDING PLURALlSM, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP

that Jesus dreams of is rather the "friend order" (philiarchy-philia + arche).Not only does Jesus say, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom theyrecognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over

them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among

you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you mu:t beslave of all" (Mar. 1.0:42-44, NRSV), but he also expresses his passion, I do

not cc111 you servants any longer ... but I have called you friends" (JOh .. 15: 15,NRSV) Tlw friendship marked with equality is thus what Jesus irnaqmes for

ilny authentic human relation.

111 the Cilristian tradition. frlendship"love or' prefel"ential love (philia)f L rconditional love n In

11,15 orten been eclipsed by the primacy 0 agape or IT - ..resp(Jn~;c \"0 this shortcoming, James L. Fredericks joins other theologians inre(,,\lel"inC! the value of philia, especially In the context of IIlterfaltll encounter.

Hf. arques that doing theology comparat:rvely should be based on philra, whichrespects "the innate attractiveness of [non-Christian friends'] actual beliefs and

n~ligious practices.'?' He continues, "Christians should hold non-Christians Infricnctsillp based on d preferential love, a love that treasures the non-Christiannot because of Jesus' command to love, bul because of the innate goodness

and vrrtuo of the friend.""

Another" way of transcending pluralism and fostering interreligious

friendship has been made by others through the more specific form of phllia,

that is, the idea of hospitality. Just like friendship (philia), hospitality is biblicalin character, In the Christian Scriptures, hospitality is etymologically rooted

in the word philoxenia (philia + xenos: befriending strangers). It appears at

least twice in the Christian scriptures (Rom :1.2:13; Heb. 13:2), although thebasic concept of hospitality is predominant in Christian scriptures. The ideahctps Christians to Interpret human hospitalitv in light of divlne hospitality-for

instance, the story of divine visitation to Abraham and Sal-ah, or Jesus Christ's

incarnation as God's hospitality towarel the whole creation.

Amos Yang's work, Hospitality and the Other, importantly contributes

the idea and practice of hospitality as a better way to encounter the religious

" Ibid , 163.,,' Ibicl., 175.". lhid.

TRANSCENDING PLURALISM, CELEGRATING FRIENDSHiP 41

Others after the impasse of pluralist theologies. ", Yong argues that the str-engthof interreliqious hospitality is rooted in Trinitarian hospitality toward a diverse

world, in which God becomes both Guest and Host through Jesus Christ andthe Spirit.

To be sure, the idea and practice of hospitalltv can also be found !Iiother religious traditions." By comparing simitar traditions of hospitality 111

several religions, for example, Bet"hune comes to tile COllClllSIOIl th"t 1110<;\traditions Identify tile act of welcorninp stranqers v-illil the O(t ot weiCOlTlii1U

the divina. ] believe the siinilat'ily needs to iJ(~seen i1S "1 vaquo one, so thiltwe do not tempt ourselves to und,Ystdnd hospitality il;; 011(:; mo«: "cclInmcn

essence" 11'1 all reliqious traditions. as often demonstratsd t:Jyrh« rliLlI'all',t", tna:

is implied before the actual encounters bet"ween reliqlous followers ilapper·'.This is what signihcantiy distincJLllshe~; rnv ncrspectivat approach with Ulilt 01

pluralist theologies, which assume such "common essences" even before lileYmeet their non-Christians "fnends."

Hospitality as befriencling strangers begins With rccoqnir.on thatreligious Others cannot be framed or subsumed vvithin our preferred catcqories.They always appear before us as total stranqers. invitmo us to respect themas they are and seeing imaginatively in them tile God of Jesus Christ. The fluidexchange of divine roles as Guest ano Host, in Jesus' dll(llIw Spirit's hospitable

relations with the diverse world, inspires Christians LU be willing to cprl) lijltheir lives by beinq both hosts and (;Illest's fOI their non-Chrtsttan neiohbors.

It is indeecl a risky commitment, esnec.nuv If we live in a reliqloLISlv"violerllenvironmerit« The risks include the possibility of silent stranqers (xerini )

. (. Amos Yang, HOSIJitalit"y and the Ottu»: P<!ntf'(osl, ("/;rIS/J,111 P!,"('licc's, <ind i/lt' Neighbor

(Narvknolt, N.Y: Orbis Books, 200S), For the drsrussron Of hosp-tahtv 111 tile contextof rnterreliqious encocnto-; see also PICrT(~-FI"an<:Disde BCCl11111C 051, dna R,WIl-:Jll

Panikkar, InterreligiOUS Hospitality: The ruttntmcnt of DIJlo!Jue (Collegeville, ~'lril;l:Liturgical Press, 20J 0) and Marianne ~10yaert, FI"dglfe Iocnttttcs: Towents a Thcotocv

of Interreligious Hospitality. (Amsterdam; New York: Rodor», 2011).

}/ Bethune, Pierre-Francois de. "Interreligious Dialoguc dnd Sacred Hospital-tv" RciiqionEast & West October. no. 7: 2007, 1-22, Also M~yeul de DrCUllle, The Rulc of ScBenedict: A Commentary in l.igl7t of Worl(1 Ascetic Traditions (New York: Paulrst Pro2002), 312-330. .

as For an excellent work on the importance of risky hosoitahtv In the aftermath of rchqious

communal violence in lnoones!a. Septe-rimv E. t.akawa, Risky I-{osp/taldy: MISSIOIl

In The Aftermath Of Religious Communal Violence in tndonesie. TI1 D. Disscrt,'ltion,Boston Univers.tv, School of Theology, 20,[ 1.

42 TRI\NSCI NI"llNG PLURALISM, CELEBRATiNG Fl<IENDSHIP

turning to be violent ones (barbaroi), or friends becoming enemies. Yet, risk

always involves hope and surprise. Hospitality can also change strangers to be

lovinq guests and transform enemies to friends.

Here, I do not want to say that Christians should undertakeInterreligious friendship and hospitality in order to change and transform the

I-eligious others. On the contrary, it is the Christians who should transform their

own lives without fOrcing others to do the same. Such an Imperative can only

and simply offer an invitation for the religious Others to trust and welcome

their Chrlstian neighbors.

To conclude. the necessity to discard pluralist theologies and reconstruct

post-pluralistic theologies based on interreligious friendship and hospitality

is evident in our contemporary contexts. In some ASEAN countries, such asIndonesia, where the state haphazardly involves itself in people's religious lives,using pluralism as an ideological tool is ineffective for dealing with religiously

diverse societies. Also, the offensive nature of the classical typology can onlyworsen interfaith relations among the Indonesian people. Such a problematicapproach has been apparent in many Indonesian governmental projects of"dialogue and tolerance," designed especially for religiOUS leaders. They have

not been found effectively workable among people at the grassroots.

A better solution is interreligious friendship and hospitality undertakenby common people with their neighbors, since their actions transcend the

shortcominqs of abstract theorization and verbal dialogues about religiouspluralism. In contrast with pluralist theologies or ideologies, interreligious

hospitality delves deeper into more existential encounters among the people.It creates an invitation for people from different religious traditions to open up

their "houses of being," welcome others as respected guests, embrace their

neighbors as beloved friends, and construct new public spaces that have thusfar been damaged by religious violence. Such a process of "undomesticatinghospitality" (Lakawa 2011, 415) enables people from all religious traditions to

carry out missional dialogue and dialogical mission in new public spaces with

equal respect for others.

mANSC~~!DING OI.UR!,IIS'1. CJ:Ll-IJI(I\fINC; I';lll NI"lSI-IIP 43

References

Adiprasetya, Joas. 2009. Toward a perichoretic theology of religions. TIl.D.

Dissertation, Boston University, School of Theology.

Beckford, James A. 2003. Social theory and religion. Carnhridqe, U.K. & New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Bethune, Pierre-Francois de. 2007. Interreligious dialoguc and sacrco

hospitality. Religion east & west October, no. 7: 1- 22.__ . . 2010. Lnterreltqious nospitetn»: The tuttiltment of dialogue.

Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

D'Costa, Gavin. 2000. The meeting of religions and the Ttirntv . Fditll meetsfaith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books

Dreuille, Mayeul de. 2000. The rule of Saint Benedict and the ascetic traditions

from Asia to the west. Hereforshire: Gracewinq.Fredericks, James L. 1998. Interreligious friendship: A new theological virtue.

Journal of ecumenical studies 32, no. 2: 159-174.

1999. Faith among faiths: Christian theology and non-Christianreligions. New York: Paulist Press.

Griffin, David R. 2005. Religious pluralism: Generic, identist. and deep. InDeep religious pluralism, ed. David R. Griffin: 3- 38. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press.Heim, S. Mark. 1995. Salvations: Truth and difference in religion. Maryknoll,

NY: Orbis Books.Lakawa, Septemmy E. 2011. Risky hospitality Mission in the aftermath of

religious communal violence in Indonesia. TIl.D. Dissertation. BostonUniversity, School of Theology.

Moyaert, Marianne. 2011. Fragile identities. Towards a theology of interreliqious

hospitality. Amsterdam & New York Rodopi.

Panikkar, Raimundo. 1989. Reader's response. international bultetin of

missionary research 13, no. 80.________ . 1995. Invisible harmony: Essays on contemplet um and

responsibility. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.____ . 1996. A self-critical dialogue. In The intercultural challenge of Reimon

Penikker, eel. Joseph Prabhu: 227-291. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Race, Alan. 1983. Christians and religious pluralism: Patterns in the Christian

theology of religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Rescher, Nicholas. 1985. The strife of systems: An essay on the grounds and

implications of philosophical diversity. PlttsbUl-gh, PA: University of

Pittsburgh PI-ess.

tL

44 rRANSCENOING PLURAUS~l, CELEBRATING FRIENDSHIP

Schmidt-Leukel, Perry. 2005. Exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism: The tripolartypology--clarified and reaffirmed. In In The myth of religious superi-

ority: Multifaith explorations of religious pluralism, ed. Paul F. Knitter:

J 3-27. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Schrag, Calvin O. 1992. The resources of rationality: A response to the

postmodern challenge. Studies in Continental thought. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

rorvq, Amos. 2008 rlospitality and the other: Pentecost, Christian orectices,anc! the neighbor. I\i]aryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.