God and Diversity

This dissertation presents a theological reflection on the social condition of religious pluralism in Indonesia from a Kuyperian perspective. While freedom of religion and belief is constitutionally guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, inequalities among religious groups in Indonesia remain a serious problem. From the legal perspective, religion is understood as limited to six official religions that are acknowledged by the state. Religious groups who believe in other than those official religions thus receive different treatment from the state. Article 29 Verse 2 of the 1945 Constitution differentiates between “religion” and “belief”, a differentiation that is interpreted by the Constitutional Court as referring to two different entities known in Bahasa Indonesia as agama (religion) and kepercayaan (belief). Furthermore, the alleged Communist coup in 1965 has politically sharpened the distinction between the two. The people who were adherents of a belief system (kepercayaan) were accused of allegiance to the Communist Party. Thus, many of them chose to be “religionized” by joining one of the major official religions in Indonesia, such as Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism, for fear of being killed or imprisoned. The Indonesian situation shows to some extent a similarity with that of Abraham Kuyper’s 19th century context where religious minority groups were oppressed by the state and its dominant ideology. Under that situation, Kuyper behaved and thought in a way that could be categorized as pluralist in the 21st century sense of the word. Three episodes from his public career are chosen to represent his pluralist attitude: his pastorate in Beesd, his leadership during the School Struggle, and the establishment of the Anti-Revolutionary Party. Under those three circumstances, Kuyper demonstrated his pluralist position by emphasizing the equality of people in the church and the broader public—regardless of their level of education and income—and the equal standing of all religious groups in the public sphere. This dissertation argues further that there were three main theological notions that served as the basis of his pluralist attitude, namely: his conception of secularization, sphere sovereignty, and common grace. In Chapter 5, this dissertation seeks to construct a Kuyperian public theology for religious pluralism in Indonesia. Kuyper’s theology is brought into a critical conversation with the Indonesian context. His conception of secularization is put into a dialogue with Indonesian national philosophy (Pancasila), sphere sovereignty with the definition of religion as proposed by the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA), and common grace with interreligious dialogue, with special emphasis on encouraging Christians to engage with adherents of belief (kepercayaan) as equal conversation partners. While the first two addressed religious inequality from the top (government side), the last addresses it from the grassroots level (social side). The critical nature of this construction goes in a reciprocal direction. The Indonesian perspective can help to discern the oppressive elements in Kuyper’s theology, especially his racial bias; whereas Kuyper’s theology can be a prophetic voice that equips Indonesian Christians and enriches religious scholarship in Indonesia to fight inequalities among religious groups in the country.