Reverend Kuntadi Sumadikarya M. Th: Excessive Generalization means Religious Ignorance

The agenda of the propagandist-missionaries religions is often determined by the success of converting other people. The paradigm has never shifted from the old concept: “no salvation out of Christ”. This old doctrine left by the mainstream Christians is used by the Christian evangelists to justify their spiritual bribery. Here is an interview with Rev. Kuntadi Sumadikarya M. Th, the head of the Synod of Christian Church of Indonesia (GKI) of West Java. It was conducted by Ulil Absar-Abdalla on 24^th  July 2003: 

ULIL ABSHAR-ABDALLA: Mr Kuntadi, I’m sure you have read Times magazine’s report about American evangelism in various Muslim countries. What is your response to the report?

KUNTADI SUMADIKARYA: Indeed, it is true that the right wing Christian movements have had that paradigm for the past centuries. But, not every Christian is an evangelist and right wing, since every religion has been differentiated none can be observed as a single entity.  There are many groups or sects in Christianity as well. Mainly they are categorized into three: firstly, conservatives or fundamentalists; secondly, moderates or mainstream; thirdly, the liberal groups which are the leftists in the Christian context. This differentiation should be kept in mind when discussing one party as opposed to another.

ULIL: Can’t the conservative movement illustrate the view of all Christians?

Not at all! The mainstream Christian churches all joined in the Indonesian Church Union (PGI). But in order to hold the others, PGI involves other non-mainstream churches as well. But PGI still represents the moderate views.

ULIL: Could you mention the example of the three church groups?

The liberals might not be in the form of church, but rather exist within churches. I cannot mention the name of the conservative church; let’s say that it is a Christian domination, like the Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations. They come from America and from Korea and work in Indonesia.

Generally they move into big cities, since they are not gaining attention in the small cities. Maybe this is because there is more freedom in big cities due to the plurality found there.

ULIL: Could you mention their main characteristics?

The fundamental thing is that they follow the previous Orientalists who observed other religions as being of a lesser degree and less-worthy. This sort of view is termed triumphalistic thought, a feeling of being always superior to others.

That vision influences their “methodology” of evangelism. For instance, when they serve or preach, they assume that the truth and salvation is theirs only. All other peoples’ beliefs are considered to be wrong.

ULIL: in Times magazine’s review, they mostly exist within the middle to upper class. Is that true?

That is more appropriate for illustrating the charismatic group. Charismatics target the middle and upper classes, but it doesn’t mean that they ignore middle and lower class people. Nevertheless there are significant differences between denominations and their target groups.

ULIL: What is the historical process of evangelism in Indonesia?

When we take a historical view, we find that in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, the spirit of Christian evangelism from west to east was very high. There was a revitalization in the 20^th century, at least since the 1960’s or 1970’s. However, in the 18^th and 19^th century people did not think about religious pluralism as we do in the 20^th and 21^st century. That’s why the mainstream churches, which realize the transformations which have occurred from century to century, adapt to such paradigm shifts. We cannot use today any of the approaches or methodologies used in the 18^th and 19^th century.

ULIL: What is the attitude of the mainstream Christians towards evangelism?

It isn’t clear. Most of the mainstream Christians do not agree with the evangelists. It doesn’t mean that we ignore the mandates of Christianity as a mission but that our methodology, paradigm and approach should not be the new source of conflict in the 21^st century. Instead, there is an opportunity at hand for spiritual bonding between the religious disciplines.

ULIL: What is your response to other religion’s disciples in facing this matter?

To me, there should be a clear distinction first. The acts of a single denomination, church or individual which has such characteristics does not automatically represent the whole of Christianity. Generalizations are common and indeed reciprocal; for example, Christians often generalize about Muslims as well. 

We recognize the excessive generalization of each other as a form of religious ignorance. If there is an extreme act that disturbs society, dialogue is needed. Dialog is essential not only with those who become the target, but also for those who want to perform their mission. They have to realize that dialogues are needed in evangelism so as to avoid misunderstanding and conflict. That attitude requires an inclusive paradigm rather than an exclusive one.

ULIL: There are critics among moderate Muslims who raise their voices higher so that their message can be heard. Does this occur within the Christian milieu itself?

I agree. The moderate Christians should not only voice their opinions, but also grow more populist so that they can be understood by many people. In the case of PGI we want to achieve an inter-understanding, but the problem is this: the right wing Christians are not coordinated. To whom should PGI talk? There are many cases involving them and many parties are involved, but no one is fully responsible.

ULIL: Is there any one initiating statements for PGI?

I think statements don’t work but rather that attempts to deliver conceptual alternatives in the form of thinking should be pursued.

ULIL: So, what have they done? Are they considered as a small and trivial movement?

I don’t think so. I mean most of the mainstream Christians do not observe the progress of their own group. Consequently, they justify that action. They don’t see that practically it is the evangelist behavior that brings about conflict. The Christian churches or the clerics talk incessantly in order to explain this but the sense of realization needs extra effort. However I want to emphasize that making statements does not go far enough to solve this problem.

ULIL: In history, we see that the evangelism comes and goes. Some people see that it is generated by Allah’s spirit so it cannot be stopped. What do you think?

Those sort of movements indeed often emerge and then disappear. If it is understood from the perception about the spirit of God, then I consider it as a belief. But we should always examine the context. Is the mission translated as good news or does it bring bad news through conflict? The mainstream church is very critical of this but is not eliminating the task of mission. However, the timing should be guided by the spirit of God too. The longer we do it, the wiser we should be.

ULIL: What is the view of the mainstream churches toward evangelism in the context of religious plurality?

We in GKI often say this: evangelism doesn’t mean that we have to Christianize people. Our duty is to broadcast, not to execute proselytism (religious alteration). When we proselytize, we should look again at the historical fact that proselytism always creates consequences that we cannot afford later.

It is the distinction between proselytism and evangelism. Evangelism means to spread good news, but not through forcing and compelling people to take up our beliefs, whereas proselytism is a deliberate of effort to alter people’s beliefs. The mainstream churches should use the terms of dialogue to execute mission. As the head of the Synod of Jakarta, I say: if we have a good news and want to be heard by people, remember the message of Jesus that we should listen to others.”

When I want to bring the bible to a Muslim, I have to accept the Muslim performing dakwah (Islamic missionary endeavor) to me. There is mutualism that is the core of dialogue. My intention is not to Christianize the Muslim. On the contrary, the Muslim should not Islamize the Christian. There is an exchange of good news, and each of them could learn the positive sides of evangelism or dakwah. If eventually there is a religious alteration, it’s someone’s right on the condition that it is not to be done through humiliation or force.

If people alter their belief not by their own desire, but by manipulation, it would decrease any religion’s qualification. It means that even though the quantity increases, the quality decreases.

ULIL: How do you answer the claims of Christianization through aid?

It depends on the paradigm or concept behind it. If the concept is to Christianize or alter someone’s belief, it is not right, and in our terms, it is called spiritual bribery. What is the use of people who alter their belief due to the reward of food, clothes and medicine! The core of religiousity is not there. 

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)