MENEMUKAN ALTERNATIF MODEL DIALOG ANTARUMAT BERAGAMA (BELAJAR DARI FORUM SOBAT)
Main Article Content
Abstract
Stagnasi dalam dialog antaragama menjadi kegelisahan akademis, oleh karena dialog yang dilakukan oleh beberapa institusi agama hingga pemerintah melalui FKUB dianggap tidak dapat menjalankan visi dan misinya sebagai gerakan dialog. Alasan gagalnya dialog adalah tidak adanya fondasi yang kuat dalam proses dialog itu sendiri, baik secara sosio-antropologis maupun kultural-teologis, demikian juga menyangkut materi dialog dan pendekatan yang digunakan. SOBAT dapat menjadi salah satu alternatif. Hasil penelitian terhadap SOBAT dapat menjadi contoh karena terus berkelanjutan dan mampu membangun iklim damai dalam konteks lokal. SOBAT merupakan forum dialog yang diprakarsai oleh Sinode Geeaja Kristen Jawa, Pesantren Edi Mancoro dan LSM PERCIK di Salatiga. Forum tersebut sudah berjalan lebih dari 10 tahun. Teori gerakan sosial Sidney Terrow digunakan untuk menjelaskan tentang SOBAT. Terrow melihat kombinasi gerakan sosial (social movement) dengan faktor kesempatan politik (contentious politic) sebagai peluang besar pembawa perubahan yang diharapkan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa faktor kesempatan politik cukup kuat melatarbelakangi lahirnya SOBAT. Sedangkan proses framing melalui nilai-nilai agama, mobilisasi dan penyebaran, menjadi penentu keberlanjutan gerakan sehingga menghasilkan model dialog yang khas SOBAT.
Stagnation in interfaith dialogue is an academic concern. The reason for the failure of dialogue included FKUB that initiated by government is the absence of a strong foundation in the dialogue process itself, both socio-anthropological and cultural-theological, dialogue topic and the approach used. What dialogue alternative models are suitable for grassroots communities in Indonesia? SOBAT can be an alternative, because it is sustainable and so able to build a climate of peace in a local context. SOBAT is a dialogue forum initiated by the Synod of the Javanese Christian Churches, Pesantren Edi Mancoro, and PERCIK that stays in Salatiga that has been working for more than 10 years. Sidney Terrow's social movement theory is used to explain SOBAT. Terrow’s thought about the combination of a social movement with the factor of political opportunity (contentious politics) as a great opportunity will bring the expected change. The results of research showed that the political opportunity factor was quite strong behind the birth of SOBAT, while the framing process through religious values, mobilization, and dissemination, became the determinants of the sustainability of the movement to produce a dialogue model.
Article Details
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
Abdullah, M. Amin. 2017. “Menengok Kembali Peran Agama di Ruang Publik.” Jurnal Sosiologi Agama 11, no. 2: 157–184.
Agung. 2014. Wawancara.
Al-Makin. 2017. Nabi-nabi Nusantara: kisah Lia Eden dan lainnya. Suka-Press.
El-Ansary, Waleed, David K. Linnan, Siti Ruhaini Dzuhayatin, Paripurna P. Sugarda, dan Harkristuti Harkrisnowo. 2019. Kata Bersama: Antara Muslim dan Kristen. UGM PRESS.
Fatih, Moh khairul. 2017. “Dialog Dan Kerukunan Umat Beragama Di Indonesia Dalam Pemikiran a. Mukti Ali.” Religi: Jurnal Studi Agama-agama 13, no. 01: 38–60.
Handani Warih. 2014. Guru BK Kristen Pekalongan.
Haqi El Anshari. 2014.
Hasan, Noorhaidi. 2012. Islam politik di dunia kontemporer: konsep, genealogi, dan teori. Suka-Press.
Husein, Fatimah. 2005. Muslim-Christian Relations in the New Order Indonesia: The Exclusivist and Inclusivist Muslims’ Perspectives. PT Mizan Publika.
Kaha, Samuel Cornelius. 2020. “Dialog Sebagai Kesadaran Relasional Antar Agama: Respons Teologis Atas Pudarnya Semangat Toleransi Kristen-Islam Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Abdiel: Khazanah Pemikiran Teologi, Pendidikan Agama Kristen dan Musik Gereja 4, no. 2: 132–148.
KH. Marzuki. 2014. Wawancara.
Lehman, C., R. Augustine, J. Narada, dan J. Tosone. 1996. “Concerts in Review.” GUITAR REVIEW, 32–35.
Mas’ oed, Mohtar, Mochammad Maksum, dan Moh Soehadha. 2001. Kekerasan kolektif: kondisi dan pemicu. P3PK UGM.
Mujib, Ibnu, dan Yance Zadrak Rumahuru. 2010. Paradigma transformatif masyarakat dialog membangun fondasi dialog agama-agama berbasis teologi humanis. Pustaka Pelajar.
Mujiburrahman. 2007. “Feeling threatened: Muslim-Christian Relations in Indonesia’s New Order.” Archipel 73, no. 1: 248–52.
Peter Feber. 2009. Doing Dialogue Analyzing Two Indonesian Practices of Interreligious Dialogue. Amsterdam: Vrije University.
Qodir, Zuly, dan Samuel A. Bless. 2001. Agama Dalam Bayang-Bayang Kekuasaan. Dialog Antar Iman di Indonesia/Institute for Inter Faith Dialogue in ….
Rm. Harjuna. 2014. Wawancara.
Singgih. 2014. Wawancara.
Sunardi. 2001. “The Dead End of Religious Dialogue in Indonesia.” Interface, no. 4: 55–67.
Suseno, Franz Magniz. 2007. Memahami Hubungan Antar Agama. Yogyakarta: Elsaq Press.
Swidler, Leonard. 1983. “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue.” Horizons 10, no. 2: 348–351.
Tarrow, Sidney G. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widjajanto, Andi. 2017. Transnasionalisasi Masyarakat Sipil: Masyarakat Sipil. LKIS PELANGI AKSARA.
Zaidan, James R. 1984. “Pacemakers.” The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists 60, no. 4: 319–334.