A POST-TSUNAMI INDONESIAN THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE[1]

 

Andreas A. Yewangoe

 

Introduction

 

            The following material was previously presented at the Tripartite Meeting in Washington DC on 29-31 August 2005.  During the discussion that followed, a question was raised as to why I did not include the perspectives of mainstream Islamic thinkers in my paper.  Why did I only lift up the thinking of Ulil Abshar-Abdalla?  At the time, I answered that I happen to agree with the views of Ulil.  There are many parallels between Ulil’s thinking and my own, in particular regarding the role of God in history, the attitudes and actions of human beings within it, and how people of faith might best respond to the disasters that befall them.  There is another reason, however, that I did not discuss at the time:  that the views of a majority of Muslim theologians (and also those of most Muslims who are not theologians) are based on their belief in Taqdir (fate or destiny, understood as the unchangeable will of God).  Taqdir is one of the main pillars of Islam.  Every faithful Muslim must believe in Taqdir.  In the course of Islam’s history, there emerged two differing points of view on this matter, between the groups known as the Jabariyah and the Qadariyah.  The Jabariyah hold to a point of view that could be called fatalistic.  In their understanding, human beings are little more than “froth” or “rubbage” that have lost their autonomy.  Humans have no power whatsoever in the face of the omnipotence of God.  By contrast, the Qadariyah emphasize human potential.  According to this school of thought, people have the ability to take initiative, to use their creativity to direct their own lives.[2]   At the heart of their position is the concept of free will, which became the focus of a similar debate between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century.

            With this background in mind, the earthquake and tsunami that destroyed Aceh are understood as being in keeping with taqdir as the inexorable working out of God’s will.  People can only accept taqdir in surrender and faith.  Of the two positions outlined above, the mainstream of Indonesian Muslims are clearly most influenced by the perspective of the Jabariyah. 

            Even though the thought of Ulil dominates the discussion that follows, an attempt has been made to include the perspectives of other Islamic thinkers.

            In addition, it should be noted that as this paper was being re-written for the Ekumindo meeting in Doorn, Netherlands, there were new developments in Aceh.  A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between the Government of Indonesia and GAM (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, the Movement for an Independent Aceh), in Helsinki, Finland.  This brings new hope for the people of Aceh, who have up until now been in a state of continual upheaval.  On the other hand, we are also concerned that aid to Aceh has tended to be manipulated, whether subtly or openly, by some members of the Indonesian Parliament.  This of course is unfortunate, and may tend to erode the trust of donor institutions who have until now been dedicating much effort toward the restoration of Aceh.

 

I.                   Earthquake and Tsunami That Hit Aceh and Nias is a Human Tragedy

 

The earthquake and Tsunami that hit Aceh and Nias in 26 December 2005, is a huge human tragedy in this century. Death was everywhere. About 300.000 people died or disappeared. Human being was schocked to realize their powerlessness against the powerfull law of nature. Okke Jager, a Dutch theologian from Kampen once said, how questionable is the questionable human being (hoe kwesbaar is de kwestbare mens). Sympathy, even empathy of the world for this human tragedy, came from everywhere. This sympathy and empathy extended beyond boundaries of ethnicity, religion, race and class (suku, agama, ras, aliran; SARA). Members of humanity were truly united in suffering. This is the essence of humanity, when we all have the instinct to free ourselves from suffering. This is why solidarity among humans was so evident during those days.

In the midst of this severe suffering, a basic question emerged, spoken or not: Why was there a disaster this big? People complained to God: “Are you judging us? What is our sin? Why were we chosen and not others?” etc. These questions do not really await an answer, because it is likely they will never have one. But that humans can still ask the questions, that in itself is a kind of “release”; at least people will feel relieved and free from various burdens they have been carrying.

Unfortunately, in the midst of this struggle – struggling with oneself and with God – there are also strange events. In the area of the disaster there has been a raid of residential cards by a group of people who feel the need to defend their religion. They are very worried that (non-Muslim) volunteers will convert those suffering to the religion of those who bring aid. Apparently that is the anxiety such that Ahmad Yulden Erwin, a poet and coordinator of the People’s Anti-Corruption Movement (Gerak Indonesia) has indicated that in such a disaster where blood donors are needed, it is not impossible that oddities will be found.  In proposed legislation currently before the Indonesian Parliament, one section regarding blood donations says the blood must be labeled with the religion of the donor.  Thus, only the blood from a Muslim can be donated to a Muslim, a Christian’s blood to a Christian, Hindu to Hindu, Buddhist to Buddhist, etc. Certainly the consequences of this would be heavy if this proposed legislation becomes law. Ahmad Yulden Erwin goes on to say this proposed legislation is “a veiled massacre of followers of a minority religion”.[3]  In short, people are worried about Christianization. This anxiety is also what caused Din Samsudin, the (former) General Secretary of the Indonesian Council of Muslim Clerics (MUI)[4] to issue the Communion of Churches in Indonesia (PGI) and the Indonesian Bishops’ Conference (KWI) with an “ultimatum” that in the space of 13 days these two religious institutions must clarify the status of 300 Acehnese children who purportedly had been illegally adopted by an NGO from the US. If not they would attack by other means. The Communion of Churches and the Bishops’ Conference, with support from NU[5] and Muhammadiyah, have clarified that this news was not true. In a press conference held in Jakarta, the Communion of Churches, the Bishops’ Conference, NU and Muhammadiyah stressed that were it true children had been illegally adopted, it was in opposition to Christian principles.  But if it were not true, it needed to be clarified (by Din Samsudin), so that this two Christian organizations being freed from suspicion.

Fortunately the scale of suspicion wasn’t too great and this did not create a negative impact on aid efforts. In a visit by leaders from the Communion of Churches in Indonesia[6] together with members of the US National Council of Churches to Banda Aceh on 15-16 January 2005, we also discovered a reality different from what had been reported. The Acehnese were not concerned with the issue of Christianization. They needed help. The Rector of IAIN[7] “Ar Raniry” Banda Aceh, whom we also visited, said: “All this time we Acehnese have felt special, [but] the tsunami has made us realize that we need you!”

 

II.                Various Theological Responses

 

What is meant by theological response here is people’s reaction towards this misfortune that also has a link to God’s role in it.  Such responses have been expressed by various kinds of people, both those who have little formal education as well as intellectuals. Indonesian television programs are filled with Muslim teachers, Protestant ministers and other religious leaders, even performing artists urging people to return to God’s path. In short, repent. What is behind the thoughts of these people is clear: the earthquake and tsunami were God’s punishment towards the people of Aceh. But punishment for what? What is the sin of the Acehnese?

 Two responses contradict each other. This is related to a decision made by the national People’s Assembly, namely the application of Islamic law in Aceh (a region recently called Nanggroe Aceh Darusallam or NAD).  The first response is, because the Acehnese have not been truly consistent in carrying out Islamic Law (the proof – they have not yet compiled qanun-qanun[8]), thus Allah punishes Aceh. How is it possible that immoral behavior (gambling, selling and consumption of liquor, prostitution, etc.) continue after Allah’s law has been announced?[9]  That is the first response.  The second response stresses that it is precisely because Aceh has instituted Islamic Law, while Indonesia is not an Islamic nation, that Aceh has been punished. Allah [10](God) does not approve of the application of Islamic Law there. This view is prevalent in certain Christian circles.  In some Christian circles there are those who see this disaster as an opportunity to enter Aceh. A morning prayer held by a gathering of Christians in an expensive and luxurious hotel in Jakarta included these words: “We give thanks, O God, because we have been praying for Aceh for years. Now you have heard our prayers!” What a prayer! We do not know precisely which God is meant here. Is there really a God like that who gives opportunity by first destroying humans? Psalm 24 is also quoted with a variation: “Raise up your ancient gates [Aceh], so that the King of Glory may come in! Who is the King of Glory? It is Jesus Christ the brave!” The courage of Christ is confronted by the powerlessness of Aceh.

 

III.             Discussion about God’s Role in the Tsunami

 

This disaster has caused many discussions and theological reflections within the circles of Islam, Christians as well as inter-religions. Below I will first describe discussions among Muslims, with special attention to the position advanced by Ulil. After that are several responses of Christians as published in Indonesian newspapers.  Finally, I share a few points from a discussion held by Oase Intim[11] on 8-11 June 2005 in Makassar.

The basic question is: How do we understand (again) Allah in a disaster like this? Is God still presented as The Merciful and Nurturing, The Most Loving or as a God who answers evil with punishment, an ever-jealous God?

 

a.      Islam

 

Theological reflection in Islamic circles varies, but as I noted in the introduction, the understanding of fate or Taqdir held by the Jabariyah faction is fairly dominant in Indonesian Islam.  We will look at three examples to see how this position is interpreted in connection with the earthquake and tsunami.  The first is from M. Luthfi Thomafi, an Indonesian Muslim thinker known for his writings in the mass media.  In his opinion, God never has evil intentions for humanity.  He quotes a verse from the Al Kuran that he feels is sometimes misinterpreted: “Whatever disasters may befall you, they are caused by your own hand…” (QS. Asy-Sura: 30).  According to Luthfi, the meaning of “disaster” in the eyes of Islam is no simple matter.  It is possible, for example, that something seemingly good such as a job promotion could prove to be a disaster.  Here a disaster might mean a trial or temptation that can lead to ruin if one misuses the promotion only for personal profit.  In relation to natural disasters there are always two possibilities open to us:  to accept the disaster as an accident of nature (much as in the eyes of Western secular society), or we can understand it as being related to the will of the Almighty.  Luthfi maintains that the second view is largely maintained by Indonesian Muslims, even if they find it difficult to apply when they are actually faced with a natural disaster. 

Without an adequate interpretation of Surat Asy-Sura 30, Luthfi says, one could come to a dangerous misunderstanding, especially with regard to the Iradah (will) of God.  No matter what happens, it must be stressed that God never wills evil for humanity. Of course when faced with a disaster we may have bitter experiences.  But what is “bitter” in our eyes is not necessarily bitter in God’s understanding.  All human lives belong to God, and God has the right to take them from time to time and in various ways, whether it be through natural disasters, car accidents, or bombs.  All of these are ways of God’s “calling” us.  The particular “profane” form they take can be understood rationally.  To the degree that they are expressed in the framework of rationality, all manner of people can accept them as expressions of the laws of nature.  In this way it can be said that all disasters are rational.  Even so, Islam instructs its faithful to istirja, that is, when faced with misfortune to immediately recite the phrase, Inna Lillahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un, which means, “Truly we belong to God, and only to God will we return.”  This simple expression reminds us to always have the spirit of tauchid, qahda, and qadar (confessing the oneness of God, the laws of God, and the power of God).

Concerning the laws of nature, according to Luthfi these are the laws that have been fixed by God (qadha) that can be expressed in theories of natural science, and apply to everyone, whether they are believers or atheists, faithful or sinners.  All the activities of nature from the smallest to the greatest are carried out in accordance with these laws.  Thus when people live through the process of this qadha, they will experience what is called qadar or taqdir (the determining will/power of God).  In this way, taqdir is the result of a process in which the laws or determinations of God in the form of the laws of nature, are expressed in the realities people experience.

From this brief explanation we have the impression that Luthfi does not reject taqdir, but rather explains it in a new way as acts of God that are intelligible in the laws of nature.  In this way he rejects the traditional view of taqdir as identical with fatalism.  On the other hand, Luthfi maintains that the laws of nature do not just automatically run on their own, but are subject to the will of God.

Haedar Nashir, who provides the second viewpoint presented here, is also known for his writings in the mass media.  He warns that we should not jump to the conclusion that the disaster in Aceh  is a reflection of divine punishment, by making analogies with similar events in the past.[12]  There should be no hesitation that God is supreme in every sense (haqq al-yakin).  But to explain one event in terms drawn from another that occurred under different conditions in a different context can lead to misinterpretations and misapplications.  Rational thought must challenge such an interpretation.  How is it possible that the faithful and religiously obedient people of Aceh could be considered the same as the sinful peoples of the past who were punished by God?  The people of Aceh are not like the peoples of Saaba, Madyan, or those of Noah’s time who were punished by God for their sins.  The mistake made by the preachers of Islam in Indonesia, according to Nashir, lies in their narrow and dogmatic interpretation of kuranic verses, and in their inability to link them with the present reality in an intelligible and accurate way.  Verses that are rooted in a particular historical context are too hastily applied to a different historical context and  a different and even contradictory reality.  The essence of Nashir’s position is that interpretation can only be carried out appropriately by attending to the context in which the text was originally written.

The third perspective I present here is that of Ulil Abshar-Abdalla. He is a young, very creative Muslim thinker whose analysis is sharp and critical and who was a founder of the “Liberal Islamic Network”.[13]  That is why he is regarded with some suspicion by “conservative” groups. In one of his articles that appeared in the daily newspaper, Kompas,[14] he said he was concerned that Islam would become a dead monument, a fossil, if it failed to renew itself. What he meant is that Islam is unable to convey the substance of the religion that should be a blessing for all the earth (rakhmatan li’l alamin), and is only concerned with symbols and labels. He is concerned about Islam’s inability to take a critical attitude towards itself so that it becomes small-minded and not dynamic. He is shamed by the attitudes of some who only care for their beards (in an effort to copy the prophet Mohammed in physical appearance) and who cover their heads, but who fail to see the essence of Islam that embodies values beneficial for all people. Another time, Ulil regretted Islam’s great nostalgia for the past (the Middle Ages), when Islam reigned and was influential throughout the Middle East and Europe.  Such glory can no longer be achieved. Compared with Islamic nations, the US and Europe are victorious. According to Ulil, this is what causes dissatisfaction and frustration in certain Islamic circles. To release these feelings of frustration, they resort to making bombs and terror.[15]

Regarding the problem of disaster, according to Ulil, the most basic question is how we give meaning to it in relation to God’s justice.[16] The dilemma we face is that it is one and the same God who gives us daily food, but who also brings disaster. This dilemma is felt especially by those who are monotheistic. It is a bit easier for polytheists, says Ulil, because they are able to explain it more easily. There is a God whose job description is to bring sickness, cause disasters, death, etc. Monotheists of all faiths have a religious understanding called taukhid, but the basic difficulty comes when it is faced with a disaster such as this one. Muslims must trust what God determines; whether good or bad, both are God’s will. Here is where justice comes in, something that is an old problem.

Islam experienced this dilemma when the city of Baghdad, capital of the Muslim kingdom in the mid-13^th century, was attacked by the army of the Mongol Kingdom. Muslims were shaken. How could the capital of a nation where God was sovereign be destroyed by the infidel Mongolians who did not know God? Various responses emerged. Some Muslims were fatalistic and thought that everything determined by God simply had to be accepted. But others rebelled, asking why God did that?

A similar dilemma was faced in Catholic circles, said Ulil, when the city of Lisbon was struck by an earthquake in the 18^th century. Correspondence between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire discuss the matter. Voltaire was very cynical about religion. It was precisely the residence of the governor who was very anti-Catholic that was not touched by the quake, whereas church buildings were flattened. How do you explain that?

In Ulil’s view, it must always be realized there are many things about God that cannot be understood. It is impossible to portray God completely. It is impossible for God to be reached by the human mind. Thus, our understanding of God must leave room for mystery. If everything in religious understanding can be explained, such religion is not interesting.

Ulil implies there are at least three explanations for the role of God in the tsunami. The majority think the tsunami is God’s punishment, judgment or torture. The second is that it is a test from God or, in religious language, balak.  In Arabic, balak means temptation, test, or examination. The third is that although we don’t know, nevertheless we believe that God has a plan for us. More or less, these are the explanations most used.

Ulil assumes that what is most popular in Muslim circles is the first sentiment, namely that the disaster is God’s punishment. Here we see a king of one-sided action by God towards humanity, whether it is a desire to punish humans for acting in evil ways, or a desire to punish them. Even if they haven’t done anything evil, God wants to test their faith, their endurance, their patience, etc.

This kind of explanation, says Ulil, is certainly a human explanation, namely one that tries to rationalize the relationship between humans and God. Actually we don’t know if it is true that God wants to test or punish humans. God is inaccessible. Ulil himself prefers the third explanation, because the first explanation – that God is the Great Punisher and the One who tests – begs many questions. If it is said that Allah punishes, then the question is, why? In Ulil’s view, in the Al-Qur’an (Koran) we often read stories of nations that were once judged by Allah. For example, the nation of Sodom to whom was sent the prophet Lot. Or consider the story of Pharaoh who did not heed the Prophet Moses’ warning so that he drowned in the Red Sea. Or the story of the Prophet Noah who gave a warning to his colleagues, but they did not honor it. From several stories like this we have the impression that God is the Great Avenger. This impression, according to Ulil, is strengthened by the reality that one of the official names for God in Islam is Al Muntaqim, God is the God Who is the Great Avenger, or the Great Torturer. Ulil also gives the impression that is also in the Old Testament where God is pictured as the Jealous One.

So the question, according to Ulil is, does a God like that make sense to today’s modern society? In the stories of the holy books, the sequence is always like this: the prophet comes, the people do not want to be obedient, then punishment comes. This is seen both among the prophets of the descendents of Israel as well as Arabians. The Prophet Soleh, an Arabian prophet whose people were disobedient, was also like that. There is one pattern that is followed: the prophet comes, the people rebel, punishment comes.

Faced with a reality like this, Ulil thinks that the Al Qur’an, the Old Testament and the New Testament are not historical books. It is more precise for them to be referred to as notes of meaning. For example, many people are now shaken to see a disaster as big as the tsunami in Aceh. Then they begin to give it meaning: “Oh, this is punishment.” This meaning, says Ulil, is recorded in holy books as God’s punishment. In reality, it is not certain that the tsunami is God’s punishment. So, once again, this is our talk, perception and understanding as humans.

Ulil poses two kinds of explanation: first, the explanation for the causes of the disaster do not fully return to God. He sees a weakness in religions today that too easily tie everything to God. This isn’t good. God would be too occupied if burdened with every single thing. What Ulil means is that the tsunami was very easily tied to God. God is the One who willed it, thus it happened.  Of course this view has a basis in the Al-Qur’an as well: “Kulla yauin hwa hisaa’an.” God is busy every day. God is busy every minute. Ulil does not doubt that. But the question is: Doesn’t humanity share responsibility for some misfortunes? For example, consider the flood that hit Jakarta two years ago. Was that “God’s will”? Was there not also an element of human cause as well, namely that humans aren’t taking care of the environment? According to Ulil, an explanation that includes a share for humanity in it should be developed.

With this explanation, Ulil goes further towards the meaning of what it means to be religious. What does it mean to be religious? As a Muslim, Ulil says to be religious means to take moral responsibility. As a person of faith, I am responsible for everything I do. He sees the importance of putting forward an anthropological explanation such as this because it is much healthier. An explanation like this, according to Ulil, will help us have introspection, to desire reflection and reconsider what is wrong in the way we handle the earth and humanity. In the context of the tsunami disaster, we are reminded of the mangroves that had already disappeared along the beaches of Banda Aceh. Also of the coral reef that had been destroyed. Then of the early warning system that someone neglected to set up.  Meaning, disasters, whether you like it or not, will always come. A disaster, it is said, is like the flu – it always comes. This means that we always live with the enemy. The job of humanity is how to manage all of that so that it doesn’t lead to even greater disaster.

The second explanation is related to God. Ulil prefers that not everything go back to God, what more a God perceived as the Great Avenger or Great Tester. Ulil prefers the third explanation, namely that we cannot know everything that God does. A fatal mistake made by all religious people is their ambition to explain everything based on a complete religious explanation. Thus there is no more mystery in it. Such a religion is not interesting. Ulil indicates that in this era there is a trend to present religion as the big solution to everything. To present religion like that, in Ulil’s view, is no different than Kiai (Muslim teachers) in villages of the past who handled absolutely everything. If there was to be a circumcision the Kiai was called, if a woman gave birth, the Kiai was invited, etc. This is called a utilitarian attitude towards religion. This attitude, says Ulil, is very dangerous. Religion as the theory for everything is impossible. There are areas of mystery in this life. In religious language it is called “God’s plan” that we ourselves don’t know. For Ulil, humans live with mystery. That is also the essence of religion. Religion is the never-ending movement between two tensions, namely between continually being confronted by mystery and the continual desire to unveil that mystery, even though we will never finish doing that. The creative tension between these two fills religion with passion, full of fiery enthusiasm.  When religion no longer embodies this creative tension, it is dead.

In Ulil’s interpretation, when the prophet Mohammad subjugated Mecca and destroyed 360 idols around Ka’bah[17], actually Mohammad didn’t just destroy idols. Idols made from rock didn’t need to be destroyed. Idols were just a symbol. What needed to be destroyed was a different idol, namely religiosity that no longer held creative fire. Quoting Bung Karno (Sukarno), the first President of the Republic of Indonesia, Ulil says that if religion has lost its fire, only ash remains. Religion like that is no longer needed, so it is fitting that such religion be destroyed and changed with new religion, meaning a new understanding of religion that holds flaming fire in which there is creative tension between the God full of mystery and the God who has an explanation for all the phenomenon in this great earth. It is the tension between God who unveils His signs and at the same time hides those signs. God opens God’s countenance while also closing it; the God who is close, is also far away.[18]

It’s natural that those who want to be practical and who have a trading mentality would want a religion that gives certainty in every matter. For these people, says Ulil, the advantages and disadvantages are clear, the balance is clear. They don’t want a religion that holds mystery. Religion like this, according to Ulil was the target of Jesus’ criticism when he confronted the attitude of Jews, Torah experts, Pharisees – those who made religion rigid as a kind of belief where everything is clear, with a commercial trading mentality.

So for Ulil, it is clear what he wants to propose, namely an anthropological explanation, but also a theology that makes room for mystery. In this way, humanity is constantly in motion to understand this great phenomenon creatively.

 

b.      Christian

 

After considering tendencies in Muslim thoughts as presented by Luthfi, Nashir and Ulil, we now present views of several Christian thinkers. These views are primarily quoted from Indonesian newspapers. First, we discuss John Julaman, a Catholic writer who visited Aceh immediately after the tsunami struck there.[19] He couldn’t understand how to bring together the joy of Christmas with the occurrence of the tsunami.  Thus the question is: Is Allah furious? If furious, why have the people of Aceh, Nias, etc. been targeted? As a person of faith, John Julaman experiences difficulty and inner conflict. If God is furious, says John, and here we see how God acts, then this disturbs my faith in the God who is Very Good, but if God just let the tsunami happen, that also means God kept quiet, and that also disturbs Julaman’s faith. John Julaman relates his meeting with Pastor Ferdinando from Brazil who has worked in Aceh for 30 years. This Pastor escaped the dangers of the tsunami. He told John that when the tsunami hit Aceh he was on his way to the store to buy cake. Realizing that danger was attacking, he immediately fell down on the ground and screamed: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among those acceptable to Him.” To John’s question about why he screamed that, Pastor Ferdinando said: “I praised God because the jolt was so strong, the most horrifying thing I had ever experienced.” So how did the Pastor view this disaster through the lens of a pastor’s faith? Pastor Ferdinando clearly rejects linking that disaster to God just like that. That disaster, he says, is still a normal natural disaster, probably the most horrible in the last 100 years, but it was neither the only disaster nor the most terrible.  He said: “This earth of ours lives; it flames and breathes no differently than humans. The earth – that earthquake and tsunami – is like humans who breathe. God doesn’t want to bring an end to the freedom already given to humanity, and the same with shifts in the earth that God created so well from the very beginning.”  Clearly it is irrelevant to wonder whether God is being quiet or reacting to that event.  The Pastor continues: “You know I was saved from the tsunami, but that doesn’t mean I stop from continually making an effort before God so that I will later be saved by God in heaven. Those who have gone before have probably been saved before we have been.”

The second view we present is from Yonki Karman, a professor of the School of Theology in Cipanas.[20] To balance theodicy[21] he suggests anthropodicy. He stresses that extreme suffering such as that experienced by our brothers and sisters in Aceh and Nias, an explanation to defend God’s justice feels misplaced. He thinks “beyond theodicy”.  For Karman, the language of theodicy is appropriate for God’s defenders, but is not legitimate for those without hope because that language doesn’t side with the suffering. That is why Job could not be convinced.  Faced with the mystery of suffering beyond rational religious boundaries, such as in Aceh, theodicy may convince logical rationality, but not the rationality of the heart. Quoting George De Schrijver, Karman says that the language of theodicy tends to give legitimation to suffering and doesn’t help those who suffer. But the language of anthropodicy sides with and is sympathetic to the victim. That is what is needed by disaster victims.[22] Thus the problem for the tsunami victims who survived, according to Karman, is how to live, with suffering and trauma, on top of the ashes of life that has been destroyed. The problem is: Is there a reason to go on living?  In such a situation, religion should not be used to repress the inner turbulence of those faced with the absurdity of disaster. There should be space for them to question the reality of life that is bad and live in God’s mercy that is sometimes difficult. For that to happen, victims need “space” to use fantasy creatively. Their thoughts may roam to create oases of meaning in the world. This opportunity must be given to them, otherwise they will be caught in absurdity. Therefore human solidarity is very important. The suffering of brothers and sisters in Aceh is also our suffering. This is a very expensive solidarity momentum; beware lest the momentum be polluted by unpraiseworthy acts. We can make this momentum a turning point of the nation to rise up from its grave.

It is clear that Yonki Karman doesn’t question deeply whether or not God plays a role in that disaster. What is far more important to him is how humans give meaning to the disaster by resurrecting the enthusiasm of solidarity among humans.  

The third opinion we are going to present here is taken from Herlianto.  Herlianto is a civil engineer, but has a deep interest in theological issues. In his article, “Sin and Disaster”,[23] he rejects an interpretation that links sin and disaster, as if it was caused by the many GAM (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, Movement for an Independent Aceh) terrorists there or because Islamic law was implemented in that region and made Christians oppressed so that Allah judged. Herlianto quotes a number of Bible verses to show that such an opinion cannot be justified. For example, he quotes Luke 13:4-5: “Or those 18 upon whom the tower in Sil’am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Rather Herlianto sees the connection between sin and misfortune as a superstition. He warns that the Aceh disaster also struck non-Muslims and non-Acehnese. The disaster was also felt in Nias, where the majority of residents are Christian. What’s interesting is that Herlianto also connects the tsunami with the Day of the Lord, in his sermon to welcome the New Year 2005.[24]  That sermon was based on 2 Peter 3:3-10: “The Day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be burned up.” He rejects the view that the world’s situation will just proceed safely. This is called an uniformitarian understanding that is known by the motto put forward by James Hutton, that “the present is the key to the past”. This view was then wed to the theory of evolution according to Darwin (in biology) and Charles Lyell (in geology). Concerning this uniformitarian view, the Apostle Peter minds us there are three catastrophic events that the earth experiences, namely (1) creation; (2) a huge flood during Noah’s era; and (3) the burning of the earth at the end of the ages.  The third has not yet happened, but prophesied many times in the Bible. The case of the tsunami disaster, although small in the world’s scale, when connected to Peter’s writing reminds us of the possibility of the greatest catastrophe as the end of the ages and that the tsunami disaster might be an early sign pointing in that direction.

The fourth theological view that we want to present is from Eka Darmaputera. Eka was a pastor, but also a reliable thinker and Indonesian theologian. For 21 years he suffered from a liver illness that developed into cancer. Nevertheless he never gave up hope. It was in the last moments of his life that he produced writings that strengthen and comfort, deep reflections concerning the secret of life and illness. He recently died on 29 June 2005. Eka viewed illness as God strongest megaphone.[25] Why? Because soft whispers are often ignored. Only pain that makes a shrill noise can startle humans. The history of the people of Israel proves that. When their life began to be established and completely adequate, they were inclined to forget the Source. They ignored the laws of God. It was not until they entered holes of disaster they themselves had dug that they cried for help. Apparently “pain” and “suffering” are able to remind us to return to God’s path. “Pain” and “suffering” are not just the strongest megaphone, but also the most effective, the most useful. If you don’t believe it, go to the intensive care unit (ICU). Here Eka quotes Philip Yancey, Where is God When It Hurts? In the ICU, you will meet all kinds of people, all mixed up – rich, poor, elegant, shabby, old young, men, women, those despised, those glorified. The ICU is the one place on this earth where not even the slightest differences mean a thing. There people are able to help each other, get to know each other, comfort each other. All are united by feelings: how valuable, but also how brittle life is. So it is not surprising there are hospital chaplains, but not restaurant chaplains or karaoke chaplains. But this doesn’t mean God grants pain so that we turn towards God. If this is true, God is really egotistical. God is willing to make God’s own children hurt so that God’s interests are fulfilled. But it isn’t that way. God does not like pain. Pain is not in the scenario of God’s creation. God’s son, Jesus Christ, must experience pain and suffering precisely in order to free humans from it. What is clear is when the megaphone of pain sounds, Allah is announcing that something is wrong. Eka quotes John Donne, an English poet of the 17^th century whose wife left him and at the end himself also had an incurable illness. Nevertheless, from his resting place he produced beautiful writings about the meaning of pain. “When a person dies, a chapter is not torn from the book, rather it is translated into a more beautiful language.”

 

c.       Inter-Religious Dialogue

 

In Makassar, from 8-11 June 2005, a discussion on the theology of disaster was held by Oase Intim. Participants were those who had experienced disaster in Nias, Aceh, Nabire and Alor. Therefore, this discussion was also across religions. The topic of discussion was how those involved in disaster respond to God (Allah), and human attitudes towards their neighbors. So topics were sorted on one side as theological and on the other as anthropological. It was hoped that there would be a kind of reconstruction of theological thought post-tsunami. Both Christian and Muslim participants shared their views. Interestingly there were parallels in what people thought and attitudes taken about the disaster. For example, in Aceh, both Muslim and Christian children hysterically screamed the name of God.  Muslim children shouted the God whom they remembered from their religious recitations whereas Christian children knew this name from Sunday school. There was the same kind of human instinct to seek protection from the “figure” whom they already knew although its form was still vague. This instinct was present in both Christian and Muslim children.

Another participant from Aceh named Teku Mohammad Pasyah (a Muslim), who had lost some of his family in the tsunami said the disaster was felt by many people to be a (small) doomsday. Together with other people, he felt that the end of the world was close. But what was interesting, he said, was that people encouraged and strengthened one another. In doing this it was no longer important what religion a person had. There was a kind of energy that flowed from those friends who gave such encouragement. There was a spiritual feeling that people usually experience when they go on the pilgrimage to Mecca – sharing energy and that energy is God’s own energy.

Rev. Aritonang who also survived that disaster gave witness that God really lives. Through that catastrophe he realized that God is a living God. He was tossed by a wave onto the roof of a house and thought his wife was already dead. But his wife was thrown onto the roof of a different house. They saw each other and called out each other’s names. Those who saved themselves by climbing on the roofs of tall building were both Muslims and Christians. Some escaped death because they went to the second story of a church building. They were coming from different religions, but they were sharing the same longing, to be saved from the disaster. People called to the same Allah. 

In this connection, it should be appropriate to mention, that there were also those who were sharply critical of sermons by Muslim teachers and Christian ministers that accused Aceh of being immoral. How would they know that Aceh is immoral? That is the question. The accusation that Aceh had sinned came from outside Aceh and not from Aceh itself. What became a joint struggle of Christians and Muslims was how to make present the Allah who loves and not the Allah who is cruel in dealing with people who had experienced trauma as a consequence of the disaster.

Regarding that matter, a theology of punishment has also been put forward. Dr.  Gerrit Singgih, a theology professor in the Theology Faculty at the Duta Wacana Christian University in Yogyakarta does not at all reject the possibility of a theology of punishment, nevertheless it cannot be applied to everyone, and certainly not to the people of Aceh and Nias who have experienced such suffering. A theology of punishment may be suggested especially for those who are corrupt, oppressors, those who have treated their neighbors unjustly, etc. Evidently people who suffer because of oppression hope for that kind of justice whereas for those who suffer it is hoped a theology of forgiveness will be developed.

Certainly why God allows evil to happen is a theological problem for Muslims as well as for Christians. Where is God’s love? Is God just? These problems will probably be everlasting. On the other hand, issues basically characterized as anthropological were also discussed: where was human solidarity realized among those who suffered? How do we make real  that we are all united in suffering, etc. These questions are asked in the context of mistrust of authorities considered not serious about handling Aceh.  But there is also distrust in themselves, are they still able to rise up from the ashes of death and begin a new life.

 

IV.              A Post-Tsunami Theological Perspective

 

If we talk about a post-tsunami theological perspective in Indonesia, first of all we must deconstruct thoughts and understandings about God and God’s role in that natural disaster. To present Allah as the Giver of punishment will not help the sufferer to escape from suffering and rise again to continue living, as if each disaster must be seen as punishment of humans, what more in many cases humans also never know what their mistake has been.  It is probably good for us to weigh seriously the suggestion to consider anthropodicy as a balance to theodicy. Theodicy seems to be difficult to defend, what more when we witness that is it precisely “good” people who suffer greatly.

I myself am of the opinion that to view God as siding with the one who suffers is far better.  Indeed, God is the One Who Suffers.  This is evident in the incarnation when the Highest God is willing to enter human flesh.  This attitude of divine solidarity is very deep because in this way God prepares a “space” of opportunity for humans to begin something new.  The Church which bears this mandate of God’s solidarity is called to demonstrate it clearly and unequivocally in its relations with its Muslim brothers and sisters (as well as those of other faiths).  Of course this is not easy.  The stigma that Christians want to take advantage of disaster to proselytize, as has been claimed by some Islamic groups, must be erased through profound introspection and concrete action.  Such suspicions were behind a wave of mass actions by radical Islamic groups during the past several weeks, aimed at closing a number of Christian places of worship in West Java and Banten.  The reason given was that these places of worship were in violation of the Joint Declaration of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Religion of 1969.  We fear that such actions as taking the law into one’s own hands will do little good for our life together as a people.  We have expressed our concerns to the President and Vice President in separate audiences on 23 August and 21 September.  We asked for the protection of the State for all of its citizens to express their faith in public. 

All of these events cannot be an excuse for the Church to cease its ministry.  The Church must continue to serve and bear witness.  It is probably good to remember I Peter 3:15:  “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..”

Furthermore, God’s solidarity in suffering is not the last word.  After suffering (and death) is the Resurrection. This gives the possibility for those who suffered because of that disaster to see and hope that there is still a new dawn of life. How Christians and Muslims together can develop this theological perspective surely is also a struggle, but at least if there is discussion, then mutual understanding can be achieved.

Solidarity among humans can be built and developed on the basis of God’s divine solidarity with humans.  Thus, theology has strong roots in the humanity of humans with their various problems, and anthropology reflects the willingness of God to become human and also create humans according to God’s image.

 

 

______________________

*) Andreas A. Yewangoe is General Chairperson of PGI/CCI

 

 

                                                                 Doorn, The Netherlands, 6 October 2005