The Mutual Supsicion & Mutual Appreciation

In our world today, one of the greatest issue is regarding the issue of religion, especially their inter-relationship with each other in the context of plural society. Peter Berger has raised the awareness of these as he bring about the plausable four-fold stuctrus within society, as they interact with each other. The four are: First, rejection. Second, surrender. Third, reformed. Fourth, pluralism. From these four options also we can see how might Christian encounter other faith, or what I called as religious others. John Milbank has written an article entitled, The End of Dialogue in which he argue for "Mutual Supicion" of difference rather than find a commonality on a neutral topic. 

Milbank specifically wrote, "Christian Theology must continue to subvert other discourses at the very point of their denial of otherness, by searching for internal tensions and lacunae which permit to interpellate typological anticipation of the Christian Logos, and to set free a spiritually diffrent response, which yet must be a specifically Christocentric one." Rather than persuing harmony by similiarity, Milbank focus more on persuing harmony through contrasts. This is a very reasonable approach that frequently being left out in the scheme of inter-faith thinking. Milbank ways of approaching inter-religious faith is for me is an attempt to embrace firmly the reality of uniqueness of each religion, while respecting on diffrences, which are the qualites of the uniqueness itself. 

This approach acknowlege the reality of what what Stephen Prothero said as, "God is not one". Often time, dialogue has a hidden asumption, as far as I notice, "difference cannot create a harmony." I agree with Milbank approach, only by aware of each other diffrences, we can have a mutual respect with each other even in a deeper level. In fact, in our normal social interaction, we do this things everyday. What make everyone special is we reconigzing their diffrences, talent, passion, characters. The couple who thrives and in harmony is a couple who work out on their differences than similiarities. Nonetheless, the way Milbank use the word, "supicion" still unclear. Suspicion is quite negative in connotation, which somehow creating a tension between the mutual interaction of religious others. It can also create a sense of draw-back, possible resistence to even having any interaction. 

I argue that mutual suspicion of Milbank is not enough to adress the issue of religious interaction, if the aim is a noteworthy-mutual harmony. While mutual suspicion can be a good steping stone of preserving Christian identity thus, it is also reasonae for Christian to be in a mode of suspicious of other religions rather than easily looking after the common ground and "similiarity" (there is a tendency to  misintepreted similiarity as sameness). Yet, at the same time, Milbank apporach need to be coped and expanded also with what I call as mutual appreciation. What do I mean by mutual apprecition? Of course, it does not mean that Christian need to welcome and commend each diffrences or similiarity, as if both are equally contributing to a larger truth. This is pluralism and pluralism is actually a kind of contradiction for it somehow exclude exclusivism.

 Mutual suspicion of religious others is important because we as Chrstian will be more cautios as Daniel Strange put aptly as the title of his book, "their rock is not like our rock." In his work, strange define all kind of religious others as "idolatrous" intepreters and antithethical distortions of divine revelation. In respond to his view, If religious others are indeed an idolatous and distortion, how can we see the diffrences or even the similiarity, then appreciate them? 

First of all we beed to understand that to be suspicous is to guard the uniqueness of Christianity and its truth claim. Then, as we are moving to mutual appreciation stance, the way is by looking at which part in religious others (either doctrine or pratices) has somewhat echoes a set of  preparatio steps to Christ. The religious others cannot be seen as a total distortion or hinderence but as a stepping stone to a deeper revelation in Christ Jesus. Here, I agree with the foundation that strange lays but soften it a little bit. This is the key, what we appreciate is not the stark distortion from the diffrences but how we also see that the other religions can create some incomplete puzzles which we can as Christian can safely say, Christ is the final and puzzle that can perfect all attempt of religion in promoting and articulating truth. However, having said that, there are several follow up questions, does all religions has this preparation elements? To what degree? are the preparatio is limited only in term of ethical/moral dimension rather than philosophical/theological core doctrine? 

The answer to these questions can be make in a distinct writing but the key of examining the preparatio element is this, does the aspect of a particular religion emphazising the general framework of Chrirst identity and works. That's the part where the echoes of preparatio is need to be appreciated. If for instance, a certain religion presenting a doctrine or a practice that promote termination, death, violance, then, it is clear for Christian to stay in a mutual supsicion and not mutual appreciation.