Bridging Our Faith and Nationalism
Sunny Tanuwidjaja

---

Why do individuals and communities desire to have or to become part of a nation? Why do we individually choose to be an Indonesian, and why do we as a group, whether as Chinese, Christians, Javanese, or as other ethnic communities, would want to be part of Indonesia? Notice here I use the word “want” and “choose” to suggest that being a part of a nation is not something primordial or ascriptive, instead it is something individuals or groups decide, resolve for, and choose consciously. If this is something that we as Christians choose, what then should be our biblical view of nation and/or nationalism?

For the purpose of this article, I am limiting the meaning of nation as a community with diverse ethnicity in a bound political unit and territory, and nationalism as a sense of loyalty, commitment, and allegiance to the creation, existence, and development of the nation. I will utilize the lens of history and the lens of the Scripture; borrowing the idea from Gene Getz framework in Sharpening the Focus of the Church [1]; to argue concisely how we as Indonesian Christians should view Indonesia as our nation and the idea of Indonesian nationalism.

Let us begin by looking into the generally accepted account and historical analysis of the development of the idea of Indonesia and the Indonesian nationalism. There are at least three main accepted arguments on why and how nationalism in general and Indonesian nationalism in general emerged. Here, I will attempt to divide the process into several sequences: the birth of modern nations in Europe, the emergence of nationalism consciousness among the elites, and the spread of nationalism among the Indonesian mass.

Gertz, a renowned anthropologist, recognizes two main aims of people under colonial rules. First is the desire to be recognized as responsible agents, whose wishes, acts, hopes, and opinions “matter”. This aim is a search for an identity, and a demand that identity be publicly acknowledged as important, an assertion of being a significant agent in the world. The second aim is the desire to build an efficient, dynamic modern state to facilitate the pursuit for progress, rising standard of living, more effective political order, greater social justice, and becoming a player in the arena of world politics [2]. Although according to Gertz they are in paradox, I am in a position to believe that both are the motive behind the creation of many, if not all, nations, including Indonesia.

Traces of such mind set begin in the century of Enlightenment. Previously, religion has provided an explanation and hope of continuity for human beings in the midst of sufferings. With religious dominance began to diminish, human civilization required an alternative to replace religion as a source of continuity and hope. According to Anderson, few things were better than the idea of nation. Through the idea of nation and nationalism, Anderson argues, chance can be transformed into destiny, meaning it is not impossible for human beings to victor and endure sufferings by becoming a nation [3].

As Europeans traveled throughout the Globe, expanding their rules throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America, this idea spread. Through the Dutch and its territorial boundaries of colonialism, the idea of Nationalism was brought to the archipelago that now has a name, Indonesia. In the late-nineteenth century, the Dutch began to realize that it is impossible to rule all its colonies utilizing their own human resources. They began to create educational institutions, where the highest education was only available in Batavia, the capital of the colony. This causes different individuals from through out the archipelago who were qualified to gather in Batavia, as the top of their educational journey. Such opportunity for interactions, created this idea of “Imagined Community” among these intellectuals parallel to the territorial boundaries of the colony. Added to this was the sense of solidarity as being considered inferior compare to the Dutch. The opportunity to be part of the modern educational system exposed them to the idea of selfdetermination and nationalism that has happened throughout the globe, and awakened the idea of Indonesia as a nation within the Indonesian intellectuals [4].

While the Dutch occupation allowed the formation of the idea of Indonesia and the sense of nationalism among the elites, the Japanese occupation caused the idea of Indonesia and Indonesian nationalism to spread among the masses. Fighting World War II against the Allies, the Japanese realized that they need the help of the Asians, including the Indonesians. To get their support, the Japanese promised the Indonesian their independence. This can only be possible if the Asian defeated the Western colonial powers. To appeal to the masses, the Japanese allows the elite to interact closely with the mass in the hope that the elites can help the Japanese to awaken a sense of anti-colonialism through the idea of self-determination. Within a few months of the Japanese arrivals, the Indonesia realized that it is the intention of the Japanese to exploit and to rule the Indonesian also, as indicated by their harsh treatment and arbitrary exploitation of human and natural resources. Thus, when the Indonesian elites communicate with the mass about anticolonialism and self-determination, they both have in mind not only the western-colonials, but also the Japanese. At this period of Japanese occupation then the nationalism that initially owned by the Indonesian elite was transmitted to the mass throughout the archipelago [5].

From the historical accounts and analysis provided by several historians above, it is clear that the idea of Indonesia did not exist as a given, and was created. Indonesian nationalism was constructed and imagined, and produced by the historical interaction of: human nature, elites, demand and trend of the environment, and colonialism. Through the interactions of these factors, Indonesian nationalism emerged and proliferated to the masses. Based on this fact, should we as Christian Indonesian even need to maintain loyalty and commitment to Indonesia? If it is clear that the idea of Indonesia is not something divine, why should we even allow and preserve our sense of nationalism? Why should we even care about Indonesia? Before we make any hasty conclusion on this, let’s first look into the scripture as our lens for some guidance.

Surveying into the Bible, it does not seems to provide any specific direction for us to be loyal to our country. However, it does provide some clues to work with on which we can develop a proper view of us, as Indonesian Christian, in relations to Indonesia and our sense of nationalism. The NIV Bible uses the word “nations” at least six hundred and sixty nine times mostly are old testaments verses, mainly referring “nations” as a community with certain level of cultural homogeneity and sometimes referring it as a political unit. Specifically, the word “nations” in the Bible can refers to tribes, groups of tribes, kingdoms, and empires. Probably none is even close to the current idea of “modern states”. Group of tribes are not as large in size, their organization is not as complex, and their degree of diversity is not as high as the current modern states. In the cases of kingdoms and empires which size are often comparable to or even larger than the current modern states, and the diversity is as high; the underlying difference for our case is often times empires and kingdoms are results of forced inclusion of others, while nation as in the case of Indonesia is a result of voluntary inclusion [6]. Also, the ancient nations did not have any clear territorial bound as the current modern states, decreasing the importance of territorial aspect in the ancient meaning of nations. Lastly, the essential difference between ancient nations and modern nations is that the idea of citizenship. In the ancient nations, people are the subjects of the rulers, while in modern time the notion of modern nations imply that people are citizens not subject of rulers, who can actively participate in the development of nations. Yet, there are at least to possible overlaps between the meanings of “nation(s)” used in the Bible and this article, which are: its cultural homogeneity and its political aspect. Thus, it is reasonable to apply the clues found in the Scripture to our case.

The first clue we can discover is that God considers nations as an important part of His plan. Two important accounts of God’s works in history at least confirm this. He began his works of salvation with a plan to work through Abraham by making him the father of a great nation. He promised: “I will make you a great nation … (Genesis 12:2)”. Later God confirmed that through Abraham, many nations will be blessed (NIV, Genesis 18:18). It is clear indications here that nation at that time an important part of God’s creation and the life of the ancient people, and God does not intend to begin his work by neglecting that reality. This is why I believe He had in mind not only individuals, but nations as a whole even in the beginning of unfolding His redemptive works on earth. One thing must be clear here: God I would argue did not create nations but instead created human being as individual, social, and cultural being. Creating them this way, impels individuals to be a part of larger social groups in which they can interact and be creative, and thus created them, formal or informal, with or without organization, and with or without political structure.

The second central point of history was when Christ commissioned his eleven disciples, saying: “… Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you … (Matthew 28:16-20).” From this we can infer again that God’s redemptive plan includes the reality not only that nations existed, but they were an important part of His creations. This is one of the reasons why He chooses to work his redemption through and to the nations. All of this is not an attempt to downgrade the fact that individuals and their obedience are important, but the point is we need to be very conscious to the fact that God chooses to began his work through a nation and to bring forth his truth to nations.

Nations as an important reality of God’s creation is also indicated by the fact that God, although did not create nations, involves actively in the life of nations. As mentioned above, God created human beings in such a way that impels them to be a part of larger social groups. He was, and probably still is, involved in the rise and fall of nations, as Job said: “He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them (Job 12:23).”

Several lessons I would like propose from our survey the Scripture, and the historical outline of the creation and evolution of Indonesian nationalism as our basis in developing our view of Indonesia as a nation, and our sense of nationalism. Understanding that through out history and even until today that sense of nationalism continues to exist, David T. Koyzis warns the importance for Christians to put the idea of nation and nationalism in a modest and proper place, which means that it must remain within the normative limit of God’s creation7. In line with Koyzis, I would like to point out that the fact that nations are constructed or created by people, it is important for us not to deify nations through our sense of nationalism. On the other hand, we need to also understand that God invites us to be a part of his redemptive and restorative plan for his creation. This plan, begin through a nation and is brought for nations, confirming the fact that the idea of nation is central in his mind. Then, if we agreed to be a part of his redemptive and restorative plan, we need to be conscious to the centrality of nation(s) in this plan. In addition to this, by His design, we as human are not only individual beings, but also social and cultural beings. This design impels us to be a part of a larger social group in which we have the opportunities to interact and be creative. Yet such social groups would need to be part of a greater community, and such community that is generally accepted as the best alternative for survival and development is nation.

With this in mind, as the agents of his redemptive and restorative plan, we as Indonesian Christians should have appreciation towards Indonesia as a nation, and should then have and maintain our sense of nationalism, which is our sense of loyalty, allegiance, and commitment to our nation. Such sense of nationalism should be based upon our identity as his followers, our calling, and must be placed within the limit of God’s normative limit as Koyzis suggested.

Sunny Tanuwidjaja is currently pursuing Master Degree in Political Science at Northern Illinois University.

Footnotes

[1] Getz, Gene. Sharpening the Focus of the Church. Chicago: Victor Books, 1984.

[2] Gertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Culture. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000, pp. 258.

[3] Anderson, Benedict. The Imagined Communities. New York, NY: Verso, 1991, pp. 11-12.

[4] Ibid. pp 113-140.

[5] Kahin, George M. Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1952, pp. 101-133.

[6] It is acknowledged that the cases of Papua and Timor are still contentious, and it is not my purpose to elaborate on this. I will the two cases as they are and point that in general from the East to the West, being a part of Indonesia was initially a voluntary decision by the different regions there.

[7] Koyzis, David T. Political Vision and Illusion. Madison, WI: Intervarsity Press, 2003, pp. 97-123

Back to top