Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Religious governance in Indonesia faces the challenge of translating commitments to moderation and inclusion into arrangements that remain responsive to institutional, societal, and communication changes. Existing scholarship has examined policy institutionalization, interfaith collaboration, grassroots participation, local practices, and digital engagement, but these dimensions remain insufficiently integrated within a coherent account of resilient religious governance. This study examines future-oriented religious policy in Indonesia by integrating institutional and societal dimensions into a framework of resilient governance. It employed a qualitative policy-oriented document analysis using policy documents, ministerial regulations, government reports, institutional guidelines, academic publications, and empirical studies on religious moderation, interfaith relations, education, conflict prevention, and community resilience. Documentary materials and qualitative evidence reported in previous studies were examined through thematic organization, cross-source comparison, and iterative data condensation, display, and conclusion drawing. The analysis identified three interconnected domains: institutional foundations, collaborative and participatory processes, and adaptive resilience. Rights-sensitive and inclusive governance requires institutional mandates, coordination, and operational capacity; collaborative processes connect formal institutions with community participation, local knowledge, and interfaith practices; and adaptive resilience depends on learning and responsiveness to changing local, educational, and digital environments. These domains are interconnected rather than sequential or causal. The study contributes an integrated conceptual framework for understanding resilient religious governance in Indonesia and provides an analytical basis for developing religious policy that is institutionally coherent, participatory, locally responsive, and adaptive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Purwosusanto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: