John Hick and Pluralism free essay sample

John Hick was born in 1922 in England to a middle class family. He developed an interest in philosophy and religion in his teens, being encouraged by his uncle, who was an author and teacher at  Manchester University. Hick initially pursued a  law degree  at  Hull University, but converted to  Evangelical Christianity  from the fundamentalist Christian beliefs with which he was raised, and decided to change his career and enrolled at the  University of Edinburgh  in 1941. During his studies, he became liable for military service in  World War II, but as a  conscientious objector  on moral grounds, enrolled in the  Friends Ambulance Unit. After the war, he returned to Edinburgh and became attracted to the philosophy of  Immanuel Kant, and began to question his fundamentalism. In 1948, he completed his MA dissertation, which formed the basis of his book  Faith and Knowledge (Peters). He went on to earn a Doctorate in Philosophy from  Oxford University  in 1950 and a Doctorate in Literature from Edinburgh in 1975. In 1953, he married Joan Hazel Bowers, and the couple had three children. After many years as a member of the United Reformed Church, in October 2009 he was accepted into membership of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain. Hick has twice been the subject of heresy proceedings. In 1961-1962, when he was teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary, he sought, as a Presbyterian minister, to join the local Presbytery of New Brunswick. He was asked whether he took exception to anything in the Westminster Confession of 1647 and answered that several points were open to question; for example, he was agnostic on the historical truth of the Virgin Birth and did not regard it as an essential item of Christian faith. Because of this, some of the local ministers appealed against his reception into the Presbytery. Their appeal was sustained by the Synod. A year later, a counter-appeal was sustained by the Judicial Committee of the General Assembly, and Hick became a member of the Presbytery (Furlong). In the mid-1980s, when teaching at the  Claremont Graduate University  in California, Hick sought to join the local Presbytery of San Gabriel. His application was strongly opposed by certain local ministers. After long discussion, the relevant committee told him that his application would be extremely divisive and invited him to withdraw it, which he did (Furlong). John Hick is often cited as one of the most—if not simply the most—significant philosopher of religion in the twentieth century (Cramer). His contributions to this field have been so substantial that they easily spill immense implications over into related fields. Clearly, Hick’s work has such implications for theology. Hick challenges theologians to transform Christian Religion to address effectively the modern world, which is now undoubtedly pluralistic. He both criticizes what he considers outmoded Christian in light of recent developments in religious epistemology, while simultaneously suggesting new possibilities for the enrichment of Christian experience as religious experience. While some of these suggestions are certainly open to debate, it is nonetheless certain that Hick, like Columbus, has discovered the new world—a new pluralistic world—which all future theology must take into account (although it is clear that, despite this recent discovery, the Indians—though this time the  real  Indians—have long since beaten us here as well). In light of his Kantian influences, Hick claims that knowledge of the Real (his generic term for Transcendent Reality) can only be known as it is being perceived. For that reason, absolute truth claims about God (to use Christian language) are really truth claims about perceptions of God; that is, claims about the phenomenal God and not the noumenal God. Furthermore, because all knowledge is rooted in experience, which is then perceived and interpreted into human categories of conception, cultural and historical contexts that inevitably influence human perception are necessarily components of knowledge of the Real. This means that knowledge of God and religious truth claims pertaining thereof are culturally and historically influenced; and for that reason should not be considered absolute. This is a significant aspect of Hicks argument against Christian  exclusivism, which holds that although other religions might contain partial goodness and truth,  salvation  is provided only in  Jesus  Christ, and the complete truth of God is contained only in Christianity (Hick, Christ. Theo. ). Perhaps the simplest manner in which to understand Hicks theory of pluralism of religions is to share the comparison he makes between his own understanding of religion and the Copernican view of our solar system. Before Copernicus disseminated his views of the solar centered universe, the Ptolemaic system ruled in which the stars were painted in the sky, the earth was flat, and the sun rose and set around the earth. In short, the rest of the universe existed for and was centered on our little planet. On the other hand, Copernicus asserted that the earth and other planets as well, circled the sun, which in fact, did not move, but only appeared to move due to the revolution of our planet. Copernicus introduced our world to the understanding that other planets took similar paths around the sun; while each path differed, all served the same purpose and generated the same result: every planet makes a full path around our central star, and those revolutions create day and night for each planet, just as day and night occur on earth. Although the time frames for a full trip around the sun and for a full day-night cycle, differs on a planet-by-planet basis, the concept remains constant throughout our solar system (Hick, Christ. Theo. ). Similarly, Hick draws the metaphor that the Ptolemaic view of religion would be that Christianity is the only way to true salvation and knowledge of the one true God. Ptolemaic Christianity would assert that everything exists and all of history has played out in specific patterns for the glory of the Christian God, and there is no other possibility that will lead to salvation. Hick appears as Copernicus, offering the belief that perhaps all theistic religions are focused toward the one true God, and simply take different paths to achieve the same goal (Hick, God Univ. f Faith). A speaker on religious pluralism, Keith E. Johnson, compares Hicks pluralistic theology to a tale of three blind men attempting to describe an elephant, one touching the leg, the second touching the trunk, the third feeling the elephants side. Each man describes the elephant differently, and, although each is accurate, each is convinced of their own correctness and the mistakenness of the other two. Robert Sm id  states that Hick believes that the tenets of Christianity are no longer feasible in the present age, and must be effectively lowered'. Moreover, Mark Mann notes that Hick argues that there have been people throughout history who have been exemplars of the Real (Mann). Hicks position is â€Å"not an exclusively Christian inclusivism [like that of Karl Rahner and his ‘Anonymous Christian’], but a plurality of mutually inclusive inclusivism†Ã‚  (Hick, 23). Hick contends that the diverse religious expressions (religions) are the result of diverse historically and culturally influenced responses to diverse perceptions of the Real. He states that the different religious traditions, with heir complex internal differentiations, have developed to meet the needs of the range of mentalities expressed in the different human cultures. Criticism of Hicks theory comes from many places but in essence, they offer the same major critiques. A major concern is Hicks concept of the Real. If this is the center of the universe and also unknowable, are we not just worshipping an idol when we follow the path of Christi anity, Buddhism or Islam? Another issue is Hicks Christology in which he says that the incarnation is just a myth made up by the early Church and that Jesus is not divine in any way. I can see his point from a scientific standpoint and can agree to a point. Hicks hypothesis also does not take seriously the otherness of the major religions; how can monotheistic and polytheistic or primitive and highly developed religions all be lumped together? Although there is much within the religions that are similar, some things are contradictory and Hick does not give an adequate explanation for why these things are so if there is the same God behind it all. Although Hicks model is perhaps appealing to our post-modern sensibilities that wish to condemn no one, his theory still raises too many questions for many Christians to accept it in full. The person and work of Jesus Christ is central to the Christian faith and for Hick to devalue the divinity of Jesus so much is to perhaps move Christianity away from its very core. As such, Hick offers a view that can challenge our exclusive positions but that perhaps is not much use in our debate about religious pluralism. We live in a pluralistic world with regard to religious beliefs. This is all the more evident today with globalization and greater mobility of people and ideas. This raises the question of what is the relationship between the major world religions and more specifically how Christianity relates to the other major faiths. The traditional exclusivist position is not that helpful for our discussion because it is offensive and does not take seriously the goodness in the other religions. The pluralist position, while challenging is also not that helpful because it does not take the otherness of religions seriously and it also discounts the centrality of Christ. The inclusivist position, while far from perfect offers an alternative middle ground that affirms the centrality of Christ in salvation. This position also takes the other religions seriously and can serve as an appropriate model for which to base Christian interaction with the world. This interaction can take the form of hospitality, dialogue and mission from joy both at the micro and macro level.