In order to assess, critically, the theology of John Hick it is of primary importance to understand and outline his own ideologies and what is meant by Pluralism. Pluralism does not believe in one Christian ‘God’ but instead argues that instead of the monotheistic God there is the ‘Real’ which is something that those from all religions can aspire to. The Pluralist Christian approach comes from a consideration of historical relativity. It claims that all religions are relative and therefore cannot claim superiority over other religions that are equally limited and which have relative ways to salvation. The contemporary congregation between Christians and members of other world faiths has also meant that the former notion of The Church and Christian civilization being morally superior has been transformed. The idea that the ‘real unity of religions is found not in doctrine but in salvation and liberation’ could be said to have led to dialogue with other religions and liberation theology. John Hick has developed the idea of the ‘Real’ and suggested a Copernican revolution in religion, which stemmed from Copernicus’ discovery that the planets rotated around the sun. Hick metaphorically suggested that the sun should play the role of the ‘real’ and the planets should be similar to the world faiths, therefore implying that religions should move towards God or in his case the ‘real’ and not towards solely Christ, this therefore concludes that his ideology is Theocentric rather than Christocentric. He also argues that Christianity has treated itself as a superior religion for a substantial amount of time which in turn has marked other religions as a less efficient and invalid means to salvation. Hick strongly opposes the idea held by inclusivists and exclusivists of Solus Christus, claiming it is ‘incompatible with the God’ apparent within the Bible who wishes to lead all to salvation. However, Hicks theocentric ideology came under criticism as many theologians accused his theology of still being exclusive of those religions that are non-theistic for example Buddhism. Hick therefore, ‘developed a Kantian-type distinction between noumenal reality…and the phenomenal world.’ When outlined this ideology, encompasses all the various ways in which he claims the ‘real’ or ‘Eternal One’can be understood whether or not a religion is theistic or non theistic.
When confronted with the claims made by many theologians that the incarnation of Christ gives Christianity superiority over other Hick argues that the incarnation should be interpreted as being symbolic and mythological and not literal and argues that the Council of Nicaea should no longer dictate modern theology. This perhaps leads to one of the major criticisms on Hick’s theology.
Hick’s Pluralist theology and pluralism itself has attracted much criticism. His rejection of Solus Christus could be seen to be in fact exclusive of those Christians who believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. By the same token Hick’s rejection of the incarnation as being literal, which is what, is observed by numerous Christians could be seen to be undermining one of the core essential in Christianity and therefore invalidating the Christian tradition. Because John Hick’s theology stems from a Christian background his pluralistic theology could be said to be un-pluralistic, as he is not a member of every world religion. His opinions on other religions are, questionably purely objective, therefore his speculation and arguments that the religions of the world should move to be more theocentric than christocentric could be seen to appear to be taking some form of superiority over other world faiths This point forces the question, without a subjective knowledge of religion, by belonging to a particular religion can one make speculation or pass judgement on what would be desired and accepted by that religion? Many theologians have also become uncomfortable with Hick’s idea that his idea of the ‘real’ is not specifically attached to any particular faith; this could be highly problematic for religions that have formed their social and perhaps political tradition from a particular theistic perspective. Hick’s ‘real’ is without a historical background, and therefore is without characteristic or instruction, many religions depend on their own god, or gods or specific beliefs for guidance, the suggestion of there merely being a reality for all religions and not a main superior God may well deter people from religion as it is arguably too vague. Hick also dismisses the history and background of various religions as he leaves no room in his ideology of the ‘real’ to amalgamate the originations of the historical, sociologically and even politically backgrounds of all world faiths. This in itself shows that Hick seems to take some kind of authority over other world religions. This in turn is hypocritical to what he states about Christian superiority. The way in which John Hick’s ideology is worded is also problematic as his terms are usually associated with the Christian Tradition, terms such as salvation and grace often do not feature in other religions. Hick seems to assume that all religion has one common goal and that is to achieve salvation, comparisons can be made between Christian salvation and what may be it’s equivalency in other world faiths but, by using the term salvation, which has Christian connotations Hick eradicates the diversity of other religion, and enforces a Christian belief upon other religions and undermines their own respective beliefs.
In conclusion, although John Hick’s intentions are to create equality amongst religions, and to accept other religions as having a common superiority which appears to be beneficial in theory, he uses problematic terminology and his when forming his arguments. This in turn leads to criticism, which, perhaps, claims that Hick is hypocritical and controversial in his arguments. His radical arguments at times seem to fall short of explaining and including how his theology would work for all religion. His rejection of core themes in Christianity also evokes a sense of exclusivism and superiority. Hick does not seem to have a valid explanation for why it is necessary for all religions to have a common God. His theology although it strives for equality, arguably, ironically seems to in fact have the opposite effect, as it seems to undermine the practice and beliefs of other world faiths. Pluralism like, debatably, most theologies has varied disadvantages, in part this might be due to its apparent radicalism.
Bibliography
D. Ford Ed.-The Modern Theologians (Blackwell Publishers 1996)
J. Hick-An Interpretation of Religion (Basingstoke 1998)
Websites
www. Britannica.com
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P626
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P627
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P627
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P.628
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P.628
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P.628
The Modern Theologians- D. Ford Ed. P.629
