iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Joe Winkler

GET UPDATES FROM Joe Winkler
 

Mourning John Hick: One of the Greatest Theologians of Our Time

Posted: 02/14/2012 5:45 pm

With a deep sadness in my heart, I write of the recently deceased Christian theologian John Hick. I feel utterly unqualified to provide a proper eulogy, or even the requisite encomium for one of the 20th centuries most important religious thinkers. Given his impact on my religious personality and thought I can only express my immense gratitude towards this insightful thinker. Hick, in his books, interviews, articles and essays, not only clarified numerous theological issues including pluralism, eschatology and the truth of scripture, all in the light of modern thinking, but just the way he thought, his methodology: infused with generosity, reason, and a fullness of spirit continues to serve as a model. He taught instead of preached; he lived his life according to a well thought out system of principles, and worked hard to heal the wounds from a breakdown in interfaith communications. Hick freed so many of us from the chains of our dogma to embrace our fellow human beings.

I first stumbled upon Hick, as I floundered, drowning in a sea of swirling existential, philosophical and theological questions that grew from the intersection of a rigorous Judaic studies program coupled with an entrenchment in the leftist leaning, atheistic bent of a strongly liberal literary education. I began to doubt some of the deepest religious certainties of my life. I found little to bridge the gaps between a world suffused with the divine, and the literary world, disenchanted, drained of any trace of transcendence. I sought, in vain, answers from past theologians, regardless of religion, but found little resolution or solace in these writers. Then I found Hick. Hick wrote with a complete transparency as to his methods and assumptions, which allows you to follow the process of his prodigious thought as he struggled with his own religious belief. He sought to merge the never-ending questioning of philosophy with the religious assumptions of theology, an endeavor, in my opinion, in which he achieved important results. Though a consummate academic, Hick shunned dense, prohibitive prose and sought instead to write with clarity on the most complex topics including a trenchant and persistent analysis of theodicy. He did not write from the perch of a sermon, nor did he write from the defensiveness of an apologetic. He simply wrote from a dedicated personal vision, a well thought out sysem that attempted to account for both the aspirations and ambivalence of religion. Hick never shunned controversy, instead he hewed to the truth, regardless of the consequences, unafraid to say, "Even Jesus was fallible."

Hick, a prolific writer, wrote on immortality, the metaphors of religion, faith and doubt, eschatology, but importantly for me, he wrote extensively on one of the essential problems of religious belief today, the problem of choice. The more I read and experienced, the further I empathized with the lives of other people. I grew more compelled by new and different truths. As another prominent religious thinker, Charles Taylor writes, we live in an era in which religion presents itself as much of a choice as either another religion, or atheism. We no longer feel compelled by the fear of hell, but by the fear of a meaningless existence. Consequently, we are faced with the question of the mutually exclusive truths of particular religions. We all know, intuitively, that each religion must view itself as the true religion, otherwise, it undermines its ability to perpetuate itself. However, in our age of exploration, where every lifestyle presents itself to us as, in the words of Wiliam James, "live options," we must reconcile the conflicting claims of each religion. Hick, with eloquence and elegance achieves this goal. I hesitate to quote a writer as such great length, but his words speak better of him than anything I could write. Here Hick elucidates his vision of a the need for a pluralistic view of religion:

"Now given that the large majority of human beings are born and live, and always have lived, outside Christianity, does it make sense to think that it is God's will that 'Jesus shall reign where'er the sun does his successive journeys run'? ... There are saints and sinners in more or less equal proportion within each of the great world faiths.

So I believe we have radically to rethink our understanding of the place of Christianity in the global religious picture. And we have to face the fact that it is one path amongst others, and then reform our belief-system to be compatible with this. This is the big new challenge that theologians and church leaders have yet to face. We have to become consciously what are called religious pluralists... Finally, this is not going to happen from the top down. Change comes from the grassroots. Many of us have friends of other faiths whom we greatly admire. We simply don't believe that they are religiously disadvantaged, even though our official theologies imply that they must be. And in the end reality will inevitably prevail over traditional dogma -- at least for all who are not encased in the impenetrable armour of a rigid fundamentalism. Why does all this matter? We only have to look at the state of the world to see why. The Catholic theologian Hans Kung has said that there will never be peace between the nations until there is peace between the religions. And I would add that there will never be genuine peace between the religions until each comes to recognise the equal validity of the others. Let us all do in our time what we can to bring this about."

He walked a fine line between embracing the divine in life along with feeling guided by the plain, sensical skepticism we carry around because of life. He saw both sides, but still managed to live a religiously committed, humanistic, sensitive, rationally driven life. His example itself lent viability and relevancy to religion today.

To end on a more playful note, for Hick displayed a healthy sense of playfulness and humor, I recall one small story that makes me smile. Once I began reading Hick, I sought out one of the books he edited entitled "The Existence of God" to which he contributed an introduction and an essay. I searched for the book, to no avail, and I felt compelled to find it without the help of the Internet. Then, one day, traveling in Nowhere, Connecticut, on a camping trip I found a book sale filling a whole parking lot. There, hidden amongst thrown out books of yore, I found his book, beaten up, battered, cost: 50 cents. I brought it back to the woods and sat there reading his introduction in which he proceeds to tear to shreds the whole pretense of proving God through rational means, a slightly curious way to open up a book on the existence of God. But for me, therein lied the greatness of John Hick. Never what you expected, but always what you wanted. Thank you, John Hick. You are loved.

 

Follow Joe Winkler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/josephwinkler

 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HopeWFaith
We the People
05:00 AM on 02/18/2012
Seeing so many react so extremely, I pause to ponder the law of cause and effect. When one empties the mind of as much thought as possible, and has only one thought to cling to, that of Love and giving that Love, one no longer wonders of the "existence of God". One then "knows".

It takes effort. It takes time and self-discipline. All worthwhile endeavors produce positive results eventually. The law of cause and effect cannot be argued with until one has done a lifelong test of it. Fear not what you do not know. Get to know it, then you will have no more fear.
relevancematters
You're so full of what's right, you can't see what
06:55 PM on 02/16/2012
Thank you, Joe. This sounds right up my alley. I will seek out your John Hick and add him to my library.
photo
BurtonDesque
Fear a Blank Planet
04:59 PM on 02/15/2012
"Great theologian" is an oxymoron. Theology does not meet the most basic requisites for being considered an academic discipline. It is a ridiculously elaborate construct built on absolutely no foundation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sandalwood
songs of the shamans...
11:50 AM on 02/15/2012
For Christianity (and the monotheisms in general), what is required is to change the word "faith" to "orientation", while recognizing that many orientations exist and may be conducive to the goal one is seeking.

In Hinduism, there is the concept of "Ishta Devata", one's chosen deity, or path. In Hinduism, because these are understood as orientations, each with certain problems and strengths, there has not been a problem vis a vis pluralism. Best of luck in your path.
photo
ILoveTheUSofA
BREAKING NEWS: There is no God.
12:03 PM on 02/15/2012
For Christiani­ty (and the monotheism­s in general), what is required is to change the word "faith" to "delusion," while recognizin­g that many delusions exist - although all are sure to prove their uselessness in the long run (if not the short run).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sandalwood
songs of the shamans...
12:19 PM on 02/15/2012
Yes, there is always the danger of making that discovery instead.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
02:31 AM on 02/16/2012
Faith and belief, or as you put it, orientation, are not synonymous. One God/Creator exists. There is one electromagnetic spectrum and the laws of gravity are not mutable.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BOBinPS
Really?
08:25 PM on 02/18/2012
Perhaps they are in one of the other ten dimensions. Your attempt to prove a negative is illogical.
11:15 AM on 02/15/2012
Being one of the 'greatest theologians' of our time may turn out to be the most dubious of distinctions at a time when theology itself is being questioned as a valid human intellectual endeavor. And with theology, the very origins and foundations of Christianity. The question is this: Does theology only exist because nothing has been revealed? History appears to be on the threshold of providing a conclusive answer!

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access by faith, to divine transcendence.

Thus 'faith' is the path, the search and discovery of this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, Law, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk,
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
02:31 AM on 02/16/2012
rubbish
08:54 AM on 02/15/2012
The world of our experience is irrational and is created by the body for its own purposes. Anything of that world is not "truth" in any physical real sense, and the only objective standard by which it can be judged is whether it works to perpetuate the species. "Rigid fundamentalism" exists as some pattern of neurons firing with attendant allegiances because it works, or at least must be presumed to work in some set of circumstances, however "wrong" it is sensed to be by some other brain in some other circumstance. Applying logic to that world is pretty meaningless, which is what theology seeks to do. The Pope and Hick can produce logically consistent totally opposed conclusions depending on where you want to start. But the real start is in our impenetrable biological regulation; the implicit motivation of the mechanism; life. Religion is an emotional stand and an enrollment in a possibility and it doesn't require reasons.
04:51 PM on 02/15/2012
The ONLY objective standard by which "truth" can be judged is how it "perpetuates the species"? If you really believed that you would be exterminating babies born with genetic diseases, putting an age limitation on the elderly in bloated populations, and segregating the weak, the sick, and the deranged from all aspects of civil society. Your asumption that "religion is an emotional stand...that doesn't require reasons" is in and of itself and emotional response to an area of academic discipline for which your "impenetrable biological regulation" has no regard for or means of understanding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Frey
unCommon sense for the common good
02:33 AM on 02/16/2012
"Truth" is consistent. That's why it's the truth. Try and fly in a heavier than air machine without the truth of aerodynamics,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nigel Goodnow
11:20 PM on 02/16/2012
Exactly. If the only thing your organism is interested in is reproduction, there's not even any reason to think that rationality itself has any connection to reality. That really profound scientific theory, that you think is correct? Just your pleasure centers reacting to your frontal lobe metabolism (you've been impressed with false theories before, no?). "But it makes sense," you say! That's just the sort of thing a really selfish gene would want you to think, if it helps you mate more happily, and therefore more often. This thought is self-destructive, obviously; this line of reasoning itself is just as suspect as any Bible story or mathematical formula. We've all met people who thought they were smart; is there some actual reason to think that this is not true of us all as a species? The only difference between a truly rational creature, and one that just thinks it's rational but is really a mindless brute, is the former has some grounding for reason.

If it's just mindless molecules clashing in a quantum soup, reason is just as illusory as the more extreme forms of vajrayana Buddhism claim it is: only when your mind is truly empty of rational thought are "you" experiencing reality. This is not real conducive to science, however (or conventional religious faith or to just living life, for that matter)!