John Hick: Theologian or Philosopher of Religion?

Abstract

Some in the theological community consider John Hick a bête noire; others, a visionary. This chapter explores some of the grounds upon which he is condemned or extolled, having as its unifying element the intention to address one fundamental issue in the work of John Hick as well as the readings of Hick by both his critics and sympathizers. That issue is whether Hick’s work is Christian theology, or even a theology of religions, or whether it is philosophy of religion. I think that much of the criticism of Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis has understood his effort to be a Christian theology of religions. This is not what it is. While I think that it can correctly be claimed that Hick has undertaken constructive theological work in his lengthy career, particularly in such works as Death and Eternal Life and Evil and the God of Love, it is inappropriate to judge his likely most enduring work, An Interpretation of Religion, as a work of Christian theology. Determining clearly that his work on pluralism is philosophy of religion and not theology will go a long way toward clarifying much of the discussion on the validity of his pluralistic hypothesis. It will not, I realize, stem the debate over or the criticism of his work, but I hope it will clarify what type of analysis and criticism is appropriate and on what grounds such reflection can be undertaken.