Vienna (Google Images)
John Hick Soul-Making Theodicy (PhD Edit)
A version of this article, with PhD footnotes added was uploaded to academia.edu on October 12 2022
Soul-Making Theodicy Definition and
Introduction
In 1966 British
philosopher of religion, John Hick, wrote his first edition of Evil and
The God of Love. Hick sees soul-making[1] as the developmental process by which human
beings become the perfected creatures that God intended.[2] This is an evolutionary process,[3] but not one that takes place naturalistically
or scientifically.[4] Soul-making is a method by which human
beings experience the problem of evil through hazardous disobedience to God and
a willful desire to commit actions that are not always pleasing to the creator.[5] Phillips writes concerning this general
type of approach, that without the existence of evil, character development
would not place.[6] For Hick, the development that
would take place in humanity was not one of gradual human improvement
throughout generations,[7] but was instead an individual process in each
and every person.[8] This type of approach allows God to
mould human character.[9] Phillips views a moral development
theory as incoherent,[10] as
it creates an immoral indulgence of human beings to self,[11] as in
their own personal development.[12] Persons
should instead be more concerned with other persons reasons Phillips.[13]
Hick
maintains the Irenean type of theodicy is a traditional perspective within the
Christian faith that existed in its earliest days.[14] Meghan
Ramsay (2004) explains that Hick attempts a theodicy within the Irenean
approach, as opposed to the Augustinian one which he calls the majority report
within Christian tradition.[15] Hick
views the approach of Irenaeus (ca.130-ca.200)[16] as the
minority report.[17] According
to John C. McDowell (2005), Hick believes that an Irenean type theodicy
distinguishes between the image of God and likeness of God.[18] Hick
writes in Evil and the God of Love that Irenaeus viewed the
image of God, which resides in the human bodily form, as representing God’s
nature allowing human beings to fellowship with their creator.[19] The
likeness of God was humanity’s final perfection by the work of God’s Holy
Spirit.[20] Irenaeus
within Against Heresies (c 175-185)(2005) did draw a
distinction between image and likeness.[21] The
image is a fixed nature within human beings[22] while
likeness varies depending on how close a person follows God.[23] Father
Anthony Zimmerman (1999) notes that to Irenaeus, the image represented the
spiritual essence of an individual, while the likeness was the sanctifying
presence in which a person became a son of God.[24]
Rejecting
the Augustinian tradition that humanity was made perfect and then rebelled
against God becoming corrupt,[25] Hick
explains in his 2001 presentation found in Encountering Evil that
the Irenean type of theodicy takes place in two phases.[26] In
phase one God creates humanity imperfect and underdeveloped.[27] They
develop over perhaps millions of years through biological evolution to possess
the image of God.[28] Once
humanity reaches a certain level of maturity they complete this stage and exist
in the image of God.[29] When
this image of God exists humanity has the potential for a relationship with
their creator.[30]
According
to Hick, within the second phase humanity becomes intelligent, ethical and
religious.[31] It
is evolving towards the likeness of God which includes achieving goodness and
personal worth.[32] In
the process of humanity becoming like God, soul-making can take place, but it
must occur with human beings possessing significant freedom away from their
creator’s direct influence.[33] Hick
deduces that human beings must have an epistemic[34] distance
from their maker in order to develop an uncoerced consciousness of God.[35] According
to R. Douglas Geivett in his 1993 book Evil and the Evidence for God, Hick
contends that if persons lived in the immediate presence of God, significant
freedom to make moral choices would be precluded and thus an epistemic distance, a
distance between God and created persons, must exist between humanity and God.[36] Hick’s
concept of epistemic distance is an important aspect of his theodicy as human
beings who possess the image of God, but an imperfect likeness, inevitably
create moral evil.[37] Epistemic
distance results in moral evil as human beings struggle within a hostile
environment apart from God’s direct rule and guidance.[38] God
is therefore not clearly and overwhelmingly evident to his creation with this
view.[39]
Hick
(1978) deduces in ‘Present and Future Life’ that once a human being
dies a conscious personality continues to exist.[40] He
concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem[41] existence
must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices.[42] Robert
Smid (1999) comments that Hick trusts all of humanity will complete their
soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all
people.[43] Hick
believes that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he, in
patience, would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him.[44] Geivett
reasons that for Hick, the eschatological[45] fulfillment
of God’s soul-making plan must include universal perfection of every human
being made by God.[46] Hick
subscribes to universalism,[47] which
John Ankerberg and John Weldon (1999) write in Encyclopedia of Cults
and New Religions,[48] is the
theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore each person will
eventually be redeemed in heaven.[49] Kreeft
and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been
considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries[50] as a
viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this
alternative.[51]
Author’s Viewpoints
By
Hick’s definition,[52] my
sovereignty theodicy position would fit within the Augustinian tradition,[53] and
therefore outside of his Irenean approach.[54] In
agreement with Augustine and Feinberg,[55] I would
postulate that humanity from a traditional perspective was created in the image
and likeness of God,[56] spiritually
in tune with their creator, perfectly moral and not sinful.[57] However,
I deduce that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature, and
inexperienced.[58] As
discussed in Chapter Three, due to lack of experience with God, the initial
persons were spiritually and morally immature in relation to their creator, in
comparison to what later human beings who would experience the problem of evil,
atonement, and restoration would become in regard to spiritual
maturity. The idea of the fall from conservative and liberal views
has been discussed in Chapters Two and Three, but I would deduce that since
Genesis 3 describes this event, it is plausible a literal Adam and Eve were
initially morally perfect without sin and eventually fell in corruption.[59] It
is also possible that the somewhat metaphorical language of Genesis[60] allows
for the Adam and Eve story to be describing a fall from God’s plan for humanity
in general, and not specifically two initial persons.[61] I
do agree with Hick that some type of soul-making is an important reason for God
to willingly allow the problem of evil.[62] However,
there will be points of both agreement and disagreement on how this may be
completed by God.
My
concept of original human immaturity is not identical to Hick’s. I
accept that when in Genesis 1:26, God is said to have created humanity in his
image and likeness,[63] that this
was part of their original nature.[64] H.L.
Ellison (1986) explains that in the beginning human beings were made in God’s
image and likeness[65] in order
that they could have dominion over animal creation and have communion with God.[66] If
a literal explanation of Genesis 1:26 is accepted[67] then it
seems plausible that both the image and likeness of God were given to humanity
from the start, and I lean towards this understanding.[68] As
discussed in Chapter Two, scholars such as Fretheim, La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush
explain that Genesis is written with the use of metaphorical language and so an
interpretation such as Hick’s, that is not literal in regard to the image and
likeness of God, is an intellectual possibility.[69] Erickson
thinks that Irenaeus views the image of God as being human resemblance to the
creator with reason and will,[70] and the
likeness of God was the moral qualities of their maker.[71] This
is a reasonable understanding of Irenaeus’ view,[72] but even
if this separation between image and likeness is accepted, it is plausible that
the image and likeness occur in persons simultaneously.[73] I
would therefore theorize that original human spiritual immaturity was not due
to humanity lacking a likeness to God.[74] Rather,
original people could have been created morally perfect within what Hick calls
an Augustinian model.[75] I
subscribe to a Reformed, Calvinistic sovereignty model, and I have explained
throughout this thesis that Augustinian and Calvinistic models and traditions
are similar but not identical. These persons lacked the experience
to properly understand and comprehend the results of disobeying God and the
sort of life that would occur because of that rebellion. The first
human beings may have had little understanding of the idea that their very
nature would change if they disobeyed God. Within an Augustinian or
Calvinistic perspective it seems plausible humanity’s likeness to God was
insufficient after, but not before, the fall as they were no longer in perfect
moral communion with their God.[76]
[1] In my mind, soul-building would also be a
reasonable term for this theory.
[2] Hick (1970: 292). Phillips
discusses the similar idea of ‘Evil as Opportunities for Character
Development.’ Phillips (2005: 56).
[3] Hick (1970: 292). It is not
primarily a scientific presentation.
[4] Hick (1970: 292).
[5] Hick (1970: 292).
[6] Phillips (2005: 56).
[7] Hick (1970: 292).
[8] Hick (1970: 292).
[9] Phillips (2005: 56).
[10] Phillips (2005: 58).
[11] Phillips (2005: 58).
[12] Phillips (2005: 58).
[13] Phillips (2005: 58). In support of
Hick and my own theories of human development, I reason that spiritual building
need not be necessarily only self focused. For example, in Matthew
22 and Mark 12 Jesus tells the listener to love others as
self. Within spiritual development one could and should seek to love
and assist others.
[14] Hick (1970: 221).
[15] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[16] Ferguson (1996: 569).
[17] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[18] McDowell (2005: 1).
[19] Hick (1970: 217).
[20] Hick (1970: 217).
[21] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter
34: 4). Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter 7: 2).
[22] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter
34: 4).
[23] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book II: Chapter
7: 2).
[24] Zimmerman (1999: 1).
[25] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[26] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[27] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[28] McDowell (2005: 1).
[29] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[30] McDowell (2005: 1).
[31] Hick in Davis (2001: 40-41).
[32] Ramsay (2004: 2).
[33] Hick in Davis (2001: 48).
[34] Epistemology is the theory of knowledge which
includes origins of knowledge and the relationship between knowledge and
reason. Blackburn (1996: 123).
[35] Hick in Davis (2001: 48). Phillips
writes this is a distance that separates God from his created
beings. Phillips (2005: 164).
[36] Geivett (1993: 36).
[37] Geivett (1993: 36).
[38] McDowell (2005: 2). Hick in Davis
(2001: 48).
[39] Phillips (2005: 165).
[40] Hick (1978: 12).
[41] After death is meant.
[42] Hick (1978: 13).
[43] Smid (1999: 12).
[44] Hick (1970: 381).
[45] Thiessen describes eschatology as the
Biblical doctrine of the last things, which includes the Second Advent, the
resurrection of humanity, final judgment from God, the millennium and the final
state of God’s creation. Thiessen (1956: 440).
[46] Geivett (1993: 36).
[47] Hick (1970: 381).
[48] The title of this text is a bit misleading as
it offers more than encyclopedia type referencing for words and concepts but
presents scholarly chapters on religious movements the authors view as cultic.
[49] Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503).
[50] This would, of course, provide another
opportunity for a PhD thesis.
[51] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).
[52] Hick (1970: 121-143).
[53] This would be a broad perspective from Hick’s
view. I would rather define my theodicy as Reformed as opposed to
Augustinian. This can be deduced through the reviews in Chapters Two
and Three.
[54] Hick (1970: 121-143).
[55] That have shown within this thesis to not
have identical or near identical perspectives.
[56] Genesis 1:26 states God created human beings
in both his image and likeness. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984:
2). Victor P. Hamilton in Handbook on the Pentateuch notes
three possible reasons for the writer of Genesis using these terms together:
(1) The terms image and likeness may be interchangeable, in other words
synonyms for each other. (2) The word likeness may modify the word
image. This is done to avoid the idea that man is an exact copy of
God. (3) The term likeness amplifies the term image as human beings are not
simply representative of God, but representational. Hamilton (1988:
26-27).
[57] As can be understood within Chapters Two and
Three within this thesis.
[58] Even if Adam and Eve or original persons were
made as mature adults they could not logically be made with experience as noted
within Chapter Three.
[59] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 133-136).
[60] Fretheim (1994: 152).
[61] Fretheim (1994: 153).
[62] Hick in Davis (2001: 51).
[63] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[64] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[65] Ellison (1986: 115). Hamilton
(1982: 26-27).
[66] Ellison (1986: 115).
[67] Hamilton (1982: 26-27).
[68] Ellison (1986: 115). Hamilton
(1982: 26-27).
[69] Fretheim (1994: 153). La Sor,
Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).
[70] Erickson (1994: 500-501).
[71] Erickson (1994: 500-501).
[72] Erickson (1994: 500-501). Irenaeus
(c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).
[73] Erickson (1994: 500-501).
[74] Hamilton (1982: 26-27). Ellison
(1986: 115).
[75] Hick (1970: 121-131).
[76] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7). Calvin (1543)(1996: 69).
Bibliography
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New
Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by
Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F.
Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic
Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will,
Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International
Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker
Book House.
FERGUSON, EVERETT (1996) ‘Irenaeus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God:An Old Testament
Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17.
Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and
World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God,
Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana
Library.
HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review,
Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis
(ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and
the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville,
Kentucky, John Know Press.
HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky,
John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden
(eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.
IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by
J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian
Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH.
(1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta,
John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, in Philosophy
of Religion, (ed.), Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk,
Virginia, Philosophy of Religion.
SMID, ROBERT W. (1999) ‘John Harwood Hick, His Life’, in The Boston
Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, Boston, The
Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology.
ZIMMERMAN, ANTHONY (1999) ‘In God’s Image and Likeness’, in Lifeissues.net,
Kochi, Japan. Lifeissues.net.
