Irenaean Theodicy (John Hick) | That Religious Studies Website

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Theologians (Christian)

Philosophy of Religion

Recently added to the site

An Irenaean Theodicy (John Hick): Part 2

Information: Part 2 of a review of John Hick's Irenaean theodicy. Before reading this article you may find it useful to read The problem of evil and suffering: An introduction. Click here to read part 1. Quotes are by John Hick unless otherwise indicated. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

The importance of freewill

So the foundational principle of the Irenaean Theodicy, is that we have been placed in a hostile environment in order to learn to become better people. However, this begs the question as to why God has placed humans in a 'hostile environment' in order to bring them to perfection? For if perfection is your goal, why not simply start (and end) by creating each human perfect as God intends them to be (and at the same automatically conscious and aware of God)? Hick writes:

'In order to be a person, exercising some measure of genuine freedom, the creature must be brought into existence, not in the immediate divine presence, but at a distance from God.'

Although God could have created us perfect, we might not have chosen to be this way. God is more interested in our choosing to become who God wants us to be (at some point), rather than force us to be this way (no matter how long this takes). Furthermore, in order that we might 'act naturally' and not be overwhelmed by the reality of God, God remains distant to us (what Hick calls an 'epistemic distance').

'Epistemology' is to do with knowledge. When Hick talks about an 'epistemic distance', he means that God is not 'in our face' (so to speak). If one thinks about how people might act if their favorite actor or singer was standing next to them (and how they would act differently if they were not), we can begin to get some idea of why Hick believes God needs to 'draw away from us', in order that we might act (spiritually and morally) 'naturally'.

Of course, one consequence of this is that the world is now religiously ambiguous, and that we do not have any certain evidence that there is (or is not) a God (for more on this see Atheism: An introduction). The net result of all this is that we live in a world where people now have the freedom to live in any way they choose to, and that when someone comes to 'freely to know and love their Maker', that they have chosen to do this for themselves.

Something to think about: What is the difference between the notion of freewill in the FWD, and the Irenaean Theodicy?

Another reason Hick believes God does not instantly make us perfect, is because he believes something we have struggled for is more valuable (and valued) than being simply given it:

'A moral goodness that exists as the agents initial given nature, without ever having been chosen by him in the face of temptations to the contrary, is intrinsically less valuable than a moral goodness which has been built up through the agent's own responsible choices through time in the face of alternative possibilities.'

One might say that in presenting the idea that God gives us space to make our own choices (and become who we want to and chose to be), that Hick is making God out to be the ideal parent. However, some might say that if this is God simply letting us do what we want all the time, that this is far from being an ideal parent!

Making real choices that count

For Hick, the goal (of 'struggling humanity') is the turning from self-centredness to Reality (or God) centredness. This means that pain and suffering in the world is often here because they are the residue of people acting selfishly (the acts of morally and spiritually immature people). However, although this may be true the question still remains as to why God wants our 'learning to become better people' to take place in a natural realm that is dangerous, and where the fragility of the human body can quickly and easily lead to illness, pain and suffering?

Picture of hammer banging a thumb Hick's response to this is that moral and spiritual development cannot take place in a static environment, but only in one where there are real consequences for both ourselves and others around us when we do certain things. For example, we cannot expect people to learn about the fragility of the human body if banging a hammer down onto one's thumb never hurt, nor led to any physical injury. We live in world where our choices make a real difference. If the situation was such that no-one would ever experience physical pain/suffering as a result of our actions, then how could anyone develop a sense of moral responsibility?

And beyond...

Finally, Hick is the first to admit that despite the fact that humans are generally moving towards God in the person-making process of moving from self-centredness to Reality-centredness, it is evident that this is only being completed in a few people whilst there are here on earth. In fact, there are very few people we might regard as a 'true saint' when we look back over the course of human history. Thus the Irenaean theodicy presupposes that there must be a continuation of life after death, whereby this process can be completed (and ultimately completed in all people):

'Only if [salvation] includes the entire human race can it justify the sins and sufferings of the entire human race throughout all history.' [Bracket mine]

Hick's Irenaean Theodicy is sometimes called a 'soul-making' theodicy.

Some issues

If people are meant to live in a world where choice count, then Hick might stand accused of belittling some of the excesses of human depravity. For instance, for a few people to learn not to be anti-Semitic, millions of Jews lost their lives in World War II. One could also say that the Jews who died in the Holocaust we also being used for the moral benefit of others, which does not count very favorably towards what some might say God thinks of them.

The matter of God 'using' people and situations to teach others to be better, is a particular concern of Black Theodicy (for more on this see Black theodicy: Evil and suffering in Black Theology).

Hick's response to this is that our judgement of what constitutes 'the excesses of human depravity', is very relative to our personal situation. In other word's, what we consider to be excessive today may not be considered so by others say in fifty or a hundred years time:

'In a world in which there was no cancer, something else would then rank as the worst form of natural evil.'

So although the world may appear harsh and hostile (and especially so towards certain groups of people), there is always something worse coming along. Even the fact that calamity strikes indiscriminately - in that the 'good' are often afflicted with pain and suffering whilst the 'bad' seem to enjoy a long healthy and happy life - is all a matter of keeping things in perspective:

'Let us suppose that... the sinner was [always] punished and the virtuous [always] rewarded. Would such dispensation serve a person-making purpose?... God has set us in a world containing unpredictable contingencies and dangers, in which unexpected and undeserved calamities may occur to anyone; because only in such a world can mutual caring and love be elicited.' [Brackets and emphasis mine]

Therefore, part of 'growing up' is the realisation that we cannot always have things 'our way'. We live in a world where sometimes the cards will be stacked against us (and sometimes not), and we have to deal with that. If 'life' always patted us on the back for doing good, we might never learn to be better people when faced with times when we have done an unrecognised (or unacknowledged) 'good'. For it is in situations such as this that Hick might say we learn to truly become people of deeper moral and spiritual character, rather than superficially so.