Can We Be More than Agnostic? The Fate of the Unevangelized

It seems to me I have sufficiently mastered the skill of not thinking about something until I most definitely have to—at least, if I do not want to think about it. This has saved me at times from having to respond to certain questions. I could bow out with a polite “I do not know” or “I will have to look into it.” But it also has the tendency of throwing me into a frenzy when tasked with speaking into a subject previously confined to the recesses of my mind.

The latter was the case when Dr. Darryl Klassen asked me to respond to the EMC Board of Leadership and Outreach’s teaching letter penned by Dr. Layton Friesen, Gracious Judge, Holy Saviour—in particular, the section titled “Judgment.”

Indeed, I have reflected theologically about the day of judgment in general; but I can’t deny that more specific questions have been avoided. As we will see, the problem that arises throughout Friesen’s reflection, and to which I had successfully not given much thought, concerns the fate of the unevangelized. Might some be saved without ever hearing the gospel? And what will be the fate of those who have never heard of Jesus through no fault of their own? It would be easier to not ask these questions or to put off answering them ad infinitum, but to love God with our minds must mean—if it means anything at all—that we ought to think through such things.

Since this is my initial foray into the salvific possibilities of the unevangelized, I trust that you will treat the following reflections as my faith seeking understanding. If you find my thoughts and their implications concerning, I ask that you grant me the courtesy that Tolkien would give to one of his most significant fictional characters—“not all those who wander are lost.”¹

The goal of my response is modest, and that is to introduce the reader to the inclusivist position (as defined below) as it pertains to the unevangelized. I intend to do so in three steps: I begin (1) by offering a summary of Friesen’s reflection on the fate of those who have never heard and consider it in light of the EMC’s Statement of Faith; then (2) I survey the various positions at work within the broader evangelical debate over the destiny of the unevangelized; and finally (3), I introduce the major arguments made in favour of inclusivism for consideration.

Transparency at this point may be helpful for some (though the reverse might be equally true for others). I do not believe that all will be saved, even though that is God’s desire (1 Tim. 2:4); and therefore I believe in the existence of hell—though I must admit, I find the debate as to if the damned are eternally punished or punished eternally inconsequential.² Moreover, though I would not say that God is a passive agent in judgment (e.g., Rev. 20:10), his judgments are often revealed in giving humans what they want (“God gave them up,” Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). Extending this to the day of judgment, C. S. Lewis suggested that “all that are in Hell, choose it,”³ and of this I am fairly convinced. Where questions remain, however, is whether all those who did not choose God as revealed in Jesus Christ through no fault of their own necessarily chose to not have God. We will now give our attention to those scenarios and their ensuing questions.

Gracious Judge, Holy Saviour:

The opening two sentences of Friesen’s reflection on judgment in Gracious Judge, Holy Saviour present the reader with the dilemma that some experience: “Many people have little difficulty accepting the good news that God will destroy evil finally. However, we wonder whether God can be trusted to apply this justly in individual cases.”⁴ As he develops this, Friesen clarifies which cases he has in mind: those of infants, people with intellectual disabilities, pre-Messianic Jews and the unevangelized. All of these have or may die before hearing the gospel of Jesus through no fault of their own—for, simply put, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These cases prompt Friesen to briefly consider the possibility of salvation without direct knowledge of Jesus.

Though some will judge him of having skirted the actual question, a consistent answer surfaces throughout Friesen’s reflection. Concluding that Scripture is silent on these questions (which it more or less is), he admits that God has not revealed to us exactly how he will respond, and that rather than endlessly speculating it is wise to simply “offer a portrait of Christ who will be [each person’s] judge.” In other words, he draws our attention away from those cases where we may fear injustice by God by holding before us an image of Christ who will be our judge.

It appears then that Friesen is an agnostic when considering the fate of the unevangelized. He does not think one can know the answer. What else should we draw from phrases like, “[God] has not revealed to us exactly how he will respond,” or that “We have no answer”?

That said, if Friesen is an agnostic in this area he most definitely is not when it pertains to the One who is our judge. In fact, he argues that one could know Christ to the extent that “many of the vexing dilemmas we have about the ‘morality’ of judgment” could be addressed. Or, in other words, that gnosis of our judge might undo at least some of our agnosticism regarding the judgment of the unevangelized. Unfortunately, Friesen does not develop this line of thinking beyond holding out faith that God will be “utterly just and infinitely loving.” While I suspect that this had more to do with the nature and limitations of this teaching letter—in contrast to several more cynical explanations that I can imagine—it leaves the inquiring mind unsatisfied, wondering if more could be said.⁵

More has been said within the evangelical theological tradition but, before we turn to that conversation, I wish to consider the compatibility of Friesen’s reflection with the EMC Statement of Faith. I do not think I am far off in assuming that the main contention people will have with his reflection will centre around his agnosticism towards the unevangelized—which, no doubt, will come from both those who wished to find him more hopeful and those who found him too hopeful. But where then does this place him as it pertains to our EMC theological understanding?

It would be hard to argue that Friesen stands outside of the EMC Statement of Faith despite his agnosticism on this question. As is common with other such statements, the EMC’s statement has an inherit flexibility that expresses our core theological convictions while leaving room for diversity over adiaphora (non-essentials); particularly relevant to our topic is that some of this wiggle room for diversity can be found in those areas which a statement of faith is either completely silent on, or does not deny—both of which are the case when it concerns the fate of the unevangelized.⁷ One course of action would be to revise this, but the current EMC statement would allow for some variation of response to this question, including Friesen’s agnosticism.

The Evangelical Landscape:

The question of the unevangelized extends well beyond the EMC to the broader evangelical church where this conversation is long under way. To understand it one must often wade through changing and conflicting terminology. What I wish to do is introduce, define and differentiate the various positions along the spectrum of responses to this question.

One way of differentiating the various responses to this question, known as the traditional classification, came from those considering Christianity’s relation to the other world religions. Its classification was threefold: (1) exclusivism: one must hear and believe God’s special revelation in the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved; (2) inclusivism: Jesus is the only saviour, but one does not need hear and believe the gospel to be saved; and (3) pluralism: all religions lead to God.⁸

Since then, many have considered this classification either problematic or simplistic for a variety of reasons; as a result, terms have been revised and others added in the effort to advance the conversation toward greater clarity.⁹ To date, I have found the ninefold classification given by Christopher W. Morgan most helpful. In what follows, I list and define the nine different positions that Morgan outlines in response to the following question: “Is there any basis for hope that those who do not hear of Christ in this life will be saved?”¹⁰

1. Church exclusivism: No, outside the church there is no salvation.
2. Gospel exclusivism: No, they must hear the gospel and trust Christ to be saved.
3. Special revelation exclusivism: No, they must hear the gospel and trust Christ to be saved, unless God sends them special revelation in an extraordinary way—by a dream, vision, etc.
4. Agnosticism: We cannot know.
5. General revelation inclusivism: Yes, they can respond to God in saving faith through seeing him in general or natural revelation.
6. World religions inclusivism: Yes, they can respond to God in saving faith through general revelation and/or their religion, which may have remnants of special revelation.
7. Postmortem evangelism: Yes, they will have an opportunity to trust Christ after death.
8. Universalism: Yes, everyone will ultimately be saved in Christ Jesus.
9. Pluralism: Yes, everyone will experience salvation as they understand it.

(As should be clear, if one works through these responses, starting with 1 and moving down to 9, the means by which one could be saved gradually broadens. The world religions inclusivist, for example, believes one can be saved by means of the church, gospel, special revelation, general revelation, and other religions, but not through a postmortem opportunity, and so forth.)

Having already argued that Friesen’s agnosticism fits within the EMC’s Statement of Faith, and having then surveyed the broad spectrum of responses that exist within evangelicalism, the question that arises is how much room for diversity on this question comfortably exists within the EMC? I have already acknowledged my own contention with the universalist and pluralist position and would (admittedly) assume that similar sentiments are shared among the broader EMC; but what are we do to with inclusivism? Might inclusivism find a comfortable home within the EMC and its theology? The final section of this paper considers this possibility by briefly considering a handful of arguments that inclusivists make on behalf of their position.

Considering Inclusivism:

1. Which problem do you want?
   
   The inclusivist position is likely to be excluded early on by the problem it immediately presents those who consider it: How can one possibly be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ? As a truism in much Christian tradition, simply asking the question of whether it is possible for one to be saved apart from explicit faith in Jesus is enough to discourage many from considering the idea further. However, are the problems associated with inclusivism worse than those that come with the exclusivist point of view? Consider the following chart:

While reductionistic, this chart draws attention to broad areas of convergence and difference between exclusivism, inclusivism and postmortem evangelism. What I wish to highlight is that each of the boxes marked “No” should pose a problem for us. The opportunity for repentance after death and the possibility of salvation without knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ should not cause much more of a problem to the evangelical mind than the exclusivist claim that God has not made salvation available to all—even most—people who have ever lived. ¹² Recognizing that inclusivism does not present us with a problem more insurmountable than, say, exclusivism should allow us to move past a kneejerk rejection.

1. The soteriological problem of evil
   

It is not without cause that some have compared the problem of the unevangelized as a subset of the problem of evil. “Is it not frightfully unfair,” C. S. Lewis argued, “that this new life [i.e., salvation] should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in him?” ¹³ How is it, in other words, that an all-good and all-powerful God requires belief in Jesus for salvation, when many, if not most, people will forever remain ignorant of him? If God is unable to overcome all people’s ignorance, it is argued, he is limited in power; and if God is unwilling to save people apart from belief in Jesus, he is limited in goodness. If God truly desires the salvation of all people, he must at least make it fairly available to all people.

Even if one does not accept the inclusivist position, I do not see how one could not feel the weight of this argument. In fact, it seems intellectually dishonest to dismiss the cognitive dissonance that exists in believing both that God desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) and that he damns to hell all of those who, through no fault of their own, never heard the gospel of Jesus. And if this is not dizzying enough, to then have some insist that because God’s ways are above-and-beyond what we humans can imagine, we must simply trust him to be good and just.

God is infinitely beyond us—who would want to worship anyone less than that—but do we really want to accept the notion that often comes with such pious sentiments, namely, that our notions of what is good and just are empty and cannot be used in any meaningful sense to speak of God? If this indeed is the case, can we ever say anything meaningful about God? In addition, “Where do our fallible but nevertheless real notions of fairness, justice and equity come from if not directly from [our] Saviour and Lord?” ¹⁴ Convinced that our notions of what is good and just derive from God and we can use them to speak of God, I agree with Oden that it is a grossly oversimplified answer to “unambiguously consign [the unevangelized] to abandonment.” ¹⁵

1. Christ remains necessary for salvation
   

If we grant therefore that we are justified in considering the possibility of God saving some without knowledge of Jesus Christ, do we not by implication reject Jesus’ exclusive claim to be “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6, emphasis added)? Not so, says inclusivist John Sanders, who goes on to argue that inclusivism actually refuses to “sacrifice the ultimate importance of Jesus Christ on the altar of modern pluralism,” and “salvation is not provided by anything other than the specific historical actions of God in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension.” ¹⁶

In other words, while inclusivists uphold the possibility of salvation without knowledge of Jesus, they do not believe that salvation is possible apart from him. To say this in reverse, it means that “the unevangelized may be reconciled to God on the basis of the work of Christ even though they are ignorant of Jesus.” ¹⁷ Or as C. S. Lewis reasoned: “We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” ¹⁸ Terrance Tiessen describes the mechanisms of how this might work:

> Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but the faith that God expects (and gives) is appropriate to the revelation of himself that he has given to a particular individual. God requires people who receive general revelation to honour him as the Creator and Provider, to be thankful for him, and to obey their conscience and to cast themselves on his mercy when they are aware of their failure to do what is right. If the Spirit of God were graciously to elicit this response in anyone’s heart, they would be saved. ¹⁹

This is not to say that all who do not hear will be saved. The inclusivist does not necessarily believe in the universal salvation of the unevangelized; what they do believe is that those who would have responded, had they been presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ, that “this is the one whom we have been following all along,” will find salvation. ²⁰

1. Can one be saved by general revelation?
   

Tiessen’s summary captures the inner workings of the inclusivist position well, but it brings up another important question: can someone be saved through general revelation? For the exclusivist, salvation is only possible through hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and responding in faith (see Rom. 10). Romans 1:18–32 is often used to argue that, while God’s general or natural revelation in creation provides grounds to condemn people, it is insufficient to save them.

Inclusivists struggle with the exclusivist appropriation of Romans 1, arguing that it merely accounts as circumstantial evidence and could be explained differently. Inclusivists agree with Paul’s charge that all of humanity falls under the wrath of God, but insist that Paul does not deny that some may respond positively_by God’s grace_ to whatever revelation that they have. In other words, Romans 1:18-32 “is consistent with the claim that natural revelation fails to bring salvation to those who are rebellious and wicked, but potentially leads to salvation for those who respond to it.” ²¹ Indeed, and as many of us can personally attest to, while Romans 1 places all of humanity under the wrath of God, it does not do so permanently—as if one is therefore permanently unable to respond positively to God’s special or general revelation.

Furthermore, the belief that general revelation is sufficient to damn the unevangelized but insufficient to bring about salvation is to throw into question everything we established about the goodness of God. As Millard Erickson argues: “If [the unevangelized] are condemnable because they have not trusted God through what they have, it must have been possible somehow to meet his requirements through this means. If not, responsibility and condemnation are meaningless.” ²²

1. Many of us are already (partial) inclusivists
   

One final argument worth mentioning is that many evangelicals are already (partial) inclusivists as it pertains to the salvation of infants and the intellectually disabled. Inclusivism simply wishes to extend the goodness and justice of God assumed in those types of situations to the fate of the unevangelized. Exclusivists often object to drawing similarities between these groups, arguing that unevangelized adults can respond to the gospel (cognitively and verbally) when, for example, an infant cannot. But can one truly be said to be able to understand and respond to the gospel in faith if they have never heard of the gospel of Jesus in the first place? ²³

Concluding Thoughts

Having set out with modest goals, I do not presume to have changed anyone’s mind regarding the fate of the unevangelized over the course of this paper. I will be satisfied, in fact, if this response has simply introduced the reader to the inclusivist position and its most basic arguments; and more than satisfied, if it acts as a catalyst for further exploration and study of this delicate topic.

I have, however, in my initial pilgrimage into the inclusivist position found it attractive in many ways. In inclusivism, one finds a position that insists that salvation is exclusively found in the work of Jesus Christ, by grace and through faith in God’s revelation, while at the same time being able to say with confidence that God will be good and just to every individual who will stand before him on the day of judgment, regardless of those circumstances outside their control.

In saying this, I hasten to clarify that I do not disagree with the sentiment found in the likes of theologian, Michael Horton, who expressed that, “Whatever God might choose to do in any given case, he has promised to save all of those—and only those—who call on the name of his son.” ²⁴ I agree. I am unable to say with good conscience that Scripture promises salvation for the unevangelized; but equally as much, I do not think Scripture renders this impossible, or that the goodness and justice of God as revealed in Scripture makes it improbable. Perhaps then, following my first foray into this topic, I am best defined as a hopeful inclusivist.

Can the EMC be more than agnostic regarding the fate of the unevangelized? I believe it could be. While exclusivism and perhaps some agnosticism may win the day on this one, I, at the very least, want to propose that the EMC could be agnostic but hopeful about the fate of the unevangelized—that not all of those who are unevangelized are lost.- - -

¹J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 170.
²I do not intend this to be a flippant comment. I am aware that the doctrine of hell—in particular, eternal conscious torment—continues to be a stumbling block for many, including some who have previously been members of the EM Conference, see e.g., Josiah Neufeld, “When I lost my belief in hell, my faith began to unravel,” Broadview, October 25, 2019 (accessed August 26, 2021), https://broadview.org/belief-in-hell-christianity/.
³C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 75.
⁴All subsequent quotations in this section come from the section titled “Judgment,” in Gracious Judge, Holy Saviour, which did not utilize page numbers.
⁵Though I will be the first to invite Dr. Friesen to respond to this summary of his argument. If I am shown to have misunderstood him, I would be glad to receive clarification and advance the state of this conversation for the EMC.
⁶Both the full and abridged version can be accessed online at https://www.emconference.ca/what-we-believe.
⁷E.g., consider article 7 in the EMC’s full Statement of Faith which says, “people are saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone,” and “all are invited to accept the free gift of salvation.” One might affirm that these propositions are good and true (as our statement does) but also believe that the grace of Jesus will extend to those who had faith in God by way of general revelation, but who—because of either an accident of history or geography—never heard the invitation to accept the free gift of salvation (which our statement does not deny).
⁸This terminology is still used in thinking about other world religions from a Christian perspective; see e.g., Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th edn. (UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 435–43.
⁹To view some of the significant developments in terminology unfold, see in order: What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, edited by John Sanders (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995); Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996); Daniel Strange, The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical Theology (UK: Paternoster Press, 2002); and Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004). ¹⁰This question and the nine responses that follow come from Christopher W. Morgan’s chapter, “Inclusivisms and Exclusivisms,” in Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism, edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 27–39.
¹¹This is the best way to describe the thought of C. S. Lewis who has been misunderstood as a universalist or pluralist by many; see the superb study of Lewis’ thought on the fate of those in other religions in Michael L. Peterson, C. S. Lewis and the Christian Worldview (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 143–49.
¹²According to the figures considered by John Sanders (What About Those Who Have Never Heard? 9): A large proportion of the human race has died without ever hearing the good news of Jesus. It is estimated that in AD 100 there were 181 million people, of whom 1 million were Christians. By the year 1000 there were 270 million people, 50 million of whom were Christians. In 1989 there were 5.2 billion people, with 1.7 billion Christians. In addition, we could think of all those who lived prior to the incarnation who never heard of the Israelites and God’s covenant with them. Although there is no way of knowing exactly how many people died without hearing about Israel or the church, it seems safe to conclude that the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived fall into this category.
¹³C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 85.
¹⁴Friesen, Gracious Judge; cf. Tiessen who argues, “If we portray God’s judgments in ways that run counter to everything we expect in proper human jurisprudence, we will have to provide good explanation for doing so. God’s ways are often beyond our comprehension, but God’s justice is the standard of human justice, and I fail to see why we would attribute to him something that we would never accept from a human judge” (Who Can Be Saved? 142).
¹⁵Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology: Volume Three: Life in the Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 448.
¹⁶Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? 10.
¹⁷⁷⁶Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? 38.
¹⁸Lewis, Mere Christianity, 85.
¹⁹Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? 138 (emphasis original).
²⁰Tiessen records some extrabiblical instances where people with no access to special revelation have shown remarkable faith (Who Can Be Saved? 145–48). The contents of this paragraph are also important considering the frequent objection—which logically, is a bit of a red herring—that inclusivism renders missions obsolete; the inclusivist, in fact, does not deny that more will be saved by the efforts of missionaries, it simply holds out hope that some of the unevangelized will be saved apart from missionaries reaching them with the good news of Jesus.
²¹David K. Clark, “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation?” in Through No Fault of Their Own? edited by William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 40–41 (emphasis added).
²²Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? 194.
²³Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? 51; cf. Michael F. Bird who argues, “A consistent exclusivist view would be that, in the absence of faith, [infants and the intellectually disabled] too are headed for eternal destruction” (Evangelical Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], 593-94).
²⁴Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 983 (emphasis original).

Bibliography:

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. 1st Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.

EMC Board of Leadership and Outreach. Gracious Judge, Holy Saviour: A Teaching Letter of the EMC Board of Leadership and Outreach on Salvation, Heaven, Hell and Judgment. 2020.

Erickson, Millard J. How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996.

Fackre, Gabriel, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Edited by John Sanders. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995. 

Clark, David K. “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation?” In Through No Fault of Their Own? Edited by William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.

Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.

_____. The Great Divorce. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th Edition. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Morgan, Christopher W. “Inclusivism and Exclusivisms.” In Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism. Edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.

Neufeld, Josiah. “When I lost my belief in hell, my faith began to unravel,” Broadview, October 25, 2019 (accessed August 26, 2021), https://broadview.org/belief-in-hell-christianity/.

Oden, Thomas C. Systematic Theology: Volume Three: Life in the Spirit. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.

Peterson, Michael L. C. S. Lewis and the Christian Worldview. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Strange, Daniel. The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical Theology. UK: Paternoster press, 2002.

Tiessen, Terrance L. Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.