What About People Who Never Heard the Gospel?
Did God forget about most of the world?
The Christian concept of hell is one of the religion’s bigger problems that puts many non-theists off of it. Not least among the reasons are that 1) infinite punishment for finite offenses is grossly inhumane, and 2) if God is omniscient, then he is proactively creating some humans whom he knows he will eventually condemn to eternal torture.
Focusing in on the second point, the non-theist can point to humans who live in distant, non-industrialized corners of the world, and ask “What about them?” What happens to people who, by sheer chance, are born into a location where they are never exposed to the Christian gospel? Can those people go to Heaven anyway, or were they doomed from their first moments, through no fault of their own? And on top of being born in the wrong place, what about being born in the wrong time as well?
Inclusivism vs. Exclusivism
Several branches of thought come up among Christians who address this problem, but they essentially boil down to two camps: the concepts of inclusivism and exclusivism.
Inclusivism claims that Jesus’s sacrifice provided the method for all people to eventually be saved, but one does not specifically need to believe the gospel or profess faith in Jesus. On the other hand, exclusivism maintains the strict standard that salvation comes only if one consciously accepts and professes Jesus as their savior.
Virtually any Christian who writes publicly about the subject argues that the Bible supports an exclusivist theology. They rationalize their interpretation first by citing a Bible verse that proclaims Jesus as the only path to salvation — usually from John:
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(John 14:6)
They will then address the question of people who have no direct exposure to the gospel, by citing Romans 1 as evidence that all people (somehow) have innate awareness of God, and will be held accountable accordingly:
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19–20)
The problem with posing this exclusivist argument to a skeptic is that it begs the question of how we know that Scripture is a reliable source of truth. Like much of apologetics, the argument is only compelling to people who already believe in Christianity and view the Bible as flawless and authoritative.
The Second After: A Thought Experiment
Christian theology is rooted in the idea of a covenant — a contract between God and his followers. This concept appears prominently in the story of Abraham, who makes a covenant with Yahweh. Meanwhile, the “New Covenant” (often celebrated by communion) is the contract observed by Christians today: the exchange of Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection for the believer’s lifelong devotion to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As with any contract today, there must have been a singular instant where the New Covenant went from not being in effect, to being in effect. Maybe this happened at the moment of resurrection, or maybe it was when Jesus ascended to Heaven, but there would still be an immediate change at some point. So once the Covenant was in effect, humankind immediately went from not being subject to the terms of accepting salvation through Jesus (and avoiding damnation), to being subject to those terms.
Picture this: imagine a native South American in roughly 33 CE, living on the opposite side of the world from where Jesus lived and taught. This person passes away exactly one second after the New Covenant goes into effect, whenever that may be (e.g. when Jesus finally ascends, or whichever other moment that one could argue for).
How would this hypothetical person be able to profess a believe in Jesus Christ as lord and savior within that second? How would they be able to renounce their sins, or even be aware of the very concept of sin (especially as it’s defined by Abrahamic religions)? How would they even be aware of a change in the “rules” for attaining a blissful afterlife? How would they have to time to process the death and resurrection of Jesus and reach the understanding that Jesus’s acts were necessary for salvation?
Some might suggest that perhaps God allows for a “grace period,” in between the “official” start of the New Covenant and the time when he would start insisting without exception that people accept Jesus in order to enter Heaven. Or maybe there was some delay before the New Covenant took effect. However, if you allow for the possibility that our South American could have avoided Hell through such a grace period, and thus was able to reach Heaven by a means other than actively acknowledging Jesus, then — congrats— you have suggested an inclusivist reality.
1st Century History
Christians who defend exclusivism seem to underestimate just how much world history was taking place in the early 1st century CE, outside of the localized Middle Eastern setting of the Bible. At the time of Jesus’s birth, the human population had between 150 and 300 million people spread out across the globe. For example:
- The Han Dynasty of China was right in the middle of its reign (202 BCE to 220 CE). At the turn of the millennium it consisted of over 2.3 million square miles, and was home to more than 57 million people.
- The Roman Empire had dominated western Europe, spanning most of the territory around the Mediterranean Sea and ranging from present-day Spain to Syria. The Empire had almost 5 million citizens by 14 CE.
- The Bantu Expansion (which started in 3000 BCE) was in its later stages across central and southern Africa. Bantu-speakers created dense population centers around the African Great Lakes, in what is now Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc.
- In South America(!), various societal groups (agricultural and not) populate the entire continent, most densely so across the Andes Mountains. At the same time, North America sees the rise of the Mayan civilization.
1st Century Religion
If it is true that God made his presence known to all people, and that no one is saved without calling on Jesus’s name, then it follows that we should see historical evidence that societies across the entire world independently developed theologies that are identical to Christianity. Otherwise, exclusivism means that people who died just after the start of the New Covenant, and in the wrong location, are doomed for eternity.
These religions should hold, at minimum, that 1) only one god exists, 2) this god sent his son (who is an extension of himself) to live on Earth, 3) the son was sacrificed as payment for humanity’s offenses against this god, and 4) salvation after death requires one to consciously proclaim acceptance of the son as their savior.
Here are examples of religious traditions across the world during the early first millennium, before the point where we have confirmed, documented exposure to Christian people and teachings.
- China’s Han Dynasty (202 BCE to 220 CE) promoted Confucianism as its state religion. Confucianism is primarily a code of ethics, and so debate exists about whether it is a religion or a philosophy. However, it inspired rituals dedicated to elements of nature (which would likely be denounced as paganism by today’s Christians), and no Confucian tradition identifies a sole god, much less a divine savior descended from him.
- Buddhism developed in India starting between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. Buddhism does not acknowledge any deity (including its own founder, the Buddha, who is instead considered an extraordinary man), instead focused on personal inner peace. Buddhism and the polytheistic tradition of Hinduism were the dominant religions of India until the introduction of Islam during the Middle Ages.
- Indigenous North Americans observed a wide variety of spiritual beliefs, depending on their location, but common threads include humans’ connections to nature. Only some tribes recognized particular deities, and few recognized a singular monotheistic one; the closest tradition to Christianity might be the Iroquois’s belief in a Creator who gave “Original Instructions” to humankind. No mention, however, of a deity who sent their son to Earth to act as savior.
- Africans practiced various religions across the continent before their introduction to the Christian and Islamic traditions. Some religions believed in spirits of nature or of departed ancestors, while others (perhaps some of the same ones) believed in the existence of magic. Many traditional African religions did observe a “Supreme Creator” who they prayed and sacrificed to, but as with the Native American beliefs, they show no theological resemblance to a “son of God” who was killed and resurrected.
It is certainly possible that exclusivism is better supported by the biblical text. Most mainline apologists seem to think so, but ultimately it is left to the individual believer to decide. However, the point here is that believing in exclusivism means believing that God consciously created humans to be born in remote areas of the world, with (demonstrably) no exposure to the gospel, and that God was fully aware that every one of them would be doomed to eternal torture for their “failure.”
Given this conclusion, Christians can believe the principle of exclusivism or the idea that God is fully loving, moral and benevolent. But they cannot believe in both.
As mentioned at the beginning, non-believers reject the Christian notion of Hell, and for good reason. It claims an infinite punishment for otherwise decent people whose only “offense” is having a “wrong” set of beliefs. But beyond that, the religion teaches people that they deserve this punishment. Nobody will say that humans are perfect, but we must let go of beliefs that reinforce a grossly unhealthy view of ourselves and our neighbors. We, as humans, deserve better.
