Those who have not heard


It is a perennial question in theology: If someone dies never having heard of Jesus, might it be possible for him, somehow, to be saved without the gospel?

There is a curious feature embedded in the question. The question can only be formulated by those to whom it does not apply. So the question cannot arise in the only context in which it is significant.  As it is written,

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? (Rom 10:14-15)

That makes me think the question is a theological curiosity, one of those things we can debate along with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, rather than a question that is of serious use to anyone.

It is all right--at least I feel no embarrassment about it--to say I simply know nothing about the answer. Think of a Venn diagram of three sets, those who have heard the gospel, those who have believed it and those who have not heard. Those who have not heard know nothing about the question. I do not think it is going too far to say that we who have heard know nothing about the answer as to what happens to those who never hear. Everything God has told us about the matter involves telling other people, whoever they are and wherever they live.

The message is, in broad outline, here is the truth you were wondering about, how the universe works, what your life has been all about (including the sad and crazy bits) and here is a steep narrow road that leads you out of all that. That is our message as Christians and it is the only message we have. We have nothing to tell to those who have not heard--except that very thing. In that case they move out of set A into B, and we hope they move further from B into C. (Note that the diagram below is not to scale. I have no idea of the actual proportions of hearers, non-hearers and believers.)




I am tagging this post under "enlightened ignorance," the delightful principle by which it is quite all right to have ignorance so long as it is well grounded ignorance. Here, as in the date and precise manner of the Lord's return, the sacramental mysteries and some other areas, we are simply not well enough informed to say quite so much as we sometimes do say. When faced with such matters I like to say this:


Psalm 131

A song of ascents. Of David.

1 My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.

2 But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.

3 Israel, put your hope in the Lord
both now and forevermore.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more