Written by Daniel Strange
Reviewed by Timothy George
Daniel Strange, who teaches at Oak Hill Theological College in London, has written an important and well-argued book on one of the most controversial theological topics in the evangelical world today: what happens to those who live and die without having heard or understood the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? This is by no means a new issue for Christian theology, but it is being debated with renewed vigor within the evangelical community and Strange does an excellent job of conceptualizing the discussion and analyzing the thinking of the one of the main representatives of the indusivist position. This book grew out of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Bristol and was completed under the supervision of renowned Roman Catholic theologian Gavin D’Costa. He hails this study as “one of the best comprehensive studies of this debate” and calls its author “one of the sharpest and most competent writers of his generation in England”. High praise but not exaggerated for such an incisive and well-thought-out book.
Strange accomplishes three things in this study. First, it reviews the state of the question of the unevangelized in recent evangelical theology. He identifies three theological currents, each of which could well be subdivided further: the Reformed/Calvinist tradition (the position with which Strange identifies), the Arminian tradition, and the post-conservative evangelical tradition. It is in this third stream that the most in-depth discussion on the fate of the unevangelized has taken place, and Strange devotes a large part of his study to revealing the thinking of one of its main representatives, the Baptist theologian Canadian Clark Pinnock.
Pinnock is well known as a process theologian (but not a pure process theologian), and Strange places his writings on this theme in the context of his broader pilgrimage. Many of the ambiguities that Strange painstakingly uncovers in his analysis of Pinnock’s thought arise from Pinnock’s desire to affirm both God’s universal saving will for all people and the finality of Jesus Christ as the sole Savior. of the world. Strange carefully places Pinnock in the context of a broader debate, comparing his ideas not only with other evangelicals but also with Roman Catholic theologians, notably Karl Rahner, many of whose ideas were incorporated into Roman Catholic teaching at Vatican II.
Perhaps Strange’s best contribution is to show how, by adopting a more inclusive view of the plight of the unevangelized, Pinnock necessarily precipitated major change in other key doctrinal areas. For example, in describing the role of the Holy Spirit as the decisive agent in the salvation of the unevangelized, what Strange calls “pneumatological inclusivism,” Pinnock was forced to adjust the historical evangelical understanding of the relationship between the and third members of the Church. the divine Divinity. Likewise, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the penal substitutionary concept of atonement, and even the doctrine of the Reformation sola scriptura are all subject to revisionist thinking. In other words, contrary to his best intentions, Pinnock was not able to adjudicate the axioms of particularity and universality without major – and, according to Strange, very damaging – adjustments in Christology, Trinitarian theology , soteriology and the doctrine of biblical revelation.
Although Strange offers a vigorous Reformed critique of Pinnock’s position, he commends him for putting the question of the salvation of the unevangelized on the table and for engaging with it at a level unmatched by most others evangelical thinkers. Strange may be right to claim that the plight of the unevangelized is not so much a “problem” for those who approach the issue with strong Reformed assumptions (about election, particular redemption, radical depravity, etc.). .), but there are a number of questions that even Reformed theologians need to think about more clearly than has hitherto been done. What about the salvation of those who die in infancy or those who remain mentally incapable? What about those who claim (many converts from Islam, for example) to have received a call to Christ and salvation through a vision or dream without the ordinary means of verbal or written testimony? What of those orthodox theologians, notably Zwingli in the Reformation, who argued that God’s election perhaps includes individuals outside the ordinary channel of salvation history, even notable pagans? Strange does not ignore these questions and refers to them briefly (usually in footnotes), but they deserve even more serious consideration if the position defended in this book is to be maintained.
An added bonus in this volume is a forty-page appendix in which Strange provides the most definitive typology to date of evangelical responses to the plight of the unevangelized. Among those arguing for what Strange calls “positive agnosticism” on the issue are Alister McGrath and John Stott. both assert that the most Christian answer to this question is to leave the unevangelized in the hands of the God of infinite justice and mercy who, ultimately, will be shown to all to have done good towards all. Strange joins John Sanders, a major inclusivist thinker, in arguing that such a view, while emotionally satisfying, is intellectually inadequate in that it relieves tension on the issue without paying the theological price. At this point, however, it would be well to remember that theology is a modest science and to recall this statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith (5:3), which Strange cites elsewhere: “God, in his ordinary providence, uses means, but he is free to work without, above and against them as he pleases. To do otherwise would seem to call into question another fundamental axiom of sound Reformed theology and biblical faith: the absolute supremacy and sovereignty of God.
Timothy Georges
Samford University