Even among evangelical circles there is a belief that those who never heard the name Jesus can still receive salvation based on the light that they have been given. Billy Graham, Robert Kennedy, and C.S. Lewis all believed this (or hinted at it) to name a few. Paul seems to support this idea in Romans 1 and 2, "They are without excuse." Meaning that those who respond to what they have been given by God can still enter the Kingdom of God, even without ever hearing the name to which salvation comes.
Personally, what I do know is that God is love, he is fair, and he is just. So let's subscribe to this idea for a moment: A tribesman living in the bush and has never heard of Jesus, can still find God through the light given to him; mostly by creation revealing her creator.
So by taking the long way around I finally get to my point.
Let's say this tribesman hears the name of Jesus through a Christian jerk. I don't feel like I need to elaborate, since we all can name one or two. This tribesman then rejects the Gospel because he rejects the messenger.
By doing this, has he rejected the 'greater light' which was given? Or is he still under the Romans 1 and 2 whereas creation is his evidence of God Almighty?
Some would argue that the message is stronger than the messenger, thereby, this tribesman now must accept Jesus to follow the way into the Kingdom and eternal life. Others argue that simply proclaiming scripture is enough and the blood is off of their hands if the hearers reject the message.
I would argue that God left us, his Body, to be the messengers, and as a result we are the hands, heart, feet, mind, tongue, and pancreas of Jesus so the message is in fact the messenger, or at the very least, completely entwined and cannot be separated. Therefore if an evangelist doesn't live as Jesus loved, then the message is not complete and no new light has been given to the hearer.
What say you?