Eskimo: ’If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ Priest: ’No, not if you did not know.’ Eskimo: ’Then why did you tell me?’

This exchange is presented by Annie Dillard as an illustrative anecdote in her reflections on Christian evangelism and the moral stakes of missionary work. Dillard uses it to dramatize a theological dilemma: if ignorance of the Gospel mitigates culpability, then preaching can appear to increase a hearer’s risk by introducing the very knowledge that makes condemnation possible. The “Eskimo and priest” dialogue is not offered as a documented historical transcript but as a compact parable-like story circulating in religious discussion, which Dillard deploys to sharpen her critique of complacent or unexamined proselytizing.

The anecdote crystallizes a moral paradox at the heart of missionary religion: if ignorance of the Gospel exempts someone from damnation, then evangelizing can appear to increase a listener’s risk by making them accountable to a new standard. The Eskimo’s final question exposes the unintended cruelty that can accompany well-meant proselytizing, and it presses on the tension between universal salvation, divine justice, and human intervention. In Dillard’s hands, the story functions less as ethnography than as a sharp thought experiment about belief, culpability, and the costs of “bringing” knowledge—especially when that knowledge includes the possibility of eternal punishment.

1) “Inuit: ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ Priest: ‘No, not if you did not know.’ Inuit: ‘Then why did you tell me?’
2) “Eskimo: ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ Missionary: ‘No, not if you did not know.’ Eskimo: ‘Then why did you tell me?’
3) “If I had never heard of God and sin, would I go to hell? —No. —Then why did you tell me?”