Does Conditionalism lower the priority of Evangelism?

Over the years, I've come to a view called Conditionalism. It basically says that the consistent view of the biblical authors was that the fate of the unsaved is not eternal conscious torment, but complete annihilation. I might write my own post for why I think this is probably right, but for now Rethinking Hell does a damn good job outlining the reasons.

But some of my fellow conditionalists don't want to accept all the implications of our view. Specifically: A) that annihilation is preferable to eternal conscious torment, and B) that it reduces the importance of evangelism.

It's easy to see why evangelicals especially would not like these implications. Evangelism has been a deep priority of evangelicalism for a long time. And anything that waters down that priority, even a little bit, is resisted.

Still, I think they should admit that A and B are actually implications of their view. And just because it makes the fate of the wicked doesn't look as bad and evangelism doesn't look as good, that doesn't mean death isn't horrible and evangelism isn't wonderful.

So why should we believe that Annihilation is preferable to eternal conscious torment? Well it seems to me like everybody has a suffering threshold beyond which they'd prefer death. Maybe it's higher in some people than others, but at least for most of us that point exists. If you can't think of one, use your imagination. What's the most awful thing you can imagine? Would you rather die than experience it?

Still need help? Consider this picture, wouldn't you be begging for death?

Sorry for this, but point made?

It seems like for the people who believe that hell is eternal conscious torment, it's the worst of the worst eternal conscious torment.

The thing about the eternal conscious torment view of hell is that it's about has bad as anyone can imagine it to be. It's kind of the worst thing by definition.

What about B? Does that mean the need to evangelize is disincentivized?

If you think that when the price goes down, you should buy, then it has to, but only on the margin. The cost of hell is a little bit lower under conditionalism, so of course people should invest less in saving people from it. That doesn't make it any less than top priority, but still, there are so many hours in the day and evangelism surely isn't the only priority. To say otherwise is nothing less than a mathematical mistake. Invest more in higher valued goals. If the goal falls in value, invest less.

The logical consequences of conditionalism hasn't deterred me from accepting the reasons behind it. When something is true, you take the step wherever it leads. It's a basic condition of integrity. Conditionalism leads to less evangelism, so what?