Yes, evangelicals do have more retention of youth than mainline churches. But it is unfair to say that this is because evangelicals care more about keeping them. As someone who grew up as an evangelical and who is now in a mainline denomination, I see a different way of analyzing this trend. Rather than evangelicals caring more, they engage in the business of scaring more (sorry for the pun, it just worked well.)
Mainline denominations are uninterested in telling youth that they are going to burn in Hell if they don’t commit to Christianity and regularly come to church. Evangelicals, on the other hand, do. Mainline denominations are uninterested in guilting their members into attending; evangelicals see no problem with this. It’s a matter of philosophy. Evangelicals are consequentialists when it comes to youth formation”“the end justifies the means. Mainline denominations are typically deontologists”“if the means are not right, the action is wrong, even if good comes from it….
[blockquote]Rather than evangelicals caring more, they engage in the business of scaring more (sorry for the pun, it just worked well.)[/blockquote]
Shades of Monsters, Inc.
“We scare because we care.”
Mr. Burrows ought to more deeply examine his phrase “ambivalence towards the afterlife.”
I think in some evangelical circles people are using fear to lead youth to Christ and a new life, I think in others people are just telling the truth – there will be a judgement by God and consequences for what we are doing in the here and now – to guide youth to Christ and a new life. How does Mr. Burrows see or determine the difference? Does Mr. Burrows confuse the part for the whole? Is the latter example strictly consequential or deotological or some gray area in moral definitions?
[blockquote]Evangelicals are consequentialists when it comes to youth formation–the end justifies the means.[/blockquote]
Translation: Evangelicals can’t possibly believe that scary stuff about hell and decisions having consequences, so they must be lying to their kids into order to get them to do what they want them to do.
Yet another liberal with a superiority complex who thinks he can read [inferior] minds.
‘Course, I guess that, if you’re “ambivalent about the afterlife” like Mr. Burrows and many of his fellow travelers, even raising the notion of Hell and eternal judgment to your youth would border on child abuse, not to mention forcing oneself to contemplate the eternal consequences of one’s own ambivalence on such matters.
As with BlueOntario, I think that Mr. Burrows confuses scare tactics with truth-telling. If one takes a strong view of biblical authority, as I assume most evangelicals (and other orthodox Christians ) do, then instructing children about Christ’s clear messages on eternal judgment and the consequences of one’s beliefs/actions isn’t just being consistent with Holy Scripture, it’s a loving thing to do. Or is it more loving to simply adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards catechesis, and hope that kids just stumble into a saving faith??