Some of the wording of this paragraph is key. “Central,” “priority,” and “indispensable” are all words that help us say what we believe about evangelism. While many would prefer a statement affirming evangelism as the “first priority” or “center” of mission, not all of Lausanne would agree. Historically, Lausanne has had a tension between “prioritism” (the priority of evangelism) and “integralism” (evangelism as one part of holistic mission). That said, I believe we all agree evangelism should be “a priority” and “central.”
People like me are concerned about evangelistic mission drift, and clarifying our commitment to evangelism would encourage us tremendously. And ensure that our commitment is clear for the next generation.
RELATED: Lausanne Speaker’s Comments About Israel Spark Backlash and Apologies
The Past Priority of Evangelism for Lausanne
These stronger words are consistent with past statements. Missiologist Christopher Wright was the Chair of the Cape Town 2010 Statement Working Group. He said:
[I]t is important to stress that holistic mission, as I understand it, does not merely include evangelism, but integrates everything else around it, since the gospel is the heart and core of God’s mission and ours…Sometimes ‘holistic mission’ is used to mean everything else except evangelism…It has been used that way even in Lausanne circles, in spite of my protests! But this is wrong and misleading. ‘Holistic’ means ‘the whole thing.’ Social action without evangelism is just as non-holistic as is evangelism without social engagement. Sometimes ‘holistic mission’ is used to mean everything and anything that can be called ‘mission’ including evangelism, but with no integration….I prefer to speak of the centrality of evangelism…because it connects us to the centrality of the gospel as the essential good news of what God has done to save the world. We may do a whole lot of things, quite legitimately, in the breadth of missional callings, but the integrating heart at the centre of them all must be the God-centered and God-generated reality of the gospel.
Note that neither Wright, nor I, have used the term “prioritism,” which believers in holistic mission tend to reject. Actaully, I prefer the phrase “integral prioritism,” where we embrace holistic mission and find ways to keep evangelism central. But I’m not advocating for that term for The Seoul Statement. Instead, I am pointing out that evangelism does, biblically and historically, warrant an esteemed place in holistic mission.
Lausanne has repeatedly affirmed a “priority” for evangelism in its Core Documents, including The Manila Manifesto, Section 4, “The Gospel and Social Responsibility”:
The authentic gospel must become visible in the transformed lives of men and women. As we proclaim the love of God we must be involved in loving service, as we preach the kingdom of God we must be committed to its demands of justice and peace.
Evangelism is primary because our chief concern is with the gospel, that all people may have the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet Jesus not only proclaimed the kingdom of God, he also demonstrated its arrival by works of mercy and power. We are called today to a similar integration of words and deeds. In a spirit of humility we are to preach and teach, minister to the sick, feed the hungry, care for prisoners, help the disadvantaged and handicapped, and deliver the oppressed. While we acknowledge the diversity of spiritual gifts, callings, and contexts, we also affirm that good news and good works are inseparable. [bold added]
Thus, the Manila Manifesto makes the incredibly helpful contrast that “good news and good words are inseparable,” while still keeping evangelism “prioritized.” So, using words like “central,” “priority,” and “indispensable” do not undermine holistic mission. They simply remind us that too many Christians have drifted away from evangelism. We must put a stake in the ground that we will not drift from evangelism as well. Let’s not drift from our evangelistic mandate.
I’m not the only one expressing this concern, though there (as of this posting) appears to be no formal way to give feedback on the Seoul Statement. (I emailed and did not hear back.) Tim Tennet joined with others expressing concern about some of the possible drift, in his case, addressing both evangelism and theology:
I do have a few serious questions about Lausanne 4.
First, has it become so “issues” driven that the central emphasis on world evangelization has been buried down to just one emphasis among many? Is the driving purpose of Lausanne still the driving purpose?… [And] I have seen a significant drop in the emphasis on unreached people groups and those who are currently without access to the gospel.
Second, have the biblical/theological foundations remained as strong as in the past? While there is no doubt that Lausanne has the accent and ethos of a thoroughly evangelical movement, there have been things said from the platform which were, shall we say, a bit sloppy, even if said from a good heart. But, when you are in a global platform situation, you cannot afford to not be precise and fully informed historically, theologically and biblically.
I share some of Tim’s theological concerns, but I’m ending my article with my focus on the evangelistic concern.
RELATED: Student Evangelism: 3 Lies About Teenagers Spreading the Gospel
My Encouragement to Lausanne Leaders
So, I’m appealing (and have appealed) to the leadership of Lausanne that we state emphatically that evangelism is “central,” “a priority,” and “indispensable” to our mission. History has shown over and over that a mission that doesn’t prioritize evangelism will quickly lose evangelism.
The world generally loves the good deeds that the church does, but the world generally pushes back against the good news that the church proclaims. Let’s make clear for a generation that proclaiming the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and calling people to repent and believe in the gospel is a central and indispensable priority for us.
