Editor’s note: This article is part of forum discussing the fourth Lausanne Congress. It is not an official Lausanne Movement forum but an opportunity for Lausanne delegates to share their thoughts about the fourth Lausanne Congress, the Seoul Statement, and the future of the mission. You can read the entire series, from diverse voices around the world here.
For many of us from the majority world who regularly attend regional or international conferences, the experience is marked by excitement and gratitude. We are part of something larger than our realities back home, and we are deeply thankful, as most (if not all) of our expenses are typically covered.
What we do not usually do is question or criticize our hosts who have been very generous. This does not mean we are naïve or uncritical, just that there are many psychological and cultural layers to overcome before we feel comfortable speaking up. I cannot speak for all majority world participants—we are far from a monolith—but this is certainly true for many South Asians. We are conditioned to be compliant and submissive to our patrons.
So, you can imagine even the present strain that I feel to vocalize my own concerns about the Lausanne Congress held in Seoul, which was embroiled in several controversies. But I am thankful to Ed Stetzer for his willingness to invite young majority world participants to share their reflections and even disagree with him. While some participants were able to ignore the murmurs and agitations brewing in the corridors, I and many others could not overlook some of the red flags. So, with some trepidation, let me speak to one controversy in particular: the issue of “integral mission.”
The Lausanne movement, since its inception in 1974, has been about world evangelization. However, evangelization understood as one mode of mission, was not to be separated from social action. This is clear in the The Lausanne Covenant—a statement produced during the first congress that has since been a key reference for evangelical theological reflection globally. The statement claims the following about what inspired it: “We are deeply stirred by what God is doing in our day, moved to penitence by our failures and challenged by the unfinished task of evangelization.”
There is an implicit recognition in this document that the task of evangelization can be hindered by the failures of the church, the evangelizers. One of the failures that is acknowledged is found in Article 5 on Christian Social Responsibility: “Here too we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive.” However, the document maintains in the very next section that “[in] the Church’s mission of sacrificial service, evangelism is primary.”
I believe the context of these statements is just as important as the quotes themselves. The Congress of 1974 has been recounted as somewhat contentious and painful for many in attendance. René Padilla’s address at the congress, which has been dubbed as “the speech that shook the world,” sheds some light on what evangelicalism as a diverse movement was grappling with at the time. An alternative was being sought between the progressives of the likes of WCC and the fundamentalists who were reacting strongly to the social gospel. For his part, Padilla contends in his talk that:
[on] the one hand, the Gospel cannot be reduced to social, economic and political categories, nor the church to an agency for human improvement… On the other hand, there is no biblical warrant to view the church as an other-worldly community dedicated to the salvation of souls, or to limit its mission to the preaching of man’s reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ.
Padilla charged the audience to embrace the “full gospel” that does not dichotomize evangelism and social action. Along with figures like Samuel Escobar and John Stott, he helped forge a path for evangelicals that integrated both proclamation and social action, without compromising the truth of Christ as the only way of salvation by the Holy Spirit.
The congress at Cape Town in 2010 continued in this tradition. The Cape Town Commitment declares: “All our mission must…reflect the integration of evangelism and committed engagement in the world, both being ordered and driven by the whole biblical revelation of the gospel of God.” Notably, however, the drafters do slightly diverge from the language of “primacy” to “centre” in describing the evangelism’s place in the church’s mission. They attempt to bypass the debate of “what comes first” and therefore “what is most important” by placing evangelism at the “centre of the fully-integrated scope of all our mission, inasmuch as the gospel itself is the source, content and authority of all biblically-valid mission.”
In the very next line, comes a glimpse into the crucial understanding that sets “integral mission” apart from other truncated models of gospel witness. It exhorts us, the readers, that “[all] we do should be both an embodiment and a declaration of the love and grace of God and his saving work through Jesus Christ.” The gospel in this framing is not merely a propositional set of statements or a formula, it is a testimony and a witness to the transformation one has received in Christ. The message of Christ is embodied in and extended by the body of Christ to the world through the empowerment of the Spirit. As Padilla remarked in his 1974 address, “Our greatest need is a more biblical Gospel and a more faithful church” (italics added).
All of this came to a head at the congress held in Seoul last week, marking the 50-year anniversary of the Lausanne movement. The theme was “Let the Church Declare and Display Christ Together.” One might expect, in line with previous developments, a continued focus on the church as both the herald and embodiment of the Christian gospel, would only be the natural next step in the prophetic trajectory set by the congresses of 1974 and thereon.
