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.

Participating in the fourth Lausanne Congress in Incheon, South Korea, as a member of Lausanne Canada leadership, was an unforgettable experience—especially as it was my first time attending in person. Coordinating the Canadian delegation, with last-minute confirmations and unclear participant lists, was a challenge, but the congress itself was remarkable. Bringing together Christian leaders and influencers from 202 countries and territories, it rallied around a vision of comprehensive, coordinated, and collaborative global mission. With 5,400 delegates on-site and thousands more participating virtually (vx), the scale of the event was truly awe-inspiring.

Michael Oh’s opening and closing addresses bookended the event beautifully, warning against the attitude of “I don’t need you” and calling for collaborative interdependence—“I need you.” This vision of unity was symbolically captured by the final artwork created by Lexie Newsome and Bryn Gillette, showing the church bringing the gospel to the world. A particularly moving moment occurred when a Korean and Japanese pastor presided over communion together, symbolizing reconciliation between historically conflicting nations.

However, the sudden release of the Seoul Statement on the first night left many delegates feeling disconnected. It was partly expected that the statement would emerge from listening discussions during the congress, shaped by collective input. Unlike past congresses, where key statements were created after the event, the release of the statement felt pre-determined, leaving no room for ground-level contributions. As the Collaborate Session room facilitator for Gap 22: Ethnicism and Racism, I had hoped our discussions would inform the document. However, the early release reflected a lack of collaborative leadership. This felt like a missed opportunity, especially as the Great Collaboration is required to fulfill the Great Commission.¹

The Collaborative Action Commitment: A Missed Opportunity

One of the most impactful parts of the congress was the signing of the Collaborative Action Commitment (CAC), a document that emphasized unity and collaboration, which they had to clarify was separate from the Seoul Statement. Introducing this commitment at the beginning of the week would have framed our discussions and grounded them in actionable collaboration. Reflecting on it throughout the week would have allowed the Seoul Statement to then emerge as a true culmination of our efforts.

The Commitment calls for intentional responses to the Great Commission, removing silos, and enabling a new generation of leaders. It highlights the need to mobilize existing initiatives and form collaborative action teams to address key gaps. If introduced earlier, it could have provided a more streamlined experience as the driving thesis.

A Prophetic Voice Missed

The Seoul Statement follows in the footsteps of the Lausanne Covenant, the Manila Manifesto, and the Cape Town Commitment, all of which left lasting legacies on the global church and leadership. However, unlike its predecessors, the Seoul Statement felt more like a finished product from the start. The leaders of the 33-member Theology Working Group released it as a 97-point, 13,000-word document, but there wasn’t much transparency about how much collaborative input was considered. While global diversity was attempted, a more organic and inclusive process—where ground-level discussions at the congress shaped the outcome—might have better reflected the richness of voices in the rooms.

Another key critique centers on the lack of a prophetic voice during the congress, a role exemplified by figures like Ralph Winter² in previous gatherings. While other prophetic voices have contributed to Lausanne’s history, Winter, celebrated for his paradigm-shifting work in frontier missions, stands out. He was briefly honored at the congress’ 50th anniversary, yet the thrust and legacy of his contributions to mobilization and collaboration seemed to lose momentum. His pioneering work highlighted the critical need for mobilizing the global church, not just sending people but engaging the least-reached and equipping/re-evangelizing the reached. Unfortunately, this type of prophetic leadership was less evident in the Seoul Statement.

Ligament Analogy and Missional Koinonia

A poignant analogy amongst many others on the last day from majority world movements, came from Eun Ah Cho, whom compared the Asian Church to the ligaments of the body of Christ, referencing Ephesians 4:16. Ligaments connect and support the body’s movements, much like the Asian Church maintains unity within the global body of Christ. This analogy resonated with the congress’s vision of collaboration, reminding us that unity is the work of the Holy Spirit, but we are called to nurture it through the ways we connect and serve together. The concept of missional koinonia, or fellowship in mission, speaks to this interconnectedness, which can only truly occur when every part of the body works together in coordinated and intentional collaboration.

¹ I owe Rick Warren greatly for helping me see “mobilization” in connection to “collaboration” and how it is a necessary process for the acceleration of the Great Commission, as he expanded in his breakout on Tuesday, Sept. 24, significantly deeper than he shared in his plenary address at the end.

² Winter’s work often pushed the boundaries of mission strategy, emphasizing the critical importance of mobilizing everyone from anywhere to everywhere. In his seminal work, “The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission,” Winter argued for the essential role of both local churches (modalities) and mission agencies (sodalities) in fulfilling the Great Commission. As he put it, “It is our attempt here to help church leaders and others to understand the legitimacy of both structures, and the necessity for both structures not only to exist but to work together harmoniously for the fulfillment of the Great Commission.”

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.

During his closing remarks at the fourth Lausanne Congress, Michael Oh urged us not to be like the “flies” who can only see and remain in the filth, but rather like “bees” who see beauty rather than what is broken. 

Throughout the years, I have been constantly encouraged and challenged by the Lausanne movement and its zeal for faithfully integrating evangelism and social action. The mere fact that 5,000 evangelical leaders from around the world were able to gather in one location is an accomplishment on its own. Yet, for many of us from the non-western world, there were elements at the L4 Congress that were truly disappointing. 

Numerous leaders from the non-western world were gathering behind the scenes, voicing their concerns. So when I heard Michael’s remark, I could not stop asking the question, “then, are we flies?” 

Due to lack of space, I can only briefly mention some of the points that were voiced by many of the majority-world leaders. 

Mammon of Consumerism and Capitalism 

We are called to be faithful stewards of God’s gifts, which include how we steward our money. I am so thankful for all the faithful Christians who work in the business world; they are a blessing to the church. Emphasis on the importance of workplace ministry was one advancement in L4. At the same time, money can easily be an idol and a driving force for control. We regret that there was not any mention of the way consumerism and capitalism have, and are spiritually forming the minds of many Christians and the church, not least the way mission has been entangled with the ways of the world (or the market). 

Diminished Representation of the Legacy of Non-Western Leaders 

The 50th anniversary of Lausanne was supposed to be a celebration of its diversity and the power of the gospel that unites us all. Yet, the dominant narrative that was portrayed was the legacy of Billy Graham and mission mobilization. The legacy of numerous global leaders who were foundational to the formation of the whole Lausanne movement (i.e., Rene Padilla, Samuel Escobar, Kwame Bediako to name a few) was brushed aside. 

This is contrary to the narrative documented and perceived by many in the majority world (i.e., Al Tizon’s Transformation after Lausanne). Granted, Lausanne is a diverse movement, but that is precisely what we need to embrace its diversity and polycentric nature, rather than attempting to fit everything into a unified narrative centered on the legacy of Western leadership and mobilization. 

Lack of Global Representation in Worship 

I love the Gettys (my wife listens to them all the time), and the energy of the Korean Isaiah 61 band. However, it was disappointing how around 80% of the songs sung were Western hymns/worship. If the emphasis is on polycentric mission, we should all be learning songs from the global church, not teaching the global church how to worship. It was especially unfortunate that very few Korean songs were sung (and they have one of the best worship songs). 

Lack of Lament 

One of the highlights of L4 was the stories of persecution and the way God has been at work in the midst of the pain. The testimonies shared have moved the hearts of many. Yet, right after stories of pain were shared, triumphant worship songs with lyrics of joy and heaven were sung. Yes, God is at work in the darkest places. Yet, we should never glorify persecution and gloss over the reality of pain in triumphalism. Hope without lament is deception, for the joy of the resurrection comes only when we realize the cost of the cross. 

Digital Divide 

When we consider the next generation, we should be more attentive, and not less, to the advancements in the digital world. The congress was paperless, and the congress app, along with the collaborative action hub displayed the potential of technology. However, we must also recognize the existence of a significant digital divide. There were participants from the majority world who do not own smartphones or come from places where their internet connection is 2G at best. How are we able to include their voice, if access to collaboration tools is limited to those with high digital literacy? 

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.

The fourth Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in Incheon-Seoul was inspirational and informative, bringing together representatives from nearly every nation to collaborate in various issue groups. Much good will emerge from this historic event. I deeply value the role that Lausanne has played in shaping the global evangelical movement.

However, it was inevitable that the question would arise again, as in the past, regarding the core purpose of the Lausanne movement. This was just not in response to particular presentations or issue groups. Rather, rumblings in this regard were only evidence of the ongoing lack of clarity that has troubled the movement from early along. 

The heart of the issue is not if the church should be concerned about social justice, peace and reconciliation, children at risk, human trafficking, creation care, and a host of other ethical issues in addition to evangelism. Rather, the question here is where and how we should discuss world evangelization and where and how we discuss all the other missional and ethical obligations of the church.

It is good that there are working groups, consultations, and action committees to address such holistic concerns to help the church live out is calling to be the salt of the earth and the light in the world (Mt 5:13-16). But should the Lausanne movement be the large evangelical tent to engage all these issues, or should it be focused primarily on the task of world evangelization? Should all these legitimate concerns be included in an event convened under the title “congress on world evangelization”? I think not.

My intention here is not to rehash the so-called prioritism vs. integral mission debate.  What Christian would deny that loving our neighbor as ourselves is central to what it means to be a follower of Jesus and the mark of a true disciple (Mt 22:38-39, John 13:35)? But a decisive commitment by Lausanne to focus more exclusively on issues directly bearing on evangelism would not only quiet the never-ending debates about the role of holistic mission in Lausanne, but more importantly it would allow the work of Lausanne to proceed with greater intentionality, efficiency, and effectiveness. Other organizations such as the World Evangelical Alliance are, in my estimation, better positioned to serve as catalysts for evangelical collaboration on the wide-ranging issues that concern the global church. 

This call for Lausanne to narrow its focus could be accused of separating that which belongs together. However, that critique betrays a confusion of categories and callings. Of course, our witness to the gospel is powerless if we are not living out the gospel in practical ways that demonstrate a concern for compassion and justice.

But evangelism is not the same as social responsibility. This was clearly spelled out in Article 5 of the Lausanne Covenant. To maintain a distinction does not drive a wedge between evangelism and social action but can actually help us to do both better. Acts 6 describes how some leaders were devoted to “prayer and to the ministry of the word” as a priority, and others focused on serving widows. They are two complementary, but distinct kinds of ministry. Both important, but both giving attention to different obligations, opportunities, and challenges. For a movement to focus on one, is not to suggest that the other is unimportant.

It’s generally agreed that the word “mission” is a comprehensive term, including many tasks beyond evangelism alone. Lausanne has tended to take up the cause of Christian mission in the broadest sense, and not merely world evangelization. This move has unnecessarily led to confusion and much of the controversy surrounding Lausanne.

At the risk of sounding nostalgic, I suggest revisiting John Stott’s classic little volume “Christian Mission in the Modern World.” He famously became an eloquent advocate of holistic mission that includes both social responsibility and evangelism. Yet he defined evangelism as a distinct task, writing, “Granted, then the priority of evangelism, how is it to be defined? In a few words, eunagelizomai means to bring or announce the eunagelion, the good news.” This good news is, of course, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is “the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16).

• The gospel is the message of God’s power to forgive sin and reconcile sinners with the living God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• The gospel is God’s power that enables us to live as disciples who obey all that Jesus taught us.
• The gospel is God’s power that bring us to the place where the Holy Spirit pours the love of God into our hearts so that we care about the people and things that God cares about (Rom 5:5).
• The gospel is God’s power that ultimately sends us into a suffering world as agents of His love, righteousness, and compassion.

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.

Over six days in Incheon, Korea, 5,000 brothers and sisters from across the globe gathered at the fourth Lausanne Congress. I was privileged to be among them. As brothers and sisters, we listened to one another, prayed for one another, and learned from each other’s vast experiences.

Many things were said at the six-day conference that ran from morning into the evening. As is the benefit of such diversity, one hears various views. There are some things shared on the stage and from my brothers and sisters in conversation that I agreed with deeply. And there were a few I do not, due to a different theological perspective. But given my work and calling to serve the body of Christ at large, I personally don’t often find myself hung up on minor differences.

As a neuroscientist and psychologist sent to serve the church, part of that work is having a keen ear to hear the narrative that underlies what is being said. What is the story the speaker is living in? And is that story one of the Kingdom and Good News? On the last day of the 4th Lausanne Congress, however, I heard a narrative that I cannot just brush off as theological difference but feel compelled to illuminate and examine.

In the last session, when talking about the reasons for collaboration, they gave the illustration of a computer program that allowed a robot to shoot one dot of paint at a time onto a canvas. The alternative illustration was a robot that could make many calculations and had many cannons that could paint a picture much faster.

As I understand it, one of the outcomes of the Congress is that we would share in a technology hub how each of us is serving in ministry and Kingdom work, and an AI model would make suggestions for collaboration. I am not clear if it will run like a dating app that matches people based on an algorithm or something more, but the idea of depending on an AI for the strategy of the church’s evangelism and discipleship is unsettling. Using AI for data and summarizing is one thing; strategic direction is another.

The robot illustration and other comments in the closing remarks made me curious about the implicit narrative behind the exhortation. It made me wonder if the story Lausanne is operating in is one where our global efforts thus far have been poorly coordinated and inefficient. Is it a story in which we, as the global church, are not doing things right, and thus strategies generated by AI would better organize our work? Indeed, similar thoughts were expressed by those speaking for Lausanne.

As a pentecostal, I am significantly bothered by this narrative’s key assumptions.

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.

Lausanne 4 came to a triumphant close today. It is difficult to describe in words to someone who has not attended an event like this, the breathtaking beauty of a Lausanne gathering with 5,200 people gathered in a single room with delegates from nearly every country on earth worshipping in joy and harmony. There is no doubt that Lausanne has (since the Third Congress in Cape Town in 2010) nurtured and fostered the most diverse gathering of Christians in the history of the world. Indeed, the greatest fruit of Lausanne is always the people who gather. I had conversations with colleagues from around the world and met many new friends which will enrich my life and ministry for decades to come. But, despite the wonderful hallway conversations, there were many wonderful moments among the platform speakers. I attended every single session, as well all of my “gap” group meetings. If you were not able to attend Lausanne and can only hear one message, listen to Sarah Breuel’s address on Monday. It was life changing and powerful.

Lausanne 4 was also a logistical triumph. There is no doubt that enormous planning and preparation had taken place for this Congress. There were a few snags here and there, but no one should underestimate how difficult it is to pull of an event this complex. The Korean hosts were unbelievably kind and gracious and I have nothing but gratitude for those behind the scenes who planned, along with hundreds of volunteers (mostly Korean) who showed us all what servanthood looks like day after day. Well done, Lausanne!!

The Seoul Statement has been the subject of a lot of hallway conversations. This is, of course, the fourth major Lausanne statement building on the Lausanne Covenant, the Manila Manifesto and the Cape Town Commitment. I was involved with the Cape Town Commitment and the follow up teaching documents in the years following because I chaired the Theology Working Group of Lausanne for five years. Many do not recognize how difficult these statements can be because the evangelical conversations around topics like scripture, gender, human sexuality and technology are rooted in different cultural and social contexts which has led to different understandings of certain terms and phrases within the broader global identity. I, for example, appreciate the affirmation of Side B Christians (See Article IV.70) who are seeking to be faithful to Christ through celibacy. But, I also understand how many of our brothers and sisters may be alarmed because they see, quite rightly, that many who call themselves evangelical in the western world have completely abandoned historic Christian views regarding marriage and gender identity. Perhaps the greatest legacy of the Seoul Statement will actually be Article VII calling the church to a theologically informed view of technology. I think, over the ensuing months clarifications will be issued and conversations will take place which will bring the global church closer together regarding the Seoul Statement. The conversations will be healthy for us all. We shouldn’t view this as “controversy” but as what happens in any family when we actually sit down and talk things through.

I think many of us recognize that there were several cringe worthy moments when theological rigor and even historical accuracy were lacking in the content of several of the main presenters at Lausanne 4. But, there was also some slippage in basic missiology as well. For example, there were moments when the very meaning of an unreached or hidden people group was confused with the need for general evangelism. It was like fifty years had gone by and a whole new generation of leaders had never fully comprehended Ralph Winter’s original address in 1974 which was so defining for Lausanne and the subsequent global missionary movement over the last 50 years. The concern (If I may be permitted to re-state it once again) is that even if the entire global church were to rise up and become “Billy Graham” level evangelists, and even if everyone they preached to responded to the gospel, the good news is that we would have over 1 billion new Christians. But, the troubling news which Winter pointed out is that there would still be 1.5 billion who never heard the name of Jesus. This point cannot be lost on the global church. In fact, the situation is actually statistically worse than it was in 1974 if the 2024 Lausanne Great Commission Report data is accurate. We all love and admire Rick Warren, but  let me use his talk as an example. Even if the global church were to follow with all their heart all ten points issued by Rick Warren, this would not “finish the task” as he told us, since there would still be 1.5 billion without ever even hearing the name of Jesus Christ. I have great respect for Rick Warren, so this is not about his remarkable and fruitful ministry. I am simply using this as one example, among quite a few over the course of the week, where the platform speakers clearly confused “evangelism” and “missions.” But evangelism will not “finish the task.” The church must cross cultural and linguistic barriers, or they will remain “hidden” or “unreached.” If Lausanne doesn’t make that point, no one else will. So, let me commend Michael Oh, Executive Director of Lausanne, and give him a huge “shout out” for making this point in his final address to the Lausanne 4 Congress. Michael Oh clearly affirmed the need for the church to cross cultural and linguistic barriers to bring the gospel to peoples who are unreached with the gospel. He made it crystal clear in his closing address, and he did it with great power and anointing. I want to say publicly that, for me, Michael Oh rescued the weak missiology of Lausanne 4. He did it at the last moment, but he did it, and I want to publicly commend him for his final address. In 20 minutes he turned a “B” Congress into an “A” Congress. Michael, if you are reading this, please know that there are dozens of missiologists who were in the room who will sleep so much better tonight because of your final address. Thank you.

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.

As the Fourth Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization came to an end today, we celebrated the Lord’s supper as a global church of over 5,000 delegates from 200+ countries. We held in our hands the symbols of our broken and beautiful Savior who gave himself for us, the one who is our only hope in life and death. It was a precious expression of unity that I will remember for the rest of my life.

(Read my previous reflections here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5.)

In many ways, that communion meal encapsulated so well the overall impression this congress has made upon me. The Lord’s Supper is about the broken and beautiful Christ who laid down his life for our salvation. His broken body has become beautiful to those touched by his grace. The sufferings of Good Friday have turned to the glories of Resurrection Sunday. When we gather in remembrance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, we gather around his broken beauty.

Look a little deeper, and you will find gathering around the table a family also marked by brokenness and beauty. The Church is the broken and beautiful people of God, gathered in the name of Jesus, by the power of the Spirit. We bear the scars of a sin-cursed world. We are battered and bruised. We suffer for the sake of Jesus’ name. And yet there is beauty here too. We find the wonder of transforming grace, the fruit of the Spirit beginning to grow, the image of Christ taking form in our midst. When we gather at the table, we come as the broken and beautiful bride of Christ.

That’s the story of the global church: We are a broken and beautiful bride, redeemed by a broken and beautiful Savior, journeying through a broken and beautiful world.

The global church is so very broken. We are broken by sin, self-inflicted wounds, persecution, and suffering. This congress reminds me of how hard following Jesus is in so much of the world. We are a broken people.

And the global church is so very beautiful. God’s grace is shining through. Courage is rising. Hearts are earnest. The Spirit is working. There is much to be hopeful about as we join Jesus on mission in our world. By grace, we are a beautiful people as well.

I’m reminded of the Apostle Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:7-10,

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

Lausanne 4 has reminded me that God uses our weakness to show himself strong. His grace is sufficient. Jesus is building his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). We are his broken and beautiful bride to the praise of his glory!