Since the Lausanne Movement released its “Seoul Statement” ahead of its fourth global congress in South Korea, I have expressed my gratitude for the statement’s continued emphasis on gospel demonstration, in addition to many solid theological clarifications. However, I have also vocalized and appealed to Lausanne’s leadership for more clarity on how gospel proclamation and demonstration are to be balanced—simply by using three words that we have used through the movement since it began. Words like “central,” “a priority,” and “indispensable” are clear markers of who we are, woven into the fabric of Lausanne’s history. Moreover, they have endured for a reason: so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of leaving evangelistic priority behind.
The priority and centrality of evangelism to evangelical participation in mission is a crucial emphasis we must be completely clear about. I recognize that just like there was diversity among the theologies of those early Lausanne leaders there remain diversity of opinions today within the movement.
The issue is not “evangelism against holistic mission.” Lausanne has been settled this tension, steadfastly resisting voices of polarization that continue to try to rip them apart. Far from censorship, this has required humility and conversation as when Graham reluctantly acquiesced to integral over prioritism in 1974. Behind this debate was the agreement that within integral was the clear conviction that evangelism was a central priority, indispensable to the mission.
The renewal of arguments that being for evangelism makes you against holistic mission are both frustrating and underline my concern about evangelism drift at Lausanne. Evangelism is supposed to be a central priority in the way that Lausanne has always talked about mission. It’s not the only priority, but it is central, and in my view, Lausanne’s statements (which are far more important than the congress) need to reflect that better.
So, I hold to integral mission, as you can read in past writings. However, I think that our documents need to reflect more clearly that we know that evangelism drifts and its focus gets lost. When evangelism is assumed, it gets lost. The Seoul Statement assumes too much at a time when we need a clearer focus.
I closed my last article like this:
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.
What I am advocating is that we are true to who we have always been as a Lausanne Movement—an evangelical movement that holds to holistic mission, with evangelism as central to who we are and how we participate in the missio Dei. We need clear language—and clearer language in the Seoul Statement—that reflects that centrality while still holding demonstration as a priority.
Conclusion
I believe the Seoul Statement, and the Fourth Congress itself, were significant additions to the legacy of evangelical missiology and cooperation for the sake of the gospel. I believe we must continue to embody the call to “declare and display Christ together.” But we would do well to remember our past. A half century after the Edinburgh congress, the priority of evangelism in Protestant conciliar missions began to grow cold, giving rise to the need for the Lausanne. Now, a half century after the formation of Lausanne we have the urgent call before us to keep the flames of evangelistic fervor burning in our movement and in our hearts.
Todd Korpi contributed to this article.