Lausanne and the Voice of the ‘Flies’: Concerns From a Majority World Church Leader

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?