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.
