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.”
