The statement surfaced several significant theological disagreements within the Lausanne community and took delegates by surprise. In and of itself, surfacing our disagreements is not the problem. With great diversity comes many disagreements, and these disagreements are intrinsically valuable. As the Lausanne Covenant quotes Eph. 3:10, our differences are a mechanism by which God discloses “many-colored wisdom” to us all.
In this case, however, our disagreements were inflamed by the absence of dialogue and negotiation. Open letters, competing statements, protests, public articles, private lobbying, tips to journalists, news reports, and stealth edits1 are not the most constructive, transparent, or healthy sorts of discourse. But many delegates were thrust here, nonetheless, because they have critical concerns and there is no credible process in place to address them.
In Need of a Plan
At the moment, congress delegates are currently speaking at each other, rather than with each other. We need more opportunities to constructively engage the statement, and each other.
I appreciate the responses to the statement and the congress Ed Stetzer is releasing on this site, but delegates also need the Lausanne leadership to provide opportunities to constructive engage and debate with one another, in ways that can shape and supplement the text of the Seoul Statement when warranted.
To this end, I sent the leadership a proposal for how we can enable constructive debate and negotiation among delegates.2 The leadership is considering this proposal. And I hope they either adopt this proposal, or something like it. Perhaps they will.
As we wait for their response, let me explain how the first Lausanne Congress (L1) has important lessons for us now. This congress, in fact, is the primary guide to the proposal I offered the movement’s leadership.
What Dialogue Could Have Accomplished
Evidenced by the chaotic reaction, organizers may have misunderstood our current moment. What if we had adopted a negotiate process like L1?
There are significant objections, for example by Stetzer, which might easily be addressed with a minor addition, perhaps with refinements negotiated through sensible debate.3 Encouraging these sorts of substantiative suggestions, and adopting them when warranted, would have dramatically increased the legitimacy and quality of the statement, while still preserving the TWG’s voice.
In a different way, stealth edits to the statement quashed a rare and precious opportunity for progress. Should we describe believers with same-sex attraction as “faithful” or not?
Delegates could have discussed, debated, and then together weighed in on whether this specific edit to the Seoul Statement—in which the word “faithful” was deleted—should have been made. Every delegate with whom I discussed this edit disapproved of it, and many found it harmful. I suspect, had dialogue been possible, we could have convinced those who endorsed the edit to change their mind.
1 To give one concrete example reported in CT, why exactly was the term “faithful” deleted from the description of believers with same-sex attraction in a so-called “final” statement? TWG members tell me this change was made without consulting them and without their approval.
2 This proposal is not yet public, but I can provide it to any delegates interested in or curious about my recommendations.
3 Ed Stetzer published an article explaining a small, conciliatory and clarifying addition to address his significant concerns of missional drift in the Lausanne Movement. Some might disagree, and the debate about this addition would be helpful.
