Even where no revision is warranted, the impact and value of the statement is substantially diminished. For example, the sections and occasion paper on evangelical interpretation of Scripture are exceptionally erudite, poetic, and thoroughly helpful.
Likewise, the section on AI is short, but still one of the best statements on AI yet published. These strong, helpful, and largely non-controversial components of the statement could have been—and can be still—granted greater attention and legitimacy by inviting meaningful dialogue with the delegates, even if no changes are ultimately warranted.
Some Key Questions
Several of us, journalists and delegates alike, are asking important questions.
- Why was it initially decided to finalize the Seoul Statement before the congress, without getting feedback from the delegates at the congress?
- Thankfully, there is now an official channel for considering the feedback to the Statement. But how will all our feedback be handled? If a plan is not in place, how can we establish one in a way that serves everyone best?
- What are the editorial policies that Lausanne follows for their core documents? I was surprised to learn that the executive leadership stealth edited the Seoul Statement, just a day after it was released in “final” form, and that they did this without consulting or informing the TWG. I learned, as well, that contradictory accounts were presented in the Korean and English press conferences. What is the complete explanation of what happened and why?
- How can we encourage and enable public discussion, debate, and negotiation across our disagreements? I hoped for opportunities to discuss changes with other delegates from the congress, including those with whom I disagree.
These are important questions, so I raised them directly with our leadership. I hope we all will receive answers soon in way that can rebuild trust and understanding and mark out a better path forward.
Whatever happens from here, I hope that we can be drawn back into conversation with one another, so we can find better ways across our disagreements.
More than merely a “better process,” we also need wise and courageous leadership. John Stott’s legacy looms large. In whatever process we adopt, we may need someone matching his gravitas and wisdom once again. And yes, there are some among us who may rise to this occasion now.
Of course, I am also curious how leadership will respond to my proposal. Perhaps others can offer a better way still. But will our leaders rise to this moment, and will they trust the L4 delegates to work constructively across our disagreements?
We live in fractured times. Yes, our disagreements are significant. The good legacy I want to leave my children is this: That we fought hard to constructively engage with one another, including those with whom we most disagreed, and together we found better ways.
Fear not the conflicts and arguments. We will find beauty here. Together, we might even disclose the many-colored wisdom of God.
