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.
What you are about to read is an honest criticism of the Lausanne Movement and the recent Seoul Statement, but I want to be upfront and clear that I love the Lausanne Movement and all that it represents. I’m not mad and only want to contribute a perspective. My greater ambition, like everyone else who will read this and agree or disagree, is that we continue to declare and display Christ together in 2024 just like they wanted to let the earth hear his voice back in 1974. What a great 4th Lausanne Congress, to God be the glory!
Speaking of the Lausanne Congress, it’s amazing how names get shorter for branding purposes, which totally makes sense. Initially, “Lausanne” was the “The Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization.” The word “Lausanne” by itself evokes all the right implications for those who are aware of the movement, but for the rest of the world it is nothing more than a town in Switzerland. The word “Congress” by itself has such political undertones that by putting together “Lausanne” and “Congress,” there seems to be a less helpful moniker than if this movement was just called “Lausanne.” In my opinion, the only world that makes the clearest sense is “Evangelization,” and it is even more clear when accompanied with the other word, “World Evangelization.” That is why Lausanne began. That is why Lausanne should exist. And that is why Lausanne should continue to exist – for the evangelization of the whole world because Christ said so.
After reading the Seoul Statement, however, I am concerned that the Lausanne Movement existing for World Evangelization may be the least clear document on world evangelization in the entirety of its existence.
Don’t get me wrong. The Seoul Statement is a decent statement. I will utilize it in my personal ministry and life in so many ways. However, I don’t think it’s a helpful statement regarding world evangelization. Let me explain.
A while back, I did my dissertation on the Lausanne Movement, specifically the role of the term “evangelism” in the light of all that we consider is Christian mission through the 1974 Lausanne Covenant, the 1989 Manila Manifesto, and the 2010 Cape Town Commitment. I used a method of rhetorical criticism called “cluster criticism” to define words based upon their associations and connections within the same document. In other words, I let the 1974 Lausanne Covenant define evangelism for itself based on how often the word appears together with its associated word clusters. I incorporated some variant cognates like, “evangelization,” “evangelizing,” “evangelistic,” and even to some extent, “evangelical” should it ever appear. Then I started to identify words associated with the primary term of “evangelism.”
I did the same for the 1989 Manila Manifesto, the 2010 Cape Town Commitment, and also applied the same methodology to the term “mission” and all its variants.
By identifying key terms (evangelism and mission) through key documents (‘74 Lausanne Covenant, ‘89 Manila Manifesto, and ‘10 Cape Town Commitment), I was able to describe those key terms based upon complementary and opposing word clusters.
I discovered 10 points of congruence between the three documents concerning evangelism and mission:
- The Priority of Evangelism
- The Centrality of Jesus Christ
- The Indispensability of the Holy Spirit
- The Credibility of the Bible
- The Necessity for Humility
- The Urgency of Worldwide Evangelization
- The Equality of the Church
- The Gravity of Partnership
- The Dichotomy of Mission
My research, however, showed three emerging points of discontinuity between the three Lausanne documents at the time:
- A Diminished Emphasis on Evangelism.
- An Increased Focus on Missio Dei.
- A Broadening Description of Mission.
I noted these discrepancies for several reasons: a decrease in frequency of a key term, a shift from explicit to implicit references regarding the key terms, and an increased number of associated word clusters. That third reason helped to provide greater clarity in the details regarding evangelism and mission, yet unfortunately it fed the missiological adage that “when everything is mission, then nothing is mission.”