At the center of the tension is the Seoul Statement’s omission of Christian Social Responsibility and the two ambiguous characterizations of “integral mission.” While the introduction to section V of the Statement notes that the dual emphases of evangelism and social concern have often been held together in “integral mission,” there was a following qualification that “integral mission has not always fully integrated the command of our Lord to be disciples and his commission to make disciples.” This statement seems to place social concern/action up against disciple-making/ evangelism, sidelining the ultimate meaning of “integral mission,” which assumes their togetherness.
Often, the churches in the Majority World do not have the privilege of such dichotomization as people experience Jesus Christ socially, physically as well as spiritually. Perhaps our proximity to social ills and injustices, in other words, an “experience-near” encounter, is necessary to make more sense of the integrated nature of the mission mandate to “go and make disciples.” In the spirit of polycentric mission, numerous scholars, theologians, and practitioners brought such an “experience-near” perspective during Lausanne 4. Such voices provide the necessary accountability to all and guard us against erroneous theological and missiological blunders.
However, some delegates also strongly desired to silence such “experience-near” prophetic challenges, especially on social concerns. Ruth Padilla DeBorst’s address came under such scrutiny as she presented a prophetic challenge for us to examine our theologies that may lead to perpetuating social injustices. Padilla DeBorst’s was also a wake-up call to re-examine our commitment towards the integral mission—to bring together the spiritual, theological, and social dimensions. Instead, it was silenced in the form of an apology (which all the delegates received during the congress week). However, in the spirit of togetherness at Lausanne 4, a healthy process of listening and dialoguing would have been a much-needed response to bring clarity.
Yet, we remain together in Christ, in our diversities. Such is the nature of global evangelical Christianity, where there is still room to grow in our understanding of the togetherness of the Global South and North; and of Social Action and Evangelism in Integral Mission. I pray that the conversations and discourses we began around our main tables, affinity groups, dining halls, corridors, hotel lobbies, and various WhatsApp groups may continue in our respective regions, theological institutions, organizations, and churches. So that we grow deeper in our togetherness in Christ with our diversities.
 in Seoul-Incheon was an exciting experience.){kind=link}