Whose Collaboration? Whose Priorities? 

Introduction

The Lausanne Movement has played a pivotal role in influencing changes in mission agendas and catalysing new directions for world evangelisation over the last 50 years. As an accompanying document to the State of the Great Commission Report,¹ the Seoul Statement (SS),² released at the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024) in Seoul-Incheon, seeks to address contemporary gaps which the Lausanne Theology Working Group deemed necessary for the sake of strengthening and sharpening today’s global mission.³ 

The Lausanne Covenant (LC),⁴ emerging from the First Lausanne Congress in 1974, was a historic and inspirational document among evangelicals for the common task of world evangelisation. The Congress resulted in substantive thematic consultations covering issues such as uniqueness of Christ, gospel and culture, evangelism and social responsibility. The Manila Manifesto,⁵ emerging from the 1989 Lausanne Congress, builds on the foundations of the LC in calling the whole church to bring the whole gospel to the whole world. And from the Third Lausanne Congress (2010) convened in Cape Town, South Africa, came the Cape Town Commitment.⁶ Its contribution was to reframe mission as privileged invitation through a missiological hermeneutic of the Bible as the whole story of God’s action in the world. Rather than setting the Great Commission as a central motif for mission, it asserts that ‘the mission of God flows from the love of God’ (CTC I-1). 

The Seoul Statement continues to build on Lausanne’s central theological convictions regarding ‘the centrality of the gospel (Section I) and the faithful reading of Scripture (Section II)’ in order to ‘meet the specific challenges that now face the global church (Sections III-VII) as we seek to bear faithful witness to our crucified and risen Lord—from everywhere, to everywhere’ (SS Preamble).

Within the limited space, this article will engage with a few selected themes of the SS and reflect on its contribution in clarifying theological convictions for mission. Then, the article will offer a missiological response with regard to the theme of post-Congress’s kingdom impact in every sphere of society. What are the significant outcomes from such a global Christian in-gathering in revitalising our outward vision to impact the world for Christ? How shall we build on the rich theological resources of Lausanne towards catalysing new mission movements from everywhere to everywhere?⁷

The Gospel as the Story We Live and Tell

From such foundations, the mission of the church is to make disciples of Christ, ‘to declare and display Christ together’ through our Christ-filled presence, our Christ-centred proclamation, and our Christlike practice.⁸

The Seoul Statement stresses the importance of discipleship as essential for mission. For example, it highlights problems with the prosperity gospel, leadership failures, or same-sex practices as barriers to gospel witness. ‘The pursuit of righteousness in our personal lives, our homes, our churches, and in the societies in which we live can no more be separated from the announcement of the gospel than being a disciple can be separated from making disciples’ (SS V-73). Rather than reading Scripture as truth and then applying it to mission action, many theologians from the Global South are inclined to interpret truth in action as lived experiences for displaying Christ. For example, compared to previous Lausanne documents, SS devotes significant exposition on the meaning of human beings, male and female, as created in the image of God, and ‘are an integrated physical and spiritual unity’ (SS IV-49). It highlights that the dignity of personhood has implications for sexuality and heterosexual marriage. From the Global South perspective, these issues are considered core discipleship issues which limit collaboration. How do we resolve such conflicts as we encounter fellow evangelicals, particularly those in the West who interpret Scripture differently? Lausanne’s distinct contribution could be to bring diverse group of leaders ‘to read the Bible faithfully with the communion of saints of all times and places,’ (SS II) but to do so in the context of engaging those outside the church.⁹ In this regard, the Cape Town Commitment frames biblical mission through the whole narrative of God’s action in the world through the theme of love. As a mission movement, rather than agreement on doctrines (which are important), Lausanne’s primary platform (as distinct from ecclesiastical in-gatherings) is toward a common vision of the gospel for every person, disciple-making churches for every people and place, Christlike leaders for every church and sector, and kingdom impact in every sphere of society. Such collaboration does not mean partners cannot challenge one another whenever we encounter scandals of power, money, and holiness in both the church in the Western as well as non-Western world.

Evangelism and Social Action

Although the Seoul Statement states that the mission of the church is to declare as well as display the gospel, the Congress could not move out of Lausanne’s five decades of intra-evangelical debates whether evangelism is central, a priority, or an equal partner to justice, dialogue, and social action. The Cape Town Commitment clarifies that we are called to integral mission and the mission of God’s people flows from our love for God and all that God loves. ‘World evangelization is the outflow of God’s love to us and through us. We affirm the primacy of God’s grace and we then respond to that grace by faith, demonstrated through the obedience of love’(CTC I-1). The issue remains unresolved for many who want a more decisive position.

However, the way the Fourth Congress was organised through table talk participation enabled a diversity of voices (generational, gender, and geographical) to engage on critical issues whereby no dominant position was presented. In the final analysis, God’s mission requires the Great Commandment to be embedded within the Great Commission (Matthew 22:37-40). Ecclesiology and how Scripture is interpreted were rightly the central concerns for the Congress participants. The challenge for mission is how do evangelicals take both the gospel as well as the world’s crises as mission priorities? Where is God’s heart for mission in recentring God’s kingdom priorities in relation to major global problems today? How do we read Scripture in the light of Jesus’ manifesto for his kingdom on earth (Luke 4; Matt 6:33)?

Post-Congress Kingdom Impact in Every Sphere of Society

Our world is facing several crises. The first is planetary: creation is groaning with devastating environmental and ecological destruction. Secondly, we are facing a crisis of poverty where power and wealth have not elevated shalom (fullness of life) for the poorest and marginalised. Thirdly, we face a crisis of peace as political leaders have failed to resolve increasing wars, ethnic divisions, and racism across political and ideological divides. In the end,

The eschatological dimension of mission is less about Christians offering an evacuation plan to heaven while the world’s poor and the planet are seeking a transformation plan on earth. Mission therefore is a privileged participation with Christ through the power of his Spirit for the healing and rebirth of the whole creation until Christ comes again.

Family of Nations in Conflict as Barriers for Mission Proclamation

The Seoul Statement affirms ‘God’s purpose in Christ to reconcile all peoples through the gospel in a world full of conflict’ (SS VI-77). In the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, ‘Christian leaders must work to correct theological errors that provide ideological justification for unjust violence against innocent civilians or seek to legitimise violations of international humanitarian law’ (SS VI-84). The church fails to be a prophetic voice when we remain silent in the face of untold suffering due to unjust violence.

Over two hundred years of Protestant mission activities have not resulted in major movements towards Christ among adherents of world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.¹⁰ Evangelical pronouncements continue to view others as objects for mission rather than subjects and collaborators for gospel transformation. There will be no peace between tribes and nations until the church has learned to live in peace with people from different religious traditions. 

To display authentic gospel receptivity, the locus of our theology of mission will need to move beyond the territorial concept of ‘us versus them’. Due to fears of syncretism, Christians have yet to explore contextualisation within these religious aspirations which would result in mutual transformation through interfaith encounters.¹¹

Despite the significant differences between religions and without compromising on the uniqueness of Christ, Christians should not view the majority of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists primarily as enemies or persecutors of Christians. Otherwise, from the non-Christian perspective, Christian mission will continue to be seen as treating them as merely objects for mission replacement.

Another omission relates to the announcement of SS at the beginning of the Congress. Unlike previous Congresses, there was no session at the Congress planned for delegates to engage with and give feedback on the significant themes in SS outlined by the Theology Working Group. This was a missed opportunity!

Reshaping Collaboration in a Polycentric World

The future of Christian mission is dependent upon the quality of missions from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. This does not mean there are no significant roles for mission from the Global North. Many Western mission organisations and alliances recognise the need to change the leadership culture and structure by devolving power from the West to the rest.¹³ However, Global South mission movements will not result in deep impact and lasting transformation if the newer centres perpetuate colonial mission paradigms without humility, integrity, and servant-leadership. Many Global South mission leaders are suspicious when calls for collaboration become another means of control if platforms of influence and decision-making powers remain with those who provide financial support. They rightly wonder: Whose collaboration and whose priorities will direct the future of mission in a polycentric world?

Endnotes

1. ‘State of the Great Commission Report,’ Lausanne Movement, accessed January 12, 2025, https://lausanne.org/report.
2.  ‘The Seoul Statement,’ Lausanne Movement, accessed January 12, 2025, https://lausanne.org/statement/the-seoul-statement.
3. The Seoul Statement focuses on theology while the State of the Great Commission focuses on areas needing greater strategic collaborative action. It complements and builds on the Lausanne Covenant (1974), the Manila Manifesto (1989), and the Cape Town Commitment (2010).
4. ‘The Lausanne Covenant,’ Lausanne Movement, accessed January 12, 2025, https://lausanne.org/statement/lausanne-covenant.
5.  ‘The Manila Manifesto,’ Lausanne Movement, accessed January 12, 2025, https://lausanne.org/statement/the-manila-manifesto.
6. ‘The Cape Town Commitment,’ Lausanne Movement, accessed January 12, 2025, https://lausanne.org/statement/ctcommitment.
7. Theological documents of Lausanne are often assessed in terms of how they might move or impact mission thinking and practices. See Robert Schreiter, ‘From Lausanne Covenant to the Cape Town Commitment: A Theological Assessment, ’International Bulletin of Mission Research 35, no. 2 (April 2011): 88-91.
8. See ‘The Seoul Statement,’ Section I-16.
9. Though a focus on ecclesiology is important, I am in agreement that the overall treatment on the wider scope of mission is weak for ‘the missional church movement puts more emphasis on God’s mission having a church than on God’s church having a mission.’ See Rolf Kjøde, ‘Participant Perspective: Building on a firm foundation,’ Vista, December 14, 2024, https://vistajournal.online/latest-articles/ij1bn5hp85097yjohjeesh6k3rchkm.
10. See Terry Muck and Frances Adeney, Christianity Encountering with World Religion (Encountering Mission): The Practice of Mission in the Twenty-first Century, (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009).
11.  Evangelicals have proposed fresh ways to engage with adherents of religions within a trinitarian theological framework in order to move evangelicals beyond our parochial boundaries. They challenge our understanding of cultures and religions and propose deeper engagement with respect for the religious other, engage in mutual dialogue and deepen relationships. See Gerald McDermott and Harold Netland, A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
12. Kang-San Tan, ‘Crossing Religious and Cultural Frontiers: Rethinking Mission as Inreligionisation,’ IJFM 39:2-4, Summer-Winter 2022:69-75, IJFM_39_2_4-Tan-Crossing-Frontiers-and-Response.pdf.
13.  Although SS did not specifically discuss polycentric mission, the concept permeates the Congress in multiple ways including a working group dedicated to it.