Participant Perspective: Building on a firm foundation

Each of the four Lausanne congresses has produced a theological statement. At the Fourth Congress in Seoul-Incheon, September 2024, the Lausanne Movement released the Seoul Statement. Seven theological and strategic key words are used to structure the text as it aims to remind its readers about why the church exists and to identify the great contemporary challenges for her mission.

The Lausanne Statements

The 1974 Lausanne Covenant became an identification mark for evangelical Christians and stands out as one of the most important ecumenical texts in our world. Thousands of initiatives refer to the Covenant as the unifying doctrine or basis on which they collaborate. It is important though to specify that the Lausanne Covenant was never intended to be a “doctrinal basis” but rather to be a common missiological platform for evangelicals. It is primarily a covenant with promises and obligations, not a confession with doctrinal statements. It addressed the central issues of the contemporary mission debate by professing the uniqueness and universality of Christ (par 3).  Against the voices calling for a moratorium on missions, it declared the urgency of culturally relevant world evangelisation (par 6-10). The Lausanne Covenant also became a landmark as it was the first common evangelical statement that legitimised and emphasised the importance of social responsibility in our missional calling (par 5).

“The 1974 Lausanne Covenant stands out as one of the most important ecumenical texts in our world. ”

The Manila Manifesto from 1989 elaborated on the thoughts from the first Lausanne Congress, especially on the issues of reaching out to all people groups on earth. This reflected the issues on which the Lausanne Movement had worked intensely since 1974. It also mirrored the world situation in 1989 with the dramatic fall of Communism and expectations of new doors becoming open for world mission. Against this background, the Manila Manifesto called “the whole church to take the whole Gospel to the whole world.”

The Third Congress, in Cape Town in 2010, gave us the most voluminous statement. The first half of the Cape Town Commitment is like a “Song of Songs” as the evangelical church declares her love to God. The second half focuses more on strategy and action as it reflects the contents of the six days of the Congress. In part one, the Cape Town Commitment grounds the evangelical identity in classical orthodox Protestantism. Part two on the other hand, expands the understanding of integral mission for the Movement.

The Seoul Statement

What are the contributions of the Seoul Statement? First, it was written in advance by the Lausanne Theology Working Group, confirmed by the leadership of Lausanne, and became public during the congress in Seoul-Incheon. This timing meant the document immediately sparked discussions and reaction at the congress. At the release we had the impression that this was the finished statement, but due to the strength of reactions it seems likely that adjustments will be made before it is finally settled. However, this has never been confirmed publicly.

Like the Manilla Manifesto and Cape Town Commitment, the Seoul statement follows in the line of what has come before: “[t]he Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress fully affirms those earlier Congress documents and builds on their firm foundation” (Preamble). The seven-part treatise was designed to supplement the previous statements and does not intend to be comprehensive.

From here the Seoul Statement goes on to tell the salvation history under the label of “The Gospel: The Story We Live and Tell.” The idea is to ground the evangelical mission movement in the basic story told in the Bible.

After this Bible-based introductory chapter follows an elaboration of the high regard in which the Bible is held by the Lausanne Movement community. The Statement offers hermeneutical keys. The focus is not on dividing issues like the exact limitation of biblical inerrancy but rather about how we read the Scriptures and it gives us at least three necessary keys. Firstly, we must read it faithfully to the Bible’s own context (par 20), i.e. a thorough historical reading. Secondly, we are obliged to read the Scripture with deep respect for the historical tradition of the church, all the way back to the first generations of Jesus’ followers (par 22). This in no way conflicts with reading it under the illumination of the Holy Spirit (par 21), because the tradition is “a Spirit-enabled guide”. Thirdly, we also owe respect to our contemporary siblings cross-culturally, that is we read the Bible together as a global faith community in the present, listening to what others hear the Sprit say (par 23). All of us have blind spots that need to be challenged and illuminated.

“The focus of the Statement is not on dividing issues like the exact limitation of biblical inerrancy but rather about how we read the Scriptures ”

Chapter three is about the Church and attention is given to the missional understanding of the church comes forth in the last of six sections (par 43-47), but in my opinion, the global scope of mission is weak. Ecclesiology is, of course, important to missiology, but I am a bit surprised by the centre of gravity here. The missional church movement puts more emphasis on God’s mission having a church than on God’s church having a mission. I assumed that this dynamic and mission-intended understanding of the church would be more reflected in the text.

Having said that, I admire how this chapter is realistic both concerning threats from within and challenges from without, and gives little room for any prosperity thinking about instrumental church growth strategy. What struck me most as I read it for the first time was the emphasis on the classical marks of the church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Furthermore, the Seoul Statement brings in elements that previous documents have avoided. I have often pondered why the sacraments were completely unmentioned in the Lausanne Covenant and in the succeeding statements. At least baptism is essential to the understanding and practice of mission since Jesus commissioned his disciples in Matt 28. Without taking any denominational stand on the issues, the Statement identifies the two sacraments ordered by Jesus as central parts of the life in a missional church (par 26, 36, 38).

Chapter four may be the most remarkable piece of the Seoul Statement. It enters boldly into the issues of human identity, starting out with what it means to bear God’s image, what sin has done to our identity, and how our imago Dei is restored in Christ. It builds a different foundation from the late modern hunt for self-staged individual authenticity. The Gospel sets us free from self-realisation of shifting emotions. Thus, the text establishes an alternative to “upheavals in the world with regard to issues such as identity” (chapter 4, introduction).

From here it moves to the issues of human sexuality in our identity. Delegates have critiqued that 15 of 97 paragraphs in the statement evolve around these questions. However, for the authors this was necessary. Grounded in the Scriptures (chapter 2) and aiming at discipleship (chapter 5), they wanted to establish a common ground for understanding the hottest issue of conflict in many churches, at least in the West. The last four paragraphs (par 67-70) are about same sex relations. The previous eleven talk in general about sexual identity from a creation perspective and about marriage and singleness.

Communication about same-sex attraction from a classical Christian perspective at times lacks the necessary personal identification that gives a touch of relational understanding and empathy. The Seoul Statement expresses a call to repent from lack of love in the Christian communities towards believers who “face challenges” because of their sexual attractions (par 69). Vaughan Roberts addressed these issues from a biblical and personal perspective in a plenary speech at the congress. This was an important address as it was the first open encounter for many of the participants with an evangelical leader with same-sex attraction.

Why should a mission document engage such questions? It connects with the next chapter on discipleship as a calling to holiness and mission. World mission means following Jesus continually and worldwide. This entire walk must reflect the holiness that Jesus lived out and teaches to us. His disciple-making mission is about “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” How the disciple disciplines his or her sexual conduct is thus clearly relevant to our integrity as we share the Gospel in words and deeds.

“World mission means following Jesus continually and worldwide. This entire walk must reflect the holiness that Jesus lived out and teaches to us”

Chapter six turns to another important contemporary issue, the conflicts of the world. How should the church live out its mission while serving in places of large-scale conflicts, nationalism, war, oppression, and more? This is an area of tension within the evangelical body. How do we talk in both a balanced and meaningful way about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? The Seoul Statement does not shy away from mentioning the Middle East conflicts. However, it does not provide concluding remarks on political issues. Rather, it tries to help Christian leaders to manoeuvre using certain principles.

The last section addresses the accelerating technological innovation that we all face. Like in the other chapters, the emphasis in the statement is on helping the reader to navigate using a basic biblical standpoint. As for Artificial Intelligence, there are far more questions than answers. These questions force each of us to reflect critically as faithful stewards even in this arena. Readers looking for a perspective of “unreached people” in the statement, must wait till the last paragraphs under “Technology” for it. That sure is surprising for many, but it reminds us that the still great remaining task demands radical rethinking about how to create opportunities for missions to previously inaccessible areas and people.

Final comments

Let me finish this review with some personal reflections. My first question is rather basic: is the Seoul Statement a mission statement? I will say it probably is, but it is far more interested in laying and securing a firm foundation for mission than focusing on the strategic mission challenges of the day. By delving into the issues of biblical hermeneutics and of human identity and sexuality, the statement gives a clear identity and profile to the evangelical body in the world. This is an important task, and I think the Statement will be a very helpful tool ahead as we define the movement. However, I am critical of the rather weak missional profile the authors have given the chapter on the church.

My second comment is about evangelical profile. The word “Evangelical” has in many European countries become a term that we try to avoid in our self-presentation. Non-English languages have better equivalents that keep a distance from the political associations of the term with American culture. In the Statement, we get help to understand evangelicalism in terms of what professor Tim Larsen at Wheaton College calls “orthodox Protestantism”. The emphasis on biblical hermeneutics in line with the long ecclesial tradition links us with the larger Church. The introduction of baptism and holy communion as marks of the Church draws us in the same direction. I think this is good for the movement’s wider ecumenical communication.

My last remark is surely the most profound. The heaviest critique of the statement has come from two sides. A group of 235 delegates at the congress signed an open letter asking for a revised document regarding issues of integral mission. One specific critique concerns the total absence of reflection on the vast climate and nature crisis that we all encounter. In general, they ask for a bolder prophetic voice. Other voices, like Ed Stetzer, have called for more emphatic statements about the centrality of evangelism and its indispensability to our mission (Responding to the Lausanne Seoul Statement: We Need a Greater Focus on Evangelism's Place in the Holistic Mission). To the ongoing discussion, see also: Lausanne Theologians Explain Seoul Statement that Surprised Congress Delegates - Christianity Today

“There is a sort of tension between the sharpening focus of evangelism and the wholistic perspective within which evangelism operates. However, in the Lausanne Movement this tension has turned out to be a fruitful dynamic”

Some may think that these two perspectives are incompatible. I will say no. These two kinds of voices have been part of the movement for 50 years, and the genius of the Lausanne Movement has been that both have been communicated clearly and simultaneously again and again. My analysis is that these perspectives need to be emphasised at every major crossroads such as the Lausanne Congresses. With a frequency of coming together and giving global statements on mission every 15 years, the movement cannot afford to leave any of the sides out on any occasion. There is a sort of tension between the sharpening focus of evangelism and the wholistic perspective within which evangelism operates. However, in the Lausanne Movement this tension has turned out to be a fruitful dynamic. It should remain so.

Thus, it is my hope that the text is not yet finalised. It needs to be sharper both on evangelism and on unreached peoples, as well as on the issues of social concern and climate crisis. More evangelistic. More prophetic.

Rolf Kjøde