Lausanne 4 Reflections — Part Three: Considerations
This is the final part of a three-part series. Click here for part one or here for part two. One global missions leader’s reflection on his Lausanne 4 experience.
Reading this far, it will come as no surprise that I count myself among the path makers, relying on path bakers to help establish a new road ahead for upcoming generations of path takers to follow as they bring their gifts and participate in God’s purposes for the world.
Lausanne Central will likely be unaffected by what I think, but if they did read this, I imagine they might conclude that I am part of the problem for which they are proposing the solution of centralized coordination. I am representative of the resistance that is not willing to surrender to Lausanne’s version of Jesus’ John 17 unity.
Commissions
Matthew 24:14 is a promise, not a target.
From L4 I got the sense that Lausanne Central think the reason the great commission hasn’t yet been fulfilled is because of leaders like me, leaders who appreciate but don’t feel a need to commit to Lausanne, or any centralized strategy to “finish the task”. Well, here’s a wake-up call… Matthew 24:14 is a promise, not a target. “The Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come.” It is inevitable. God will use human agency, but no human agent will accelerate God’s plans.
There is nothing in Jesus’ foretelling that suggests a coordinating group is required to ensure worldwide proclamation. It has probably already been fulfilled. It is only because of the invention of the unreached people group concept, read back onto the meaning of “whole world”, that some would have us think it hasn’t been fulfilled. Thinking that “the whole world” (Matthew 24:14), or “all nations” (Matthew 28:19), or “every tribe, language, people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 11:9 etc.) means every ethno-linguistic people group of a certain population size is a theoretical interpretation of the text at best.
Interpreting “oikoumenē” or “panta ta ethne” as demographically defined categories of people groups cannot be proven, and the Bible will not reveal it. I don’t deny that it is motivationally helpful, especially since every person does deserve to hear the good news offer at least once, but only the Father knows the appropriate time for Jesus’ return. He could return tomorrow—and that should send shivers up our spine. What more motivation do we need? The question for us is, “will we be found faithful to God’s calling on our lives when he arrives?”, not “will we be found committed to a collaborative action ecosystem?” that believed it somehow sped up his coming.
We sorely need to shift our perspective from the anthropocentric to the theocentric— better yet, the pneumacentric, because the Holy Spirit is the director of God’s mission, and no single earthy entity will be able to constrain the Spirit’s movement. What Michael Oh in his infamous sports team analogy perceived as chaos on the ground, is more likely a glorious Holy Spirit choreography when viewed from God’s perspective.
Prepare for the storm when it comes, ready to nurture new life in its wake.
The Spirit is like the wind, Jesus said (John 3:6-8). These days we can determine when a hurricane, typhoon, or cyclone is coming, but we still cannot accurately predict, let alone control, its path. To think that technology will someday be able to do that is to put one’s confidence in the wrong place. Best you prepare for the storm when it comes, ready to nurture new life in its wake.
I have no doubt the Spirit is working in our day to bring people to Jesus like never before. It is patently evident in the networks I participate in. The hand-wringing angst of Jesus’ followers in the dying vestiges of Christendom does not represent the global Church experience. Lausanne Central, informed as it is by Western industrialism, seems blind to the massive movements to Christ elsewhere. It does not seem to appreciate the power of indigenous Christianity to grow the global Church.
That said, I will emphasize again that we must continue to ensure the gospel is made available to all people on earth, especially those who do not yet have access to it. As we are led by the Spirit, propagating the gospel indigenously is central to our participation in the purposes of God and our responsibility as co-creators of New Creation. To that end, I have a high trust in the Holy Spirit to lead people to make their best contribution wherever God calls them to serve, locally or globally.
The pathways to those without the gospel are now myriad.
Some of Jesus’ followers are being and will be called to plant and nurture gospel growth in entirely new soil, but fewer in the traditional way of the missionary society. The pathways to those without the gospel are now myriad. Here I need to especially acknowledge migration (whether voluntary or forced) and affirm L4 for allowing at least some mention of the waves of people on the move. Many of them are Christian and the gospel moves with them. Whether for physical migrants, marketplace movers, or digital settlers, we need to support them better with intercultural and disciple-making training as well as deeper theological education for their own spiritual growth and ministry effectiveness.
I am not convinced centralized coordination is a priority of the first order. If a coordinated system is attractive to some Jesus’ followers, to help them better serve their calling, great. Let the system serve those path takers, however many or few. Do we all need to (literally) sign on to a single system to evidence our unity in Christ? No way. That is not the kind of unity Jesus speaks of in John 17. The unity there is one of diversity (all who believe, v20), inclusion and belonging (all who are mine belong to you, v10), authority (by the power of your name, v11), action (sent like Jesus, v18), and outcome (that the world would know and believe, vs21,22). Our position in Christ by faith assumes and assures us of unity—in Christ, not in a collaborative digital ecosystem.
From our mutual abiding in him, our collaboration with one another should emerge relationally, led by the Holy Spirit over time. We do not need an algorithm to manufacture connections. It did not even work for L4. I heard time and again from leaders of different regions that in their opinion Lausanne Central’s application algorithm prohibited some of the right people from being in the room. Furthermore, the depersonalized contact connections via the app were far less effective than the rich relationships developed via divine appointments that happened in the non-formal spaces.
Commitments
So where do we go from here?
So where do we go from here? Obviously, mine is only one perspective. I am developing my own convictions about the future of missions, influenced by the network of people I am relating and responsible to. These are people that the Holy Spirit has, is, and will bring across my path. As the leader of a global missions network, I do my best to help our participants navigate their way into future participation in the purposes of God as we reimagine what that future looks like together.
I will not direct or constrain their participation, but as a relational international community with defined network parameters we do our best to encourage and support each other in what we feel God is calling us to do. A number of my co-workers served sacrificially in L4 leadership positions to help Lausanne Central pull off the event and I celebrate that.
I am proud of the energy and talent leaders from my network poured into the L4 event. That kind of pride, I think, is legitimate, but my network won’t own it or try to leverage those efforts. Furthermore, in case there is any question, my reflections on L4 should in no way reflect negatively on them or the excellent contribution they or the many others who served us provided.
In his opening address, Michael Oh declared that the global Church had gathered at L4. That kind of hyperbole does not sit well with me. The global Church was nowhere near represented. 5,400 people cannot hope to represent the global Church. We can celebrate the diversity in the room (even better if it was represented more in the program) but Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism does not represent the global Church alone.
The global Church is far more diverse and culturally-rich, more dynamic, more healthy, and more effective than we were led to believe at L4. The Kingdom of God is and will continue to advance and no gates of hell will stop it. Furthermore, no centralized coordination will improve it. God’s will will be done at God’s pace by God’s design. Our responsibility is to be obedient as best as we can to the revelation we collectively receive as groups of Christ followers.
Let us not lose sight of our destination. Let us not forget that we are not of this world and this world is not ours to permanently fix.
Yes, there remains a hurting world in need of healing. Yes, there are problems that we have some synergistic capacity to help resolve. We need new-path makers, new-path bakers, and new-path takers. But let us not lose sight of our destination. Let us not forget that we are not of this world and this world is not ours to permanently fix.
Whatever New Creation glimpses we are able to manifest in our locations for our generation, whatever injustice we rebalance, whatever poverty we alleviate, whatever oppression we liberate, whatever innovations we create, these breakthroughs will not last. We do so, and we must do so, as witnesses of what could be and what is coming. We do so to demonstrate the truth of the message we proclaim so that those who would know, believe, and then participate in it can share in its blessed eternal consequences.
CONCLUSION
As I was waiting for the bus at the conclusion of the congress, a young Latino came up to me and earnestly asked, “so, with all that now said and done, what is the vision for the future? Is it just to collaborate to fix problems?” The conversation was brief, but it made me wonder what my recommendations would be following the event. There is no doubt that international collaboration has some value but very few can or should participate at that level. That would not be the path to which I’d point young people.
International collaboration is for those who have gained some experience in their specialty.
International collaboration is for those who have gained some experience in their specialty. We need people who have something substantial to offer to international conversations. It shouldn’t be something we encourage the inexperienced to aspire to. By all means give young people room to get experience, and develop them along the way, but don’t treat international involvement as if it is some sort of ministry success marker.
Instead, I would encourage pursuit of local involvement and collaboration. The work of the gospel is always local. It’s contextual. So, if you are in a church-based ministry, join or create a local pastor’s fellowship and encourage one another. Become a member of your national evangelical alliance and invest in its well-being. If you’re involved in ministry outside of a local church (including workplace and missions), create your own collaborative group, join or create a local chapter of a special interest global network, and/or contribute to the vitality of the national missions alliance or association. If you’re a missionary, invest in your organization’s local and regional networks.
If you are able, participate in regional church or missions alliance gatherings, including Lausanne fellowships if they exist near you. If you are already part of an international organization, then join a global network of peers sharing your missions interest and collaborate on big-picture issues there. Lausanne issues groups may be an option for that too.
If you are a young person willing to take on leadership responsibilities, prove yourself first wherever God plants you, then be obedient to God’s call wherever the Spirit leads you. Do not pursue leadership responsibility, let opportunities present themselves. “Don’t be upset by not getting this opportunity” my pastor told me 35 years ago while declining my desire to lead, “a person’s gifts will always make a way for them”. Faithfulness is the key to fruitfulness.
Collaboration isn’t rocket science and it doesn’t require high-tech assistance for it to be effective, it just needs faithful commitment and a generous attitude. The easiest way to collaborate is to join hands with whomever is next to you in the harvest and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you in relationships from there. That’s what real unity looks like. Global umbrella organizations have their place, but your starting place should be where you are. And, wherever the Spirit leads you; there, be a blessing.
