Lausanne 4 Reflections — Part Two: Concerns
This is part two of a three-part series. Click here for part one. One global missions leader’s reflection on his Lausanne 4 experience.
Perspectives
Where you stand determines what you see.
I have no desire to be a conflict entrepreneur. I am not writing here for my own gain, neither am I formally representing any of the organizations I work for, seeking their gain (or harm!). I am genuinely concerned for the well-being of the global Evangelical community and the missions that flow from our commitment to the gospel—declared and displayed. But, as solutions expert Steve de Shazer has noted, “Where you stand determines what you see… it determines also the angle you see it from; a change in where you stand changes everything.” Where you stand influences what you find to be relevant and how you interpret what you see.
From where I stood, somewhere in the back 1/3 of the crowd, as a global missions leader with 30 years’ service experience, and as an indigenous person who identifies with Majority World concerns, what I saw or heard from Lausanne Central at the event deserves counterpoint commentary.
Mine is not the only, perhaps not even a majority perspective from L4, but I am confident that the view I represent is shared by a fair section of the global Church. In my position, I have the great privilege of being educated by the uninhibited opinions of a wide array of church and missions practitioners and thought leaders from outside of the Western world.
Among all the L4 reviews and commentary I have read, there have been some positive ones, most by North Americans and others enamored by the industrialized values that inform Lausanne Central’s approach. Some who were less exposed to what God is already doing globally have been freshly motivated. If what they heard and experienced at the event motivated them to better action and willingness to collaborate for gospel purposes in their nations, regions, or even transculturally that is a fabulous outcome.
The angle these positive participants were viewing the event from afforded a different view from mine. There was some criticism from the majority North American contingent, but for the most part I don’t share their concerns. My concerns run much deeper than whether or not proclamation evangelism was mentioned or prioritized enough. It was.
It’s in the very name that identifies us as Evangel…icals. How often do we need to keep reemphasizing it? It was first of the words on the banners around the room that began with “To declare and display”, sometimes putting a hyphen between them to further highlight “declare”, unnecessarily I might add. Riffing off the old proverb concerning justice and love, we should agree with Delos Miles and others that proclamation and demonstration are “two wings of the same gospel bird”.
I believe we can hold differing views in tension without straining our unity as the body of Christ. That’s what maturity looks like.
But I do not expect participants who are comfortably situated on the industrialized end of a values spectrum to share my more indigenous critique. We experienced the congress from different vantage points. As Dr Anne Zaki encouraged us on day two, I believe we can hold differing views in tension without straining our unity as the body of Christ. That’s what maturity looks like.
In my experience though, there were distinct parts of the event that carried a thoroughly globalizing DNA, flattening the diversity of perspectives into a one-dimensional frame. I would go so far as to say there was an attempt at totalizing missions. Having done some behind the scenes investigating, I have confirmed that those were elements that Lausanne Central had direct control over, or over-rode the recommendations of long-suffering volunteers.
At times I wondered if I was still at the same event because such occurrences were substantially different in tone to the biblically based themes, diverse speakers, and content arranged by leaders delegated to create the program—until about one month out from the event, after which Lausanne Central took unilateral control, according to one of my sources.
The worship is one case in point. Aside from the rare opportunity for Korean cultural expression, the set-list for corporate singing was almost indistinguishable from my Bapticostal home church. Even the Korean and Japanese worship teams played popular Western songs (“Way Maker” by Sinach is technically Nigerian, but it has been thoroughly co-opted by the US worship industry).
Then there was Keith and Kristyn Getty. A joyful surprise on the first night. Representative as their music is of Celtic-influenced contemporary hymn making, it is one part of a world full of diverse expressions of Christian worship. But Lausanne Central’s choice to have them lead regularly just goes to show that you can have too much of a good thing.
Very soon a lament arose regarding the lack of global diversity in sung and other creative worship expressions—especially since there were many fine music and dance artists from different cultural backgrounds present. It is probable that the common denominator effect was at play—choosing songs that most people would know and sing, but to what end?
Making the effort to learn something new from a different cultural heritage can further enhance the unique impact of an event. Even better if a new song co-created by a culturally mixed group is learned and sung at the event. It can spread globally, further reinforcing the occasion. Trust me, I’ve been there. Alas, the common denominator effect ruled, and Lausanne Central has almost 5,000 voices singing in unison on video.
“I. Don’t. Need. You.” Seriously, who actually thinks like that in global Christian circles?
On a related theme, one of the most mixed message faux pas of the congress happened on the first night. Being a worship leader/singer/songwriter, perhaps I was one of only a few who noticed. Regardless, during Michael Oh’s passionate speech about the need for collaboration, he spoke of “the four most dangerous words” that he believes hinders gospel advance. Throughout his talk he repeated the words, “I. Don’t. Need. You.” Seriously, who actually thinks like that in global Christian circles? I don’t know of anyone who would outright believe we don’t need anyone else. We may get focused on what God’s has called us to do, but few would be ignorant enough to think that we’re an island. Of course we need each other, we’re a body.
I am not entirely sure who “I” and “you” were meant to be, but some in the audience may have felt a brief twinge of guilt for not serving Lausanne’s cause more actively. However, no sooner had Michael walked off the stage than the Korean worship band launched into a moving worship song written by the UpperRoom Church (Dallas, USA) titled, “Give me Jesus”. So far so good. Then we get to the bridge: “I don’t want anyone else, I don’t need anything else, You are my one thing, You are my one thing.” Sung over and over. I. Don’t. Need. You. Just give me Jesus. A moving song. Bad theology. Mixed messaging.
Problems
Lausanne Central’s control was no more evident from my perspective than whenever Michael Oh took the stage. The tone tangibly shifted. It felt dissonant. I perceived a focus shift from the issues and concern for God’s glory, to the institution and its glory. I am willing to concede a certain amount of perception bias here and allow room for Merton’s law of unintended consequences. Taking Michael’s rhetoric at face value, one might argue that genuine concern and generosity of heart was intended. But intention is only one side of a communication process, reception is the other.
Much of what was received was unappreciated by me and many of my peers with long experience in international networks and global missions. If the call really was for greater humility to enable collaboration, and Michael declared as much his opening salvo, something got seriously lost in the transmission process. It would have been nice to see Lausanne Central lead by example.
Such an event brings together three types of people. Let’s call them: path makers, path bakers, and path takers.
While trying to make sense of my L4 experience, I realized that such an event brings together three types of people. Let’s call them: path makers, path bakers, and path takers. Lausanne prides itself on identifying as a platform “…equipping leaders and influencers to fulfill the Great Commission”. There is no doubting the stickiness of the Lausanne brand and its convening power (for those who can afford to participate).
In my experience of Lausanne over the years it has promoted itself on being a community of expert leaders and its congresses as the gathering place for such experts. It led me to expect that L4 would be a place where path makers met and together mapped new ways into the future for global Evangelicalism and its missions, to co-create a vision for path bakers to grow, support, and promote, and path takers to follow and work out. At least, that’s what the artifacts (recordings, videos, documents, and historical record) from previous congresses suggested.
Step into the room with Michael Oh speaking, however, and it becomes abundantly clear that the intention of L4 was to reach the path bakers and teach the path takers. Lausanne Central was not interested in hearing from path makers at L4. They would probably argue that they “listened” prior to the event, but those listening forums were little more than information extraction exercises.
Very little innovative theological reimagining featured in any of the lead-up material, the State of the Great Commission report, or even the Seoul Statement. And no opportunity was planned to allow us to influence thinking at the event itself, only to surrender to the prescribed system (unless a collaborative or interest group rebelled, as some did).
There were no peers in the room.
Lausanne Central were already convinced of their own path. There were no peers in the room. Taking on the didactic posture of a sensei, Michael Oh presented in elementary terms what a good many of us already knew and are already invested in. He effectively told us off for not doing what a good many of us have been doing for decades at great personal cost to ourselves and our organizations. When he pathologized the lack of collaboration (read: centralized coordination) as the core reason the great commission had not yet been achieved, Michael raised the ire of many long-serving global leaders.
If the chosen metrics of “great commission impact” are in decline it is not because of a lack of enthusiasm, effort, or even collaboration for the gospel by a large proportion of people in the room. We may not have done so within Lausanne’s ecosystem but that does not invalidate our participation in God’s purposes, and it does not excuse Lausanne Central’s ignorance of the fact.
There certainly is room for greater collaboration locally and across sectors, but that could be and should be encouraged without constraining it to a central platform. All that is required is an openness to cooperate. In my experience, the Holy Spirit is more than able to make the necessary connections.
For Lausanne Central, however, improved management is the answer. People with thoroughly industrialized values would view it that way. Their conviction was clear: if it was better coordinated (by them and their digital machinery) it would be more efficient and therefore more effective. The task would be finished quicker. Gaps filled faster. Jesus back sooner. At the L3 reunion meeting, Michael was confident enough in Lausanne’s coordination prowess that he didn’t think an L5 would be required because of how Lausanne would be “shaping the world” prior to 2050. Move along, no hubris to see here.
Exploit goodwill and take ownership. That’s what colonists do.
In contrast to the demeaning suggestion that we’re simply not collaborating enough or being effective enough, Lausanne Central had no qualms possessing anything with a hint of relationship to Lausanne or catalyzed out of a Lausanne Congress. Even as it diminished the work of others with its pathological assumptions about the lack of collaboration, Lausanne Central’s impact story for the 50th birthday party celebrated as its own the work of hundreds of faithful volunteers, collaborating in good faith outside of their own organizational responsibilities (or loaned to a collaborative initiative) for a common cause only marginally related to Lausanne. But, sure, exploit goodwill and take ownership. That’s what colonists do.
Quite quickly, whenever I heard the word “collaborate” I could not help but feel it meant “centralized control”, and I was not alone. This was further confirmed as the event went on. Michael consistently positioned Lausanne Central as “we/us” and the audience as “you”. The separation was undeniable. “We need you. You need us.” During the 50th celebration what Lausanne Central thought we needed was made clear.
Michael introduced a sports metaphor and positioned Lausanne Central’s envisioned digital tool as the manager/coach of a team in desperate need of coordination to reach its goals. Then came the borderline blasphemy, made more acute since the first day of L4 was focused on highlighting the role of the Holy Spirit in the purposes of God. What Michael said is so troubling that it deserves to be quoted in full.
"Let’s say that every member of the team is a Christian and there’s a Christian coach. Wonderful. And the coach says, ‘Hey, let’s play this game God’s way, by the power of the Holy Spirit, letting Him guide’. So, the coach says, ‘we have no plans, no practice, no positions, no strategy, no technology, no communication. We’re going to just let the Holy Spirit lead. So get out there and let’s win one for the Lord.’
Let us not excuse poor stewardship, poor planning, poor resourcing, poor communication, poor coordination, poor collaboration by saying you just want to be led by the Holy Spirit…"
The sarcasm implied in this woeful metaphor is horrific. He would likely argue that he wasn’t saying the Holy Spirit isn’t necessary, but that better administration is. Seriously now, what leader in that room of 5,000 plus was not already applying strategy, planning, directive action and cooperation in accordance with the leading of the Holy Spirit as best as they could, and working with others as well as they were able? Will Lausanne’s system improve things? No, it will just control them. We were being made a mockery.
“I heard the ‘spirit of Lausanne’ had replaced the Holy Spirit.”
No ministry worthy of the name Christian would act according to that inaccurate allegory. All Michael’s rhetoric did was further demean his peers in the room. I asked a few global leaders if they heard what I heard, and one senior leader in student ministry said, “I heard the ‘spirit of Lausanne’ had replaced the Holy Spirit.”
To presume to coordinate God’s mission more effectively than the Holy Spirit is an outlandish thought. Again, Lausanne Central will be quick to say, “that’s not what he meant”. Perhaps, but that is what many of us heard. And it was reinforced by Michael and others consistently promoting Lausanne Central’s digital mirage of a collaborative action system—the one thing to rule them all. I sardonically joked with someone who shared my concerns, that I live in Tolkien/Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth and the only destination for the one thing to rule them all was Mount Doom.
I cannot help but feel that their overreach and uber-confidence will fail to achieve the goals Lausanne Central envisions. If the world was a sports field (which it most assuredly is not) the actual goal posts (the 25 great commission gaps) may not even be where Lausanne Central have located them. Assuming they can find the financial path bakers (which is far from certain according to my sources), Lausanne Central’s digital coordination could lead the path takers in the completely wrong direction, competing against an opposition that is playing an entirely different game.
I am among some who wonder if the classic missions path assumed at L4, associated with a particular understanding of “the great commission”, is the very thing that is prohibiting our missional effectiveness. Could it be that the path is leading us in the wrong direction? Is it possible that the hermeneutic with which we have been reading scripture, the very paradigm we are operating within, is that which is hindering global gospel advance? It is apparently too taboo to ask such questions within the domain of Lausanne. But doubling down, trying the same thing time and again, albeit with different tech, and expecting different results is… well, you probably know the proverb. My conviction is that our very way of perceiving God’s purposes for the world needs to change.
