Introduction
I was one of the 5394 people from 200 nations of the world that attended the Fourth Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. It was a priviledge to be invited to Lausanne 4 and experience something of the global nature of the church through networking, worship, Bible study, discussion groups, and eating together.
I had two experiences when I was in Seoul that shaped my reflections in this article. One is the experience at Lausanne 4 Congress, the other was a visit with some friends to one of the South Korean prayer mountains. I describe my experience at the Congress as global Christianity. In contrast, I consider my experience at the prayer mountains as an expression of indigenous Christianity.
I use the term global Christianity to describe the attempt of Western Christianity, still with power base in the West, to recognise and engage with the developments of Christianity in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania. By indigenous Christianity I mean the authentic expressions of Christianity in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania as well as the development of diasporic expressions of this in the European context.
I learned much from both experiences, but one was more transforming than the other. I will conclude by reflecting on what the European church can learn from these experiences, particularly as I continue to professionally explore intercultural approaches of church.
Intercultural churches are churches that have embraced God’s vision and gift of ethnic and cultural diversity.
Intercultural churches are churches that have embraced God’s vision and gift of ethnic and cultural diversity therefore intentionally creating spaces and contexts where different cultures, nationalities, ethnicities, generations, and classes integrate mutually and meaningfully to create something new for the sake of God’s kingdom purposes. The key elements here are intentionality, integration, and mutual inconvenience. If you wish to read more, see my article, Spiritual Renewal in Britain: Intercultural Pentecostal Theology in Eucharisma 1, (Spring 2024), 72-78.
Lausanne 4: an expression of global Christianity
I am very much aware that many of my friends and colleagues are writing about Lausanne 4, narrating their experiences. These writings critique Lausanne Congress on many fronts from Majority World (non-Western) perspectives. There is the Sri-Lankan theologian, Nathaniel Somanathan’s piece on Lausanne and integral mission regarding the Seoul Statement. There is another by a Filipino theologian, Rei Lemuel Crizaldo’s further reflections on integral mission but with wider questions on missiology and contexts. And, finally, there is Jay Matenga’s robust reflections and in-depth analysis of the framing of Lausanne 4 (published in three parts by Christian Daily International) as well as his commentary on the issues of so-called polycentric missions discussed at and following Lausanne 4. I do agree with some of these Lausanne 4 critiques, but will start my reflections here on the strengths of the Congress.
Central to the Lausanne movement is its focus on the great commission and world evangelization. Therefore, anyone who understands missions through the lens of cross-cultural proclamation and evangelization will have thoroughly enjoyed the sessions. This is because the Congress brought that emphasis to the fore. The evangelists I spoke with at the Congress were deeply appreciative of the gathering for this emphasis on proclamation and the need to be well equipped to do that well. However, those whose framing of missions is through the prism of witness that integrates proclamation and demonstration of the gospel would likely have struggled at the gathering.
South Korean Christians themselves organised, planned, administrated, and prayed for the success of the conference.
Another aspect of the congress that was positive for me was to see displayed the planning, logistics, and organisational skills of South Korean churches in action. This is crucial in the light of some of the conversations I have been involved with in the European context that tends to stereotype Western Christians as uniquely proficient at planning, administration, and logistics, whereas the key strength of Christians from the Majority World is assumed to be praying. At the conference centre in Incheon this stereotype was invalidated when South Korean Christians themselves organised, planned, administrated, and prayed for the success of the conference.
Our local hosts fed 5,394 Christians from all over the world on a daily basis for about 10 days. They also welcomed participants on a daily basis with welcome cards and a lovely smile that made us all feel like celebrities. Lastly, they transported people on shuttle buses from the airport and accommodation spots to the conference centre and back. This is commendable and demands a reorientation of assumptions. Majority World Christians, in this case, South Korean Christians, are good at both praying and logistics.
Another aspect of the Congress that was commendable was the representation of the participants and speakers. It was well attended by Africans, Asians, Latin Americans and Europeans. We had less from the Caribbean, the Middle East and Oceania and perhaps too many from North America. Nevertheless, there was good representation overall.
I was also impressed by the diversity and breadth of speakers and facilitators. We did not just have one token African or Latin American, but the Lausanne program leaders gave the stage to multiple speakers from different regions across the board. However, despite the representation, one could still detect a North American hold and influence on the Congress which led me to think that it was global Christianity rather than indigenous Christianity that was celebrated most at the event—a Western-constrained version of international Christians rather than a Christianity that authentically reflected the significant shifts in the development of the Church in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania.
If the representation is not empowered or valued as equal it does not lead to belonging and integration at the core of the structure.
The problem, as I see it, is that whilst representation is good, it does not necessarily mean that the power imbalance has shifted. To shift the power imbalance, structures, decision making, and governance all have to undergo organisational change that translates to authentic expressions of that representation. If the representation is not empowered or valued as equal it does not lead to belonging and integration at the core of the structure.
South Korean prayer mountains: expressions of indigenous Christianity
My second experience at Seoul has to do with a day visit to one of the prayer mountains called Galmelsan (Fasting Prayer Centre), founded by Reverend Im Ye-Jae Mokshanim in the early 1980s. One of the defining features of South Korean Christianity is prayer and therefore there are about seven hundred prayer mountains across the country.
I believe strongly that the historic suffering faced by South Korea, including thirty-five years of colonization by the Japanese and the Korean War, became the catalysts for prayer and the prayer movements that developed with the growth of Christianity and the emergence of mega-churches. Korean church growth became an example that inspired several African Pentecostal leaders, including some from my own country Nigeria, who visited South Korean churches in the 1980s and 1990s.
The fascination and admiration of the South Korean Church by African Pentecostals made all the more the reason for my visit to the prayer mountain crucial. Galmelsan can be described as a retreat centre with a few residential blocks, beautiful natural surroundings with hills and mountains, and, most importantly, people coming to pray. We had the opportunity to visit the main chapel to see South Koreans praying in a posture akin to Korean tradition of sitting on the floor in an attitude of reverence and prayer. Five of us visited and Rev H.Y. Lee, pastor of London Jesus Vision Church located at Kings Cross in London served as our translator and guide, facilitating communication between us and Rev Im. We prayed together and Rev Im also prayed for us. He was very thankful and appreciative that out of the 5,394 delegates at Lausanne, five decided to visit.
As we were walking around, observing people coming and going in prayer, I reflected on African Indigenous Christianity. What I experienced at the Congress was good but represented at best global Christianity with a North American influence and hold, what I experienced and witnessed at Galmelsan reflected indigenous Christianity from the Majority World seeking to be faithful and authentic to its roots and context.
My reflections also deepened with the fact that I was born and raised in a prayer movement in Nigeria similar to Galmelsan. I grew up in a group of churches described as African Indigenous Churches (AICs). African Indigenous Churches are a prophetic movement of churches in Africa that reacted against a colonial Christianity that was introduced into Africa by European mission movement.
One of the ways Yoruba Christians from Nigeria demonstrated colonial resistance was through the language of Mefeoyinbo (rejection of white Christianity) and the divine healing controversy, where some Africans believed that God can heal without traditional or Western medicine (Iwosan la si Ogun, meaning healing without medicine). In contrast, British Pentecostals and other African Pentecostals believed that medicine was still important with divine healing.
African Independent Churches, the initial version of the AIC acronym, captures the genius of Africans in creating their own churches—founded by Africans for Africans—which were independent theologically, financially, and organisationally from European mission churches. AIC churches were later called African Indigenous Churches and, more recently, African Instituted Churches or African Initiated Churches. In addition, Pobee and Ositelu (Ositelu being one of the AIC leaders in Nigeria) has advocated for African Initiatives in Christianity. The strand of AIC that I was born into is called "Aladura" in my Yoruba language. That is, people that love to pray, or owners of prayer.
I was left wanting an experience of the prayer movement that defines authentic South Korean Christianity.
At Lausanne 4 we experienced a brief overview of the history of the South Korean church re-enacted through a powerful visual drama of twelve stones, occasionally a South Korean choir performed, and a South Korean worship band led us, albeit with Western worship songs. But I was left wanting an experience of the prayer movement that defines authentic South Korean Christianity. Considering we were in the continent of Asia, I longed for more indigenous Asian worship styles, languages, and drama. This would have allowed for a much more authentic expression of indigenous Christianity at the Congress.
Towards mutual indigenous Christianity in Europe
The Fourth Lausanne Congress has implications for the UK and European conversations regarding how to better engage interculturally. In developing intercultural churches all across Europe, what approach should be taken? That of a Westernized global Christianity or a more authentically indigenous approach? A global Christianity approach would mean good international representation in churches, but this would not necessarily lead to a sense of belonging and integration for migrants because Europeans in most cases would retain a powerful influence, hindering an authentic indigenous expression of Majority World Christianties within the European ecclesiological framework.
It can be problematic to use the term indigenous to describe the authentic expressions of Majority World Christianity in a European context, because after all, Europeans in this case are the indigenous to their context and rightly so. But what I am trying to articulate is that if we are going to see the authentic expressions of Majority World Christians within various European church traditions, it is necessary to allow for the flourishing of Majority World indigenous expressions of Christianity as well—where people can express their Christianity in ways indigenous to themselves.
A Mutual Indigenous Christianity (MIC) that can enable the enrichment of both and lead to mutual learning.
In certain cases, in the European context, churches will need the flourishing of both indigenous European Christianity and indigenous Majority World Christianity. For example, can Celtic Christianity flourish alongside African Christianity in Britain and what can they both learn from each other? Perhaps we can move towards what I am describing as a Mutual Indigenous Christianity (MIC) that can enable the enrichment of both and lead to mutual learning.
Power dynamics of agents of interculturality
In conclusion, I want to draw attention to one key practice that can foster the empowering of indigenous agency to mitigate some of the challenges Majority World Christians face in multicultural and intercultural contexts in Europe. This lay in the power dynamics of agents of interculturality. By agents of interculturality, I am referring to the key thought-leaders that God is raising and using at this moment in developing intercultural engagement in Europe who are building momentum for interculturality in various nations.
How do we then ensure that these agents are not overly rooted in one community that could lead easily to another type of colonial model imposed on others? The reality is that there are still few Majority World Christian leaders involved in the intercultural debate, therefore careful attention must be given to consider the power dynamics at play. In addition, how can the few Majority World Christian leaders involved in the intercultural conversation enable other Majority World leaders to develop their indigenous agency and engage in the development of intercultural models of church from their perspectives?
Key Majority World leaders already involved need to have a heightened awareness of the challenges around the acceptance of Majority World leadership by Europeans—whereby Europeans still hold the keys to access spheres of influence and can shut out Majority World views. European agents of interculturality must also pay attention to this dynamic, and release influence, if they truly want to see the flourishing of the different diaspora communities in Europe in fulfilment of God’s purposes. This also means that European leaders involved in the intercultural conversation should invest intentionally in Majority World leaders, creating spaces for empowerment that lead to the free expression of indigenous agency.
If this is going to work, Christian leaders need to understand that we are co-creators and co-collaborators working together towards a prophetic intercultural kingdom. Otherwise we will just experience a limited global Christianity, such as was evident at Lausanne 4, and the full impact of World Christianity as an expression and flourishing of the whole body of Christ will remain sadly diminished.
Originally published by Israel Olofinjana's blog. Republished with permission.
Rev. Dr Israel Oluwole Olofinjana (PhD) is the Director of the One People Commission of the UK Evangelical Alliance. He is an ordained and accredited Baptist minister and has led two multi-ethnic Baptist churches and an independent charismatic church. He is the founding director of the Centre for Missionaries from the Majority World, a mission network initiative that provides cross-cultural training to reverse missionaries in Britain. Israel is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Queen’s Foundation for Ecumenical Theological Education in Birmingham and is on the Advisory Group on Race and Theology of the Society for the Study of Theology (SST). Among numerous other roles and activities, he is a consultant to Lausanne Europe, advising them on matters related to diaspora ministries in Europe. He is on the Christian Aid Working Group of Black Majority Church leaders, exploring the intersection of climate justice and racial justice and a member of Tearfund UK’s Theology Committee.
