The first full day of L4 began with a plenary session dedicated to the foundations of effective mission. Drawing lessons from both Acts and church history, speakers outlined the connection of repentance to revival, the centrality of the power of the Spirit to the Great Commission, and the call to justice as integral to Christian mission. As global leaders gather to consider how to reach and disciple the world, these sessions served as critical reminders.
While these main stage and subsequent collaborative times were significant, delegates regularly cited the worship as the most powerful element of L4 thus far. The combination of passion, representation and unity is overwhelming, making it hard to capture in words. It had to be experienced.
Finally, Lausanne capped the first day of L4 by issuing the Seoul Statement. Historically, these documents have proven valuable resources for global Christians as clear, robust and unifying expressions of historic Protestant belief and practice. The Lausanne Covenant, issued as part of the first gathering in 1974, is still used by many organizations around the world to both ground their theological identity and provide a framework for partnership.
It is an impressive document, simultaneously comprehensive and accessible. Overall, I am grateful for its clarity, particularly on issues of significant cultural tension in North America where we need the voices of global Christians. For Christian leaders and ministries looking for tools for expressing our faith, Lausanne again delivers a needed document.
While I will return to the Statement after the conference, I have two immediate concerns.
First, as others have observed, it seems that evangelism was often an assumed rather than explicit frame. Historically core to Lausanne’s essence and calling, evangelism is not as critical to the Statement as I had hoped. Where the complexities of discipleship are fully developed, evangelism is, by comparison, given little direct attention.
Second, if there is an abiding tension in theological writing between clarity and beauty, recent years have overwhelmingly favored the former. The Seoul Statement follows this trend, leaving a document that is precise but uninspiring. If, as Packer argues, “theologies that cannot be sung are certainly wrong at a deep level,” there is something missing in this document. Where the worship at L4 has captured the hearts and imaginations of the delegates, my hope is this same spirit can permeate our theology.