Lausanne: Manila Manifesto to Undergo Further Study

At the conclusion of this summer’s Lausanne II in Manila (CT, Aug. 18, 1989, p. 39), Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE) chairman Leighton Ford asked participants to affirm a document known as the Manila Manifesto. The response was nearly unanimous, but as Ford acknowledged before the vote, affirmation did not commit participants to every detail of the document. “This is not a policy statement of the Lausanne movement,” Ford told the 3,586 participants at the close of the ten-day conference. “It is an expression, in general terms, of our consensus and commitment, and we are commending it to ourselves, churches, and Christian organizations for further study and response.”

At the first Lausanne gathering in 1974, participants signed the Lausanne Covenant, a document that for many has become something of a creedal statement. It was drafted by British pastor and author John Stott, who also wrote the Manila Manifesto (see “Humble Scribe,” p. 43). In Manila, there was no official signing of the manifesto because, according to Ford, the Lausanne Covenant is still the “foundational document” of the Lausanne movement. “The Manila Manifesto does not supersede the covenant,” Ford told CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Responding To Culture

The Manila Manifesto consists of 21 statements, or affirmations, followed by several pages of explanation. An initial draft was brought to Manila by Stott and revised by a committee of scholars.

The revised draft was distributed to participants, who were then invited to submit suggestions for further revision. With several hundred formal comments to guide him, Stott and his committee worked through the night to complete the final draft in time to submit it to the conference.

The opening statement affirms the Lausanne Covenant as the “basis of our cooperation in the Lausanne movement.” In an apparent response to the contemporary challenge of the New Age and world religions, the manifesto affirms the uniqueness of Christ as the only way to salvation: “[O]ther religions and ideologies are not alternative paths to God.”

The document calls “the whole church and every member of it” to the task of “making Christ known throughout the world.” Reflecting the influence of Pentecostals and charismatics, one statement affirms the “supernatural work” of the Holy Spirit in evangelism, while another acknowledges that “the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God’s people.”

Several statements emphasize the church’s responsibility for the social needs of the world. One affirms that “we must demonstrate God’s love visibly by caring for those who are deprived of justice, dignity, food, and shelter.” Other statements refer to “injustice and oppression, both personal and structural,” and “barriers of race, gender, and class.” The role of laity and women, and the need for Christians to live holy lives were also addressed.

The affirmations, according to those who worked closely to frame the document, reflect specific challenges the church is facing. “Where the Lausanne Covenant is a timeless document, the manifesto is more timely,” Ford said. “It is almost an agenda for the future, raising a number of issues that press upon us right now.”

Further Study

Response to the document has been mixed. Most participants who spoke with CHRISTIANITY TODAY feel it raises important issues, but needs the additional study and discussion mentioned by Ford when he presented it. “I see it more as a memorandum than a manifesto,” said theologian James I. Packer. “It presents a series of matters for further explanation, which I hope will take place.”

Packer said that he would also like to see more discussion on the social dimension of credible evangelism. “Lausanne needs to deal with the extreme diversity of situations [relating to poverty] in different parts of the world,” Packer said.

Asbury Theological Seminary president David L. McKenna feels the manifesto lacks a statement on discipleship and theological education for new believers. “We can win the world, but if we don’t teach new Christians how to mature in their faith, we may be simply awakening them spiritually, making them more vulnerable to non-Christian religions.”

Wade Coggins, executive director of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, thought it peculiar that the document did not specify missions as an enterprise of the church. “We still need missionaries to go to areas where there is no witnessing church,” Coggins said. “The document correctly calls the local church to evangelism, but did not clearly state how we close the gap between the church and unreached peoples.”

Ford considers any discussion of the document to be a good sign, and he believes that the Lausanne movement will find a number of ways to encourage further study.

According to Lausanne director of communications Joseph Sindorf, LCWE plans to publish a booklet containing the Lausanne Covenant and the Manila Manifesto, as well as information on how the two documents contribute to the Lausanne movement.

By Lyn Cryderman.

Humble Scribe

The Manila Manifesto’s primary author was John Stott, rector emeritus of All Souls Church in London. He also helped draft the Lausanne Covenant in 1974. In an interview with Norwegian journalist Kaare Melhus, Stott offered these personal reflections:

On Lausanne I: [Stott was a hardened conference goer, and admitted being a little weary at the thought of going to yet another.] But then God surprised us when something did happen. The so-called spirit of Lausanne emerged, and I think in God’s goodness, the covenant expressed it.

On the Lausanne Covenant: During the Lausanne Congress I had no idea the covenant would become as important a document as it has become. I had not expected it to be so widely accepted as it has become, and that so many organizations would take it as their basis of faith and commitments. I am very thankful that God did something at Lausanne that I didn’t expect him to do.

On barriers to world evangelization: Sin in the Christian community. I think Christian competition is part of this sin. I know some people are defending it since it works in capitalism, but I think it is a worldly argument. Personal ambition and empire building are hindering the spread of the gospel.

On his decision to enter the ministry: I loved Cambridge, and felt attracted to the academic life, but God called me to the pastorate.

On his recently completed exposition of Acts: I enjoyed it but found it difficult. It raises many problems: charismatic questions, signs and wonders, economic lifestyle, missionary methods, and other issues. I’ve tried to relate the text to modern questions.

On writing: I think writing a book or a manifesto is the nearest a man gets to having a baby.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.