Thoughts on Lausanne, part 2: Don't Be Afraid of Doctrine
Last week I started to consider the issue of cooperative mission endeavors around the subject of the Lausanne meeting in Cape Town. (By the way, talking about Lausanne as a meeting rather than a city in Switzerland seems odd to me--like saying "the Chicago meeting" in Boston--but that is another story.)
The meeting is concluded now and it sounds like a wonderful gathering to celebrate God's global mission. Someone asked in the comments why I was not invited, so let me be clear that I was. (It seems that some people were complaining about the invite list--and I am glad that I did not have to make it up.) However, I did not go. More on that later... maybe.
But, I started last week by pointing to David Hesselgrave's paper about Edinburgh, the meeting that Lausanne celebrated at Cape Town. As I indicated last time, I have concerns with the connection to Lausanne (and I believe any evangelical with a missions history background would share my concerns). After all, the Edinburgh meeting is seen by most historians (following Kenneth Scott Latourette) as the end of the Great Century of Missions and the beginning of what would become the modern ecumenical movement.
Now, before you have a knee-jerk reaction and think I am about to rail on the ecumenical movement, remember who is writing this. I'm willing to bet I am MORE ecumenical (personally) than my readers. I am not just talking smack here, but I speak to everyone from Anglicans to Pentecostals, from Baptists to Presbyterians, and from Evangelicals to Mainliners. In fact, the most common complaint I get is from WHERE and to WHOM I speak. (I have a file.) By the way, if you are interested in how I choose where to speak, you can learn more here.
But, cooperative mission efforts have a history, and not all of it good, as almost all evangelicals and even many mainline believers would agree. And, we would be naïve at best, and reckless at worst, to think that we would not fall into the same trap that our parents fell into. Thus, there are some things I think that any cooperative missions movement must consider. I will consider those things in several blogposts.
Here are the parts I have in mind thus far:
Don't Be Afraid of Doctrine (today's post)
Don't Lose Evangelism to Social Justice
Don't Make Everything Mission
I may have more as the days go by, but that's the starting point.
The obvious question is, "Ed, are you criticizing Lausanne and Cape Town?" The answer is, "No." I am going to discuss the challenges of things like Lausanne. Now, I wish Lausanne was not so closely tied to Edinburgh, but I think it is important to note that Edinburgh was a good thing--a gathering to call for "the evangelization of the world in this generation." It is what followed that was the problem. It is what Edinburgh became (the International Missionary Council) that eventually would become something that almost all evangelicals and most mainline Christians would say lost its way.
So, it's simple. I'm writing not with the belief that there are dozens of missiologists reading my every word. (I am not even an "official blogger," a funny term if there ever was one). But, I want to consider and think through missiology since I write "Monday is for Missiology" each week.
On to Edinburgh, its implications for Lausanne, and my admonition to not be afraid of doctrine.
David Hesselgrave explains that a conscious decision was made at Edinburgh to avoid doctrinal/theological discussion or to sign any agreements that pertain to the same. In other words, they made a point to say, "We just believe in Jesus," or something to that effect. They did not argue about minor issues, they banded together for the big issues. Which, makes sense, until you read the history.
Hesselgrave said, "From the time of Edinburgh the modern ecumenical movement has been characterized more by organizational togetherness than by theological consensus"
[source, p. 125].
Now, let me say that I believe in mission collaboration. I bring the leaders of every major evangelical denomination together to learn about church planting through the Church Planting Leadership Fellowship. There, we learn about strategies for church planting, exchange ideas, and encourage one another. But, we usually can't plant churches together. In one of our gatherings, I explained:
It is a bad idea theologically, with bad results historically, for us to partner and jointly plant churches. But, it is a bad stewardship and irresponsible missiology for us not to find ways to learn from each other.
When it comes to church planting, it is not really the same as evangelism. In church planting, we need to plant our own gardens. But, we will consider this an agricultural co-op where we learn to do it better by learning from one another.
So, that is why we are here: to learn and share best practices with other Christian denominational leaders committed to plant churches.
Yes, I was talking about Edinburgh. They decided not to worry about doctrine and ended up losing their focus on mission.
So, how can we work together? Not only can we, we should! I believe that partnership is godly and biblical. I've had great experiences collaborating with Great Commission Christians. But, we need to avoid the mistakes of history as we collaborate around the mission of God.
I think the answer is what I call "candid cooperation." I think that Lausanne has worked hard in this area and I want to affirm the direction.
Instead of saying, "We don't need a doctrinal statement," they decided that they needed one--and many evangelical groups now use the Lausanne Covenant as a standard of evangelical cooperation. Although it is not perfect (and I know no statement that is), it is helpful to know where Lausanne stands.
Any real cooperation has to recognize that, for example, because Presbyterians practice infant baptism, Pentecostals believe in a second experience of grace called the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit," and Baptists believe in the autonomy of local churches, planting churches together becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. And, when people failed to see that, it led to them saying that certain beliefs do not matter. Here is how I explained in a Q&A at the Advance 09 conference (and, John Piper was one of the speakers at Lausanne):
The pertinent part starts at about 1:05.
But, there are ways that we can cooperate. Evangelicals (and Lausanne is an evangelical gathering) are conversionists--we believe that people need to be converted. And we can cooperate in evangelism. We can cooperate in social action and advocate for social justice. We can, and must pray together.
We can achieve candid cooperation when we avoid naïve comments like, "let's just tear down denominational walls." Well, don't take this the wrong way, but if by "tear down denominational walls" you mean that I have to endorse infant baptism (a position held by many of my dear friends), we are not on the same page. If, instead, we say, "We agree on enough to do evangelism together," then I am in. Or for social justice. Or for prayer. But, let's not be embarrassed that we believe some things that disagree with other brothers and sisters in Christ.
As I wrote in the Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal a few years ago:
[W]e have also lost confidence in our denominational distinctives until we tend to act as if they do not exist. There are, however, certain things we must contend for, even if we differ on what they are.
For example, I believe in certain things that not every Christian believes in, such as the autonomy of the church, regenerate church membership, congregationalism, and believer's baptism. I would earnestly contend for any of these beliefs, just as Assemblies of God churchgoers would and should earnestly defend some of their unique beliefs. I hold believer's baptism in my right hand, while an Assemblies of God believer may also hold initial physical evidence in his right hand.
The answer to reaching a lost world is not to create a "bland evangelicalism." The church has tried this before and the results were problematic at best. Instead, we need movements that are deeply committed to their scripturally-formed distinctives. We need to see God at work in movements with different distinctives. We also need to work together as much as we can without violating each other's conscience or beliefs.
Let me end with a quote from an article I wrote in SBCLife, a publication of my denominational family.
Edinburgh assumed what it logically could -- everyone who loves missions must also love the Bible and be committed to it. To be fair, the attendees at Edinburgh, with few exceptions, were accurately described as Bible-believing, evangelical Christians. Differences in doctrine, structure, and polity were intentionally set aside for the purpose of world missions. It made sense to do so -- but in the end it failed.
Lausanne is on the right track with its doctrinal statement, but it will be tested and, like all doctrinal statements, will need to address new issues as they arise. But, in short, you can't cooperate without doctrine--because without sound doctrine you have no reason to engage in mission in the first place.
The Exchange is a part of CT's
Blog Forum. Support the work of CT.
Subscribe and get one year free.
The views of the blogger do not necessarily reflect those of Christianity Today.
