I recently returned from the Lausanne’s 2006 Younger Leaders Gathering which was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. To be in one place with followers of Christ from 110 nations, was a privilege. Rarely have I had the opportunity to meet, hear stories and learn from such a racially and ethically diverse group.

Paul Steinke, Chris Keller (The Other Journal) and I traveled together both to the conference and back again; and our times of processing what we were hearing and experiencing was more than worth the price of admission.

There are a number of descriptions of the event; lyg06blog, Christianity Today, The Christian Post, and Sivin Kit 1, 2, 3.

Having studied with both TV Thomas and Robert Coleman I’d heard many Lausanne stories and was familiar with both the Lausanne Covenant and the Manila Manifesto prior to the last week’s gathering.

One of the phrases used throughout the conference was, “The whole church, bringing the whole gospel, to the whole world.” Ramez Atallah, who was one of the plenary speakers and the person chairing the programming portion of the congress in the works for 2010 was the first person from the front to challenge Lausanne’s use of the phrase. Ramez suggested that to be more accurate the Lausanne network represents “the whole evangelical church” at best, as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox voices not well represented. Later, during a meeting of delegates interested in further theological engagement, the concern around the assumed meaning of “whole church,” “whole gospel” and “whole world” was brought up. Concern over the term “evangelical” was also highlighted as the term has morphed significantly since this network was formed.

From my perspective, a number of important issues current in missional work were scarcely given time: America’s abuse of power, postmodern critiques of power, contextual theology, mission in a post-Christendom era, the gift post-colonialism, let alone issues of globalization, and the exportation of capitalism.

Now the question I’m wrestling with is, “what, if any, role do I play with the Lausanne network of the future?”

I don’t have a solid response yet; it’s a significant network and the possibilities for it to serve, connect, and resource is unique.

There is so much more I could say, but for now . . .

peace, dwight

lausanne . . . what’s next?
Tagged on:     

5 thoughts on “lausanne . . . what’s next?

  • October 7, 2006 at 10:31 AM
    Permalink

    Dwight,

    Thanks for the conversation last Thursday. Your report left me a lot to think in terms of market/technology driven Christian groblalization. Especially at your comments of the contemporary pop worship music used in the sessions and also how some of the emergent leaders from the 2/3 worlds are been influenced by the western emergent pundits.

    I plan to follow up on what is the opinion of the Latin American delagation.

    Peace,
    Eliacin

  • October 9, 2006 at 7:40 PM
    Permalink

    Hey Dr. Friesen,
    I wasn’t sure where to ask you this but I know we talked about the emerging church once in the library and I was wondering what you thought a Emergent Cohort would like in Seattle. I am toying with the idea of trying to start and was wondering what your input might be, and if perhaps you might be willing to be envolved on some level. I understand if you are too busy for that but I would still love to hear your ideas on what this could look like.
    Matt Shedden (From Hermenutics and Chicago)

  • October 9, 2006 at 11:35 PM
    Permalink

    nice to see you blogging again 🙂

  • October 10, 2006 at 5:25 PM
    Permalink

    Whatever your role with the Lausanne network will be, I’m just glad you were there to represent.

  • October 11, 2006 at 12:41 AM
    Permalink

    Dwight

    Thanks for your overview of the YLG in Malaysia. It would be very valuable if there could be some dialogue between this particular group in Lausanne and the Lausanne Issue Group that I participate in (formed in 2004, and recently reconvened in Hong Kong). The delegates in the Issue Group I participate in would love to dialogue with your network about our concerns on the biggest missional challenge facing the post-Christian West, especially the rising generation of youth. I think you will find we have areas of affinity and overlap, as well as distinctive differences in emphasis.

    Our Issue Group is likewise concerned that the Lausanne Movement has been over-represented by First World Christians (especially in its official committees) or by Christians of Anglo-ethnicity living in Two-Thirds World settings, and under-represented by Christians of Asian, African, Oceanic and Latin American cultures. The slogan you mention “whole church, whole gospel, whole world” was that which characterised the 2004 Forum in Pattaya. Not everyone who attended the 2004 Forum was happy as the plenary sessions were dominated by North Americans and English delegates with “token” gestures to others (e.g. the African gives a personal testimony, the Chinese read out Bible passages; but the preachment was First World people only).

    I agree that it is really only representing Evangelicals particularly in their parachurch networks. Lausanne does not include mainline Protestants, ecumenical Protestant bodies, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Churches of the Ancient East too in its deliberations about global missions and evangelisation. It is worth noting that the 2010 Forum celebrates the centenary of the famous 1910 Edinburgh missions conference (and that of course “split” into liberal and evangelical strands). Lausanne will hold its own celebrations standing apart from other Christian gatherings that will also commemorate the 1910 gathering. As the 1910 gathering did shape the course of Protestant missions for the 20th century, we might well meditate now on what the 2010 gathering’s impact might be for the 21st century?

    On the recent Hong Kong gathering I have mentioned you can visit my blog and then follow leads to blogs by other delegates.
    Blessings

Comments are closed.

Skip to content