I recently attended the Lausanne Congress in Incheon, South Korea. It was an incredible gathering to have been part of, but it left me conflicted on many levels. As a colleague described, “it was both beautiful and controversial.” Here are my reflections on both:

The beautiful:

• The experience of worshipping with 5300 believers from 150+ countries is incredible. I often found myself thinking “Is this what heaven is going to be like?” It truly felt like ‘every tribe and every tongue worshipping before the throne of God’, and for this experience alone was well worth going for. It is such an incredible privilege to get this glimpse of eternity.

• The table groups – all 5300 of us were assigned tables of 6 for all plenary sessions. Everyone I spoke to seemed to have really interesting table groups and mine was no exception – with representatives from the US, Pakistan, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia and NZ.

• The divine God conversations and connections, including 1 at my table group, a German MP who had established an anti-trafficking network 10 years ago, and was heavily involved in lobbying for Prostitution Reform in the German Parliament. We spent much time discussing this, and I was able to share with him about my time in DC in August with Reem Al Saleem, the UN Special Rapporteur who recently wrote a report condemning prostitution as violence against women. I also shared with him the written press release my team at the World Freedom Network had written in response to Reem’s report. The next day he told me he had sent it through to his lobbying team in the German parliament and they asked for permission to use it as a key document for their legislative lobbying!

• Being given the opportunity to facilitate a meeting for anti-trafficking workers and have more than 50 people turn up, including a young woman from a highly sensitive country who spoke through an interpreter and told us this was the first time she had ever had the opportunity to speak to anyone outside her country and tell them what was going on. It was powerful.

• The opportunity to get to know SIM, WEA and Oceania colleagues better.

• The more than 2000 volunteers who served us with such joy. Always with an encouraging smile, they were a lesson in how to bless through serving.

• Some outstanding speakers, particularly Sarah Bruel, Dr Anne Zaki and Ruth de Padillo’s plenaries. Outstanding prophetic voices, despite the short time allocated to each.

• Learning about the history of Korea and the Korean church. We were treated to some incredible presentations about these, and gained much understanding and empathy for what they have gone through as a nation and as a church.

• The high profile creative arts were given, drama and art in particular. I especially loved watching the virtual artist worship in real time – he was mesmerising.

However despite these great things, there was much that saddened, disappointed, and to be honest grieved my spirit. Here’s what I experienced as the more controversial aspects of Lausanne:

1. I experienced a significant disconnect between current realities and a triumphalist model of Western Christianity promoted from the front.

There is no doubt in anyone’s minds that globally we have been through complete upheaval over the past 5 years. The pandemic, increased conflict, climate change, economic downturn, mass unemployment & vulnerability, increased trauma and mental health issues. Lausanne’s State Of The Great Commission (SOTGC) Report released prior to the Congress also identified the changing face of Christianity as no longer represented by the global north but very much being driven by revival in the majority world. Yet although these changes were identified and discussed throughout the Congress there was no recognition that perhaps – in light of things being so different – we should be doing things differently too, and not continuing with how mission has always been done. The model of mission championed at Lausanne seemed at odds with current realities, and this concerned me.

We were a room of 5300 people from more than 150 countries, yet what was modelled from the front was a very Westernised Christianity in all its glory. Robert Chacomero (a theologian from Latin America) commented that “all of the chosen speakers from the US were white men, even though the greatest vitality of the US church is found today among immigrant churches. Neither was white Christian nationalism addressed, even though it represents one of the most significant obstacles to the spread of the Gospel in the world today.” And while our worship times were great, it was very Western; we missed a great opportunity to support the growing global movement of indigenous worship.

There was also a lack of willingness to acknowledge and address the influence colonialism has had on Christianity. In many parts of the world there is growing discussion around decolonisation, localisation, redistributing power, for repentance for how we often combined the two...yet only one speaker dared to mention this – and the response was an apology from Lausanne for what was said. This disconnect was very evident; it felt like despite all the changes and conversations in our world Lausanne was championing a return to the good old days and ways of Billy Graham and Western triumphalist Christianity. And it jarred.

I was saddened by this as I feel we missed an incredible opportunity to be bold and prophetic in our mission as Christ’s church, bringing the good news of Jesus to our hurting world.

2. I experienced an expression of collaboration that was highly controlled and dismissive of existing, external, or spirit-led collaboration

There was a lot of talk at Lausanne about collaboration. As a highly collaborative leader who is working to develop collaborative global networks, this should have been something I found right up my alley. Instead I became increasingly disturbed by the highly controlled form of collaboration that was promoted: Lausanne’s model of collaboration and how they determined it should be done. There was little recognition of the incredible amount of collaboration already occurring outside of Lausanne, or the huge gains to be made from collaborating with others; it was all focused on internal collaboration within, and the urgent need for everyone to be in ‘collaborative action teams.’

Focussing internally like this excludes significant knowledge, experience, connections and collaborative opportunities already underway, and encourages the ‘siloed’ way of working that so many Christian organisations are trying to move away from. The continual promotion that collaboration had to be done through ‘the Lausanne app’ was also problematic as it assumed access to regular, affordable internet access that many present do not have. I wish encouragement had been given to find other ways of connecting with each other that would ensure they would be able to participate and collaborate in meaningful ways?

I am glad that collaboration was highlighted so prominently, I know of colleagues who loved Lasuanne’s approach and for whom it was highly successful in getting initiatives underway. But I do wish there had been greater recognition of the importance of wider collaboration, and the importance of allowing more organic and ‘Spirit-led’ collaboration to evolve (often the most exciting part of collaborating with others).

3. I experienced a gaping and increasing dichotomy between prioritism and integral mission.

The tagline of the Congress was “Let the church declare and display Christ” – seriously great! I threw aside my preconceived ideas about having to advocate for the justice voice to be heard and entered fully into this vision. But my initial enthusiasm was premature. Over the next few days it became very clear that proclamation was priority, integral or holistic mission was very much second place, and anything that could be linked to social action? Even further down the list.

I understand this has been a historical tension within Lausanne, but it concerns me that this is even an issue. Why does it have to be a dichotomy? Why can’t we hold ‘both/and’? In my reading and understanding of scripture we are called to BOTH preach the gospel AND care for the vulnerable AND free the oppressed. I am not saying proclamation isn’t important, because it is. To be honest, the church urgently needs to reclaim its voice and its boldness and speak the good news of Jesus into our hurting world. But our world is hurting more than ever, and desperately needs us to be the hands and feet of Jesus, as well as his voice.

I was so disappointed that this was where mission in the 21st century had landed. Imagine if Lausanne had truly embraced “declare and display” and encouraged us instead to explore an inclusive, strong, holistic gospel message, that values the importance of word AND deed, and that holds and encourages all parts in equal tension.

4. I experienced an exclusion of justice from the heart of Christian mission.

For six days, we spent more than 3 hours every morning and 2 hours every evening together in plenary sessions. Of this total of 30 hours together hearing speakers and presentations, 15 minutes was allocated to a “justice” speaker. 15 minutes.

And here’s why this disturbs me: Justice is the very heart of God. He is our God of mercy and justice. In Luke 4 when Jesus stood up and said why he had come, it was to preach the good news AND bring justice. The concept of justice is deeply embedded throughout the Bible (more than 200 times in the Old Testament and 400 times in the New); it is not sidelined to a few isolated scriptures. Yet that’s how it was treated here - as a 15 minute sideline.

I did experience a great sense of irony as I listened to one of Lausanne’s identified “gaps” in achieving the Great Commission. In an interesting plenary about “Gen Z” we heard they are the biggest generation alive on the planet, they are leaving the church in droves…and they are very interested in justice. Imagine if someone had connected these dots at Lausanne – if this is what all the data is showing (and it is), what a fantastic opportunity the church has to attract and keep Gen Z – engage in justice, make it part of our church heartbeat and who we are. They will come, they will stay and they will revitalise the church – but not until justice is included as a central part of all we do.

Despite being sidelined, the irony here is a greater inclusion of justice in our gospel message is perhaps the solution to one of their identified “gaps” and the key way of connecting with Gen Z.

I was so disappointed that justice wasn’t valued. 15 minutes is a pretty appalling allocation for something so central to who God is.

5. I experienced a lack of space and sensitivity for the Spirit to move

With more than 5000 people present I understand the need for things to be highly scheduled and programmed, but not at the expense of allowing the Holy Spirit room to move.

We spent little time together in corporate prayer. We spent even less in silence, waiting on God, seeing what the Spirit was saying. And on the rare occasion the Spirit began to move, things were quickly moved back to the programme, usually with triumphant praise music totally at odds with what the Spirit had begun to do. And every time this happened, we missed an incredible opportunity as the body of Christ to be led by the Spirit into a move of repentance and transformation.

A powerful evening learning about the persecution in our world left the room deeply moved and wanting to respond to the pain we had heard through prayer and reflection. But instead? Back came the band with songs of clapping praise, totally at odds with where the Spirit had been leading. I’m a big fan of using praise in the face of adversity and oppression, but this was out of context and it jarred.

Another example came when Sarah Bruel, a highly prophetic and powerful speaker, led us to a place where the room was kneeling before God in repentance. It was incredibly powerful, the Spirit was moving… but just as people were entering into this space, time was up – our MC’s came out and led with a rousing round of applause, the band burst into triumphant praise (again not at all connected to what the Spirit was doing) and we were forced into 30 minutes of table discussions answering 3 prepared questions. No space given to respond in any way to what had just happened; keeping to the programme content seemed more important than anything the Holy Spirit wanted to do.

I wish the Spirit had been given space to move. In this example above we could have easily replaced our 30 minute discussion time with a time of sitting before the Lord, in prayer, allowing the Spirit to minister and move – and still keep to schedule. We heard repeatedly in plenary sessions about the need for repentance but we were never given space to do this corporately, together. Imagine the power and what might have changed in our world if 5300 Christian leaders from 150+ countries had spent time together on our knees before the Lord in repentance? We missed a big opportunity.

6. I experienced a highly controlled narrative throughout the whole Congress.

The narrative throughout whole Congress was highly controlled, with outcomes already decided before we even began. The tone of all sessions I attended – from plenaries, our time in “collaborative gaps” in the afternoon, and even the Network meeting I attended – were very top-down and hierarchical with no willingness or space given for discussion (let alone outcomes) that may have led in an alternate direction to what had already been planned.

5300 people went to Lausanne ready, willing and excited to contribute to the direction of global mission for the next 15 years, yet our role felt more like filling in the gaps Lausanne had already pre-decided. In the case of our afternoon sessions it was very literally filling in the blank gaps for pre-decided outcomes.

Historically Lausanne releases reports after each Congress, documenting the discussions that took place and outcomes that were agreed during the week. Not this time. Unlike previous Lausanne Gatherings, the report for this Congress – the Seoul Statement – was released in its final form on the first day - leaving many questioning the purpose of being there if outcomes were already written. After significant pushback, Lausanne communicated this was a ‘draft’, but also communicated that there was no room for any changes and it was ‘pretty much carved in stone.’

7. I experienced an environment with that was not able to handle difference and the resulting tensions that often coexist with the holding of different perspectives.

For me, and many others, one of the standout speakers was a Latin American theologian Dr Ruth Padillo de Borst. She was given 15 minutes to speak on justice, the only 15 minutes allocated to this topic. Her presentation was strong, challenging, and asked questions of the evangelical church about our role in condoning injustice.

In her presentation - which had been approved word for word by Lausanne leadership ahead of time – she included 2 sentences that spoke to the deadly injustices occurring among the Palestinian people. A very small group of North American theologians objected; within hours Lausanne sent out an email apologizing for Dr. Padilla’s talk and shaming her publicly in front of the 5,000 physical attendees and thousands more participating in the conference virtually.

This bothers me on so many levels I don’t know where to start. Regardless of whether you agreed with her statements or were offended by them, how Lausanne responded was appalling and could have – should have – been handled with much more grace than it was. It did not need to be publicly apologised for, by doing so they created significant hurt and grief amongst a large number of participants, particularly those from Latin America and the majority world.

Unfortunately the closing remarks of Lausanne did nothing to help heal the tensions that had emerged. Quoting a Russian proverb (an interesting choice in itself) participants were encouraged to “be bees not flies” as we left, with the explanation that we should strive to focus on the good from Lausanne, like a bee that seeks out flowers and nectar, rather than the bad, like a fly that looks for filth. The implication was clear, and further emphasised the organisational inability to hold space for – and even encourage healthy dialogue around – differing opinions.

As a bee I saw the beauty at Lausanne, but as a fly, I also saw the filth. As my colleague said, it was both “the beautiful and the controversial.” I am glad for the many who experienced a more positive time than myself, and pray for all who attended, that as we process our experiences we see Gods’ hand at work through it all.