Report from the International Congress on World Evangelization

The International Congress on World Evangelization met in Lausanne, Switzerland on 16-25 July, 1974. The theme of the Congress was “Let the Earth Hear His Voice.” More than 2,500 participants and 1500 observers from 150 countries were represented. North Americans composed one-fourth of the Congress, Europeans another quarter and Asian, African, and Latin Americans accounted for the remaining half. There were few young people and still fewer women. Presentations were heard in seven languages: Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, French, German, Spanish and English.

In some ways this Congress was unlike previous “missionary conferences.” Third world participants played a major role in both the major addresses as well as the small group workshop sessions. There were workshops on national strategy as well as “demonstrations of evangelistic methods” (which included such methods as personal evangelism, evangelism through literature, local church evangelistic campaigns, evangelism by drama and art, open-air evangelism, evangelism through distribution of Scriptures, and evangelism through social action and community development). Discussions in the “theology of evangelization groups” included: the uniqueness and authority of the Bible; Jesus Christ—the unique Son of God; how to evaluate cultural practices by biblical standards while maintaining the cultural identity of the country; and the kingdom of God and its relationship to political utopianism and cultural revolution.

The new winds blowing among evangelicals are in the deepening understanding of the sociopolitical implications of the gospel. The first major paper of the Congress opened on a note of repentance. John R. W. Stott (Rector of All Souls Church in London) hoped that “throughout the Congress there will be more evangelical penitence than evangelical triumphalism. Both our profession and performance are far from perfect. We have some important lessons to learn from our ecumenical critics. Some of their rejection of our position is not a repudiation of biblical truth, but rather of our evangelical caricatures of it.”

Michael Green (Principal of St. John’s College in Nottingham) voiced his concern to proclaim and practice the whole counsel of God: “Evangelism is the church’s first priority. But you cannot isolate the preaching of good news, without destroying the good news itself… The end of Acts 5 brings us almost to a revival situation in Jerusalem. Then comes Acts 6, with a little matter of social justice and fellowship.”

Rene Padilla developed the theme of social justice further. He served a stern warning against both “secular Christianity” (theology that takes at its starting point a world in which humanity has supposedly come of age and has no need for the supernatural) and “cultural Christianity.” While there were few at the Congress who had fallen prey to “secular Christianity,” the sometimes hostile response indicated that many had adopted “cultural Christianity.”

A call of repentance was ushered forth to those who equate the gospel with “the American Way of Life.” Padilla rightly showed that the price for this heresy has been for the evangelical church to forfeit its prophetic role in society, as well as create undue difficulty for our brothers and sisters in foreign fields.

Deplored was a kind of gospel that had lost the offense of the cross—a message that “simply points to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for us” but without a call to discipleship.

The God of this type of Christianity is the God of ‘cheap grace,’ the God who constantly gives but never demands, the God fashioned expressly for mass-humanity, who is controlled by the law of least possible effort and seeks easy solutions, the God who gives his attention to those who will not reject him because they need him as an analgesic.

Padilla warned that those living in technological societies must be aware of the ever-present danger—and present reality—of turning the gospel into a product that is to be mass produced.

The problem with ‘cultural Christianity’ lies in that it reduces the gospel to a formula for success and equates the triumph of Christ with obtaining the highest number of ‘conversions’….A manipulation of the gospel to achieve successful results inevitably leads to slavery to the world and its powers. At this rate we may ask if the day is not close when missionary strategists employ B. F. Skinner’s ‘behavior conditioning’ and ‘Christianize’ the world through the scientific control of environmental conditions and human genetics.

The same danger lies in “secular Christianity.”

Evangelicals were reminded by Samuel Escobar (President, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Canada) that the temptation of 20th century evangelicals is “to reduce the Gospel, to mutilate it, to eliminate any demands for the fruit of repentance and any aspect that would make it unpalatable to a nominally Christian society, even any demands that would make it unpalatable to an idolatrous society.” He continued,

The danger of evangelicalism is that it will present a saving work of Christ without the consequent ethical demands, that it will present a Savior who delivers from the bondage of spiritual slavery but not a model of the life that Christians should live in the world. A spirituality without discipleship in the daily social, economic, and political aspects of life is religiosity and not Christianity. The love of God and his plan for the life of a man who is exploiting others and swindling them is not only that he should become an active member of a church giving good offerings to the cause. It is also that he should repent and show signs of a new life in his business” (Luke 19:1-10).

Escobar discussed three types of political situations in which modern-day Christians may find themselves. The first situation is a society in which Christians are a small minority; secondly, societies in which there is a long tradition of Christian influence in government and civic life; thirdly, societies (perhaps post-Christian) that are controlled by a vocally anti-Christian force. The second situation describes Western Europe and North America. Escobar observes that:

To the extent to which these societies abandon their Christian roots, obedience to the Lord and Word of God becomes a radical position. When the real spirit of Christ has been left out of a so-called ‘Christian’ way of life, those who advocate commitment to Christ and obedience to His Lordship, sound like revolutionaries and sometimes become aligned with political radicalism in their criticism of society, though, of course, they act out of a completely different motivation. This would be the case in the so-called Western world, where secularism is rapidly replacing Christian influence while Christians (especially evangelicals) watch indifferently in the name of commitment to evangelism, not realizing the degree to which their version of the Gospel is also secularized and paganized by their passive acceptance of their society’s pagan value system.

The opining address of the Congress by Billy Graham reflected just this error. Graham stated that “evangelism and the salvation of souls is the vital mission of the church. Thus, while we may discuss social and political problems, our priority for discussion here is the salvation of souls.” Having remained silent throughout two of America’s gravest moral crises (Vietnam and Watergate), what else could Graham say? It would be fair to say that, while Graham still reflects average American evangelical mentality on this matter, there is a growing number of evangelicals, particularly from the Third World, who reject such a non-biblical simplistic separation of the “spiritual” from the “political.” As one Latin American speaker noted: “There is no place for statistics on ‘how many souls die without Christ every minute,’ if they do not take into account how many of those who thus die, die victims of hunger.”

The key to Lausanne was cross-fertilization: we learned from each other. Believers from North America learned from believers in Nepal and Kenya, while believers in Cuba learned from believers in Argentina and Peru. Much learning went on during the Congress about what God was doing world-wide.

During the mid-point of the Congress a statement called “The Lausanne Covenant” was submitted to the participants for comment and addition. As this statement had appeared to have been prepared before the Congress started, it was rather questionable whether the content of the Covenant actually reflected all of the concerns and issues raised. A group of people, ranging from Plymouth Brethren to an Archbishop, produced “A Response to Lausanne” (reprinted in full in this issue of the Post-American). John Stott presented the article from the platform and commended it to the Congress to read, and if possible, sign…not as in competition with the Covenant but as a “supplementary affirmation.” Much of the content of the “Response” ultimately found its way into the final draft of the Covenant.

The Covenant reaffirmed the evangelical’s high view of the Bible as “the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” The uniqueness of Christ was asserted and the nature of evangelism defined:

to evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gift of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Savior and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God.

A large statement on Christian social responsibility was included in the Covenant: “the message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist.” An amazing statement in the Covenant asserts that “all of us are shocked by the poverty of millions and disturbed by the injustices which cause it. Those of us who live in affluent circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple life-style in order to contribute more generously to both relief and evangelism.” Time should tell very quickly whether these words are merely a “sounding brass” and “tinkling cymbal.”

The Covenant recognized that “we are engaged in constant spiritual warfare with the principalities and powers of evil” and of the need “to equip ourselves with God’s armor and to fight this battle with the spiritual weapons of truth and prayer.” Recognized as worldliness was compromising the message; manipulating hearers through pressure techniques; and becoming unduly preoccupied with statistics or even dishonest in the use of them. “Deep concern” was expressed for “all who have been unjustly imprisoned, and especially for our brethren who are suffering for their testimony to the Lord Jesus.”

The Congress asserted both by the statement of the Covenant and the worship and testimony of the participants that they believed in the power of the Holy Spirit. The hope of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ was clearly heard and felt in Lausanne; meanwhile, however, until He comes, we rededicated “ourselves to the service of Christ and of men in joyful submission to his authority over the whole of our lives.”

Jim Parker was the Post American correspondent to the International Congress on World Evangelization and was working toward a Ph. D. in New Testament in Basel, Switzerland when this article appeared.