A Review of the Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024), Part Three (The Church)

In this post, I will continue to review the Seoul Statement of the fourth Lausanne Congress that met in September, 2024.  Section three of the statement is on the Church.  It begins with an introductory paragraph outlining how our understanding of the ‘Church’ is in crisis and that little attention has been given to the matter.  Twenty-two paragraphs follow to address the issue.  I will present this material in my own, fourteen points and add comments on occasion.  [For Part Two of my review of this statement (on Scripture), click here.  For the Seoul Statement, click here.]

First, ‘the church is not our doing; it is God’s gift’ (4.25).  Second, its unity is in Christ (4.26).  Third, it is a universal church and continuous through the centuries (4.27).  Related to all three of these points, 4.28 points out that the Church is the people of God the Father, one body of Christ, and one temple of the Holy Spirit.  Without pointing out how this description of the Church excludes certain groups claiming to be the Church, it does exclude cults just as much as it affirms the unity Evangelicals with the Church: Evangelicals are not a sect but claim a central position in what the Church is and has been since its inception.

The section continues with its definition of the Church.  Thus, fifth, it is ‘called to Christlike holiness’ (4.29).  Further, it is not restrictive of ‘ethnicity, gender, region, status, or ability’.  In case someone reading this from the culture’s confusion over gender in our day, the statement explains that gender means ‘women and men’ (4.30). 

Moreover, seventh, no culture has preeminence over another in the Church (4.31).  This affirmation is, no doubt, intended to offer a critique of colonialism—particularly, a Western version of Christianity.  This point is, perhaps, still worth making these sixty years after the end of colonialism.  Yet additional concerns have arisen that need to be addressed.  First, one might ask what the role of culture is in any context rather than simply negate Western culture.  Some, eager to affirm culture in postcolonial contexts, end up offering the same mistake the West made: cultural Christianity.  Second, affirmation of culture in an abstract sense has led to the idea that all cultures are equal.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Old Testament claimed about Canaanite culture.  Third, the statement that no culture has preeminence over another in the Church (a negative statement) is also stated in a positive way in 4.31: ‘God unites us together to declare and display his glory in all our diversity’.  This is simply unbiblical.  God’s glory is not dependent on human identities; God’s glory is shown in a people who testify to His mercy (Romans 9.23).

As pointed out in the first part of my review of the document, Scripture simply does not celebrate cultural diversity.  What Scripture does is make diversity irrelevant, not celebrate it.  Today’s multicultural diversity ideology slips into a description of the Church’s universality.  When it does, people begin to promote race, looking for diversity in races rather than in gifts of the Spirit.  When Paul speaks of the diversity of the Church, he does so negatively, not positively: being male or female, rich or poor, slave or master, Jew or Gentile is a matter of indifference, not something the Church promotes as a value in itself (Galatians 3.28; Colossians 3.10).  In the Old Testament, Israel's special status is not the result of racial superiority but of God's election. Because of God's election, its develops a superior moral culture by obeying (if it obeys) God's Law.  Consistently, then, Paul says not that our unity is a feature of our own, cultural or multicultural identity but of the Spirit’s baptizing us all into one body (1 Corinthians 12.12-13).  There is no celebration of our human identities but of God's work for and in us.  An often misrepresented text these days by those advocating the multicultural church is Revelation 7.9’s vision of a countless multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language.  Yet, the vision continues: this diverse multitude has all made their garments white in the blood of the Lamb (7.14).  The curse of ethnic and linguistic diversity introduced at Babel (Genesis 11) is reversed as all find new identity in Christ and His salvation.[1]  The universality of the Church must point us to God's glory in the whole earth and not to ourselves.

Eight, the statement affirms the apostolicity of the Church (4.32).  This anchors the Church in apostolic teaching and authority.  Such a statement, long affirmed in the Nicene Creed, has an important role to play today.  First, all the mainline denominations in the West have courted unorthodox teaching on doctrine and ethics.  Second, the direction of Evangelicalism in the past forty years has been toward independent churches, although some new denominations have formed.  Apostolic authority is one way to maintain orthodoxy.

Ninth, the statement affirms the Church’s ultimate triumph despite persecution and spiritual warfare (4.33).  Tenth, it does not resist its opponents with armaments of the world (4.34).  In light of the increase of persecution of the Church in various parts of the world, including martyrdom, such a statement is significant.  Also, in light of criticism of the Church a millennium ago for engaging in the crusades, such a statement comes as a correction to the history of the Church.  It also distinguishes the Church from militant Islam.  

Eleventh, the statement rejects the Church succumbing to ‘the allure of political power, of cultural approval and the world’s pleasure’ (4.35).  In this, the statement, I would suggest, rejects the Progressivism of some and the Nationalism of others.  It calls for a correction by remaining devoted to and focussed on Christ and the cross.

Twelfth, the statement affirms in several paragraphs gathering together regularly for worship (4.36-39).  Paragraph 40 offers a very general affirmation of spiritual gifts of ministry and service in the church and in society.  The communal and counter-cultural aspect of the local church is also identified as important, and that this can also be done digitally is affirmed (4.41).  While the local church may meet in different ways, it also may express worship in various ways (4.42).

Thirteenth, the mission of the Church is addressed in paragraphs 43-46.  It affirms the mission of the Church in four ways: the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28.18-20), the Church’s role in the world to be salt and light (Matthew 5.13), the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 10.17), and the Church’s witness through practice (Matthew 5.16).  (Other Biblical texts are noted as well.)  The final paragraph adds a fourteenth point abou the Church: it awaits the return of Christ (4.47).



[1] One possible, though not necessary, extension of the diversity ideology has been replacing the Church’s evangelistic mission with interfaith coexistence.  In some Church of England churches, this has further led to affirmation of other faiths by, e.g., inviting an imam to read the Koran in the church.  Recently, the pope has stated his support the idea that all religions lead to God.  (Cf. my ‘'Is the Pope Catholic?' A Response to the Universalism of Pope Francis,’ Bible and Mission Blog (15 September, 2024); online at 'Is the Pope Catholic?' A Response to the Universalism of Pope Francis; online at https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/09/is-pope-catholic-response-to.html. In Evangelical circles, the direction this has taken has been Progressivism’s acceptance of the postmodern values of diversity, equity, and inclusion and uncritical acceptance of ‘social justice’ interpretations offered by the media and culture.

No comments:

Return to Eden

 [A short story.] ‘Eve!   Wow!   Wonderful to see you after so long!   My badness, look at you!   How the hell did you get back in here?’   ...

Popular Posts