Lausanne 74: As Others Saw It

by James W. Reapsome

The impact of the International Congress on World Evangelization will be measured in the future by what develops in the way of a continuing fellowship, by the number of new national and regional fellowships organized, and by the convening of similar congresses in various parts of the world.

The impact of the International Congress on World Evangelization will be measured in the future by what develops in the way of a continuing fellowship, by the number of new national and regional fellowships organized, and by the convening of similar congresses in various parts of the world.

New relationships between missionaries, their sending agencies, and their host churches are bound to develop. It would not be amiss to foresee technology and church growth strategies applied in new areas. It is clear also that there will be new evangelical thinking and planning with regard to involvement with material and social needs.

At the congress itself, however, there were a variety of immediate assessments, many relating primarily to the participant’s own spiritual life and ministry. After the closing session, a veteran U.S. missionary to Africa exclaimed, "Priceless! I’ve never has a week like this." Undoubtedly, he spoke for hundreds of others.

Willem Hekman, serving in Indonesia, gave specific reasons why the congress was what he called "a tremendous experience "fit made me aware of the needs around the world and widened my vision," he said. "I met with Christian workers among Muslims in Malaysia, Pakistan, Iran and Middle Eastern Arab countries. I learned much from their experience that will be extremely helpful as I work among the Muslims of Indonesia."

Another value of the congress was that it enabled him to begin discussions with representatives from South Africa, Singapore, Cambodia, Iran and Pakistan about the possibility of Indonesian teams going to those countries for special evangelistic efforts. Definite plans were also begun for a missionary to be sent from Taiwan to Indonesia.

For a Swiss medical missionary to Angola, Dr. Rodolphe Brechet, the congress meant a chance to meet with the participants from Angola. "We could freely discuss actual problems, burning problems of culture, and realize a loving fellowship," he said. The outcome was a unanimous decision to begin an evangelical fellowship for Angola.

Dr. Brechet also commented on what the congress did for him personally: "I didn’t feel any `false note.’ I was deeply impressed by the freedom of expression, the sincerity and realistic prophetic spirit of the discussions and studies. In spite of more than 30 years of service, and having attended various missionary conferences, and read much about missions, I learned very much, my vision got large, and I felt in my heart the burning of a new fire of compassion and evangelistic vision."

U.S. missions executives were aware of what the congress may mean for future relationships. Milton Baker said he was not surprised that steps were taken to establish a continuation committee. "For EFMA and IFMA missions, particularly," he said, "what develops from the work of the continuation committee will be followed with intense interest and concern. The thousands of missionaries related to these two agencies have been used by the Holy Spirit to establish churches throughout the world, and their lives are deeply intertwined with those of national Christians overseas.

Noting the progress that has been made in evangelical cooperation in the U.S. and overseas, he stressed that adherence to biblical truth must continue to be the bedrock on which future fellowships are built.

Horace L. Fenton, Jr., saw the impact of the congress in terms of afresh understanding of the universality of the church and deliverance "from some of our inherent provincialism." He thought it was significant that the congress was "characterized by a positive tone, rather than being narrowly negative and critical." "The fresh view of the great variety of ways in which the gospel is being made known has been a stimulating experience," lie said.

A U.S. missions professor, Dr. Ralph Coven, looked at the congress in terms of "willingness to listen to Third World voices on a variety of issues." Among them: non-Western structures for their own sending societies; the need to use their culture in proclaiming the gospel and to see it redeemed under the gospel; concern for meeting human needs beyond doing thus as a tool for evangelization; and the need for a "moratorium" on Western missions under certain conditions.

He also noted that Third World participants indicated they are going to "pick and choose" among the strategies and theories being offered by American missiologists. "They like the broad concepts, but do not want the whole package," he said.

He felt that the congress lacked focus on cross-cultural evangelism and "only seriously grappled with `missions’ at several points." He was disturbed by the "amazing lack of emphasis on China, one-fourth of the world’s population."

Many laymen from around the world participated in the congress. Abdou Fahmy, of Cairo, Egypt, gave one layman’s viewpoint: "I was touched by the aims of the congress and by the unity seen in spite of differences. Old biblical truths were stressed, Jesus was exalted, and prayer practiced. There was an overflow of the Holy Spirit in singing and witnessing."

Of course, the key to the future in many places is the national pastor. Lausanne 74 was planned with him in mind, to help him, inspire him, and to encourage him. Funds were raised in the West to get him to the congress.

Rev. Samuel Alayande, of Lagos, Nigeria, said the congress helped him to reassess especially his work with youth and older people. He also claimed it was "an eye-opener" in terms of evangelizing his own country. "This congress is like putting a new engine in an old motor car," he said. "Doing this will help the car to run smoothly. So it is going to be for evangelism in my country."

Rev. Samuel Kamaleson, of Madras, India, appreciated the chance to study the papers prior to the congress and the reaction of the speakers to participants’ responses. He found the small group meetings to be productive. All in all, "the input was tremendous." But he saw a possible danger, when so much is offered, of choosing "what you like and passing over what you do not like. It may be that what I do not like has more value for me-just what I need."

He cited the impression made upon the Indians "by the unique spirit of open fellowship that the brothers of Africa expressed among themselves." He explained, "There is no way in which I can evaluate the influence of personalities an one another."

Rev. David Gomes, of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, also noted the value of having the major papers in advance of the congress. He also appreciated the cross-cultural aspects and the great number of denominations represented. At the same time, he thought a future congress should be enlarged. "Some of the participants appeared three and four times on the program, and several of them led study groups, while so many others did not have a chance to say a word," he explained. He also thought more emphasis should have been given to actual use of the Bible. "It would profit the participant to have before him the biblical basis for the speeches," he said.

While he was glad for the practical side of evangelism demonstrated at the Sunday afternoon rally, he wished for the inclusion of something on music in evangelism. " Koreans and Africans, as well as Brazilians, are lovers of singing," he said. "Praise is a vital part of worship and it should be dealt with. People from different parts of the world should be brought in to sing in their own language."

He also wanted more on cross-cultural evangelism. He thought missions executives should have met together to discuss it. However, for himself, he concluded: "I have been telling my fellow Christians in Brazil of the urgent need to change from evangelism to evangelization. I feel this is the time to march, to move on, because so many congregations are still lingering on their feet."

Bishop Estanislao Abainza, of Manila, the Philippines, admitted that he came to the congress doubting that he could learn much more than he already knew about evangelism. "But as I faithfully attended the sessionsplenary and small groups-I began to learn new things. I can now say, I came, I saw, I was conquered," he said. "I am positive our implementation of our program on church growth during this quadrennium will be benefited by my attendance at the congress." He wished for more time in national strategy groups and for more time "to discuss the consensus of the various groups on the questions presented."

Rev. Joseph Gyanfosu, of Ghana, said he learned much about the plight of Christians in some Eastern European and Asian countries. He also credited the congress for a broader scope of evangelism and for making available materials to be used in evangelism.

He faulted the congress for some papers that "were too intellectual, as if there was a display of intellectual abilities." He thought some plenary sessions could better have been used for prayer. It appeared to him that the congress "waged a deliberate warfare against Pentecostalism." He explained:

"If the program committee were really serious in finding out the truth about Pentecostalism, and if they had the wish for the congress to learn from Pentecostals, they would have invited ministers from Pentecostal churches to `educate’ or help the non-Pentecostals to understand what it is all about. If the congress has done anything in this area, it has widened the gap between Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals. This makes nonsense, therefore, all the talk of the unity of the church in evangelism."

Neville Cush of Australia saw gains in both methods and motivation for evangelism at home and abroad. At the same time he sensed "a warning to reassess our activity in the light of ensuring that the Holy Spirit gives the lead in those activities, and that they be not just man-inspired." He was "chastened and challenged" in the light of the needs for world evangelization and the need to be further involved in social action to complement evangelism.

To be sure, there were criticisms of the congress-not enough women, not enough young people, no "Jews for Jesus" on the program, too much attempted in too short a time, too heavy, too long, too much bologna at lunch, and so on-and yet many participants concluded that criticisms should not overshadow the inspiration and information received. They wanted to leave Lausanne accenting the positive results of the congress.

——-

Copyright © 1974 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.