Related articles and links |  1 of 3

In July 1974, 2,700 evangelical Protestants from 150 nations gathered in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the first International Congress on World Evangelization. Time magazine called the gathering "possibly the widest ranging meeting of Christians ever held." The congress produced the Lausanne Covenant, which set evangelization into a broader context than had been the practice among evangelicals to that point—including the purposes of God, the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of Christ, the mission of the church, the power of the Holy Spirit and the second coming of Christ. It has been hailed as one of the most significant documents of the 20th century.

The covenant's principal framer was John R. W. Stott, then rector of All Souls, Langham Place, London. At 82, Stott continues to minister through his books, which have sold in the millions, and John Stott Ministries, which is "dedicated to helping pastors and church leaders in the Majority World to bring growth with depth to their nations." And he continues to write wisely about world evangelization.

Naturally, Stott has already been reflecting on the 2004 Lausanne Forum on World Evangelization. Gary Barnes, associate director for the 2004 Forum and Lausanne's senior associate for forgotten peoples, sat down with him to draw out his take on next year's forum.

What do you believe to be some of the most critical issues needing to be addressed by the working groups preparing for the 2004 forum?

I focus on what to me is the most critical issue, and that is the challenge of pluralism. Pluralism is not just recognition that there is a plurality of faiths in the world today. That is an obvious fact. No, pluralism is itself an ideology. It affirms the independent validity of all faiths. It therefore rejects as arrogant and wholly unacceptable every attempt to convert anybody (let alone everybody) to our opinions.

In 1977 Professor John Hick's symposium The Myth of God Incarnate was published, and in 1987, ten years later, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. All the contributors confessed that they had "crossed the Rubicon" from "exclusivism" and "inclusivism" to "pluralism."

The reason we must reject this increasingly popular position is that we are committed to the uniqueness of Jesus (he has no competitors) and his finality (he has no successors). It is not the uniqueness of "Christianity" as a system that we defend, but the uniqueness of Christ. He is unique in his incarnation (which is quite different from the ahistorical and plural "avatars" of Hinduism); in his atonement (dying once for all for our sins); in his resurrection (breaking the power of death); and in his gift of the Spirit (to indwell and transform us). So, because in no other person but Jesus of Nazareth did God first become human (in his birth), then bear our sins (in his death), then conquer death (in his resurrection) and then enter his people (by his Spirit), he is uniquely able to save sinners. Nobody else has his qualifications.

But our critics accuse us of intolerance and proselytism.

Much of our debate is conducted in what might be called "conditions of low visibility," because we do not always pause to define our terms. This is evidently so in relation to these two words.

Tolerance is one of today's most coveted virtues. But there are at least three different kinds of tolerance.

First, there is legal tolerance: fighting for the equal rights before the law of all ethnic and religious minorities. Christians should be in the forefront of this campaign. Second, there is social tolerance, going out of our way to make friends with adherents of other faiths, since they are God's creation who bear his image. Third, there is intellectual tolerance. This is to cultivate a mind so broad and open as to accommodate all views and reject none. This is to forget G. K. Chesterton's bon mot that "the purpose of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." To open the mind so wide as to keep nothing in it or out of it is not a virtue; it is the vice of the feebleminded.

next page... |  1 of 3

September 2003, Vol. 47, No. 9