The Lausanne Movement and the Chinese Church

Having attended the Fourth Lausanne Conference in Seoul, I had the privilege of witnessing the grand celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Lausanne Movement. This gathering showcased the rich diversity of the universal church, and the depth and breadth of theological discussions were impressive. However, several remarks about the Chinese church sparked deep reflection and inner turmoil within me, prompting me to share these feelings with everyone.

Reflection on “Back to Jerusalem”

Throughout the Lausanne Conference, I observed that when the Chinese church’s mission was mentioned, the phrase “Back to Jerusalem” was still frequently invoked. It seems to have become a collective goal, yet many brothers and sisters—both in China and overseas—hold differing perspectives on this vision.

The Cape Town Commitment states clearly: “No race, nation, or continent can claim a monopoly on the privilege of fulfilling the Great Commission.” This invites us to reflect on the theological foundations of movements like “Back to Jerusalem” and to consider how they might better align with the Lausanne Movement’s global, cooperative spirit.

The “Back to Jerusalem” movement has had significant influence, especially among house churches. Its central claim is that the Chinese church has a responsibility to carry the gospel westward from China back to Jerusalem, crossing regions dominated by Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. This vision expresses deep evangelistic fervor and a strong sense of mission, reflecting the vitality and revival of the Chinese church.

Historically, the movement has evolved through several phases:

• First Wave: Beginning in the early 20th century, largely led by the China Inland Mission and other early Christian organizations, this phase emphasized outreach to China’s western regions and Central Asia.
• Second Wave: In the 1980s, the vision was reignited in some house churches in China and spread through domestic and overseas Chinese congregations.
• Third Wave: In more recent years, especially amid globalization, newer expressions have emerged—including the 2030 Movement and even more radical forms that incorporate elements of Zionism.

While inspiring in its zeal, this vision raises theological concerns—especially regarding its geographical symbolism, eschatological assumptions, and nationalistic overemphasis on the Chinese church’s role.

1. Erroneous Geographical Theology and Historical Perspective

The “Back to Jerusalem” vision promotes symbolic geography, imagining a circular route where the gospel originated in Jerusalem, traveled through the West, and must now return eastward. This presents the Chinese church as the final relay point.

However, Scripture offers no such roadmap. Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:19–20) instructs believers to preach the gospel to “all nations”—not to complete a linear or symbolic circuit. In the eschatological vision of Revelation 21:2, it is the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven—not the result of any mission movement physically returning to it.

2. A Distorted, “Overdrawn” Eschatology

Some supporters of “Back to Jerusalem” believe the Chinese church’s westward evangelism will hasten Christ’s return. This links missionary action directly to end-times fulfillment.

This perspective draws from historical trauma. The 20th century saw immense suffering for Chinese Christians—through war, revolution, and persecution—which cultivated a deep yearning for Christ’s return. In later decades, Western eschatological teachings further reinforced this urgency, connecting it to missionary strategies.

3. Overemphasis on the Special Mission of the Chinese Church

Because of its growth amid adversity, the Chinese church is sometimes seen as uniquely called to fulfill a historic mission.

Cut off from foreign missionaries during the mid-twentieth century, house churches developed in isolation. This fostered a distinct spiritual self-awareness and even theological nationalism, with many believers seeing China’s role in evangelism as not just important, but exceptional. China’s recent rise on the world stage has only amplified this sense of confidence—shaping not just cultural identity, but theological outlook as well.

But this perspective risks presenting the Chinese church as a divinely chosen instrument above others, rather than a co-laborer with the global body of Christ. It may inadvertently cultivate isolationism or national pride, which weakens unity.

If these theological issues go unexamined, they can result in self-referential, siloed missionary efforts—focused more on asserting identity than embodying the fullness of the gospel. This is an unhealthy dynamic that can ultimately dilute the impact of missions, no matter how much passion or resources are poured into them.

The Lausanne Movement provides valuable resources for the Chinese Church

The Lausanne Movement has built a global platform for mutual learning and cooperation among churches. Its resources offer the Chinese church rich theological grounding and practical tools for reexamining existing mission concepts, especially those underlying the “Back to Jerusalem” movement. By engaging more deeply with these resources, the Chinese church can expand its vision and better participate in global missional cooperation.

1. The Lausanne Covenant
   An important foundational document of the Lausanne Movement, the Covenant provides theological grounding for the global evangelical mission. It emphasizes that missions should reflect God’s work on a global scale, not be limited to a specific target. The Chinese church can use this as a framework to reassess its own strategies and embrace global partnership.
2. The Cape Town Commitment
   Released in 2010, this document calls for a return to a holistic gospel—one that includes not only individual salvation but also social justice, peace, and care for the vulnerable. It reinforces the message that “no race, nation, or continent can claim the exclusive privilege of fulfilling the Great Commission,” offering the Chinese church a broader, more inclusive missional vision.
3. Cooperation and Dialogue Platform
   Lausanne creates an open and cross-cultural forum for theological exchange, allowing church leaders from around the world to engage in discussions on mission theology. The Chinese church can benefit from this by learning how others carry out evangelism in multicultural and religiously complex contexts, fostering deeper collaboration.
4. The Concept of “From Everywhere to Everywhere”
   This core Lausanne idea breaks away from traditional, one-directional mission models and invites churches from all nations to be both senders and receivers. For China, this vision invites deeper engagement with the global body, moving beyond narrow geographical aims.
5. The Polycentric Mission Model
   Lausanne promotes a multi-centered view of mission—every country can be a source and destination for gospel work. This helps the Chinese church recognize its unique calling without losing sight of the global church’s shared responsibility and unity.

Together, these theological resources encourage the Chinese church to shift from a nationally focused vision to one that embraces the richness of global partnership in Christ’s mission.

The Anxiety of Recognition

It has been observed that since the Third Lausanne Conference, the leaders of the Chinese house churches seem to regard the Lausanne Conference as an important occasion for gaining international affirmation, neglecting the purpose and significance of Lausanne itself.

Due to the long history of marginalization of Chinese house churches in the country, their pursuit of validation on the international stage has become a significant concern. The Third Lausanne Conference (Cape Town 2010) was the first time many house church leaders were invited to participate in a global evangelical meeting, and this opportunity symbolized the recognition of Chinese house churches within global Christianity.

The Chinese church is overly focused on identity issues, possibly concentrating more on using the Lausanne platform to enhance its “legitimacy” and “representation” in the international Christian community, which has led to a shift in the attention of Chinese church leaders, neglecting the broader theological reflection and missionary cooperation called for by Lausanne, and failing to fully integrate into the global cooperation framework in the global evangelical dialogue.

This phenomenon may still be related to the long-term “internal pressure” within the Chinese church. Due to the constraints of their environment, house churches face challenges in gaining internal and external acceptance; therefore, the international stage has become an important venue for obtaining “identity recognition,” and they naturally hope to address domestic challenges through international support and credibility on the Lausanne platform.

I am even concerned that the Chinese church has misunderstood the “Lausanne Movement” from the very beginning, projecting its own “expectations” onto the Lausanne Conference. Therefore, the Chinese house church needs to re-examine the original intention and function of this global platform, moving beyond the “anxiety of recognition” to truly engage in the global cooperation advocated by Lausanne. The evangelical mission of the global church should not be limited to the identity of a specific region or ethnicity, but should be realized through cooperation and sharing in the unity of Christ for the universal spread of the gospel.

The Temptation of Strategic Thinking

In a speech delivered at the Lausanne Young Leaders Gathering (YLG) in Jakarta, Os Guinness mentioned China’s key role in global evangelism and the future of the world in the twenty-first century. His perspective highlighted that China’s future trajectory will profoundly affect not only global politics and economics, but also the global church’s faith and culture. This insight may reflect the Lausanne Movement’s attitude towards China and encourage Lausanne to pay more attention to the development of the Chinese church and its role in the global evangelistic mission.

From a historical and practical perspective, the Chinese church has always been regarded as a special force in the global spread of the gospel. On one hand, as one of the most populous countries in the world, the Christian community in China has shown rapid growth in recent decades. The global church hopes to connect with this immensely promising group to jointly advance the gospel mission.

This reflects the global church’s expectations of “strategic nations” in the spread of the gospel. Under global strategic thinking, China’s large population and unique historical background make it a focal point, while I worry that churches in smaller countries may be relatively overlooked in the global gospel landscape. As advocates for global church cooperation, the Lausanne Movement needs to consider how to treat the participation of churches around the world more equitably, especially in regions that suffer severe persecution. This should become an important topic for future development. While the Chinese church has received widespread attention due to its size and potential, other churches in challenging environments, such as Christian communities in the Middle East and North Africa, should also receive more support, attention, and opportunities for participation.

The goal of the Lausanne Movement is the unity of the universal church, transcending geographical, cultural, and political barriers to jointly fulfill the mission of the gospel. Therefore, to avoid an excessive focus on certain “strategic” countries while neglecting the voices of other smaller churches, the Lausanne Movement can truly achieve its global mission of “from everywhere to everyone” by strengthening support and cooperation with these smaller, persecuted churches.

As Isaiah 60:22 says, “The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I, the LORD, will hasten it in its time.” Perhaps we (the Lausanne Movement and the Chinese Church) all need to repent: the Bible does not emphasize different contributions to missions based on the size of the nation.

Beyond Persecution: A Call to Wholeness and Witness

The churches in mainland China have demonstrated admirable resilience and passion for the gospel over the past few decades. In difficult circumstances, believers persevered in their faith and actively proclaimed the gospel, which is deeply commendable.

The Lausanne Movement often mentions the missionary and persecuted nature of the Chinese church, but from the internal perspective of the Chinese church, it currently faces challenges in many areas: its theological contributions have not reached the depth of the West, cultural reflection is not as strong as that of other Asian churches, the degree of suffering for the Lord is not as great as that of brothers and sisters in Africa and Muslim regions, and its external missionary efforts are not as strong as those of churches in South Korea and Brazil. Conversely, some issues are becoming increasingly prominent, such as tendencies toward secularization, theological imbalances, internal divisions and corruption within the church, and a lack of social influence.

In fact, the Lausanne Movement has always emphasized the two wings of evangelism and social concern, with the core being the proclamation of the whole gospel. The Chinese church, in addition to being enthusiastic about sending missionaries abroad, also needs to become “salt” and “light” in the local society. In the context of widespread immigration, growing economic hardship, and increasing political indifference, we should be more committed to restoring this land, becoming messengers of peace, and building bridges between people, society, and even the government. Just as in the early church’s practice of the gospel, the church demonstrated love for the poor; even in its relationship with the government, the Bible shows us that government officials such as “jailers” and “centurions” believed in the gospel. Furthermore, the Chinese church lacks a political and social theology that is suitable for its own situation.

Therefore, I sincerely urge the leaders of the Chinese church to set aside theological nationalism and limitations, embrace the Lausanne spirit with the universal church to humbly walk with the Lord, enjoy his presence in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:20), grow in fellowship with global brothers and sisters, and proclaim the whole gospel together.