Good comments. But I wonder how many were even invited? Knowing the invitation criteria and nomination criteria, it seemed that the conference was very intentional to NOT invite certain prominent leaders of megachurches.
As you state in your post, this was done to encourage younger leaders and emerging leaders from around the world. I think that is a worthy goal.
And I concur that leaders of megachurches have scads of networks already where they are connecting with the global conversations in other ways. A conference is just not the best methodology for some types of connection and conversation.
Thanks CT for all these posts coming from Cape Town. They help those of us not there to get a flavor of the conversation!

Dave Travis
Managing Director
Leadership Network

I have been enjoying the Conference through the eyes of the "Little People" who are in Cape Town through emails, and Web etc. Of course that was blocked. I know that many other did the same.
Hope that you heard Libby Little. Little person maybe.You and I were both in 1974 Lausanne, it shaped my life just like yours. By a miracle my daughter, Johanna Stamps is there now. A young women for whom this conference is Shaping Material. Ask her what she experienced during ths week. She is living in Cape Town for the last 9 months. I know that she is leaving the conference with an heart full of God's dreams.Have the very best day.

Andy:

Excellent observation. This reality has been in my periphereal vision, honestly, even before our time here in Cape Town but you have articulated what is now obvious. Although CT Today, and the 12 Conversations made attempts (successfully!) to highlight Lausanne movement in the States, most still think of it as a city in Switzerland. Will there be attempts to meaningfully connect with pastors in the US who might be interested? They leverage a great deal of influence on thousands of evangelicals and what a difference their involvement and influence might make in bringing global south Christianity and the Lausanne movement to the States.

I did see an excellent youtube commentary on Lausanne by Rick Warren. Rick is generally ahead of the curve . . .

Being here, being part of my Table Group of 6 all week, getting to know colleagues and partners from around the world over a meal, standing in daily lines, vegging in a lounge, or for me, hanging out in the photographers' trailer each afternoon after capturing images of the delegates, has been truly invaluable and priceless. These experiences will never be captured in a video or read in a blog. But they will be the most memorable parts of my being willing and eager to come to this Congress.

I'm not sure "underrepresented" is the right word. I too heard like Dave Travis loud and clear: "Don't even think about coming. We have already too many Americans coming already." Americans are already overrepresented. But of course I have no idea how many megachurch pastors were invited to come and declined.

Furthermore, I think Andy's general point here is not condemnation of the megachurch pastors but rather a few more reflective points: (1) that Cape Town 2010 noticeably differs from the typical conferences held in the USA because of its absence of megachurch pastors. And (2) there are a number of reasons why they understandably wouldn't come--they are already connected being the main one. And (3), the diversity of people is really a strength of Cape Town 2010 (as the planners intended).

I've been taking photos at Capetown 2010 with Ken Fong all week. What a humble leader!

If we want to talk about underrepresentation, what about the lack of younger leaders who are supposedly being charged to carry the torch forward?

More on that... Typing on an iPhone during the ceremony :)

I want to commend those influential and senior leaders of American evangelicalism that did give their whole week to participate without demanding a speaking slot. I was at the congress and met many (include those listed) who did this.

It's too bad that some who were invited (and I've heard that they were - but I can't confirm that) weren't available to participate even if they weren't given an opportunity to speak.

In reality, this congress was very much about a plurality of global leaders - most of them from outside North America - stepping onto the stage of leadership in the global Christian church, and it would have been hard for that to happen if there had been more prominent Americans on the teaching platform.

I just wish I was there. Sounds wonderful!

The conference was advertised as intentionally not targeting the "big guns" who are at the top of their careers. They wanted people under 50 whose careers were still emerging and facilitating opportunities for these individuals to interact and stay connected after the meeting. I think the planners intent was to move the conference forward to facilitate great things in the future.

Good thinking in my opinion!

We need to get over the significance of the American view of things. The purpose to the confrence was to get everyone on the same page not giving credance to stature. Guys like Tim Keller get it. It is not about numbers but the dept of our faith. Gauge our effectiveness as a Christian people by the condition of our society at large.

Stimulating thoughts! Thank you for raising the question on how important numbers should be. After all, a mega pastor is such because of numbers. How about a more nuanced metric? Who pastors proportionally the largest segment of evangelicals in their people group? Were they given opportunities to be learners and or teachers at the event? I look forward to processing the most articulate retweeters of the whole experience! Keep writing you first witnesses! Let us experience the change! Thank you!

Very interesting observations. Personally, I am glad that the platform wasn't filled with mega-pastor after mega-pastor. Part of the beauty of the event for me was listening to and learning about the various speakers.

It would have been interesting if some of the mega-pastors would have shown up and participated. But that being said, the time commitment for this event was tremendous. To travel to/from the US and attend the entire conference would be 12 days. I'm no mega-pastor but I do travel a bit and am busy. I honestly struggled a lot about whether or not to attend. I just don't have the luxury of leaving behind my wife and kids for 12 days to get to know people from around the world. As such, I only attended half of the conference and returned to the States. So, I am understanding that people who have a lot more responsibility than I, might choose to not come at all.

It was a great experience and for a lot of reasons I kind of doubt we'll have one in 2046. And I think that's a good thing....

Mark Russell

I do not see this as a great loss. Rather, it is a gain. These "mega" types are accustomed to running things in ways that are always about themselves. Capetown was about something much, much larger and more important!

Give some of them time at the podium and they would be trying to convince the delegates that Lausanne was their idea. Besides, they have had plenty of opportunities to export their particular "brands" of mega church Christianity to just about every place imaginable.

We need to see a vision of global Christianity that has the wisdom and virtue to demonstrate it capable of outgrowing our American faddishness.

Dave:
Actually many of the US mega church pastors were contacted about coming to Lausanne in an effort to invite them that started over a year ago. Many could not commit that far ahead so they were re-invited last Spring to attend a special Global Executive Leadership Forum. This event inside of the larger event was four days shorter, but gave them access to the table groups and plenaries in addition to networking with key government and church leaders. I talked to the few Leadership Network-engaged pastors who were here. Not one said it wasn't worth the extensive time they invested to be here. Most were blown away by the new ideas and perspectives. It made us all feel smaller in God's kingdom, and that is a good thing. While Andy was correct that the platform speaking times were limited for US leaders in order to give other places in the world a voice, the relationship building and listening opportunities were amazing.

Brad Smith - President Bakke Graduate University - former co-worker with Dave Travis as President of Leadership Network

From reviewing your article, it appears Lausanne II in Manila 1989 doesn't count. Andy assumes these things happen only once every 36 years?

I had the privilege of being at LCOWE, meeting with leaders from all around the world and sharing in the rich exchange of new perspectives, ideas and teachings (many relational). The organic relationships formed in the lounges, hallways, in the buses, waiting in line for food, at the tables, waiting to use the internet were a big part of what made Lausanne such a huge success. Of course we could have heard more from the young leaders perspective of things, and from Brazil, as a major mission sending force in world evangelization, but all in all this was fabulous.

I do appreciate that there was an absence of the "superstars" of American Christianity, and for good reasons. First of all this was not about American or Western faith, this was about the global church, very much like what we will experience in heaven. Furthermore, I think the real stars were there, the ones who are faithfully carrying out there task with humility, integrity and simplicity as Chris Wright so correctly expounded on. These are the men and women that move the chains so to speak, they live in difficult situations, with severe restrictions on their lives and in the face of daunting odds. The true stars were at Lausanne.
We must move away from the "star" syndrome we have adopted in the church of Jesus Christ.

Lausanne is important because there is no way technology could replace good old fashioned human interaction in a unique setting with life happening all around. I do hope that it continues with sensitivity to the shifting issues that confront the church. Lastly, it is important for us to celebrate the work of the Holy Spirit in motion throughout the world.

Great piece Andy! Great comments everyone!

I would add that American megachurch pastors were wisely left out. After having been around a any number of them, serving with them, and discussing things with them there is nothing that the third Lausanne Congress would have gained from them.

If the Church wants to have a sustainable globalized evangelism focus it must be done outside of the boorish influence of American evangelicals. The worst thing to happen is to pin this to big names and forget that Jesus' Gospel is at the center.

When the Church is its strongest it focuses on Christ, not Pastor John Q Smith at Ridiculously Huge Community Church.

As a note...I was elated to see the hammering the prosperity teachers got.

Were Catholics invited? If not, then I'd say a huge part of Christianity is missing.

After reading this piece, my mind went to the words of Chris Wright who talked about the false gods of evangelicals today: power/pride, popularity/success and wealth/greed. Do megapastors/ministries best illustrate that for us? Would not the antithesis of this be humility, integrity and simplicity (HIS) put forward by another speaker and represented by the likes of little known members at my table group from India, Iran, Grenada and Mozambique who most likely would not recognize names of U.S. megapastors. So while megapastors have great influence in one or two of the 200 countries represented in Capetown one could wish for the day when we heard of their significance as measured by reducing the number of UPGs or decreasing the number languages without scriptures that the Congress was challenged with on Friday. Otherwise it seems to me that megapastors are akin to vuvuzela blowers on the periphery of Global Christianity. They were not underrepresnted.

It's nice to know that "famous" people are so unnecessary!

Thanks for your article. There were plenty of pastors from 'mega-churches' in Cape Town. I had two in my table group. Their humility, their theological insight, their wisdom and their willingness to engage with people from other cultures about the meaning of the gospel for our times meant that they were fantastic conversation partners. They didn't trumpet their own importance or bang on about their secrets of success. One was from Korea and the other was from India.

success in God's kingdom is not influenced by how big a church a man has. it is measured by how obedient and faithful they are in serving God. christians need to get their eyes of the secular world's standards and practices and return them to Jesus' standards. let the mega church pastors pass on conventions for God is to the be the focus not their mega church.

Please write about the important things that took place in Cape Town...not about what should have taken place or who should have been there. It seems to me that the writer of this piece speaks from both sides of his mouth. First, he complains that Lausanne III was underrepresented by American mega-leaders, and then he says it's a good thing. This is of secondary importance at best.

It was my privilege to be in Cape Town for this congress. To be with 4,000+ leaders from 198 nations for 9 days was fabulous. Of course, it would have been nice to see this guy or that guy, but believe me, there were myriads of great leaders there. More than enough to learn much, gain new friendships and create new initiatives. I came away from Lausanne an envelope filled with business cards of new friends and acquaintances, a mind filled with new ideas and a heart that was deeply touched by the Holy Spirit during the final communion service.

I am a missionary to Latvia and I was thrilled to be able to help ten others from Latvia come to Cape Town. Without exception, each was blessed, challenged and energized.

Billy Atwell's observation should be well noted. Untill "all" christians are invited it can never be a truly universal gathering of "The" church of Jesus Christ.

From the beginning this Congress programme design and the participant selction process were built around the great issues of our time, not the big names of our times. In an article published by Christianity Today in September, programme chairman, Ramez Atallah, stated that those coming to Cape Town 2010 to hear and meet big name people would be disappointed. I assume that Andy Crouch, an editor at Christianity Today, would have read that. Thus, he should not have been surprised or disappointed that he did not see many of the big name people that he typically sees at conferences he attends.

The pastors of large churches from the U.S. who were at the Lausanne Congress evinced an exemplary sense of humility, joy and generosity through their interaction with people from around the world. I heard many comments form majority world participants who were deeply impressed that pastors of large churches from the U.S. would sit at a tables of six with other people from around the world.

What the U.S. pastors often discovered is that they were often with remarkable people of great ability and great character who were leading large churches, mission societies and academic institutions - in many cases ones that would dwarf those lead by the U.S. leaders.

People in the majority world are wise enough to realize that many of our mega-churches are filled with people who join such churches in such a way that requires little by way of serious thought, little by way of sacrifice, and little by way of service. There is a wide spread perception around the world that many mega-church leaders have lost a prophetic voice in the society, that they are concerned with imitating the culture and entertaining their members. Often the leaders of these churches do not comprehend the fact that there is a direct correlation between their sense of significance (pride) and their diminishing influence in the world.

There are plenty of exceptions to this. Many of them were in Cape Town. They were contributing, they were learning - and their influence was growing as a result of their readiness to show respect and honor to great people serving Christ in difficult places.

I hope that Andy would have had opportunity to attend one of the afternoon dialogue sessions (not a plenary or even a multiplex session) where five Anglican Archbishops, who lead millions and millions of Christians in the majority world and in the west, sat and talked among themselves about what God is doing in their midst. Many of them were relatively unknown prior to the Congress. However, this is the new world of leaders of leaders that we will all soon come to know.

Thanks to the author. You give us all strength and hope by openly sharing what you have been through.

I do wonder how many people were invited to this. Not exactly the most representative of Christian leaders of the world.