The 10th Chinese Congress on World Evangelization (CCOWE) concluded in Kuching, Malaysia. Having attended nearly the entire congress, I left feeling deeply blessed, pleasantly surprised, and grateful. Over those few days, I heard substantive teaching and met pastors and church leaders from different countries, denominations, generations, and ministry backgrounds. For me, this was more than a series of sessions. It was a space where Chinese churches from around the world could meet again, see one another anew, and build connections.
Under the theme “Open our EAR, Understand our ERA, Here we ARE,” the congress sought to create a space for “listening, dialogue, and renewal” and to encourage Chinese churches worldwide to journey together through intergenerational, cross-regional, and interdenominational exchange. If I had to summarize my observation in one sentence, I would say this: What was most noteworthy about this congress was not only what it said, but also how it was experimenting with new ways to speak, lead, communicate, and understand the next generation.
This transition did not happen overnight. Five years ago, the Chinese Coordination Centre of World Evangelization (CCCOWE) appointed David Doong as general secretary when he was just over forty, signaling both generational succession and organizational renewal. Since then, through the Missional Discipleship Podcast, he has continued to bring Chinese church leaders from different generations and fields into conversation. The 10th CCOWE can be seen as an extension of that long-term practice. Its changing theological language, platform design, participation of young leaders, and use of digital media all gave concrete expression to this transition.
Yet every transition brings tensions. Some changes are already underway, but the story that gives them meaning has not been fully told. Some visions have been articulated, but practice has not caught up. I am therefore concerned not only with what CCCOWE has changed, but also with how people understand those changes and how these visions might become shared practices of the church. The following are several observations and reflections.
1. How Can Broad Theological Visions Take Root in Particular Contexts?
The congress centered on three major themes: “Kingdom Gospel,” “Holistic Mission,” and “Chinese Churches.” Each is a far-reaching theological subject. In preparing this article, I deliberately revisited messages from the previous congress. Seen side by side, the shift in CCCOWE’s theological language becomes clearer.
From Discipleship Renewal to Contextual Engagement
The ninth congress took as its theme “The Glory and Mission of God: Becoming Radical Disciples of Christ,” echoing the call to radical discipleship in John Stott’s final book, The Radical Disciple. In four expository messages, Edmund Chan emphasized that discipleship is the foundation of mission. Its goal is not simply to train ministry workers, but to form believers who are becoming more like Christ. The ninth congress first asked: Are believers willing to be radically transformed by the gospel?
At the 10th congress, the question extended further: How can a people renewed by the gospel live out and communicate that gospel in their particular contexts? If the previous congress spoke more often in a Stott-shaped language of discipleship, this congress highlighted concerns such as contextualization, public theology, and cultural engagement. These emphases may call to mind the evangelical theological language often associated with Tim Keller and the search for faithful ways to express the gospel in a changing age.
These two theological emphases are not at odds. Without deep renewal in the life of the believer, contextualization can become superficial. Without attentiveness to culture and public life, discipleship can remain confined to personal devotion and the internal life of the church. The change in emphasis between the two congresses is therefore worth noting. While continuing in the Lausanne tradition, CCCOWE appears to be exploring an evangelical expression that is more publicly engaged and contextually aware.
This theological ambition, however, also placed greater demands on the plenary messages. The three themes were abstract and complex. Within a limited amount of time, speakers had to engage Scripture, theological reflection, cultural context, and practical application. They also addressed listeners from different regions, denominations, and theological traditions, seeking to offer a message the whole gathering could receive without flattening genuine differences. Under such conditions, a message could easily be compressed into a series of propositions and exhortations. From my perspective in the room, the theological direction was clear, and the calls were often powerful, but the particular contexts and pathways to practice received comparatively less development.
The answer is not to abandon broad theological vision. CCCOWE’s continuing insistence on speaking about the gospel, the kingdom, and the church reflects a theological conviction worthy of respect. It also enables Chinese churches scattered across different countries and cultures to see how they belong to one another within a shared theological framework. The real question is this: How can these theological convictions take root in lived church practice?
Grounding Theological Vision in Lived Stories
The congress made several noteworthy attempts. Expository preaching was followed by more practice-oriented plenary messages, then by moderator-led roundtable discussions and interviews. Xplore 360 workshops and affinity groups also gave participants opportunities to raise questions from within their own contexts. In one public theology workshop, drama and dialogue were used to present abstract questions, building a bridge between complex theology and lived experience.
The broader the theme, the more it needs to be carried by carefully told stories. The more abstract the concept, the more it must take shape through real lives, local church examples, and concrete practices. The congress did include moving stories: missionaries’ testimonies, the experiences of Christians in the marketplace who traveled to serve in Ukraine, and a musical telling the story of Doris Brougham. Yet these stories appeared mainly in testimony and artistic presentations and were not fully woven into the theological arguments of the plenary messages. Connecting broad theological language with the concrete experience of churches remains an important task for CCCOWE’s next stage.
No single congress can complete the movement from theological propositions to church practice. A gathering like this is better understood as a starting point for raising questions, developing shared language, and opening conversation. The key is whether these theological visions will continue to be deepened after the congress through seminars, training, local church practice, and digital media such as the Missional Discipleship Podcast—and whether they will be tested and worked out in different contexts.
2. From a Speaker-Centered Platform to a Shared Pulpit
One of the most visible changes at the congress was its approach to the platform and the communication of its messages. Large Bible conferences and mission gatherings have often revolved around a single featured speaker, whose reputation, speaking time, and personal impact largely determine how the event is remembered. The 10th CCOWE adopted a different model. In addition to expository and plenary speakers, there were speakers assigned to offer exhortations, along with moderators and respondents.When I first saw these titles, I was not even sure what some of the roles were intended to do.
A Message Carried by Many Voices
Over the next several days, I began to see the thinking behind the design. The platform no longer revolved around one featured speaker. Different people shared responsibility for communicating the message. Moderators connected the various elements; expository speakers opened the biblical text; plenary speakers explored its thematic and practical implications; respondents extended the reflection; and interviews helped bring the message closer to lived practice. The message was no longer delivered through a single sermon but shaped by several voices working together. I would describe this as a “shared pulpit.” This multi-voiced design also reflects the way many contemporary audiences receive and process information through digital media.
Distributing the platform in this way did not weaken the power of preaching. Instead, it expanded the forms through which a message could be carried. At the same time, it introduced new tensions.
New Forms, New Demands
The first tension was experienced by the speakers. The congress featured many speakers giving shorter messages. Most spoke only once, for about thirty minutes. Some messages leaned heavily on propositions and exhortation, leaving less room for narrative development. Even when stories were included, they were often moved quickly toward a conclusion rather than allowed to unfold naturally. As the congress progressed, however, the speakers and moderators seemed increasingly at ease with the rhythm. This is not simply a matter of better or worse. A new platform model places new demands on speakers: How can they communicate clearly in less time while also drawing listeners into the world of Scripture and story?
A second tension came from the audience. I heard participants ask, “Why are the sermons so short?” and “Why not give one speaker more time to explain?” Such questions did not necessarily indicate resistance to change. Rather, many listeners were still interpreting the new arrangement through their previous experience of large Bible conferences and revival gatherings.
Change Also Needs to Be Explained
This reveals the importance of explaining the story behind a change. If the congress had taken a few minutes during the opening to explain the thinking behind its platform design, speakers and listeners might have understood their roles more clearly.Such an explanation would not merely introduce the program; it would answer more basic questions: Why make this change? Where is it intended to lead the congress? CCCOWE has already begun to change, but the story that helps people understand that change still needs to be told.
3. The Story of the 15 Percent: From Youth Attendance to Shared Responsibility
Stories can change how people see, and they can also help people understand why change is warranted. One of the most memorable refrains at the congress was that leaders under the age of thirty-five made up approximately 15 percent of the participants. The figure was mentioned repeatedly, giving CCCOWE’s emphasis on generational renewal a concrete and visible marker. Yet what mattered most was not simply the percentage, but the story these younger leaders went on to create.
According to a Facebook post by one of the initiators, three young participants from different regions heard the figure on the opening night and began wondering how they might find and connect with the others. They created an Instagram group chat. Within two days, through word of mouth, the group grew from three people to nearly two hundred. On the third afternoon, with help from congress organizers, this self-organized network was given an official space to meet, and approximately two hundred young leaders attended the “15% Gathering.”
Initiated from Below, Supported from Above
The episode displayed an intriguing pattern: initiated from below and supported from above. The young participants first took the initiative to build relationships. The organization had not planned everything for them in advance, but neither did it stand aside. At the right moment, it provided space, resources, and support. This may be an early picture of genuine intergenerational partnership: young leaders are not merely invited to attend; they begin raising their own questions and building their own networks.
David Doong has said that he does not want the older generation simply to arrange conferences and design ministries for young people and then invite them to participate. He hopes young people will build platforms themselves and even take center stage. Seen from this perspective, the 15% Gathering was not merely an unexpected addition to the program. It gave concrete expression to a vision in which young people take initiative and institutions offer timely support.
From Youth Participation to Shared Leadership
Yet the fact that young people can build their own platforms must not become an excuse for existing structures to avoid change. There is still a distance between “youth participation” and “shared leadership.” Once “15 percent young leaders” becomes an important part of the congress’s story, further questions should follow. Will future congresses include more plenary speakers, worship leaders, moderators, and respondents under the age of thirty-five? Will young leaders be included in planning, decision-making, and the allocation of resources, rather than being given only a space of their own?
A genuine sense of ownership among young leaders requires initiative, creativity, and responsibility. Established leaders must also open up platforms, share authority and responsibility, and extend trust. Fifteen percent is an encouraging beginning, but young leaders should be treated as partners now, not merely as successors later.
If the story of youth participation is not embodied in structures and shared authority, it can easily remain a slogan. Intergenerational partnership means more than attending together. It means bearing responsibility together.
4. Technology Extends the Message; Encounters Build Trust
The congress’s attention to technology was not a peripheral concern. Before the event, when David Doong introduced the theme, he identified the social and ethical challenges created by rapid technological development as part of the new context the church must face. To listen in our time is to listen for what God is doing amid change and to discern how the church should respond.
This concern was also reflected in the program. Xplore 360 included workshops on digital technology, while several affinity groups addressed AI-related topics. AI was not only discussed; it also entered the gathering itself. I noticed AI-generated content in speakers’ PowerPoint presentations and in videos used during the stage production.
Technology also changed how the congress was experienced. Participants listened to real-time interpretation on their phones, allowing speakers to continue without the interruptions of consecutive interpretation. The opening ceremony, plenary sessions, and closing ceremony were livestreamed on the official website and YouTube channel, using multiple camera angles and professional production to enable those unable to travel to Kuching to participate in real time.
The Message Keeps Moving
Technology’s role did not end when the congress closed. Daily updates and social media extended the conversation. Some participants uploaded sermon videos to NotebookLM to generate summaries. As the videos remain online, they may continue to reach new audiences through YouTube Shorts, TikTok, and other short-form formats. The congress ended, but its messages continued to circulate online.
Messages Can Travel Online; Trust Still Requires Presence
This raises a practical question: If technology can already distribute the messages, why spend the money, time, and human resources required to gather Chinese church leaders from around the world in Kuching?
If the purpose of CCOWE were only to let people hear a handful of messages, the question would be justified. Livestreams, recordings, and online courses can reach more people at lower cost. But the congress’s purpose was not limited to transmitting content. It also included building connections, fostering cross-sector dialogue, and encouraging collaboration in mission. Technology can carry a message farther, but it cannot replace the trust built face to face. This may also explain why the main sessions were livestreamed while affinity groups, workshops, and most discussions were not. Some content is suited to public distribution; some conversations require people to be physically present together.
This was also evident in the design of the gathering space. Entering the main hall, participants encountered five large screens surrounding the stage, black round tables filling the room, and shifting light that created an atmosphere quite different from many traditional Chinese Christian conferences. Outside the hall were a fiftieth-anniversary archway, a book-shaped photo installation, and several themed exhibitions. As participants moved through the venue, stopped for photographs, or read the displays, they continued to encounter the messages the congress was seeking to communicate. Coffee, snacks, and high-top tables along the walkways allowed conversations to arise naturally between sessions.
From the platform and exhibitions to the public spaces, the congress did not communicate only through what happened onstage. It also used its physical environment to invite people to linger, meet, and talk.
When an Online Profile Gains a Face
For me, the most memorable part of the congress was not only the messages from the stage, but the repeated experience of genuine encounter: former teachers, classmates, and fellow alumni I had not seen for years; pastors from different regions; and friends I had followed on Facebook but never met in person. Breakfast tables, buses, and hallways became places to share visions, struggles, and the realities of ministry.
These encounters gave an online profile a real face. They also transformed the abstract idea of the “global Chinese church” into people with names, stories, and distinct ministry contexts. People who had been strangers exchanged updates, shared visions, and even made plans to continue working together after the congress. Such encounters are themselves part of the congress’s value—and a form of communication that AI cannot replace.
I therefore do not see digital platforms and in-person congresses as competitors. They serve different functions. Platforms keep messages circulating. In-person gatherings build trust, deepen relationships, and create possibilities for future collaboration.Technology allows more people to hear; genuine encounter allows people truly to know one another. Perhaps the value of a congress should not be measured only by asking, “Which message was the best?” We might also ask, “Whom did I meet, and with whom might I now begin to walk?”
Conclusion: New Ways of Speaking Require Shared Practice
Returning to the congress’s hopes for “listening, dialogue, and renewal,” the church’s listening to its time must begin with listening to God’s word. Only in the light of that word can we discern what God is doing in different contexts and learn to listen to one another.
But listening is only the beginning. Will dialogue reshape how authority and resources are shared? Will renewal take concrete form in how messages are communicated from the platform, how leadership passes from one generation to another, and how local churches live out their calling? These are questions CCCOWE must continue to answer. Change should not be pursued merely to appear young or modern. It must serve the gospel, the community of faith, and the mission of God.
When change is not adequately explained, it can easily be misunderstood through the lens of past experience. When a story of change is not accompanied by structural and practical change, it can remain only a slogan. CCCOWE’s search for new ways to speak is not merely an attempt to change the format of a congress. It is an ongoing exploration of how to listen faithfully to God’s word, express the gospel in the present age, invite different generations to bear responsibility together, and allow what is proclaimed to become the lived reality of the church.
What is most noteworthy about the 10th CCOWE, then, is that this global Chinese evangelical movement, amid the rise of AI and a generational transition, is once again asking what it needs to say, how it should say it, who should have a voice, and how the gospel it proclaims can truly become a shared way of life.
