Abstract
While twentieth-century missiology was largely dominated by descriptive anthropological models (such as Anthony F. C. Wallace’s approach to revitalization movements), twenty-first-century missiology (with its increasing complexity) demands less linear thinking and recognition of what Samuel K. Law calls “complex systems science mazeways.” These complex systems utilize a network approach that reflects cognitive processes. Such interactive processing emphasizes connecting human experience, in all the complexities anthropologists have heralded to their mutual connectivity on the one hand, and God’s intentionality for all of creation as related throughout the whole of the Bible on the other—relationship is the operative word!
As several recent publications have noted, cognitive studies rather dramatically changed the focus of anthropology and other social sciences in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Missiology, on the other hand, missed this transition from linear, replacement models to interactive, systemic approaches. Such cognition induced models could help missiologists explain the complexities of incarnation in the context of human life. In keeping with this rather dramatic shift, Law refreshingly calls for an appreciation of process over results, of multiple inputs over simplistic exchange theories, of chaotic unpredictability rather than ordered and mechanical input (4–5). Missiology, as a discipline, has long been considered multidisciplinary with its historical, socio-religious and theological triumvirate, each with a myriad of subdisciplines. Why then would missiologists continue to use a maligned approach when other hard and soft sciences have recognized the conceptual value and methodological benefits of complexity? This is Law’s fundamental question. Born out of his “material science” background he seeks to “enable missiologists to dynamically and predictively alter their conceptual mazeways in response to the systemic, continuous, and complex changes of 21st century realities” (11).
To do this, Law reflects on A. F. C. Wallace’s well-known revitalization model. The model emphasizes the impact of dissatisfaction with the status quo, the role of a charismatic leader who takes advantage of the circumstances, accumulates a following, and initiates change that results in a new status quo. It is a linear progression model dependent on cause-and-effect adjustments to sociocultural, and often religious, unrest. Law then asks, “what if the change agent is not an individual, but the aggregate response to the system network to change?” (17). Could change itself, in the complexities of globalization, resultant stresses, and interconnected networks, be the impetus for understanding and appreciating socio-religious adjustments taking place throughout the world today and radically reshaping the contexts in which mission is taking place? (17ff.).
To answer the question, Law catalogues his own research among Chinese churches in the Diaspora that are at once “multiethnic, multicongregational immigrant Chinese congregations in the North American Diaspora”—in a word, “complex” environments (32). In chapters 5–7 he walks readers through the benefits of complex mazeway processing in order to demonstrate the inadequacies of earlier models (often used by missiological researchers) in light of insights provided by applying network approaches to data collection and analysis. All this enables him to model the mazeway and ultimately conclude that “rather than looking for a visionary leader or singular mazeway . . . we should recognize that the Spirit’s work is cosmopolitan, with every member contributing their ‘piece of the puzzle’ to create new mutually-created composite mazeways through change” (30).
This book challenges missiologists to consider contemporary approaches that go beyond simplistic descriptions and account for complexities of transition from colonial and often less appropriate neo-colonial and intransigent approaches based on historical concerns. Our emphasis should be increasingly placed on encouraging and enabling postcolonial visions of freedom and relevance. Allowing people living in the reality of our contemporary world the dignity to process the primary input from Scripture (what God has said) in light of their real-life circumstances, will enable meaningful research that recognizes local complexities. Relevance emerges from the interface of their reality with God’s reality rather than an outside system that does not account for their conditions of life. And while complex, removing external biases and issues will encourage direct reflection on God’s intent for them as a community of believers. The complexities, then, reflect their issues and force them to revitalize commensurate with necessary transformation essential to theologizing from a biblical perspective regarding, as Thomas Eriksen states, complexities impacting their respective “small places” in light of God’s “big issues.”
Missiological researchers who are aware of the difference between descriptive replacement models and contemporary cognitive models stand a much greater chance to uphold missiology in the “cusp of change.” Ironically, Law concludes by emphasizing simplicity over complexity: “the Church, sustained in ongoing steady-state process of continuous revitalization, serves as a beacon of simplicity that is mission Dei, drawing people to the peaceful still waters of Christ in the chaos of humanity” (212). As missiologists, may we seek to make this happen in our ongoing teaching, research, and ministry.