(e)mergent Voyageurs

In our recent YWAM regional meetings where we discussed our responsibility as a Canadian ministry in relation to the First Nations peoples, many of the ministry leaders raised an interesting point. Our First Nations guests shared various perspectives, but generally believed that as Canada’s first people- the host people of the land- it was critical for all Christian communities to respond to this issue in their region. While some of us are engaged in and relating to the First Nations community, many of our other leaders are not. Because of this many of them questioned if this was really a regional or national issue rather than a context specific issue to those of us it was relevant to.

This raises some serious question, both specifically with this issue, as well as with the broader question of what level of freedom do we have to focus our missional emphasis on specific groups- or lack of focus, for that matter. In respect to the issue of the First Nations people, I deeply believe that as North American Christians we must own our responsibility in both healing the wounds of the past, as well as move forward to a mutual future of relationship and unity. This does not mean we will call the shots in this process (as this is part of the problem in the first place), but rather that we cannot decide it does not apply to our specific context. Almost without exception it is something we must address.

On the broader issue I am less certain. I truly believe that we must be strategic and authentic in our missional engagement with communities, cultures and sub-cultures. It requires an intentional contextualized approach that cannot always works across the spectrum of our diverse society. That being said, we also must acknowledge that we are called to love and serve all people. Too often the church uses specific calling to justify a failure to respond those areas of great need. This can be seen in many areas, including the urban poor and the racially marginalized.

So what is appropriate? How specific can we or should we be in our missional focus? How have you seen this done well? Please share.

This weeks blogging will be quite different than normal as we are currently hosting the Youth With A Mission Western Canada Leadership Team (YWAM WCLT) meetings here in Winnipeg.  We began yesterday evening, but are currently jumping into the agenda this morning with some exciting emphasis.  More than half of our ministries in Western Canada are engaged with or to First Nations people and/or communities.  YWAM, especially in our district, seeks to engage culture mindful of the history of of Western Christianity destroying and even demonizing it, moving rather towards reconciliation, mutuality and respect.

Part of this has been acknowledging and practicing our missional engagement through the context of indigenous protocol, honouring the people we are meeting as the host peoples of this nation (and specifically in our regions).  Here in Winnipeg, some of the church/youth groups that work with us are often confused and concerned when they come to our office and spot tobacco on our supply shelf.  The reason we have this is to give to the elders we meet with on occassion in the city.  This is a simple aspect of protocol, with many others being very complex.  Note, protocol is not these acts themselves, but the worldview beneath and within them.

Obviously, as Christians we need to be informed and careful so not unwittingly support, promote or participate in compromising practices.  However, with very few exceptions, while unfamiliar to us, the vast majority of these protocols are cultural practices that in no way violate our Christian faith.  Further, there are so many wise Christians leaders within the First Nations community whose voices have been too long ignore my the (largely white) church.  The beauty of the results is worth the work.

However, alongside protocol, we also want to learn to enter into partnership with the First Nations people.  While we do ministry to and for them, we desperately need to do ministry with them, even learn from them.  Again, this is not to say that protocol is simply a ritual or ceremonial act that has to happen before the “real stuff” begins.  Protocol is an integrated worldview.  In order to build partnership, we need to get beyond this one dimensional view of protocol and be willing to humble ourselves to learn how to build genuine relationships.

As critical as this is for YWAM, it is equally critical for the Canadian (and North American) church.  I look forward to the coming discussion, though not with a degree of fear- not negatively, but out of reverent expectation.  I’ll keep you posted.

Do you have any questions about this issue?  Do you have any stories or experiences?  I’d really love to hear from you.

Increasingly, the church in North America is beginning to see our need to develop and mature in our relationship to the First Nations/Native American peoples. Historically, the history of Christian missions to these diverse people groups has been that of oppression, subjugation and even genocide (be it cultural genocide or complicit in physical genocide). Over time, this improved, though still maintaining a paternalistic condescension, in part expressed in seeing them as a “mission field”, but rarely fellow Christians, bearing equal responsibility in our global missional vocation as the Church.

Over the last decade or so, YWAM in North America is increasingly becoming aware of the challenge of relating to the indigenous with integrity and care. One aspect of this has been the increasing awareness, development and use of traditional protocol as a means of relating missionally to different groups. In most indigenous cultures there are clear cultural customs and protocols that must be observed in order to respect the people, the elders and the chiefs of any given tribe. Whether this is done in a gift exchange, a traditional welcoming ceremony or some other practice, it seeks to honour the history, culture and authority structures in place. Of course, this requires careful humility, careful research and a redemptive integrity that is mindful of possible syncretism in our involvement. While I cannot go into too much detail here for the sake of space, let me ay that it can be a truly beautiful and humbling experience to be involved with such approaches.

Interestingly, those YWAM groups who most seem to be engaging with this model are either indigenous peoples themselves (such as my good friend from the Polynesian islands) or charismatic Evangelicals. The danger I have seen in this later group has been, at times, an infatuation with ceremonies (along with their interpreted spiritual understanding) that distract from the deeper roots and purposes for the protocols themselves. Increasing energy, time and resources are invested into these protocol events, seeking to involve indigenous leaders of “higher” authority (i.e. the National Chief of Canada’s Assembly Of First Nations). While these event can be important, meaningful and impactful, many of us who minister daily within First Nations communities are beginning to see some problems with this approach.

First, because we often begin and end with these ceremonies, we do not look deeper into the origins and define wordlviews that gave birth to the actual protocols. As a result, at times we unknowingly interpret these events as though they have some kind of “magical” power to them. These physical ceremonies, divorced from their traditional meanings, are largely empty, but when understood as sacramental icons of broader truths, they offer a great deal of wisdom and promise to both parties. Therefore, the event orientation of our Western culture can often attribute too much significance in a given scenario without integrating the meaning of that ceremony into our larger worldview and daily practice of missional living. It is too easy to get caught up in the drama and emotions of these ceremonies, while neglecting the incarnational expression of their meaning in our lives and communities.

Second, while First Nations culture is tribal, thus very hierarchal as a result, their understanding of leadership and hierarchy is uniquely shaped by their worldview, making it significantly different from our own, Western models of leadership and hierarchy. Therefore, in our attempt to practice these protocols with higher levels of impact, we seek out people of higher positional authority. Though these leaders are important, we often spend more time and energy into networking with leaders whose high position actually distances themselves from the very people we seek to connect to at the grassroots.

As I have been considering this, I recognized a parallel in the emerging/missional church’s exploration and engagement with ancient aspects of Christian faith. While it is significantly important to draw from the rich traditions throughout all of Christian history, we must have the wisdom and patience to explore and understand the roots of these practices, so as to allow them to have more than the emotional impact of a spiritual novelty. Further, we cannot deny or divorce our own cultural worldview entirely from our understanding, recognizing that our own biases can often distract us from the more significant aspects and relationships that we should be pursuing.

Finally, we need to recognize and be intentional that our pursuit of the beautiful diversity around us, be it cultural, denominational or historical, is not a selfish collection of self-serving Christian beliefs and practices. Rather than this shallow consumeristic approach to faith, our pursuit of diversity should be out of a genuine desire to understand and embrace as much of the fullness of God as we can, as seen in His Creation.