Attempts to train pastors and educators from among First Nations people (and indigenous peoples around the world) have met with limited success – some would say dismal success – to say the least. These attempts have focused on things external to, things foreign to, the way of being and thinking of indigenous people. They have introduced us to conflicting feelings and attitudes about education in general, theological training in particular. Anti-intellectualism rooted into many of our peoples’ thinking. This, of course, is not the intent of education, to bring confusion and cognitive stress. And yet, increased conflict has been the most significant outcome of attempts to educate indigenous peoples using European methods and philosophy that sought to write on the “empty slate.”

It is imperative, therefore, that any new educational endeavors, whether in their philosophical development, the construction of models or the creation of methods of implementation, strive to “bring forth what is within” – within the individual and the community – even as we introduce materials and understandings which have been historically foreign to the native student and their society.
The goal of NAIITS then, is to develop and instruct from a body of theology and biblical teaching that resonates with the culture and traditions of Native North Americans. For generations, Native North Americans have believed Christian faith required them to become like Euro North Americans. Many still do! They lived the false dichotomy of belief that a fulfilled relationship with God required rejection of their own culture and the adoption of another. In best- case scenarios Native North Americans struggle to embrace God in the Christianity of a secularized western culture. In the worst case, they have rejected God in Christ because of western Christianity’s perceived cultural requirements.

NAIITS’s goals and focus, therefore, is on:

• Developing mentored theological and biblical research, writing and study programs which address missional, theological and biblical issues from the perspective of Indigenous Christians.


• Working cooperatively with Indigenous and non- Indigenous partners including colleges, universities, seminaries, mission societies, Native ministries and others committed to realizing the leadership potential of Indigenous people in Canada and the United States.

Robert Dansie (2004:2) describes education, as originally devised, being focused on “bring[ing] forth what is within.” Dansie (2004:2) expands this further saying,

As Lewis (2003:61) notes in her discussion about the lower standards of education (content and method) in effect for Native students preparing for ministry in the past, “little effort was made to encourage students to receive further training elsewhere....” She goes on to say that the western systems [consistently] fail[ed] to establish a connection with any institute of higher learning...” so that Indian students might advance to parity.

Furthermore, if higher education was made possible for Native people (doubtful most times), it was only on condition that they leave their community and context entirely, a move which ensured they were all but unsuited to work effectively among their own people when they returned. Once again we listen to Lewis (2003:74) who notes, by way of example, that the Presbyterian Session “no longer allowed Native pastors to receive theological education while performing ministry.” It stacks up to no education of any significance happening at all.

At present we sense that what follows in the seven points below is a reasonable description of the context and framework within which the Holy Spirit is bringing this challenge and opportunity to develop a more indigenous-friendly means of training pastoral and missional leadership to the fore:

• We are experiencing, similar to other areas of the world, an expansion of the church and its mission, even as colonial mission agencies and peoples are leaving or abandoning historic fields of mission. Some of this departure is related to the dynamic experienced in the West of being post-modern, post-colonial, post-foundational and post-critical (we may even be post-post as the world changes as quickly as the Vancouver weather!). We have entered a period of time in which new words – or new definitions for old ones – are beginning to frame the context in which we find ourselves. This is a transitional time and we must step into the niche provided by such a time as this with new approaches.


• This growth is, more often than not, contextualized and, in many instances, unique, revolutionary, and, missiologically speaking – long overdue. If we can move past the secular/sacred dichotomy, it will become plain that context cannot be divorced from theology expressed within it. The modern project, “perfect objectivity, leading to ultimate truth” has failed. We are beginning to realize that the gospel cannot be separated from local culture. Local insights provide the resources for a healthy cross-fertilization, leading to better conversation and providing a more human quality to the interaction. We want to help people – not to be super-human only truly human – situated exactly where they are.


• We are in a time of revitalization of traditions, teachings and cultures within the global indigenous community which, while in and of themselves perhaps important, are from the standpoint of the church best viewed as a unique preparation for mission. There is a potential for indigenous people’s roles to be of tremendous significance in the shift from the West to the South and East of mission and impetus of mission. Native North Americans are to be understood as part of the South and East shift.


• We are aware that while credentials may be important for aspects of ministry to which Native men and women will be called, an educational movement is needed, not the creation of another institution which does not affect people in long-term constructive ways. We therefore see the death of hope for an indigenous instructional institution, and the resurrection of a movement of mission wrapped around the learning circle. After all people are on their way to the resurrection, not institutions. We therefore see the need for competence first and credentials second.


• We believe that many in the educational institutions of the West have heard God’s call toward humility through the post-modern movement. In response, Native men and women are answering the call for help from the West to bring forth a more holistic educational philosophy. This is needed to help the both the West and our own people relearn the skill of relationship in the midst of diversity. Conformity is not our goal, but the provision of an opportunity for people to be those people they were meant to be. As one of us (Terry LeBlanc) often says, our goal is “to help build theological capacity.”


• Technology provides us with new opportunities for instruction and the experience of the community learning circle. We understand that we cannot go back to some Eden like existence. We must work thorough the lingering effects of modernity but we can do so by using some of the technological tools that could enhance relationship. This technology will provide for an exchange of ideas that could provide for a greater inter-relatedness by helping to bring the truly indigenous and inventive from the margins to inform those in the middle. The danger is that the middle will take a step back toward modernity and think that it has all and the margins have nothing.


• The mission field is urban and suburban, as well as the traditional focus on reserves and other tribal areas. All of these fields are ripe for harvest. There is a longing for a spiritual movement that will give new hope and insight to aboriginal identity and new power to the search for justice and healing for indigenous communities.

This program will be both reactive and proactive. It is envisaged as a transitional, and hopefully, also transformational approach. It is reactive in that we are moving to help our people transition from a colonial, through a post-colonial experience of the world of knowledge and wisdom. It is proactive in that we are seeking to move past de-colonization to fan the flames of indigenous thought so that the church might be enriched through a reinvigorated indigenous knowledge context.

We are attempting to build upon the existing strengths of both western academic tradition and Aboriginal heritage. In so doing, there are several shifts that we need to hopefully promote. These shifts may be more difficult to manage for existing educational and theological institutions specifically as it concerns infrastructure – it is difficult to invest millions in a building and then not use it for training – than for the Aboriginal community for whom adaptation is life’s byword.

What’s more challenging in all of this is the inherent difficulty for Aboriginal people and non- Aboriginal people alike to believe that education that occurs in a local context – one lacking facilities and history – can carry the same prestige as that gained in a place which has significant infrastructure and history.

There are three shifts we are trying to make in hopes of helping provide an environment that is more conducive to developing disciples and not simply making Christians. These shifts are more likely to be seen as those which fit within the Kingdom of God that is now but not yet. These three shifts could be described in terms of: a fresh appropriation of the gospel story or the canon of scripture; a new emphasis upon theological, pastoral and ecclesial skill and competence rather than scientific language and precision; and, finally, a re-embracing of community through letting go the necessity to move people toward a liberal family model. Our desire is to develop capacity by building upon strength that is already present in communities. We believe the most effective way to help move these shifts along, is by a resurrection of story or narrative which places Aboriginal people clearly in the mainstream of the plan and providence of God.

Shift 1 - Rediscovering the Story

Classes that help develop practical wisdom and understanding in how to embrace the gospel story – in essence, a resurrection of the aspects of narrative so familiar to the traditions of the Native community.
Implied in the eclipse of the biblical narrative is the failure of the liberal idea of apologetics and the need to move away from propositionalism, emphasizing instead how orality and textuality fit together to move us toward a post-critical hermeneutic – one that does not just focus upon some kernel of abstract truth but helps people to live differently. Furthermore, story addresses the issues that people are actually dealing with. At the same time, it creates confidence in the way narrative works, so that one does not lapse into a revived pharisaic attitude intent on building fences, one truth on another. Good fences it turns out, do not make good neighbors, only placated or enslaved ones.
We need to embrace an understanding of the issues of Aboriginal life in the context of the theological enterprise – one that will get us to that point. Thus, there is a need to embrace the source of theology, our indigenous spirituality and the gospel story – that is the story of God. And, it is a story which is inclusive of Native people – as they are! Sitting Bull observed correctly, "If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows."

Shift 2 - From Scientist to Craftsperson

There is a need to move away from theology as the realm of experts to something that the common people understand take ownership over its transmissibility. It encourages the community to learn discernment so as to pass on the story to subsequent generations. Thus we are making an intentional shift away from institutionalization, seeking instead to use the institution to give its legislated authority to the moral authority already granted by communities to their respective leaders. In this way we are moving to limit the effect of any single institution to require conformity, attempting instead to legitimize naturally occurring innovation where authority resides with the larger community.
Thus, this instruction, while desiring to train individual workers, should be seen in the larger context as an effort to disciple communities. Moreover it is to be seen not as an effort at the use of the trickle down effect, but instead one of engaging leaders within close cultural proximity where the learning is more of an interdependency of teachers/learners. In so ding, the learning environment will be expanded to include aspects of traditional learning previously considered secondary or irrelevant. Place will be more significant in this model (see Fixico and Sobel); the andragogical approach, where the learner participates in the instructor’s environment (similar to a pedagogical setting, the child participating in the adult world to learn), will be more prominent.
Furthermore, the environment will be expanded to include a re-appropriation of the ethics and practices of orality. This element of learning already exists to a greater degree in Native communities than in Euro-American, but it does need revitalization. This will not down play the importance of literacy, but by reviving orality, or dare we say a hybrid of oral-textuality, we will help build communities of unity instead of extreme individualism and isolation.

This resurrection of story necessitates a resurrection of orality in several forms. First, preaching must shift from the transference of information to a communal proclamation of the gospel story. This should be central to the Christian formation of Native peoples and to their development in Christian leadership within this new approach. Second, while this theological training may, for those who so desire, lead to a degree at a bachelor or masters level, we will attempt to break the material into pieces that take theology to the lay level so that Christian formation is primary. In so doing the appreciation of Christian higher education will grow as people are engaged in a unified way and at all levels in the training of leaders. We are not teaching theology, we are teaching people to teach think theologically so as to be able to teach theologically as they journey through life. Finally, this course will seek to be a peer to peer relationship between learner and instructor – which is, of course, mostly expressed orally. Theology must happen on the margins and dialogical learning must be resurrected by engaging students where they live as they do theology.

All of these movements are aimed at further developing what already exists in Aboriginal communities, turning from trying to have students conform to a certain way of thinking, to helping them expand their thinking.

Shift 3 - From Isolation to Community and Communication

The Westernization of our communities has had many negative effects - and a few we can identify as positive. But, instead of trying to co-opt Western methods which, as Freire makes clear, often lead to harsher impositions of Western standards than the West would make itself, we are attempting to create a learning community that intersects with the cultural community of the learner.

This intersection will go further than the hoped-for intersection of information transmission and response (hoping that what we teach actually does something to change the lot of Aboriginal people). Instead, stated in negatives, this design will not do two things: First, it will not isolate the learner from his community by geographic distance. Conversely it will not isolate the instructor from the learner’s community. Thus the instructor will travel to the environment of the learner and vice versa. As place-based education makes clear, this already makes the task more likely to impact the learner in a significant way. All this is a natural evolution of attempts which academic institutions are already making to ensure the holistic development of students. The difference in this situation is that we are placing a competence-based but credential appropriate education of the student within their current life experience. Rather than attempting to entice them out of their life experience, teach them a new life experience and then inject them back into their community, hoping they fit, we encourage the context be a part of the learning process and therefore a more likely part of the transformed life experience. We will have immediate feedback so that our teaching achieves praxis in the short term, as well as long term.

A traditional model of Western education assumes that bringing the learner out of the aboriginal community into the Western learning community will hopefully, prayerfully produce a leader who takes relevant information and experience back to the Aboriginal community. The intersection point between the Aboriginal community and the learning community is extremely limited. Given that the Native philosophical bent is toward community, and community requires relationship, how then is it possible to achieve relationship in the absence of actual engagement with communities, not just individuals?

The diagrams below give a rough approximation of the difference between our understanding of the traditional approach and what we are thinking.

If, from the start, our aim is to build an individual capable of theological discourse, and we are aware that theological discourse already happens in community and, if we, in turn, move toward that community, we are building on strength. We are building a communal learning environment – one not limited to a building in a particular seminary or college, or even to a single community – but one which actually engages the Aboriginal community in a culturally proximal way. This is another step in the journey through colonialism, and our history, into the future.

Philosophically, as noted above, the program must rest on the two pedestals of decolonization and indigenization¹ where at least one course in each semester’s series furthers the objective of creating – to the extent possible – a decolonized set of mental, emotive, spiritual and academic constructs out of which the student might begin to assemble an indigenous experience and perspective of Christian faith and mission.

We will intentionally seek to be integrative. That is to say, recognizing the need to engage at the spiritual, theological, missiological, ecclesiological and pastoral levels, with those of the majority and other ethnic churches, we will seek to embrace a core of course material that forms the “connective tissue” to the rest of the body of Christ. In some cases, the course will be exactly identical with the exception of the “slant” or perspective from which they are taught. In other cases, they will be the same title with a completely indigenous focus in method, slant and content.

These are some of the characteristics we have noted about needs and opportunities for Christian Formation among First Nations Peoples for leadership in God’s Mission:

• The foundation of this work is the Gospel, as opposed to an institutional ethos or base of development; and focused on the ministry of all people and the body or community of faith, as opposed to being focused on the ministry of priest or pastor. The priesthood of all believers will be at the forefront of thought and method.
• The Gospel is the agent of change and the gospel story the primary tool of instruction.
• There should be special focus on the study of Scripture as the basis of all other forms of and courses in pastoral training and formation. Though modern missiological study will be a tandem partner, the primacy of scripture is to be clear in both content and as social and missional hermeneutic.
• God’s mission is always at the heart of any training and formation of leaders.

¹We recall again Dansie’s (2004:3) identification of concerns to be addressed to ensure that any educational endeavor will be truly indigenous and truly effective:

There is a need for the development of three different levels of formation and training – but these need to be interrelated and not isolated from one another. At the same time there needs to be an affirmation and strengthening of the community circle as both the conceptual framework of the learning model but also as its practical foundation. In instructional methodologies there needs to be a high value placed on orality as legitimate means of instruction and student reflection even though literacy will be the principle means of information access in many of the courses.

The andragogy of the approach as we see and understand it then, based on the needs in the community and the review of the literature will rest significantly in a flexible mentoring process we have called “backtracking” – the M.Div mentors the MA; the MA mentors the BA; the BA mentors the Associate; the Associate mentors the Certificate. Furthermore, we seek to engage in a circle learning model where an individual is not only responsible to participate in the learning of another, but each group (irrespective of the levels at which they are) pursues similar learning “tasks” until such time as mastery and competence is evident.

• A beginning level for people recently converted or called to repentance and deeper Christian faith or practice. Often these people are very much alone in their communities and called upon to serve in a number of capacities. They need an immediate opportunity for immersion and experience with mature believers and leaders. An intense experience, but one which does not require extended time out of community similar to that being developed at Eloheh Village for Indigenous Leadership & Ministry Development is necessary.² This experience must not, by any means, sever the connection of the people from their home community. The heart of this training is Gospel-based discipleship in a Native North American community setting.


• An intermediate level of formation and training for set-apart or ordained leadership, is envisioned, incorporating a First Nations contextualized or inculturative model of study connecting to broader theological reflection, but grounded in the study of Scripture. Again, this experience must not, by any means, sever the connection of the people from their home community.


• An advanced level of study and discipleship that interacts with First Nations notions of eldership and leadership and, at the same time, seeks to articulate a strategic theological support for the mission we feel God is calling us to in this hour. It is essential that this group be a part of the local circle and its engagement with the Gospel. We note here that this is where we often have fallen in our work in times past. The three levels must be expressed in the local circles of mission and ministry. The loop of the three together is a major part of what would make them authoritative.

Given that the historic approach to learning in indigenous contexts has been “children participating in the adult world” – that is to say those with experience train those who lack it – then it seems important to recover this means of learning as primary for the training of individuals for ministry.
We therefore need to incorporate a “reverse mentoring” process which allows for the “off- loading” of the instructional program to others in the cycle while simultaneously increasing the growth potential of the people in the upper levels as they instruct those in their care.

²Eloheh is a short-term holistic native ministry training centre in partnership with NAIITS.

We have identified the following principles as being of particular importance if our effort at education and formation in a First Nations context is to be successful:

• Training and formation must be incremental. As noted, we must not allow our desire for impact to drive the instructional methods, content or expectations beyond student capacity or availability. Furthermore, a more integrative approach to learning takes a different amount of time and a different structure for learning – one that encourages incorporation of new learning not “additively.”


• It must be modular, allowing for ease of entry and exit into the learning stream and the learning circle. A linear, building block model of instruction will not provide an adequate means for the acquisition of “knowledge” for Indigenous people given their current context and the history of their experience within the mainstream educational system.


• It is progressive and does not dwell on the use of past knowledge alone but utilizes historic ways of knowing and relating knowledge to access and promote new knowledge and experience. We do not propose a naïve andragogy or method. Instead we see the merger of the best of the past and the best of the present as the proper foundation upon which to create a solid future.


• It is focused locally but connected more widely so as to ensure that the circle is not a new creation at some distance from the community but rather that it accommodates the local community immediately in both the learning and the teaching while simultaneously introducing the local people to the wider relationships of the church.


• It is mission focused. The intent is to increase the capacity of Indigenous peoples to engage in effective mission – at home and abroad in a holistic understanding of mission whatever that might look like and wherever that might take them.


• Those involved must be challenged to see the spectacular horizon of God’s mission among and through Indigenous peoples.


• All ministry/mission study will be undertaken in a contextualized or inculturative fashion in both local and extended global content as well as in methodology of instruction and focus of learning.


• People involved in the program must remain active in their local context. We have already made clear that failure to do so will mean failure to address the theological disadvantage of First Nations people effectively. It is crucial, therefore, that all approaches seek to maximize presence in the local context.


• Participants serve the local Church today as a part of the learning and teaching experience, rather than waiting for certification. As an approach, this serves two functions. First, it creates ownership of the process in the community and the church within the community. As most development models make clear, if someone does not own it, they will not care for it. The same will be true of a program of biblical and pastoral preparation. Second, it provides a sort of ‘apprenticeship’ approach to the mentoring and learning process. The teaching/learning paradigm is not perceived as a one-way approach to acquiring knowledge but is instead perceived as a mutual pursuit of understanding.


• Vocation and spiritual gift discernment is integral to the process and ongoing. The beginnings of the process lie in the heart of the process as spiritual formation. Because we see competence and spiritual formation as primary to our history as a people and to the ongoing transmission of the gospel in story and teachings, it will be imperative that people work from the base of their gifting.


• Training and ministry is collegial and team based. As noted previously, this is community learning in all senses of the word. The learners will have much to teach as will the teachers have much to learn. The objective is enhanced mutual understanding, not the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, or for the strictly utilitarian purpose of a degree.


• People are equipped with a practical personal and communal prayer discipline.


• The focus of the training is broad and holistic – not compartmentalized. Here again we
  emphasize that a disconnected learning process and/or content will not serve Aboriginal people well. There is a critical need to ensure the content has broad applicability in life – is itself life-based not simply knowledge or skill focused – so as to ensure it integrates thoroughly.


• Mentors/elders are to be seen as a key to the effective process of both decolonization and indigenization – even if many (depending on context) have not themselves been decolonized.³


• The emphasis in the overall environment is to be relational and not programmatic.


• There are to be high standards of expectation for performance, in terms of learning and
  discipleship. We will not serve Indigenous people or the church well if we “dumb-it-down”
  just to increase the number of participants.


• Leadership will most often be expressed in a council, team or consensus-based approach.

In the above expectations, several reflect a commitment to what Sobel (2003:7) describes as “place-based” education consistent with the values and patterns of teaching and learning in the culture. Though originally conceived as a pedagogical approach, it not only has merit as an adult technique, it is essentially indigenous in its articulation of method. Learning is not some abstraction from the world in which acquired skill and competence is to be utilized but is, in fact, deeply rooted in the needs and concerns of the learner and the community. Place here may refer to the actual geographic location or, it may simply reflect the use of local, relevant materials, resources or context by which to provide the instructional and learning environment. In other words, place may have a variety of understandings dependent on content of the course as well as the context of the learner(s).

It is precisely the fact that ‘place’ is flexible which makes the newly discovered (by the dominant educational authorities) concept a novelty – one which is and has been common in the past to most cultures. The idea that place not be considered as location only, but also resources and method for teaching creates significant flexibility for learning and understanding.

³Although he was reflecting on a different milieu and target population, Sobel’s (2003:8) observation, “It’s a simple proposition really. Bring education back into the neighborhood. Connect students with adult mentors,” is not just valid for Native North American education, it is crucial.

Entry for study with NAIITS may take place on several levels: certificate – in Asset-based Planning and Development, for example; diploma or associates (in process); Graduate Study (ie MAIS); Doctoral Study (through one of our partnerships).

While entry into a certificate or associates program will be a simplified process of application, acceptance and entry for study at the graduate and post-graduate level will be through an application and interview process, the latter taking place with at least one member of the individual’s community of faith and a member of the NAIITS teaching community. Given the importance of correct protocol, and in light of our desire for recognition of community in the learning process, entrance into the more formal educational or ministry preparation program will be through a dynamic process of referral, inquiry, prayer and community affirmation as well as the formal application processes. Community will vary in definition and may simply refer to those who have walked a good portion of life’s journey with an individual; it may reflect a worshipping community or, may refer to an actual geographic village. A life of service and ministry practice should be evident in the applicant’s life. Program applicants will be expected to evidence social and emotional maturity. For graduate and post-graduate level work there is an expectation the applicant will have considerable experience with and, in most cases, service to others (in ministry or other community work) in order to be considered for entrance to the program. In other words, it is most likely that the applicant will be older.

• Competence is seen as first priority, credential as secondary. The students will not be pitted qualitatively against each other, but will be seen as complimentary learners, reflecting First Nations cultural/worldview values.


• Incorporates mentoring in a circular fashion – not dividing people categorically in various program levels, but learning in community as “extended cohorts” of both learners and teachers
  


• Values the local community of knowledge as well as the academic hermeneutical community


• This model recognizes the necessity of community involvement, accommodating the role of elders in both the transmission of knowledge and understanding and in the selection of candidates for training

Because NAIITS degrees are offered in partnership with accredited institutions like George Fox University and Seminary, the accreditation of the program lies within the accreditation of the partnering institutions. Fox, for example, is accredited with both the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) and the North West Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU).

That being said, there continues to be a stress on the NAIITS ‘Core’ and its Intuitive and hermeneutical emphases. Additionally, individuals involved will need to be able to demonstrate competence in mission as a prerequisite for graduation.

What follows is the course outline for the new MAIS.

Central to the way of teaching is an understanding of the ways of the Creator, the nature and spirituality of Creation, the reality of Covenant, the context of Community and the importance of Ceremony. In each area of study, whether in an intensive course approach, a regular classroom session, mentored relationships, small study groups or on-line instruction, individual and community spirituality will be focused on in ceremony and traditional teachings.

To provide for connectivity we seek to intersect the course content in such a way that learning objectives in one will be more than met in the other. It in no way suggests the courses are identical. Critical to the program of study is that the content and method connects the student and teacher clearly and effectively to the wider community of theological study and ministry.

The Core

We have determined that the most appropriate way to accommodate all of the foregoing is to create, to the extent possible, a stream of learning which will enhance and deepen the student’s experience of a range of subjects and experiences in ministry while ensuring the circle of learning continues to be viable. This will require two things: ‘place-based’ education in adult context; and, a core of courses capable of being expanded outward with new learning but which are always able to be seen as the foundation upon which the rest is built. New courses then would be tied intentionally, obviously and integrally to the content of the core. There must be a consistent thread weaving its way throughout the program so that there are limited places where disconnects between that which is being taught and learned and the practical application of the knowledge in day-to-day life are in evidence. This thread will be woven through the program through the interpretive context and the on-going focus on Spiritual Growth.