Exploring the Gap Between Mennonite and Indigenous ... · (MCC) and Mennonite Central Committee Canada (MCCC) is the shaping of a corporate identity through engagement with the “Other,”

Exploring the Gap Between Mennonite and Indigenous Neighbors: Snapshots from the Story of

Native Concerns, MCC Canada1

Neil Funk-Unrau

IntroductionOnecentralthemethroughoutthehistoryofMennoniteCentralCommittee(MCC)andMennoniteCentralCommitteeCanada(MCCC)istheshapingofacorporateidentitythroughengagementwiththe“Other,”thatis,thoseseenasoutsidetherealmofMennonitepeoplehood.TheministryofMCCgenerallyrepresents thepositivedimensionsof thishistory–Mennonitesreachingoutinserviceandpeacebuildingtothoseinneed.Suchastancebecomes more difficult to sustain when the “Other” is our next-door neighbor andtheinteractioniscoloredbyacontextofconquestanddomination.

ThestoryoftheNativeConcerns(NC)programofMCCCis,inthisregard,thestoryofanimportantencounterbetweenCanadianMennonitesandtheindigenous“Others”withinCanadiansociety.ItmarksanattemptnotonlytoprovidefortheneedybuttochangeafundamentalimbalanceofpowerbetweenCanadianMennonitesettlersandtheirindigenousneighbors.Throughoutitsbriefhistory,theprogrambalancedseveralintricaterolesandrelationships,emphasizingvariousonesinvariouscontexts.Theprogrambeganasaproviderofresourcesandservicestoindigenouscommunities,butwithagrowingemphasisontheroleofawitnessandadvocateonbehalfof indigenous communities and, eventually, on the role of a listener anda learner from thosecommunities.Whileeach rolewasevident from thebeginning through the specific programs established and implemented, over timetheemphasisshiftedmoredeliberatelyfromthe top-downprovisionof resourcesandservices to thebottom-upreceptionofnewwisdomandunderstanding.Asaresult,projectsandresponsesenthusiasticallypromotedinthe1970sand’80slosttheirappealastimesandcontextschangedinthe’90s.

This paper seeks topresent a few imagesof this story and tohintatsomeinsightsarisingfromamoreintensivelookattheencounter.The

The Gap Between Mennonite and Indigenous Neighbors �3

focus is on the time-frame from the early 1970s, when the program was first envisioned,untilthemid-’90s,whendrasticorganizationalchangeresultedin development of the Aboriginal Neighbours (AN) program to replaceNC.Adetailedprogramdescriptionandanalysisof activitiesundertakenduring those 20-plus years would fill a book in itself; therefore, only a representativesampleofactivitieswillbediscussedindetail.Theauthor’spersonalexperiencewiththeprograminthelate1970sandthe’80smustalso be acknowledged as another filter shaping the articulation and analysis ofthisstory.2

Framing the Gap: Program Vision and ImplementationThe Native Concerns program arose from extensive discussions withinMCCC in theearly1970sabout thebestway toassistNativeCanadiansto“overcomesomeoftheirpressingproblems,”inthewordsofaninternal1973discussionpaper.Thesamepaperstressedtheimportanceofextremesensitivity to themotivationbehind, and themethodsused for, anyofferof assistance. Constituency education and awareness-raising must be anessentialpartoftheprocess.

If real help is to be given . . . . it must become a matter ofdesireandawillingnessoftheindividualconstituencymember.Educationisthereforeofparamountimportance.3

ThenewprogramwasdesignedtobuildoncurrentchurchmissionprogramsandMCCCVoluntaryServiceinitiatives,butwiththisadditionalemphasisofworkingwiththeconstituencytobuildastrongerrelationshipwithCanadiannativepeoples.

This discussion formed the basis of a five-point job description given toMennoWiebewhenhewashiredasDirectorofNCinMay1974.4Thejob description did not specify any particular tasks but identified five layers ofaccountability–toCanadianNativepeoplesandgroups,toconstituentchurches, to the MCCC Voluntary Service director, to unspecified other programsandnetworksactiveonNorthAmerican indigenous issues,andto theMCCCExecutiveSecretary.Throughouthis twodecadeswith theprogram, Wiebe, who personified the program more than anyone else, followed through on the spirit of thismandate, developing activities andprojects in the context of multiple layers of accountability, of which the

The Conrad Grebel Review�4

highestlevelwasaccountabilitytotherequestsofindigenouscommunitiesandgroups.

IndevelopingtheinitialvisionforanMCCapproachtoindigenousCanadians, Wiebe and his supervisors framed it as an attempt to builduponandmovebeyondtheworkalreadybeingdonebyvariousMennonitechurchministries.Becauseoftheuniquenessofitsorganization,MCCcouldrespondtoneedsonanationallevel,educatetheconstituencyaboutneedsandissuesonabroaderscale,andmoreeasilyenlisttheparticipationoftherequired skilled and knowledgeable individuals than any of these churchministriescould,whethersinglyorincooperationwitheachother.5

MCCC’s invitation to Menno Wiebe to take on the challenge ofshaping this new approach further demonstrated the desire both to buildon themissionworkof theMennonitechurchesand tocreate somethingdistinctlydifferent.Wiebehadpreviously servedasexecutivedirectorofMennonite Pioneer Mission (MPM), an indigenous mission work begunby theManitobaBergthaler churches and subsequently transferred to theCanadianMennoniteConference.Ina1978memotohissuccessoratMPM(by then renamed Native Ministries), Wiebe re-affirmed his commitment to developaprogramdifferentfromtheonehehadcomefrom.MCCCcouldprovideat least twouniquestrengthsnotavailable toMennonitemissionprograms:theinter-MennonitenatureofMCCCwitness,andawiderangeofvoluntary servicepersonnel.NCwouldoperateonlywhere invitedbyindigenous communities and by constituent church agencies. Unlike themissionprograms, churchplantingwouldnotbeaprimary focus.Wiebeaddedthat

Itwouldbeanunforgivablewasteoftime,energies,andmoniestoduplicateservices.Inlightoftheincreasing,verywidespreadhurtsexperiencedbyNativepeopleswemustwastenotimeindelineating our services, cooperate where we can and then find waysofallowingtheSpiritofGodtodirectourenergies.6

Overtime,Wiebearticulatedandre-articulatedthisdistinctlydifferentformofministryevermoreclearlyasapropheticcalltojustice,asbothanamingandaconfrontingofthesocial,economic,andpoliticalillsfacedbyindigenouspopulations.However,byreinforcingthatthemethroughhisprolific writing and public speaking, he also used this prophetic call to critique

The Gap Between Mennonite and Indigenous Neighbors ��

Mennonite mainstream society, pointing to the affluence and unquestioned assimilation that stood as a counterpart to the besieged, impoverishedindigenousidentityalmostoverwhelmedbyCanadianmainstreamsociety.7While NC might be seen as a new approach that built upon the activityandrelationshipsfosteredbyMennonitemissionwork,ithadalsobecomean agency sharply critical of the social milieu behind this mission, amilieu regarded as increasingly affluent, increasingly individualistic, and decreasinglyrepresentativeoftraditionalAnabaptistvalues.

Program Development in the 19�0sThe 1973 concept paper cited above began with a deceptively simplepremise: MCC could provide the personnel, expertise, and resources tomeettheneedsofCanadianindigenousminorities.MCCcouldbuildontheexperiencedevelopedthroughongoingmissionprograms,supplementingitwithskilledleadershipandtrainingtobeprovidedbyspecializedVoluntaryServiceworkersandMCCCstaff.Thepremisewashedgedwithcautionsaboutmovingslowlyandneedingtobringtheconstituencyalongsidethismovement,butthesecautionsdidnotnegatethegeneralgoalofbringingMCCresourcestobearuponindigenousneed.

NC’smostdirectandvisiblewayofmeetingthisgoalwasthroughagricultural and resource development in northern Manitoba andnorthwestern Ontario, responding to the economic developmental needsofcommunitiesthatalreadyhadsomeconnectionwithMennonitemissionworkers. Program staff and volunteers first tried to replicate in the north specific agricultural and economic activities familiar to the Mennonite constituency in the south. In 1977, Edgar Schmidt, one of the first Voluntary Serviceworkers assigned to theNCportfolio,organized the shipmentofcalves,piglets,poultry,andgoatstotwonorthernManitobareserves,andfacilitated both the placement of the first summer gardener in Sachigo Lake and the development of the first 10 MCC summer gardens in this northwesternOntariocommunity.8

Schmidt also initiated another project that subsequently developedintooneoftheNCsuccessstoriesofthe1970sand’80s–thecommunity-basedprocessingandmarketingofwild rice in thenorthwesternOntariocommunity of Grassy Narrows. Instead of providing resources directly,

The Conrad Grebel Review��

NCassistedwiththetechnologythatwouldbestenablethecommunitytodevelop their own resources. MCCC staff and volunteers developed andassembledanewformofricehullerandariceparcherthatwerethentakentoGrassyNarrowsfortesting.Bytheendof1977,WiebecouldreportthatNCwasarrangingthemarketingof750poundsofwildricefromseveralrice-gatheringcommunities.9

By1980,EricRempel,whoservedasSchmidt’ssuccessorintheNCresourcedevelopmentportfolio,wasabletopointtothewildriceprojectasoneofthemostsuccessfulNCcommunitydevelopmentinitiatives.Thisprojectsucceededbecauseitremainedsmall,wastailoredtotheneedsofbandsorindividuals,andutilizedtheenergyandcommitmentofvolunteers.Byviewing“development”asthedevelopmentofindividualsratherthanlarge-scaleeconomicdevelopment,NCpersonnelcouldlistenmoreattentivelytotheneedsexpressedbyindividualsandrespondwithappropriatetechnologyandactivity.10ThisconcernwasaparticularchallengeforGrassyNarrows,whereRempelwarnedthattheprojectcouldfailorbetakenoverbyoutsideinterests if turned into a large-scale commercial industry because localmanagerial skillswere lacking.Headvocated thedevelopmentof specialmachineryandmarketingtoenhancefamily-sizeormulti-family-sizewildriceenterprises.11Overtime,thewildriceprojectdevelopedfurtherthroughlocal community leadership along with MCC technology, management,and marketing assistance. The project was incorporated as KagiwiosaManominInc.,andaprocessingplantwasestablishedatWabigoon,Ontario,serving harvesters from three northwestern Ontario reserves.The projectcontinues as an indigenous owned and operated cooperative, finding success internationallyinmarketingitstraditionallygrownandharvestedCanadianwildrice.

Within its first five years of activity, the vision of NC as resource providerandenablerwasbeingshapedbythechallengetolistenandrespondinawayandonascaleconsistentwiththesituationandexpresseddesiresof indigenouscommunitymembers.NCstaffcontinued toencourage thedevelopmentofadditionalcommunity initiativesbasedon thevaluesandidealsemphasizedthroughtheseearlyprojects.

The MCCC constituency was quick to affirm the importance of facilitating and resourcing various forms of indigenous community


development,butforWiebethetaskhadtobeaccompaniedandundergirdedby both strong political advocacy of indigenous peoples and a vigorouschallengetotheongoingsocialandpoliticalmarginalizationofthissectorofCanadian society.For someof the smallest andmost ruralMennoniteconferences,theideaofconfrontingtheStateandadvocatingonbehalfofnon-Mennonite neighbors rapidly became the most controversial aspectof NC activity, directly challenging traditional boundaries between theMennonitecommunityandtheoutsideworld.Indeferencetotheconcernsof more traditional MCCC Board members, one of the first NC VS workers, EdgarSchmidt,originallyhiredasalandrightsresearcher,wasre-assignedto work full-time on some of the resource development projects notedabove.12

However,thecallforjusticeforindigenouspeoples,whichincludedthe call to confront Canadian Mennonite participation in structures andsystems of injustice, remained the clearest and most consistent messageWiebepresentedinhistwodecadesattheNChelm.AsheindicatedinhisJanuary1976reporttotheMCCCannualmeeting,advocacyforlandrightsshould not be interpreted as a blanket support for a new form of quasi-nationalsovereigntybutasapleaformutualrespect,adeeperunderstandingof a unique relationship to the land, and a willingness to stand withindigenouspeoplesastheystruggledtoarticulateandcreatenewsocialandenvironmentalrelationshipsofrespect.13

Wiebe first focused this call for justice in the mid-1970s on the Churchill River Diversion, a series of hydro-electric dams along theChurchill and Nelson River systems that resulted in massive flooding of northernManitobaindigenouslandandresources.Whenhestartedworkingfor MCCC, construction was already well advanced and eight northerncommunitieswere threatenedwith the imminent lossof their homes andhunting and fishing grounds. Representing NC, Wiebe joined representatives of other Christian denominations active in these communities to sponsorfourdaysofpublichearings inSeptember1975– three inWinnipegandoneinthenortherncommunityofNelsonHouse,therebybringingtheissuetopublicawareness.14Oversubsequentyears,heandNCcontinued theiractivesupporttotheNorthernFloodCommittee,theindigenousorganizationadvocatingfortheinterestsoftheaffectedcommunity.


NCindigenouslandrightsadvocacyontheprovincialscaleopenedthe door to participation in similar activities on the national scale in thefall of 1976 when, through NC, MCCC became a member of ProjectNorth(PN),anationalecumenicalcoalition.Mennonitecongregationsandindividualsnowheardthecallforindigenouslandrightsfromchurchandpublicadvocatesinresponsetolarge-scaleresourcedevelopmentinitiativesacrosstheCanadiannorth.15However,aspiriteddiscussionattheJune1977MCCC Executive Committee meeting about the merits and problems ofspeaking out on northern flooding foreshadowed the questions that would arisethroughoutthelifeofPN:Whyarewestandinginthewayofprogress?Shouldthedesiresofafewthousandsofpeoplehindertheaspirationsofmillions of Canadians? How long could hunting and fishing economies last inthefaceofgrowingindustrialization?Shouldwebestandingthewayofthecreationofnewindustrialjobsfornortherners?16TheunderlyingstruggleforMCCCinthisandinmanysuchdebatestocomewasabouthowtolistentoboththeindigenouscommunitiesandtheconstituencybacklash.

Alongsidethecalltohelpandprovidewasthecalltolistenandlearn.A theme frequently repeatedbyWiebeandotherNCstaff in reportsandpresentationswastheneedtoaccompanythehelpingstancewithasincereefforttounderstandthecrisesthatmadethishelpnecessary,toaccompanysharingof theGoodNewswith receivingwithgratitude the insights and“goodnews”arising from the indigenouscontext.AJanuary1976 reportstateditthisway:

[T]hegoodnewsmustbegoodnewsnotonlyfortheproclaimersbut also for the hearers. Conversely, MCC must indeed alsoacceptthestanceoflearnerandreceiveroftheologicalinsightsheldbyNativepeople.17

Thischallengetolistentothepeoplehadtobecomethebasisofanycommunitydevelopmentinitiativeorjusticeadvocacycampaignundertakenby NC. Therefore, public education and individual and constituencyawareness-raising about indigenous issues and values were inextricablylinkedtoalltheworkdonebyWiebeandhisco-workers.

Aswillbediscussedbelow,oneofthebestexamplesofthisapproachtodevelopmentandadvocacyisseeninthestoryofthesummergardeningprogram.Inthesummerof1977,NCplacedavoluntaryserviceworkerin


thenorthwesternOntariocommunityofSachigoLake,aswehavenoted,togiveleadershiptoavegetablegardeningproject,oneoftheagriculturaldevelopment projects attempted in northern communities. This projectwas successful; the volunteer was well received in the community andestablished10gardens.Inthefollowingspring,thecommunityrequestedanothersummergardenerandseveralnearbycommunitiesalsoexpressedinterest.The number of communities involved in the gardening programsteadilygrewinsubsequentyears.

During this first decade, Wiebe developed a multi-faceted program shaped largely by the his own involvements and interests as well as bythe expressed needs of indigenous communities brought to his attention.A program evaluation completed in the fall of 1978 identified and commended the wide range of activities, including community-basedresourcedevelopment,politicaladvocacyoflandrights,andurbanpastoralcounseling.TheevaluationpanelalsopraisedWiebefor

performing the delicate two-pronged task of relating to twodifferent kinds of people with sensitivity, cross-culturalthoughtfulnessandtheologicalthoughtfulness.18

Inadditiontofrequentvisitstoindigenouscommunities,thisdelicatetask included many presentations at churches, educational institutions,seminars, and other special meetings. Responses to the report stronglysupported four general areas of involvement – constituency education,resourcedevelopment,justiceconcerns,andotherspecialprogramming.19Thepanel did raise a concern, however, about potential over-relianceontheconstantactivityofonepersontomaintainthisliaisonbetweendifferentpeoples, a concern with significant implications for the program’s long-term viability.

Growth and Institutionalization in the 19�0sWithin the next decade, the 1980s, the program solidified its place within the MCCCstructuresasitwasformallysituatedwithintheCanadianProgramssectionand severalprovincesappointed theirownstaffpersonswithNCresponsibilities.MCCCstressedresourcedevelopmentasastrongerprogrampriority through theadditionofanother full-timestaffmembermandatedtopromotelocalwildriceharvesting,processing,andmarketing;promote


vegetablegardening;exploreanimalhusbandryandwildlifemanagement;and facilitate local industries such as pulp-cutting and beekeeping.20Constituencyeducationcontinuedwithmanymorespeakingengagements,thedevelopmentofanNClibrary,andwrittenandaudio-visualresources.

The justice advocacy role also become more institutionalized andvisible as MCCC joined other Canadian denominations within ProjectNorthintryingtohearandamplifyindigenousarticulationsofneedsandgoals.PNadvocacyandpubliceducationontheexploitationofresourcesamplified concerns raised in the Manitoba northern flooding issue about both thelossofindigenousresourcesandlifestylesandthesouthernconsumptionlifestylesheldresponsibleforthisloss.Intheearly1980sPNbroadeneditsagendaby advocating the inclusionof indigenous rights in theCanadianConstitution,andbyparticipatingasobserversinaseriesofFirstMinistersconferences mandated to define and interpret this aspect of the Constitution. ThroughPN,directlyandindirectlytheadvocacyandjusticedimensionofNCworkbecamemorevisible thanbefore,avisibilityenhanced throughWiebe’stermaschairofPNfrom1984to1986,atimeofincreasingactivityonnationalconstitutionalissues.

However, in the1980s itbecameobvious thatdevelopinganequalpartnershipwouldrequiremoreequalityofinteractionthancouldbeprovidedby a church-sponsored and church-directed social agency. Extensivedialogue with all stakeholders – churches, indigenous communities, andnon-indigenousregionalsupportnetworks–eventuallyledin1989tothecreationofanewentity,theAboriginalRightsCoalition(ARC),whichwouldactinallianceandsolidaritywithallthesepartners.WhilePNhadalwaysmaintainedtheimportanceofactingonbehalfofindigenouscommunitiesifandwhenrequested,thetransformationintoARCtookthatrelationshiptoanewlevelofdiscerningandactinginalliance,arelationshipthatalsochallengedNCandMCCCintheirinteractionswiththecommunities.Thisrelationship was tested further by the growing militancy and activism ofindigenouscommunitiesinthelate’80s,21leadingtointensedebateaboutMCCC’sroleandNC’sinvolvementinconfrontationalsituations.22

Meanwhile, the summer gardening project, NC’s most successfullisteningandlearninginitiative,hadgrowntoagrandtotalof16communitiesacrossCanadain1981and24in1982.23Overthenexttenyears,anaverage


of 16 communities participated each year (ranging from a high of 20 in1983and1985toalowof13in1988).Inadditiontothelocalcommunitygardener,asteadystreamofMCCvolunteerstendedtheplots,whichgrewfrom the original one to five in 1978, eight in 1979, and 22 in 1980. The all-timehighwas25in1982,butthenumberofsummervolunteersremainedabove20until1988whenitdroppedto16.Duringthelate1980sandearly’90s,thenumberofvolunteersgraduallydeclinedtoabouthalfofthepeak(only12in1992),withanincreasingpercentagecomingfromEuroperatherthanfromtheNorthAmericanMennoniteconstituency.

Thesummervolunteersquicklylearnedthatwhiletheovertreasonfortheirsojourninanindigenouscommunitywastoprovideexpertiseingardening,theunderlyingreasonwastolisten,learn,andbuildrelationshipswiththehostcommunity.Aninformalnewsletter,Weeds and Seeds, preparedand distributed by the NC office as a way of sharing gardening tips and news, providedfrequenttestimonialsofawe-struckgardenersconfrontedwithnewinsightsandnewpracticesastheyimmersedthemselvesintheseunfamiliarcultures. In the end,gardeners considered the successof thegardensnotterms of the fruitfulness of the plants grown but of the fruitfulness andrichnessofrelationshipstheygainedandtheworldviewtheyexperienced.

A 1987 history of the program highlights growth in all areas. Insummarizing constituency education resources, the report lists five slide shows, a film, three dramas, and two poetry booklets among the materials producedbyWiebeandavailableforuse.24ThereportnoteswithapprovalNCcollaborationwiththeinterdenominationalProjectNorthanditsregionalaffiliates and support network to advocate on indigenous justice and land rights issues at national and regional levels. In addition, the report notesthatNCprovidedsupportformanyNCVoluntaryServiceworkers.NativeConcerns had supported and resourced a combined total of 266 workerssince thebeginningof theNCprogram,engaged(inorderofpriority) ineducation, community development, social rehabilitation, agriculture,healthcare,socialwork,research,administration,youthwork,andjusticeadvocacy.25

Despite the successes, the report noted the danger of a potentiallywidening social distance between NC and the mainstream MCCCconstituency.JohnFunk,theauthor,warnedthat


The validation of the Native Concerns mandate requiresan admission that a third world problem exists in Canada.Accepting this fact recognizes that the forces that created asafeandprosperoushavenforMennonitesarealsocapableofisolatingandoppressingawholenationofpeopleinthenameofprogress.26

Funksawthistensionevidentintheconstituency’sresistancetoNCadvocacy of indigenous communities and groups in confrontation withvariouslevelsofgovernment;solidaritywithindigenousleaderscouldnotnecessarilybeassumedtorepresentwidespreadMennonitesolidarity.

Major Changes in the 1990sWhileNativeConcernsprogrammingfor,andinteractionwith,indigenouscommunitiesseemedrelativelystable in theearly1990s,anundercurrentofcriticismandconcernwasgainingvisibility.Forexample,aSeptember1990reportbyRobertMiller,EmploymentConcernsDirectorforMennoniteCentral Committee Manitoba (MCCM), noted the many differentopportunities for assisting indigenous peoples in resource developmentand job creation, but added that the effectivenessof such assistancewashamperedbothbyaconfusingoverlapofnationalandregionaladministrativestructures and by inappropriate expectations of relatively short-term financial sustainabilityofprojects rather than the long-terminvestmentneededforsocialandeconomicdevelopment.27

The popularity of the gardening program through the 1980swas not enough to blunt the criticism in the ’90s.While the project hadfacilitated enriching interaction between indigenous communities andindividual Mennonite volunteers, it was not fully effective as either aform of local economic development or a type of summer recreationalprogram.Also,forindividualvolunteergardeners,expectationsofworkingside-by-side with community members were too often dashed by localassumptions that the gardeners were there to make the gardens for thecommunity. Wiebe acknowledged the difficulty of developing an equitable teamworkrelationship,citing thehistoricalpredominanceof indigenoussubservience to European experts and authorities as a significant factor to beovercome.28


ThesecritiquesandchallengeswerehotlydebatedwithinMCCCin1992uponthepresentationofEricRempel’scomprehensiveevaluationofthegardeningprogram.Afterthoroughanalysisofstatisticalandinterviewdata,Rempelconcludedthat,despitetheprogram’spopularitythroughthe1980s, it was not responding to specific community requests and was not stimulatingsustainableeconomicdevelopment.Herecommendedreplacingit with a new Native Summer Service program that would encouragevolunteers to respond more directly to specific needs, such as recreational programming for youth, as well as discerning more effective long-termeconomicdevelopmentventuresratherthantoutinggardeningasaformofthatdevelopment.Administratively,hecalled for a shiftof responsibilityfrom the national to the regional level.29 The report’s conclusions andrecommendationsgeneratedagreatdealofcontroversyanddebatewithinNC and the MCCC administration. While all respondents affirmed the enduring value of low-key contact between different peoples, a growingnumberofMCCpersonnelandsupporterswereattracted to thepotentialforradicallyre-structuringNCprogramsanddecentralizingadministrativeauthority.

After 1992, the popularity of the gardening program decreasedsignificantly, and summer gardeners proved increasingly difficult to recruit. TheprogramwasquietlydiscontinuedseveralyearsafterWieberetired.30

The gardening project was not the only forum for Mennonite-indigenousencounterandeducation.Severalintensiveshort-termlisteningseminarsheldinAlbertaandBritishColumbiaintheearlyandmid-1990sprovided more opportunities to hear indigenous speakers and gain newinsights.However,formanyNCvolunteersthesummergardeningprogramremainedtheultimateexperienceofcross-culturalimmersionandindigenoushospitality.

Anotherrealityalsoloomedover thedebateaboutwhat todowiththeNCprogram,namelytheincreasinglimitationsplacedupontheMCCCbudget.Through the early andmid-1990s, theNCbudget facedgrowingpressureasMCCfundingprioritiesshiftedtowardsoverseasprogramming.By1996,MCCCadministratorswereconvincedthatNCcouldnotsurvivein its current form. A memo from the MCCC executive office sent in April presentedthegrimnews:giventhereductionoftheMCCCbudgetbyhalf


andtheapproximately40percentcutinfundsforCanadianprogramming,NCsimplycouldnotcontinuewiththecurrentfundinglevel.31

Wiebe reacted strongly to the impending changes, calling MCCCto examine more closely the philosophical and theological convictionsunderlying overt program decisions. The call to justice should not be amatterofdecidingbetweencompetingprioritiesbecause

ouroverseaswitnesstopeopleindesperationismadecredibletotheextentthatweaddressdesperateconditionsinourownbackyard.32

Wiebeviewedprogramrestructuringasabetrayaloftheindigenouspeople who had not been consulted in recommending these changes,abetrayalof thenational indigenous agenda that couldnotbe as clearlyprocessed through regional offices and, on a personal level, a betrayal of the personwhohadpersonallyshapedtwodecadesofNCprogramming.

Menno Wiebe retired from NC and MCCC in 1997, and within ayearMCCCre-structuredNCtocreateanewAboriginalNeighbours(AN)program. AN was designed to fulfill a much more facilitative and networking role,coordinatinganationalresponsetonationaljusticeagenda,butactingmoreasasupport to regionally-initiated,community-basedprogrammingratherthandevelopingsuchprogrammingdirectly.33TheMCCCresponsetoindigenouscommunitiesnowinvolvedencouraginglocalinitiativesandbuilding bridges between peoples, not establishing new MCC programsandservices.ThisresponsedidnotcarryeitherthesamevisibilityfortheMennonite constituency or the same direct, uncomfortable challenge torespondtopovertyandinjustice.34

Exploring the GapWiebe’s original vision saw two very different peoples coming together– original inhabitants and newcomers – in a way that would allow thelattertorespondbettertothemanypressingneedsoftheformer.Effectiveembodimentofthisvisionrequiredadeeperunderstandingofthecontextandidealsofthosetobeassisted,aswellasthecoordinatedeffortofanentireconstituencyratherthantheisolatedactionofarelativelyfewwell-meaningindividuals. Community development and social assistance had to beaccompaniedbyconstituencyeducationandawareness-raising.35However,


the closer the contact between these two peoples, the more complex therelationshipandthemorechallengingthistaskseemedtobe.

Nearthebeginningofhistenure,Wiebehadalreadyacknowledgedthe

fundamentaldifferencesbetweenEuropeanandNativepointsofview:notionsofownershipareatodds,soarethedifferentattitudestotheenvironment,competition,education,healthandreligion.36

Any form of assistance flowing from one people to another had to be offeredinaspiritofrespectandwillingnesstolearnfromwhatthereceiverscould offer the benefactors. However, as the newcomers were invited toexperienceandlearnfromanindigenousperspective,theycouldnotavoidhavingtoexplainthemselves,toanswertheindigenousquestionconveyedbyWiebeinasubsequentreport:“WhoaretheMennonites?”37Insteadofsimplylearningaboutthe“Other”soastomoreeffectivelyassistthem,thenewcomersalsohadtodisclosethemselvesandbecomemoreopentolearnwiththe“Other.”

Such self-disclosure could be risky, according to Wiebe, becausethe answer to the question of Mennonite identity compelled both theacknowledgementofauniquehistoryofmarginalizationandthemandatetorespondtomarginalizedneighborsinthecurrentcontext.A1986paper,“MCCLearningsFromtheNativeCanadianScene,”deploredthelopsidednatureoftherelationshipbetweenthetwopeoplesandadded,

Untilwehaveadequatelydeclaredourselvesbysharingsomeof our ownhistories,we are regarded as an extensionof theoverpoweringwhiteworld.38

The relationship between the two people could only be viewed asunique:culturallyasdistantasanywhereintheworld,butgeographicallyascloseasnext-doorneighbors,asco-dwellersandco-citizensinthesameterritory.Thusneitherthedistantoutreachofaforeignmissionventurenorthe easy familiarity of neighborly discourse could be sufficient to cross this gap.

Signs of indigenous renaissance and revival resulted in anothercomplicatingfactordiscussedinthesamepaper.Indigenousidentitiescould


no longer be defined through the marginalization and fragmentation of a former national society, but had to be treated as something growing andgaininginstrengthandauthority.Alongsidethetensionsofculturalversusgeographicaldistancelaythetensionsofchangingpatternsofauthorityandaccountability,somethingthatWiebesuggestedcouldbestbeaddressedifMennonitestookseriouslytheAnabaptistpositionofservanthoodandshedtheauthorityofthenon-indigenousproviderofresourcesandexpertise.39

However,astheNCprogrambeganconfronttheorganizationalandfinancial challenges of the 1990s, the huge question for Wiebe was the extent to which the Mennonite peoplehood was willing both to affirm their historicidentityandtocommittothemandateofservanthoodserviceandpropheticwitnessarisingfromit.A1992paperdemonstrateshisconcernthatMennoniteassimilationhasresultedinalossofthedistinctiveaspectsofAnabaptistcommunalidentityandbasicreligiousandethicalvalues.ThisassimilativetrendwasalsoaffectingtheMennoniteresponsetoindigenouscommunities.Ifapeople-to-peoplemission,rather thananindividualizedand delegated witness, characterized the earlier Mennonite approach toaboriginal people, for instance, then that culture-to-culture paradigm isnowgivingwaytoaserviceagencyapproach.AssentgiventotheworkofmissionsorMCCseemsnowtobesoughtwithinthesecuritiesofthebureauratherthanthepeoplehoodoutofwhichthebureauevolved.40

Subsequent funding cutbacks and program re-organization onlyservedtoreinforcethefearsexpressedandimpliedinthe1992statement.A1996Valentine’sDaystatementfurtherdetailedthemesemphasizedbyWiebe in previous years – the loss of a concept of corporate Mennonitepeoplehood built on historical marginalization and a distinctive religiousandethicalmandate–at theverytimewhenastrongMennonite identitywas needed to affirm and work alongside the renaissance of an indigenous peoplehoodovercomingitsownmarginalizationthroughitsowndistinctivereligiousandethicalvalues.41

ConclusionsDespitethehugesocialandculturalgapandtheimmensepowerimbalancebetweenindigenousCanadiansandMennonitenewcomers,theNCprogramresulted in some notable and dramatic successes. New community-based


commercialventures,suchaswildriceprocessingandharvesting,providedsustainable livelihoods while still affirming local cultural and environmental values.Thecalltorespectindigenousrightsandtosettleoutstandinglandclaims fairlywasheard in church sanctuaries andpublichalls across thecountry.Volunteersummergardenerslearnedtoappreciatethegenerosityandwisdomof indigenouscultures inawhollynewwayas theyworkedside-by-side with community members, digging through the soil andplantingseeds.

At the same time, the gap between the peoples could never befully overcome. The vision of a healthy interaction remained more ofan individual matter than a communal or organizational Mennonite oneand, as such, remained susceptible to the comings and goings of specific individuals.Theindigenousquestion,“WhoaretheMennonites?,”forcedanuncomfortablerecognitionofthegapandofMennonitecomplicityinthelifestylesandeconomiesresultingincontemporaryinjustice.Thedesireforameaningfulpeople-to-peopleencounterwascomplicatedanddistortedbythegrowingassimilationandlossofa traditionalMennonitepeoplehood,evenasindigenouscommunitieswereregainingtheirsenseofadistinctivepeoplehood.

Inthemid-1990s,there-organizationofNativeConcernsresultedinthenewAboriginalNeighboursprogramthatcontinuedtobuildonthesuccessesandenduringstrugglesofNCbutwithouttheextensive,nationallyvisible,andcontroversialpublicadvocacyandconstituenteducationcarriedoutbyWiebeandhisco-workers.However,despiteprograminstitutionalizationanddecentralization, the legacyremains.ThegapbetweenMennonitesettlersandindigenousCanadianshasgrownnoticeablysmallerasindividualsandgroups fromboth sidesbeganencounteringeachother across thedivide,therebybeginningtogainadeeperunderstandingoftheirneighborsontheotherside.


Notes

1TheoriginalversionofthispaperwaspresentedatMennoSimonsCollegeinWinnipeginMarch2010andattheMennoniteCentralCommittee“TableofSharing”ConferenceinJune2010.IamgratefultoconferenceparticipantsandThe Conrad Grebel Reviewpeer-reviewersforthecommentsandrevisionrecommendationsthathelpedshapethecurrentversion.2TheauthorwasaVoluntaryServiceworkerwithNCfromthefallof1977tothesummerof1981,andalsoparticipatedinWinnipeg-basedregionalinterchurchnetworksactiveonNCprioritiesfrom1986to1994.3 “Native Canadian and MCC (Canada),” undated (probably 1973). Vol. 2475, File EO-85. All volumes and files cited in this paper are located in the Archives of the Mennonite HistoricalCentreinWinnipeg,MB.4“JobDescription,”Vol.3023,FileNC-27.5“NativeCanadianandMCC(Canada),”undated(probably1973),2.Vol.2475,FileEO-85.6“DelineationofServices,”memofromMennoWiebetoIkeFroese,executivesecretaryofNativeMinistries,January10,1978.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.7SeeMennoWiebe,“MennoniteResponsetoAboriginalCulturalIdentity,”1992.Vol.3995,File1714-R-1992CANATI.8Thegardeningprojectisdiscussedmorefullybelow.9ReporttoMCCCanadaAnnualMeeting,January1978.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.10 “Some Thoughts of Future Direction for Resource Development,” memo to NativeConcernsAdvisoryCouncilandMCCCanadaAdministrativeCouncil fromEricRempel,October15,1980.Vol.3038,FileNC-79.11This point is expanded further in a March 1981 report to the MCC Canada ExecutiveCommittee, comparing the large investment and the relative lack of community benefit for developmentofacommercialindustryversusextensivecommunityimpactatrelativelylittlecostforfurtherfacilitationofsmall-scaleenterprises.Vol.3561,FileNC-54.12NativeConcernsReport,September23-24,1977.Vol. 3023,FileNC-27.Schmidtwasoriginallyhired toworkhalf-timeasa landrights researcherandhalf-time incommunityeconomicdevelopment,butwasaskeduponstartinghispositiontopostponetheresearchbecauseitwasconsideredtoocontroversialfortheManitobaMCCconstituency.13NativeConcernsReporttotheMCCCanadaannualmeeting,January16-17,1976.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.14IntheNativeConcernsReporttotheMCCCanadaExecutiveCommitteeMeeting,May30-31,1975,Wiebesummarizesthebackgroundofthisissueandplansforthepublichearing.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.15ThefullstoryofProjectNorthandofthedifferentissuesistoomuchtoaddressinashortarticle.ThecompletehistoryofthisuniqueecumenicalprojectthatincludedparticipationofAnglican,United,Catholic,Lutheran,Presbyterian,andQuakernationalchurchesworkingtogether from the 1970s to the late 1980s remains to be written. Project North was re-


organizedin1989intotheAboriginalRightsCoalitionthatremainedactivethroughoutthe1990s.16MinutesofMCCCanadaExecutiveCommitteeMeeting,June9-10,1977.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.17NativeConcernsReporttotheMCCCanadaannualmeeting,January16-17,1976.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.18 Emma LaRocque and Larry Kehler, “Native Concerns Evaluation Report to the MCC(Canada)ExecutiveCommittee,”December8-9,1978.Vol.3023,File1978,NC-27.19JohnFunk,“NativeConcerns:TheFirstTwelveYears,”August1987,12.Vol.4992,File477-R-1993CANATI.20Ibid.,10.21AblockadeofoilexplorationbytheLubiconofnorthernAlbertain1988andthearmedconfrontationagainstdevelopmentonsacredgroundsinOka,Quebecin1990areonlytwoexamplesofthisgrowingmilitancyandpotentialforviolence.22See“PrinciplesandRolesforMCCInvolvementinConfrontationalSituations,”undated(probably1991).Vol.2004,File1714-R-1991CANATI.23 These and subsequent statistics taken from Eric Rempel, “Evaluation of the NativeGardeningProgram,”July1992.Vol.3995,File477-R-1992CANATI.24Ibid.,22.25Ibid.,40.26Ibid.,45.27RobertMiller,“MCCandNativeResourceDevelopment,”September18,1990.Vol.1856,File447-R-1990CANATI.28MennoWiebe,“ToWork‘For’OrToWork‘With’thePeople,”December22,1995.Vol.5057,File447-R-1995CANATI.29EricRempel,“EvaluationoftheNativeGardeningProgram.”30 Personal conversation with Rick Zerbe Cornelson, Coordinator of the AboriginalNeighboursprogram,1998-2003.31 “Response to Minutes,” memo from Dale Taylor, Executive Office, to Native Concerns AdvisoryCommittee,April2,1996.Vol.5081,File447-R-1996CANATI.32MennoWiebe,“Valentine’sDayJustice,”February14,1996,2.Vol.5081,File447-R-1996CANATI.33PersonalconversationwithRickZerbeCornelson.34AfullanalysisoftheAboriginalNeighboursprogramisunfortunatelybeyondthescopeofthispaper.35“NativeCanadianandMCC(Canada),”undated(probably1973).Vol.2475,FileEO-85.36NativeConcernsReporttotheMCCCanadaannualmeeting,January16-17,1976,4.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.37NativeConcernsReport to theMCCCanadaExecutiveCommitteemeeting,December10-11,1976,1.Vol.3023,FileNC-27.38MennoWiebe,“MCCLearningsFromtheNativeCanadianScene,”April12,1986,1.Vol.4593,File477-R-1985CANATI.


39Ibid.,5.40MennoWiebe,“MennoniteResponse toAboriginalCultural Identity,”1992.Vol.3995,File1714-R-1992CANATI.41MennoWiebe,“Valentine’sDayJustice,”February14,1996.Vol.5081,File447-R-1996CANATI.

Neil Funk-Unrau is Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator of Conflict Resolution Studies at Menno Simons College, a college of the Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg.

Documents

Exploring the Gap Between Mennonite and Indigenous ... · (MCC) and Mennonite Central Committee Canada (MCCC) is the shaping of a corporate identity through engagement with the “Other,”