Answer:  First of all I am aboriginal myself. I began my formal training at Fort Queppelle in Saskatchewan in 1987. Rev. Alf Dumont was the director of the program back then and Rev. Stan Mckay was the person who directed me into the program.

 

Question: What was it that drew you toward that program as opposed to going for training in a conventional seminary stream?

 

Answer:  As I recall there were a number of factors. Thinking back then and looking at my journal I remember that I was a restless spirit and I wanted to try somthing different. I had just completed 3 yrs at McMaster University where I majored in English studies for my undergrad degree.

In any case the program for native ministry was just being developed and Alf Dumont was keen on bringing Aboriginal Traditional Teachings forward as a corollary to the conventional Christian curriculum.  In addition the United Church was sponsoring aboriginals as fully paid lay ministers to work in native communities. This allowed persons like myself to support themselves while they went through training which is a long process.

 

Question: That is different. Can you tell us something about the Traditional Teachings and what effect that these teachings had for you and other students?

 

Answer:  Initially the effect was surprising but positive. I had been raised in a liberal christian home where other religious traditions where respected. Still I had no  prior experience with things like the Sundance, Sweatlodge or other traditional ceremonies but it was good for some of us. Others chose not to participate in that traditional part because they viewed such things as witchcraft.

 

Question:  Overall then!  Do you think that you were being well prepared to minister to aboriginal persons on remote northern reserves?

 

Answer:  As far as the rites of the church, basic theology and politics of the United Church were concerned I was trained well enough I think.

However ministry to aboriginal people in their home reserves is something different again. One has to reflect that each community is completely different than anywhere else and the people still speak their own language dialect. It is not a homogenous whole and the variations are great. There is not much that is being done to prepare potential ministers to bridge the culture gap. Specifically we were not taught anything about the character and history of the local people and this is a big omission.

Indeed going to work on a reserve today would be parallel to going into a war torn country where there is social upheaval. The problem is the level of violence, addiction, suicide and unemployment on many reserves which is horrendous. There is no soft way to say it. As a minister I was expected to deal with these issues on a continual basis and I did not have the expertise or support to handle it.

 

Question:  Then you are saying the United Church is sending persons onto reserves without sufficient training?

 

Answer:  That is true!  The levels of stress are phenomenal and the opportunity to debrief and decompress are not always available. The church has a responsibility to  provide better supports to its active ministers.

In addition to that ministry training is missing some basic essential components such as psychology, sociology and historical background which would help ministers deal with the reality of life on reserves.  Each reserve is a unique place with its' own values, attitudes and worldview for example. Learning about these things are more important than trying to impress ritual and doctrine into a community in my view. That is what I know now but I did not know that in the beginning.

I would venture that the model of training that is now being put forward is suitable to put ministers into a rural farming community but it is not designed for the stresses on the reserves.

 

Question: Rev. Scott you are no longer in active ministry and why? Was the transition that took you out of ministry sudden or gradual?

 

Answer: The short answer to the question is that my work for the United Church ended suddenly.  This occurred about seven years ago and the reasons why this happened are not clear to everyone.  Essentially I was shut out of the aboriginal churches and there was no process of dismissal to explain why. I have tried at different times to return to work but the door has been shut. The person who may know the answer to this question would be Rev. Stan McKay but he has remained curiously silent on this issue.

The courts of the church have even been closed to my presence and I have had no opportunity to bring this question forward.  I can only venture a theory and the simplest way to put it in an adage. You might remember the old adage, ' That such and such a person has " Gone Indian" and I think that this applies to my situation. The fact is I did not fit into the platonic elitist mold of those persons, lay and clergy, who are presently in control of the All Native Circle Conference.

 

Question:  I take it that you may have harbored some resentment toward the United Church organization and where has that feeling taken you?

 

Answer:  I think that the whole experience of being forced out of ministry was traumatic especially in the early days when I began to think about the hard attitude which pushed me out of ministry.  However I can now look back and see that my character was strengthened by what happened and that I had new things to learn in this life. I have continued to develop my skills on the university level and I have taken other courses which have helped in my spiritual development. Being forced out of ones natal church is not the worst thing that can happen and there are things to be done outside the institutional heirarchy too.

 

Question: What are your views on the All Native Circle Conference today and what do you see for the future development of Aboriginal Ministry?

 

Answer:  I think that from the beginning of it's creation there was a dark figure working throught the ANCC which was a powerful presence. That dark figure was personnel from Winnipeg Presbytery which formed a coalition of power and it was difficult to discern how their views and actions played out generally. If we examine the history, structure and policy of the ANCC though we can see that this coalition tinkered with the organization and the long term effect are not clearly understood.

 

Today  I don't know if all the elders, staff and students are aware of the dark figure and I am sure alot of them would not know. It would have been good if they had been informed that phenomena because it would have made things easier for those involved with the ANCC. To not be informed and officially was another oversight and evidence of ongoing paternalism which people may have thought they were getting away from. Was not the purpose of the Apology in 1986 just for aboriginal people to get away from paternalism in all it forms and guises?

 

The future of the church is to get away from that kind of paternalism but we need leaders who can deal with that corrupting concept.  Thus far there has been no educating process in this area and I think that there should be. It would be great to have a training format which teaches students about bureacracy, politics and conflict within an organization and how to survive. Since aboriginal people have put up with it for several hundred years we could be natural instructors. The day may come when we shall see this phenomena studied and new methods could be developed to deal with it and I look forward to that time!