Book
Yoder, Richard A., Calvin W. Redekop, and Vernon E. Jantzi. Development to a Different Drummer: Anabaptist/Mennonite Experiences and Perspectives. 2004. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Reviewer
Larissa Fast, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame
Development to a Different Drummer is written by three scholar-practitioners at Eastern Mennonite University. The book is the culmination of a process of analysis and reflection that began many years earlier, based on their own experiences with the development enterprise as well as a 1998 conference at EMU that brought together Mennonites “doing development.” It is divided into three Parts. The first provides an overview and background to development and a history of Mennonite involvement; the second features stories of Mennonites involved in development at the grassroots, middle-ground, and public policy levels—stories providing the basis for the authors’ formulation of a Mennonite ethic; and the third identifies common assumptions, themes and patterns, describes a Mennonite ethic of development, and articulates some key tensions and dilemmas inherent in development work.
So, a reader may ask, what is development? The authors briefly review competing perspectives in the second chapter, and in Part III suggest that a Mennonite ethic of development relies upon “eight mutually reinforcing values: people-centeredness, service, integrity, mutuality, authenticity, humility, justice, and peace” (223) with the ultimate goals of justice, sustainability, quality of life, and peace/salaam/shalom. Each of these values and goals, they maintain, are congruent with an Anabaptist theology and ethic.
They acknowledge that Mennonites have historically been involved at the grassroots level, where a relational approach to development is natural and most effective, but they argue repeatedly (and persuasively) for more involvement at the public policy level, suggesting that “those positions present opportunities to be faithful to the call of Jesus” (279). At this level prevention and transformation of structural injustices are possible. The final chapter, “What kind of world,” addresses practical and ethical challenges, particularly issues of power, culture, values, and effectiveness.
As someone raised in the Mennonite Church who has worked for MCC and other development organizations, attended the 1998 EMU conference, and focuses scholarship and practice on issues of humanitarianism, development, and peacebuilding, I found the book’s premise intriguing. I particularly welcomed the honesty and variety of the individual stories in the second section and the authors’ discussion in the final chapter of lifestyle issues (“Living well while doing good”), and the tensions between grassroots, relationship-focused development and public policy work (“Raising goats or changing systems”), and between mission and service work (“Connect or disconnect with the missiological thrust of religious organizations”).
My primary criticism lies with the book’s implicit attempt to speak to multiple audiences. On the one hand, it is Mennonite focused and relies heavily on sources written by other Mennonites, the book is published by a Mennonite press, and many of the topics speak more to a Mennonite audience. Indeed, the book’s strongest contribution is its articulation of a Mennonite/Anabaptist ethic of development and its congruence with Mennonite theology. On the other hand, the title and introduction purport to address contributions of Anabaptists/Mennonites to the debates and issues of development. If the authors truly believe that Mennonites have a unique perspective and experience to offer, it would seem appropriate to present these to a broader audience and to engage more thoroughly with existing development literature.
Several unanswered questions remained, which highlight the interplay between Mennonite theology and its application. I wished for a deeper exploration of the authors’ implicit critique of the “two-kingdom theology” that has traditionally guided Mennonite involvement in the secular world, and how more engagement at the public policy level suggests a redefinition of this division.
I also wondered, as they did, about the wider applicability of their articulation of a Mennonite ethic of development. All of the featured testimonies were by individuals well-established in their careers, most of whom had worked for MCC at some point. This raises the question of the extent to which individuals are socialized into a Mennonite ethic of development through their MCC experience as distinct from their Mennonite faith and beliefs. Would this ethic hold for a Mennonite just beginning his or her career? For one who began that career working for a non-MCC or non-Mennonite organization or institution? For a Mennonite raised outside North America? Expanding the study to a more diverse Mennonite population would likely yield fascinating insights, and would demonstrate whether the values inherent in their ethic of development derive from Mennonite teachings or from socialization within Mennonite development institutions.
Despite these questions, Yoder, Redekop, and Jantzi’s articulation of a Mennonite ethic of development is a welcome first step in the right direction.