I grew up in the evangelical church. For better or worse, it is the church with which I still most identify, even given our many obvious flaws. With my recent “conversion” to Anabaptist theology and practice, I’m not yet sure that I would fully fit in with Mennonite culture. John Roth once gave me some good advice: Live your Anabaptist witness in your own church culture. I would give the same advice to others in my shoes.

I have been encouraged by the fact that even the most influential of Mennonites, John Howard Yoder, often interacted with the evangelical world, even making the cover of Christianity Today for a story on evangelical leaders! So, I’ve started a group for evangelical Anabaptists like me, who because of our Anabaptism are something of exiles from mainstream evangelicalism and because of our evangelicalism are not quite at home in mainstream Anabaptism. We call ourselves the Evangelical Anabaptist Revolution (EAR), and recently printed t-shirts with this design. (First printing of the t-shirts are all out, by the way. After you see the design, you’ll realize why. Maybe we can print more if people are interested.)

If the above describes you, drop me a note or contact me on facebook. We’d love to have some YAR representation in EAR. Or minimally, we’d love to have some fruitful dialogue.

I have a confession to make.

Some of my friends and colleagues are already fully apprised of what I am about to say. But for many other family members and peers, all they know is what they have heard in rumors or gleaned from suggestive comments on previous blogs.

Today I must put this mystery to rest. Today I must accept myself for who I really am and trust that others will learn to accept me for who I am too.

The reality of who I really am inside is something that I have been coming to grips with over the last few years. At first I tried to fight it. I even wrote a lengthy treatise against it in college. But, alas, it is who I am, and I must accept it.

Some might ask whether I was born this way or if this was a choice I made at some point in my life. This is not a question that I can answer. All I can say is that for the first couple decades of my life I truly believed that I was not one. I grew up in an environment where it was not an open option for me, and it was thus not something that I ever seriously explored (or even casually experimented with). No one that I knew was a one, and if anyone was, they chose to remain in the closet about it.

Several family members and even my former pastor have recently expressed concern over the rumors they have heard about me. For the most part, these inquiries have resulted only in mild teasing, but underlying the teasing there seems to be serious concern for my well-being and my standing as a Christian. But no matter how they choose to respond, I believe that they do have a right to know.

I can say that my wife, Andrea, is fully aware of what I am about to say, and thank God, she is fully supportive of me. Moreover, my church accepts me fully for who I am as well, and for that I must thank God too. I can only hope that those in the larger Church community and even in American society will learn to accept people like me as well. Unfortunately, those prospects do not look promising on either front.

In following posts I will explain my situation in greater detail and answer any questions that anyone has. In the meantime, I must confess that it is true:

I, David Cramer, am a Christian pacifist.

Nevertheless, I had a difficult time getting too emotional or excited over this change of guard. For, while yesterday was historical from the perspective of the United States, it was a pretty small speck when history is viewed rightly. As John Howard Yoder tirelessly argued, the locus of history is not with the state but with God’s work through his church. The state is merely the context in which the real drama of history can unfold.

So, while the words and symbolism of the inauguration may be moving, the sobering fact is that the state is still the state. Yes, Obama seems more intent than Bush on using diplomatic tactics to secure peace, but his message to our “enemy” was still virtually the same: “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

Not much room there for Jesus’s message to love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, and turn the other cheek. But this is as should be expected, because the state is still the state.

Ironically, with this change of guard many of us ‘open-minded, progressive’ Christians will begin to forget that the state is still the state. We will start to put our faith in the ideals of the state and our hope in its progress. As blogger Halden recently argued, now more than ever is it imperative (though difficult) to be resolute in our anti-empire polemics. It was far too easy to maintain a prophetic witness to the state when those in charge overtly sanctioned military aggression, torture, and seemingly unbridled increase of personal power. But when those in power seem to share many of our ideals, the temptation will be to give them a pass when they deem military violence necessary in this or that situation. And it will be difficult for us to make the unfashionable charge that those in power sanction the unjust extermination of the least of those among us. Indeed, to increase the irony still further, it may be the conservative Christians who begin to recognize with more clarity the separation between church and state (as many of my students, for example, ponder whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ!). They will now be the ones to speak prophetically, though their witness will be narrow and tainted by their continual use of political means to grasp for power.

It as at this time, perhaps more than any other, that we need to heed Yoder’s exhortation to what he calls “evangelical nonconformity,” quoted here at length:

When then Jesus said to His disciples, “In the world, kings lord it over their subjects . . . Not so with you”; He was not beckoning His followers to a legalistic withdrawal from society out of concern for moral purity. Rather, His call was to an active missionary presence within society, a source of healing and creativity because it would take the pattern of his own suffering servanthood.

Jesus thereby unmasks the pretension to use violence for the good as being a form of hypocrisy: these rulers call themselves “benefactors” but they are not servants. He who would claim to have the right to use violence, and especially legal violence, against another, places himself outside of the scope of Jesus’ mode of servanthood. This is not so much because he sins against the letter of the law from the Old Testament or the New but because he claims (with a pride intrinsic to his position) to have the right — (whether on the basis of official status, of superior insight, or of his moral qualities) — to determine in a definitive way the destiny of others. The older language in which the theme of “conformity to this world” was stated in Bible times had to do with “idols,” with those unworthy objects of devotion to whom men in their blindness sacrificed. Thus it is quite fitting to describe the use of violence as the outworking of an idolatry. If I take the life of another, I am saying that I am devoted to another value, one other than the neighbor himself, and other than Jesus Christ Himself, to which I sacrifice my neighbor. I have thereby made a given nation, social philosophy, or party my idol. To it I am ready to sacrifice not only something of my own, but also the lives of my fellow human beings for whom Christ gave His life.

- John Howard Yoder, “Christ, the Hope of the World” in The Original Revolution: Essays on Christian Pacifism, 174-75

In this time of celebration, may we not forget that the state is still the state. And we are still called to be the church.

Hi. My name is David Cramer, and I’m the newest member of the Young Anabaptist Radicals.

I’m young because I’m 25 and because I’ve only been Anabaptist for about the last 2 of those 25 years. Before that I attended a church and a college (the Missionary Church / Bethel College, IN) with Anabaptist roots that were remembered by only a few. I still worship in that denomination and now teach at that college and have become one of the few that remember those Anabaptist roots.

It was during my time in seminary at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School that I began to realize, much to the chagrin of many of my professors, I’m sure, that Christianity didn’t make much sense without an Anabaptist Christology and ecclesiology. I have since formalized those thoughts through much reading of John Howard Yoder and the like.

I blog somewhat frequently at http://cramercomments.blogspot.com/, which has been featured on Christian Century blogs (www.ccblogs.org) and elsewhere. My blog traces my subtle transition from a standard-stock Arminian evangelical to an Anabaptist (with an Arminian-evangelical flavor). I have yet to do much explicit blogging on Anabaptism, as I am still learning the ins and outs. Since finishing seminary and moving back from Chicago to Northern Indiana, I have, however, started a local group called the Evangelical Anabaptist Revolution (EAR), which includes other Bethel grads, some Associate Mennonite Biblical Seminary students, and a miscellany from Goshen College, Grace College, etc. If anyone is interested in joining the Revolution, just let me know. (Currently we exist as a “hidden” facebook group, so I would have to befriend and then invite anyone interested.)

My primary interests are in moral theology and philosophy of religion, including nonviolence, gender issues, and religious pluralism. Look forward to interacting with you all.

Peace,

David