Christian leaders honor golden statue of Trump

[JohnH]

It’s interesting that while you claim you’re not policing Christians from other traditions, you are busily trying to police your fellow Anabaptists from criticizing those traditions.

It’s like you’re positioning yourself above the fray, while simultaneously acting as a shield for those evangelical Christians you also believe are engaging in apostasy that your own church rejects.

Involvement in politics has been part of non-Anabaptist groups for a very long time. I personally think being a plain Anabaptist is better (progressive-liberal "Anabaptism" doesn't count, and is often very much mixed up in politics). However, I hesitate to go so far as to simply condemn every single person who doesn't follow plain Anabaptism. I think sincere Christians can be found in other places, even ones who do not understand sound doctrine & practice when it comes to politics.

With that said, people in other branches of Christianity have been erecting statues for a long time of various politicians, and usually with some kind of religious dedication ceremony as well - as I listed above for a few things involving George Washington..

What I find difficult to reconcile is that you claim Anabaptism while repeatedly defending, minimizing and normalizing the very union of political power and faith that historic Anabaptism rejects and criticizes.

What I find difficult is criticism that is only aimed at one specific politician. That's, well, politics, not any kind of Christianity.

[QuietlyListening]

I would personally say what I said above about any leader that had evangelicals or other religious leaders dedicating a statue that is of that leader. But to my knowledge we have not had a statue of a living political figure put up and dedicated in this way, at least not in my lifetime.

[JohnH]

I would personally say what I said above about any leader that had evangelicals or other religious leaders dedicating a statue that is of that leader. But to my knowledge we have not had a statue of a living political figure put up and dedicated in this way, at least not in my lifetime.

Is it somehow better if the person is dead?

DC has statutes of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Ford, and Reagan. The Georgia state capitol has a statue of Carter (which was erected 30 years before he died).

I personally am not very invested in statues. I am also not very invested in getting upset when Christians who are already heavily involved in politics are involved in the ceremony to unveil a statue.

Countries tend to erect statues of their heads of state and other principal leaders. This is part and parcel of politics. If you think Christians shouldn't get mixed up in politics, I agree.

[Szdfan]

It’s interesting that while you claim you’re not policing Christians from other traditions, you are busily trying to police your fellow Anabaptists from criticizing those traditions.

It’s like you’re positioning yourself above the fray, while simultaneously acting as a shield for those evangelical Christians you also believe are engaging in apostasy that your own church rejects.

Involvement in politics has been part of non-Anabaptist groups for a very long time. I personally think being a plain Anabaptist is better (progressive-liberal "Anabaptism" doesn't count, and is often very much mixed up in politics). However, I hesitate to go so far as to simply condemn every single person who doesn't follow plain Anabaptism. I think sincere Christians can be found in other places, even ones who do not understand sound doctrine & practice when it comes to politics.

With that said, people in other branches of Christianity have been erecting statues for a long time of various politicians, and usually with some kind of religious dedication ceremony as well - as I listed above for a few things involving George Washington..

What I find difficult to reconcile is that you claim Anabaptism while repeatedly defending, minimizing and normalizing the very union of political power and faith that historic Anabaptism rejects and criticizes.

What I find difficult is criticism that is only aimed at one specific politician. That's, well, politics, not any kind of Christianity.

I don’t think every non-Anabaptist Christian is being condemned here. I don’t think Anabaptism is the only legitimate form of Christianity.

What’s being criticized is a particular relationship between some Christians and political power. It’s the same kind of criticism that goes back to origins of Anabaptism when our forebears rejected the close relationship between church and state. I don’t think Ernie is liberal-progressive Anabaptist and some of the criticism he’s levied against Trump and the Republicans is congruent with historical Anabaptist belief.

It’s interesting that when plain and conservative Anabaptists apply historic Anabaptist critiques to civil religion, you repeatedly dismiss these criticisms as partisan, unfair, excessive and politically motivated. You accuse conservative Anabaptists of being out-of-touch with reality, when their criticisms are connected to the historical convictions of Anabaptism. I am not the only one criticizing the President on this forum.

Honestly, I believe that if liberals erected a giant gold Obama statue that was ceremonially blessed by progressive clergy while supporters described him in quasi-messianic terms, conservatives would absolutely recognize the authoritarian and idolatrous symbolism immediately. And they would also be correct to criticize it.

There is plenty to criticize Democrats about. But they’re not ones in charge. Trump is President. Republicans control both houses of Congress. Conservatives control the Supreme Court. It’s at this particular moment in history that Republicans are more openly flirting with authoritarian and messianic symbolism. Not Democrats.

So yes, there are reasons why the majority of criticism right now is being directed at Trump. He’s in charge.

[JohnH]

I don’t think every non-Anabaptist Christian is being condemned here. I don’t think Anabaptism is the only legitimate form of Christianity.

For the sake of discussion, we can say expressions of Christianity which reject involvement in politics. Practically speaking, there isn't much else other than plain Anabaptism.

As I have said, I don't want to explicitly condemn every other form of Christianity that is not identical to my own.

What’s being criticized is a particular relationship between some Christians and political power. It’s the same kind of criticism that goes back to origins of Anabaptism when our forebears rejected the close relationship between church and state. I don’t think Ernie is liberal-progressive Anabaptist and some of the criticism he’s levied against Trump and the Republicans is congruent with historical Anabaptist belief.

No, what is being criticised is Christians having a relationship with one particular politician. That's partisan, and it should be called out as such.

It’s interesting that when plain and conservative Anabaptists apply historic Anabaptist critiques to civil religion, you repeatedly dismiss these criticisms as partisan, unfair, excessive and politically motivated. You accuse conservative Anabaptists of being out-of-touch with reality, when their criticisms are connected to the historical convictions of Anabaptism. I am not the only one criticizing the President on this forum.

A great deal of conservative Anabaptists are slowly sliding into political entanglement; many of them get mixed up with "conservative" parties, and a handful get mixed up with being anti-conservative. Neither is a good path to go down.

Honestly, I believe that if liberals erected a giant gold Obama statue that was ceremonially blessed by progressive clergy while supporters described him in quasi-messianic terms, conservatives would absolutely recognize the authoritarian and idolatrous symbolism immediately. And they would also be correct to criticize it.

My opinion is that partisan, politicised evangelicals would criticise it and partisan, politicised liberal Christians would conveniently find nothing wrong with it.

And I believe I would probably be the only person pointing out that building statues of Presidents is entirely normal, and the religious people ending up entangled in dedication ceremonies for these things is to be expected when religious people get entangled in politics. I cannot recall any criticism of the Carter statute being unveiled in 1994, nor can I find any in the historical record now.

There is plenty to criticize Democrats about. But they’re not ones in charge. Trump is President. Republicans control both houses of Congress. Conservatives control the Supreme Court. It’s at this particular moment in history that Republicans are more openly flirting with authoritarian and messianic symbolism. Not Democrats.

So yes, there are reasons why the majority of criticism right now is being directed at Trump. He’s in charge.

Interesting. So did you put effort into criticising the Carter statute back in 1994?

[JohnL]

This is a good reminder to me how vulnerable we Christians can be to accept things that tickle the ear in the direction we already want to go.

Yep. I was reading a few days ago about AI is so good it can fool anyone. It’s even coming up with fake celebrity preachers, fake experts and even fake accounts of real people to make it more believable. I think it’s a really good idea to not fall into traps believing stuff on the internet just because it tickles that ear.
Now the Bible we can believe. Other stuff like the internet needs to be checked out in person because AI is now flooding search engines with fake back stories.

[Valerie]

It’s interesting that while you claim you’re not policing Christians from other traditions, you are busily trying to police your fellow Anabaptists from criticizing those traditions.

It’s like you’re positioning yourself above the fray, while simultaneously acting as a shield for those evangelical Christians you also believe are engaging in apostasy that your own church rejects.

Involvement in politics has been part of non-Anabaptist groups for a very long time. I personally think being a plain Anabaptist is better (progressive-liberal "Anabaptism" doesn't count, and is often very much mixed up in politics). However, I hesitate to go so far as to simply condemn every single person who doesn't follow plain Anabaptism. I think sincere Christians can be found in other places, even ones who do not understand sound doctrine & practice when it comes to politics.

With that said, people in other branches of Christianity have been erecting statues for a long time of various politicians, and usually with some kind of religious dedication ceremony as well - as I listed above for a few things involving George Washington..

What I find difficult to reconcile is that you claim Anabaptism while repeatedly defending, minimizing and normalizing the very union of political power and faith that historic Anabaptism rejects and criticizes.

What I find difficult is criticism that is only aimed at one specific politician. That's, well, politics, not any kind of Christianity.

I don’t think every non-Anabaptist Christian is being condemned here. I don’t think Anabaptism is the only legitimate form of Christianity.

What’s being criticized is a particular relationship between some Christians and political power. It’s the same kind of criticism that goes back to origins of Anabaptism when our forebears rejected the close relationship between church and state. I don’t think Ernie is liberal-progressive Anabaptist and some of the criticism he’s levied against Trump and the Republicans is congruent with historical Anabaptist belief.

It’s interesting that when plain and conservative Anabaptists apply historic Anabaptist critiques to civil religion, you repeatedly dismiss these criticisms as partisan, unfair, excessive and politically motivated. You accuse conservative Anabaptists of being out-of-touch with reality, when their criticisms are connected to the historical convictions of Anabaptism. I am not the only one criticizing the President on this forum.

Honestly, I believe that if liberals erected a giant gold Obama statue that was ceremonially blessed by progressive clergy while supporters described him in quasi-messianic terms, conservatives would absolutely recognize the authoritarian and idolatrous symbolism immediately. And they would also be correct to criticize it.

There is plenty to criticize Democrats about. But they’re not ones in charge. Trump is President. Republicans control both houses of Congress. Conservatives control the Supreme Court. It’s at this particular moment in history that Republicans are more openly flirting with authoritarian and messianic symbolism. Not Democrats.

So yes, there are reasons why the majority of criticism right now is being directed at Trump. He’s in charge.

I think it’s very noticeable that it wasn’t done against prior administrations. But also think Jude warns against reviling.
I mean I remember saying one reason I was hoping Trump wasn’t the nominee this time is we’d be subject to 4 more years of Trump bashing again. Sure enough-

[barnhart]

I think it’s very noticeable that it wasn’t done against prior administrations. But also think Jude warns against reviling.
I mean I remember saying one reason I was hoping Trump wasn’t the nominee this time is we’d be subject to 4 more years of Trump bashing again. Sure enough-

It's not that clear to me. President Obama was critiqued quite a lot, as a communist, a fascist, a crypto Muslim who wanted to subvert the Constitution in favor of Sharia law, a foreigner, a black nationalist, a creator of death panels to kill old people, a weak leader for wearing brown suits, anti- American for not wearing a flag pin, anti- white for
exchanging a high five with his wife in the Whitehouse... This is only the things I remember off the top of my head, I'm certain there were plenty more.

[barnhart]

This is a good reminder to me how vulnerable we Christians can be to accept things that tickle the ear in the direction we already want to go.

Yep. I was reading a few days ago about AI is so good it can fool anyone. It’s even coming up with fake celebrity preachers, fake experts and even fake accounts of real people to make it more believable. I think it’s a really good idea to not fall into traps believing stuff on the internet just because it tickles that ear.
Now the Bible we can believe. Other stuff like the internet needs to be checked out in person because AI is now flooding search engines with fake back stories.

AI is a good reason to be suspicious but I think this event is real.

[Soloist]

This is a good reminder to me how vulnerable we Christians can be to accept things that tickle the ear in the direction we already want to go.

Yep. I was reading a few days ago about AI is so good it can fool anyone. It’s even coming up with fake celebrity preachers, fake experts and even fake accounts of real people to make it more believable. I think it’s a really good idea to not fall into traps believing stuff on the internet just because it tickles that ear.
Now the Bible we can believe. Other stuff like the internet needs to be checked out in person because AI is now flooding search engines with fake back stories.

AI is a good reason to be suspicious but I think this event is real.

Wife: actually, now I’m curious. Does anybody actually have any articles from mainstream sources and not just tabloids or small newspapers? I saw one thing from CNN, but you would think that all the other media would be all over this like New York Times, Newsweek, Washington post and everywhere else.