Anabaptist preferences around statutes of national leaders

[JohnH]

One of the more interesting things I have learned this week is that some Anabaptists have preferences about what kind of statutes are made of national leaders such as American Presidents.

To wit:

- There is a preference for the statues to not be done in gold, but apparently other metals like copper and tin are okay.

- There is a preference for statues made to Presidents after they are dead. However, statues made are probably OK if they are made a good number of years after the President or other leader is no longer in office. Taking a group of schoolchildren to see such a statue, for example, would be perfectly acceptable.

- There is a preference for statues installed in Washington, DC, or state capitol buildings, as opposed to statues erected on private grounds such as the personal home of such a President.

- There seem to be some kind of "rules" around what type of minister is OK and what isn't OK to have present at the dedication of such a statue. A deacon who is present at the dedication of his own statue is OK, for example; a Freemason minister followed by a Protestant minister giving a dedication is OK too. But a televangelist from a small church giving some kind of dedication is, for whatever reasons, quite offensive.

I have found this surprising since I assumed that, as Anabaptists, we wouldn't really care one way or another about statues, monuments, memorials, etc. and so on at all. Even stranger is that there are some boundaries that essentially make these things OK. I would think we would be against graven images as a whole.

I believe the gradual slide towards accepting photography may be involved in the problems Anabaptists are having with gradually accepting these things.

[Ernie]

My preference is that we do not make statues of people at all.

[JohnH]

My preference is that we do not make statues of people at all.

Well, my preference is that I don't make statues. Our church doesn't have statues in it, or icons, or drawings, or photographs.

As far as what the government does, I don't think we need to get too involved in dictating to them the specifics of what kind of statues they should erect or tear down, where they should be made, who they should be of, and so forth. I would not go and conduct a religious ceremony to dedicate a statue, and would express grave concern if someone in my own church or denomination did so.

Reality is that governments tend to erect statues, or more specifically, citizens of governments often really like to make statues and donate them to governments. (Most statues of Presidents, military generals, and so forth that are around America have been made by artists who simply donated them.) It's not really my place to go around demanding they be torn down. And I don't really police what goes on in other denominations. If I were going to address what people in other denominations were doing, I would do it at a personal level - with an appeal to a specific person to come follow Jesus and the New Testament wholly.

I don't think I would ever start with condemning a statue-dedication ceremony, though. I would not start with condemning a statue-dedication ceremony but only for statues of people with a specific partisan affiliation. I would probably start with things that are a bit more clear in the NT, like non-entanglement in politics.

[JimFoxvog]

It would seem to make a difference whether the person represented is in political power or not. When church members are treating a politician as a savior, anything that hints of an act of worship is suspect.

[Szdfan]

It would seem to make a difference whether the person represented is in political power or not. When church members are treating a politician as a savior, anything that hints of an act of worship is suspect.

This is really the key issue. It’s not really just about statues. The deeper question is: why are evangelical leaders ceremonially blessing a giant gold statue of a sitting political leader at his private resort?

What’s interesting is that John never has actually engages that question, but instead repeatedly functionally defends something the theoretically disapproves of.

So I wonder: why does so much of John’s energy in this discussion go toward minimizing or deflecting criticism of the increasingly devotional and quasi-religious behavior some evangelicals display toward Trump?

[JohnL]

I completely agree with this. Why? Because I look at how the first Christians chose to deal with the Roman Empire. They didn’t go around tearing down statues. They preached Jesus. Jesus taught them there’s a higher and more holy kingdom. And preaching God’s kingdom is where all their efforts and energy should be invested instead of the worldly rivalries of governments.
I know folks that get into bickering about which political party is more righteous or more holy or whatever. They spend every waking minute looking for ways to put down government leaders in a perpetual and sickening game of “gotcha” when they could be converting others to follow Jesus and his kingdom. I see it as a mental illness.
We have a saying here in the mountains. Keep your eyes on the Prize and forget about the dingalings.

Well, my preference is that I don't make statues. Our church doesn't have statues in it, or icons, or drawings, or photographs.

As far as what the government does, I don't think we need to get too involved in dictating to them the specifics of what kind of statues they should erect or tear down, where they should be made, who they should be of, and so forth. I would not go and conduct a religious ceremony to dedicate a statue, and would express grave concern if someone in my own church or denomination did so.

Reality is that governments tend to erect statues, or more specifically, citizens of governments often really like to make statues and donate them to governments. (Most statues of Presidents, military generals, and so forth that are around America have been made by artists who simply donated them.) It's not really my place to go around demanding they be torn down. And I don't really police what goes on in other denominations. If I were going to address what people in other denominations were doing, I would do it at a personal level - with an appeal to a specific person to come follow Jesus and the New Testament wholly.

I don't think I would ever start with condemning a statue-dedication ceremony, though. I would not start with condemning a statue-dedication ceremony but only for statues of people with a specific partisan affiliation. I would probably start with things that are a bit more clear in the NT, like non-entanglement in politics.

[joshuabgood]

I completely agree with this. Why? Because I look at how the first Christians chose to deal with the Roman Empire. They didn’t go around tearing down statues. They preached Jesus. Jesus taught them there’s a higher and more holy kingdom. And preaching God’s kingdom is where all their efforts and energy should be invested instead of the worldly rivalries of governments.
I know folks that get into bickering about which political party is more righteous or more holy or whatever. They spend every waking minute looking for ways to put down government leaders in a perpetual and sickening game of “gotcha” when they could be converting others to follow Jesus and his kingdom. I see it as a mental illness.
We have a saying here in the mountains. Keep your eyes on the Prize and forget about the dingalings.

Well, my preference is that I don't make statues. Our church doesn't have statues in it, or icons, or drawings, or photographs.

As far as what the government does, I don't think we need to get too involved in dictating to them the specifics of what kind of statues they should erect or tear down, where they should be made, who they should be of, and so forth. I would not go and conduct a religious ceremony to dedicate a statue, and would express grave concern if someone in my own church or denomination did so.

Reality is that governments tend to erect statues, or more specifically, citizens of governments often really like to make statues and donate them to governments. (Most statues of Presidents, military generals, and so forth that are around America have been made by artists who simply donated them.) It's not really my place to go around demanding they be torn down. And I don't really police what goes on in other denominations. If I were going to address what people in other denominations were doing, I would do it at a personal level - with an appeal to a specific person to come follow Jesus and the New Testament wholly.

I don't think I would ever start with condemning a statue-dedication ceremony, though. I would not start with condemning a statue-dedication ceremony but only for statues of people with a specific partisan affiliation. I would probably start with things that are a bit more clear in the NT, like non-entanglement in politics.

The great idol of Caesar and worldly power though bewitched the early church...in the end.

[joshuabgood]

I saw a Catholic remarked that Protestants say images of dead saints are idolatry. Underneath that he had "Also Protestants" and an image of the golden statue of the living Trump being venerated in FL. Pretty well made point in my view...

[JohnL]

The great idol of Caesar and worldly power though bewitched the early church...in the end.

No it didn’t. The early Christians held true and witnessed to people inside the Roman Empire. Those converts to Christianity secretly practiced their faith and became salt and leaven even when the Roman Empire fell and afterwards. Read that again.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE FELL.
The followers of Jesus are still here.
That says it all.

[joshuabgood]

The great idol of Caesar and worldly power though bewitched the early church...in the end.

No it didn’t. The early Christians held true and witnessed to people inside the Roman Empire. Those converts to Christianity secretly practiced their faith and became salt and leaven even when the Roman Empire fell and afterwards. Read that again.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE FELL.
The followers of Jesus are still here.
That says it all.

I see what you are saying...but it is a bit of a no true Scotsman. I think the church then and now, as a whole, has this vice that they need purged out. Hence down with the golden calves being erected to be venerated.