Christian leaders honor golden statue of Trump

[Soloist]

Aside from Carter, what else did you mention? I'd object to any "religious" ceremony" from Christians surrounding any statue or building. I could accept for example a dedication of a medical ship with a religious setting I suppose.

Dedication of Washington Monument with an associated sermon and service from a both a Protestant preacher and from a Freemason practitioner.

There are many, many more examples, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile use of my time to come up with a bunch of examples. I think I have presented enough.

But do any of these involve a living president or a president in office asking for that kind of glory?

Do any involve gold statues, which are generally not part of American politics? Americans have traditionally avoided the kind of glitz and glory of kings and emperors, which is why the White House has never been full of gold everywhere. It's deep in our democratic tradition. The message it sends is clear: we are now a nation that erects monuments to our supreme leader. Wow.

Do any involve a group of people with a financial interest in what the president does affairs, hoping to curry favor with the president and make money on a meme coin?

I think this post though illustrates some of the danger being involved in politics. The political winds shift and positions change.

[temporal1]

^^i agree with what you’re saying above.

Szd:
I would also find it unsettling if Christians were honoring and venerating the statue of Jimmy Carter that John keeps bringing up. The concern here isn’t just the statue. It’s also the quasi-religious language and ritual surrounding it.

John also describes this pastor as not well known, not representative of many, i would guess he’d agree with your word, “quasi-religious” - i do.

i find this kind of thing “to be expected “ on earth, and, pretty easy to ignore. it happens, it goes away.
i’ve seen so much go away in my life. enough to believe scriptures about mists and vapors.

I don’t agree with John’s characterization. Burns is a highly connected and political pastor. He is part of the inner circle of Trump’s group of spiritual advisors. For example,

• He was one of the first clergy that supported Trump during his first election.
• He’s a member of the “Pastors for Trump” board.
• He offered the benediction at the 2016 Republican Convention.
• Time magazine called him “Trump’s top pastor” in 2016 and included him in a list of 16 people who shaped the election.
• His congregation, the Harvest Praise & Worship Center in Easley, South Carolina may not be the largest evangelical congregation I’ve ever seen, but it’s also not the storefront John described it as.

So I don’t think this can simply be dismissed as an isolated fringe figure. Burns has been a visible and influential evangelical ally of Trump for years.

^^i didn’t know any of that, i’m not convinced this represents a large group. “i don’t know”
i don’t care, either. In my view, just because some have attached “formal” labels, it doesn’t mean John’s storefront analogy is wrong.
The internet can and does create such falsehoods, “woven out of whole cloth” so to speak.

.. i completely reject Paula White-Cain in the White House.

^^this is easy for me. i don’t have to listen to her for 15 minutes to run away.

Catholics are in high government, and attempt to inform government. Any difference, apart from style and approach?

[Szdfan]

First of all, I want to point out that the words “honor” and “venerate” have explicitly been used in this discussion to describe the Don Colossus, which moves this beyond simple dedication ceremony.

By whom? "Honor" is not a big deal. Who is saying they are "venerate"-ing the statue?

I’ve tried to find text of whatever was said at the Carter statue dedication, but haven’t found anything. Have you? Because I think the actual language and ritual framing surrounding these events matters.

I think a deacon of a church being present at an unveiling and dedication for a statue of... himself... speaks all that needs to be said.

Do you agree or disagree with a deacon who happened to also be a President having a statute of himself erected, and obviously being in favour of it?

I don’t agree with Carter getting a statue either. I would be interested in seeing the language used at the dedication ceremony because I think the framing of these kinds of things matters.

[JohnH]

But do any of these involve a living president or a president in office asking for that kind of glory?

I already gave the example of Jimmy Carter, who happens to also be an ordained deacon. Do you think that is acceptable or not?

Do any involve gold statues, which are generally not part of American politics? Americans have traditionally avoided the kind of glitz and glory of kings and emperors, which is why the White House has never been full of gold everywhere. It's deep in our democratic tradition. The message it sends is clear: we are now a nation that erects monuments to our supreme leader. Wow.

I'm not sure why the colour gold is such a big deal. It's just a colour.

Do any involve a group of people with a financial interest in what the president does affairs, hoping to curry favor with the president and make money on a meme coin?

I'm not sure what meme coins have to do with this either. Deciding to buy into a highly risky cryptocurrency is something buyers should beware of. It's not like there isn't plenty of information out there telling people not to do that.

[Szdfan]

^^i agree with what you’re saying above.

John also describes this pastor as not well known, not representative of many, i would guess he’d agree with your word, “quasi-religious” - i do.

i find this kind of thing “to be expected “ on earth, and, pretty easy to ignore. it happens, it goes away.
i’ve seen so much go away in my life. enough to believe scriptures about mists and vapors.

I don’t agree with John’s characterization. Burns is a highly connected and political pastor. He is part of the inner circle of Trump’s group of spiritual advisors. For example,

• He was one of the first clergy that supported Trump during his first election.
• He’s a member of the “Pastors for Trump” board.
• He offered the benediction at the 2016 Republican Convention.
• Time magazine called him “Trump’s top pastor” in 2016 and included him in a list of 16 people who shaped the election.
• His congregation, the Harvest Praise & Worship Center in Easley, South Carolina may not be the largest evangelical congregation I’ve ever seen, but it’s also not the storefront John described it as.

So I don’t think this can simply be dismissed as an isolated fringe figure. Burns has been a visible and influential evangelical ally of Trump for years.

^^i didn’t know any of that, i’m not convinced this represents a large group. “i don’t know”
i don’t care, either. In my view, just because some have attached “formal” labels, it doesn’t mean John’s storefront analogy is wrong.
The internet can and does create such falsehoods, “woven out of whole cloth” so to speak.

.. i completely reject Paula White-Cain in the White House.

^^this is easy for me. i don’t have to listen to her for 15 minutes to run away.

Catholics are in high government, and attempt to inform government. Any difference, apart from style and approach?

I don’t think it’s just a question about Christians being involved in government and politics. Clearly, that happens all the time.

My concern is that Trump-aligned evangelicalism has often used prophetic rhetoric, language describing spiritual warfare and messianic overtones to describe Trump. In this context, the Don Colossus statue isn’t just this weird and tacky thing, but also seems to be the visual and material manifestation of a movement that I believe represents spiritual danger to the Christianity in America. I think the quasi-religious language being used to describe Trump is a problem.

[JohnH]

I don’t agree with Carter getting a statue either. I would be interested in seeing the language used at the dedication ceremony because I think the framing of these kinds of things matters.

The next question, then is if you objected as strongly to it back in 1994 as you are objecting to this now (with an allowance, of course, if you had significantly different views on these things back in 1994).

I already started a thread with my general position on statues, which I think is pretty clear. What I object is to is one standard for Trump, and a different standard for Washington, Lincoln, JFK, Carter, and so forth.

[ohio jones]

I'm not sure why the colour gold is such a big deal. It's just a colour.

I'll file this away for the next time we discuss 1 Timothy 2:9 or 1 Peter 3:3.

[JohnH]

Here is an example of gold (or gold colour) for a whole bunch of Presidents, excluding Carter:



I suppose that someone who really objects to golden effigies of Presidents could elect to just use paper money instead.

If one demands to see examples of actual gold and involving a living President, Calvin Coolidge's coin in 1926 comes to mind:



As do the $10 coin issues for First Ladies, who aren't Presidents, but these are gold effigies of them nonetheless:



(to list one example)

I'm not sure why the colour gold is such a big deal. It's just a colour.

I'll file this away for the next time we discuss 1 Timothy 2:9 or 1 Peter 3:3.

For most plain Anabaptists, they would object to either gold itself or something that has the appearance of gold, even if it were actually cheap costume jewellery.

[temporal1]

I don’t agree with Carter getting a statue either. I would be interested in seeing the language used at the dedication ceremony because I think the framing of these kinds of things matters.

i agree, framing/context matters.
not all statues, and/or national-state dedicated days are celebratory.

some are reminders of tragedies, mourned, not celebrated.

i’m not sure if framing matters in a purely scriptural sense. but not all memorials are equal in intent.

JH:
I'm not sure why the colour gold is such a big deal. It's just a colour.

Carter used peanuts, Trump was using gold long before politics. i wouldn’t have used peanuts, i wouldn’t have chosen gold. i rarely choose Louis XIV or Rococo art, it’s flamboyant, often used and recognized on the world stage. The White House is mostly Neoclassical style, i believe it contains many artifacts of many styles, i would expect Rococo is present. Probably most in art/picture frames. i haven’t visited.

The U.S. is known for being a hodge-podge, not all bad. i see (the ballroom) as more of that. Part of the whole.

[Szdfan]

I don’t agree with Carter getting a statue either. I would be interested in seeing the language used at the dedication ceremony because I think the framing of these kinds of things matters.

The next question, then is if you objected as strongly to it back in 1994 as you are objecting to this now (with an allowance, of course, if you had significantly different views on these things back in 1994).

I already started a thread with my general position on statues, which I think is pretty clear. What I object is to is one standard for Trump, and a different standard for Washington, Lincoln, JFK, Carter, and so forth.

My answer is the same the last time you asked this question in this thread:

So I was 15 in 1994 with very limited access to the Internet because my family only had dial-up. I was not secretly harboring a pro or anti-Carter bias or activism.