I've read several articles about the controversy surrounding Platt praying for Trump, but I'm still unclear on the specific objections. Platt provided a backgrounder:
1. Do critics object that Platt prayed for Trump at all? Do they think he should have refused to pray for Trump?
2. Do critics object that he prayed for Trump in public? Do they think it's okay for him to pray with Trump offstage, but not onstage, in front of the congregation and cameras? If so, that raises several issues:
i) It was a snap decision.
ii) This is in the middle of the service, so Platt had to return to the stage to resume his participation in the service. So the question is whether he should have left Trump backstage.
In effect, that would be snubbing him. There are situations in which snubbing someone is justifiable. Is this one of those situations?
iii) I assume they initially met backstage because the Secret Service brought Trump into church through a rear entrance for security reasons (rather than the main entrance). So Platt had to decide, on the spur of the moment, where to take it from there.
iv) Is the concern that praying for Trump onstage constitutes an endorsement? But that turns far more on the content of the prayer (which was neutral) rather than the venue. This was at Trump's initiative, not Platt's.
v) Since the initial meeting took place during the service, it would be natural for Platt to invite Trump into the sanctuary to join the service, if he so desired. Trump declined, but Platt didn't know in advance what Trump would do after the prayer. At that point it was a communion service. What if Trump wanted to take communion? So I think it's perfectly reasonable for Platt to bring Trump into the sanctuary. If anyone might be queasy about that move, it would be the Secret Service.
vi) Do critics think it was okay for Platt to bring Trump onstage, but instead of offering a neutral prayer, he should have used the occasion to denounce the policies of the Trump administration?
Of course, Platt may not share the views of SJWs regarding the Trump administration. But suppose he did. If he denounced Trump to his face, what would that accomplish?
It wouldn't cause Trump to change his mind. If anything, it would harden Trump against evangelical pastors.
Moreover, given Trump's penchant to fight back, that might provoke a heated exchange between Trump and Platt. That would completely derail the worship service.
3. It is important for churches to maintain a level of independence in relation to political figures. If (a future) Pres. Pete Buttboy showed up at Platt's church, perhaps that should be handled differently.
4. I think it's obvious that the critics are ideologically opposed to Trump, they think Platt should share their ideological priorities and do what they'd do in that situation..
I expect critics of Platt get their information about the Trump administration from outlets like CNN, NPR, MSNBC, NYT. If that's your source of information, then that presents the Trump administration as an unmitigated evil.
If, by contrast, you get your information from Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Andrew McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson et al., then that presents the Trump administration in generally postive terms.
It's important for people to ask themselves if they are reacting to the actual Trump administration, or to an image of the Trump administration that's a construct and projection of their news outlets.
Of course, if SJWs got their information from conservative outlets, they'd still despise the Trump administration because they despise conservative ideology, Christian theology, and any administration that's center-right.