An online debate has emerged on whether churches ought to have addressed the near assassination of Donald Trump. There are good men on both sides. I rarely talk about my own church, as I do not want to inject them into the ecclesiastical news that I cover or vice versa, but I must confess I would have been disappointed had it not been mentioned during the service yesterday. To their credit, it was mentioned during the prayer and sermon. I do not believe I am alone in my sentiment, and many laymen feel as I do. So why would I have been disappointed, and am I right to have felt this way?
Magnitude
The near assassination of a President/ current candidate is a major event that should supersede anything else in the news cycle. I imagine churches did not pretend JFK was alive the Sunday after he was assassinated. Nor did churches pretend as though 9/11 didn’t happen either. A near assassination is not as significant as the former examples, but how many Christians were made to care about the Israeli-Gaza War during their sermons, as pagans wage war half a world away, but the former president of the United States getting shot at, with a bystander dying, is a far more significant event to the American.
Excusatory Preaching
There is a tendency among those who overvalue expository preaching to refuse to address events or topics outside of the text they are preaching on. The rigid devotion to this is thus an excuse not to take a stance on the issues that matter most to the congregation. I do not believe that an entire sermon needs to be devoted to Trump’s near death. A prayer, a small mention, suffice. But the devotion to expository preaching, unwilling to address broader issues and concerns is a major problem within churches that are orthodox in their theology.
The last thing I want to see is an erudite pastorate out of touch with the laity. And refusing to engage in culture and politics creates this tension.
Powered by RedCircle
