Is Jesus really a Republican?

Friends, I did not expect to be writing a second -- and then certainly not a third -- post on evangelical religion and Republican politics.   I wrote the first one on Pew Research polling;   and then the second one, about an opposing group, fell into my lap.   Thinking I was through with the subject for now, I got up Monday morning and found the lead, front-page article in the New York Times proclaiming:   "An Evangelical Fights to Make California Red."

That "evangelical," deemed worthy of the Times #1 news spot, is none other than the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the long-time, non-partisan, unofficial "pastor to presidents," the Rev. Billy Graham.   But Franklin is cut from different evangelical cloth than his father Billy.    Founder and chairman of the international humanitarian "Samaritan's Purse," you might think that Franklin had absorbed the social gospel message of Jesus -- and that he would be on the other side, if he took a partisan position.

Not so.   He is a big supporter of Donald Trump, despite his lurid personal past and despite what many people consider his "un-Christian" positions on aid for the needy and suffering humanity.   Because of all the furor about the Russians hacking and its effect on the election, we don't hear much about the fact that Franklin Graham led rallies in all 50 state capitals;   and he did directly encourage people to vote for Donald Trump.

Graham claims not to tell people which party to vote for, but he unabashedly embraces taking political stands and advocating for particular candidates who support the issues he supports -- which all seem to be Republicans.  His immediate goal in tackling the blue state of California is to prevent Democrats from taking control of the U.S. House -- to "ensure that Republican Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House, not Democrat Nancy Pelosi" (both Californians).

While California is considered the "bluest of the blue" states, Graham points to pockets of red in areas like Orange County around Los Angeles.   He wants to strengthen those and encourage voters to go to the polls and not assume they can't win.   He wants them to begin by electing school boards and local office holders like mayors.  "'Can you imagine if your school boards were controlled by evangelical Christians?,' he asked a group of pastors . . . a not so subtle reference to . . . California's new sex education curriculum, which includes lessons on LGBT sexuality."

Meeting in the locker room of the Rose Bowl with a group of fellow evangelists, pastors, and big donors, Graham scoffed at the idea of California as the "blue wall" in politics.   "Progressive?   That's just another word for godless,"  he told the crowd.

Graham added that now is the time for churches to "suck it up" and vote.  I think what he's implying is that evangelicals should just ignore the lack of morality in Donald Trump's life and in his policies, because getting conservative judges confirmed, anti-abortion laws passed, and "religious liberty" rights enshrined in judicial code are more important.

Not all evangelical ministers agree with Graham's political pragmatism.   Daniel Balcombe, pastor of one California church, turned down an organizer's request to hold a rally at his church.   A registered Republican himself, Balcombe said, "No, he's too politically toxic."

And then Balcombe told the reporter about one of the members of his church who is a refugee from a Muslim-majority country that came under the Trump travel ban.   He told about the sitting in his office with the man, "and we are praying and weeping:  how can we get this guy's family here?    I feel so isolated, not by the political world, but even within my own evangelical world," he said.

Mr. Balcombe may not be as isolated as he feels.   The Times article also mentioned the evangelical powerhouse Rick Warren, who hosted a presidential election forum between Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008.    Today, he "largely avoids the political conversation, especially if it involves Mr. Trump."

It's going to be interesting to see how far these pro-Trump evangelicals can stretch their pragmatism.   What if Mueller finds that Trump really did conspire with the Russians to throw him the election?     What if they find that he is as corrupt financially as we're beginning to see evidence suggesting?    Money laundering also seems pretty likely, given the kind of people he dealt with.   What about bribery and extortion that allegedly are currently going on now with him in the Oval Office?    Is that going too far for pro-Trump evangelicals?

Are there any limits to how far you'd go to sell our your moral principles in order to gain the power to impose your will on others?

Ralph