As a rule, I don’t use GetReligion posts to respond to feedback from readers. But several people — in emails, for the most part — have raised two crucial, and valid, questions about last week’s “Crossroads” podcast and post: “New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'.”

Actually, it’s the same question asked in two different ways. Hold that thought.

In the podcast and post, I argued that a much-read New York Times piece (“How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism“) did a fine job while offering illustrations that conspiracy theories such as the QAnon gospel have soaked into many pews and a few pulpits, especially in independent (and often small) charismatic and evangelical churches. My question was whether the feature provided solid evidence for this thesis:

The blend of cultural references, and the people who brought them, made clear a phenomenon that has been brewing for years now: that the most extreme corners of support for Mr. Trump have become inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America. Rather than completely separate strands of support, these groups have become increasingly blended together.

The key word was “power,” as in “some parts of evangelical power” becoming “inextricable” from the “most extreme” forms of Trump support — which has to be a reference to those who planned, not the legal National Mall rally for Trump, but the illegal armed attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In response, I wrote:

… Anyone who studies “evangelicalism” — white or otherwise — knows that we are talking about a movement based on the work of powerful denominations (this includes megachurches), parachurch groups, publishers (and authors) and major colleges, universities and seminaries.

This led to several people asking this valid question: What about the Rev. Franklin Graham? Others asked: What about Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Liberty University?

These are certainly examples of evangelical brand names — Graham and Falwell.

Let’s avoid Liberty for a moment. That’s a campus that — under Falwell, Jr. — was certainly a powerful force in Christian higher education, but primarily as a rogue elephant attacking the evangelical mainstream. Liberty had power and money, but not all that much influence on mainstream evangelical higher ed.

But it will certainly be interesting to see if journalists and legal authorities find courtroom-worthy evidence of Liberty involvement in illegal events on January 6th. Would there have been Liberty people at the legal Trump rally? I’d say the odds are good that there were. But did any plan or take part in the Capitol attack? That’s worth investigating. We will see.

Folks asking about Graham were reacting to headlines such as this one at Newsweek: “Franklin Graham Compares 10 Republicans Who Voted to Impeach Trump to Betrayal of Christ.” Here’s the money quote:

Graham, the head of the non-profit organization Samaritan's Purse, has been a longtime supporter of Trump's presidency. Rifts between the evangelical community and Trump have developed after recent events, including a January riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump's impeachment in the aftermath of the riot at the U.S. Capitol did not change Graham's support of the president, leading Graham to draw parallels between Trump's impeachment and the betrayal of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

"Shame, shame on the ten Republicans who joined with @SpeakerPelosi & the House Democrats in impeaching President Trump yesterday," Graham tweeted. "After all that he has done for our country, you would turn your back & betray him so quickly? What was done yesterday only further divides our nation."

The key question, of course, is whether opposing the impeachment of Trump is the same as supporting the illegal attack on the Capitol. Many will say that it is. There are people, at the moment, who will argue that the mere act of voting for Trump was a call for violence. But the trials that are ahead, of course, will focus on illegal acts, especially those that were violent.

Meanwhile, Graham — as always — sent lots of signals. He defended legal protests. He called for prayers for President-elect Joe Biden and his team. He said that he thought the riot was led by antifa activists or that most of the violence came from the left. The evidence, so far, is that the vast majority of people in the mob were radicalized Trump supporters, although there may have been a few antifa double-agents.

There will be trials based on evidence. Again, the key question: Who planned or encouraged the illegal attack on the Capitol?

If officials show evidence of contacts between Graham’s team and those planning the attack or encouraging those that did, that will certainly be an important example of some forms of “evangelical power” supporting the most radical elements of support for Trump and his claims that the election was dominated by fraud.

That said, I would argue that in the past four years Graham, in a manner similar to Falwell’s Liberty, pushed himself (as opposed to the charity he leads) to the margins of mainstream evangelicalism. When it comes to his efforts to back Trump, Graham has supporters. But he has just as many, if not way more, critics among mainstream evangelical leaders.

But those who are attempting to prove the Times thesis need to look for court-worthy evidence of solid support among evangelical leaders — in denominations, schools, parachurch groups, publishers, etc. — for radical forms of conspiracy theory-fueled activism that has become linked to illegal, violence resistance on behalf of Trump.

Did Trump present court-worthy evidence for his claims? No, he did not.

Will reporters rushing to blame mainstream evangelical leaders and power structures for QAnon-style rebellion and even violence find evidence that holds up in courts? We will see.

As a personal aside, I am not a Trump supporter and, in 2016, was #NeverTrump (and #NeverHillary). I am also not an evangelical, although I speak the language fluently after growing up as a Southern Baptist in Texas (in the “moderate” tribe).

If you follow GetReligion, you know that the writers here are convinced that QAnon and similar conspiracy theories are causing high levels of tension and even destruction in many religious communities at the level of pews and some pulpits. Click here for my “On Religion” column on that.

Going further, I am very interested in seeing if evidence emerges in trials linked to evangelical involvement in violent networks on the alt-right (groups the Southern Baptist Convention has linked to Satan). Let’s see how many of those soldiers are, in fact, working with important evangelical institutions, as opposed to small, independent charismatic and evangelical flocks outside the mainstream.

This is valid news. It’s important news. Let’s see solid, informed reporting on it.

But let’s stop and as one more question linked to Franklin Graham. Please glance — again — through my typology six different camps of evangelicals linked to support for Trump in 2016 and, for the most part, beyond.

Here is my question: Where would you have put Graham in this typology during the primaries leading up to the 2016 election? How about Jerry Falwell, Jr.?

If you read between the lines of their public remarks, I would say that Graham — at that time, was in (2) and Falwell was in (1). Here is that typology:

(1) Many evangelicals supported Trump from the get-go. For them, Trump is great and everything is going GREAT.

(2) Other evangelicals may have supported Trump early on, but they have always seen him as a flawed leader — but the best available. They see him as complicated and evolving and are willing to keep their criticisms PRIVATE.

(3) There are evangelicals who moved into Trump's tent when it became obvious he would win the GOP nomination. They think he is flawed, but they trust him to – at least – protect their interests, primarily on First Amendment issues.

(4) Then there are the lesser-of-two-evils Trump evangelicals who went his way in the general election, because they could not back Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. They believe Trump's team has done some good, mixed with quite a bit of bad, especially on race and immigration. They think religious conservatives must be willing to criticize Trump — in public.

(5) There are evangelicals who never backed Trump and they never will. Many voted for third-party candidates. They welcome seeing what will happen when Trump team people are put under oath and asked hard questions. … However, they are willing to admit that Trump has done some good, even if in their heart of hearts they'd rather be working with President Mike Pence.

(6) Folks on the evangelical left simply say, "No Trump, ever." Anything he touches is bad and must be rejected. Most voted for Clinton and may have yearned for Bernie Sanders.

FIRST IMAGE: Screen shot from video, care of the Asheville Watchdog.