- And joining us now is Franklin Graham,

president of Samaritan's Purse,

and the Billy GrahamEvangelistic Association.

Franklin, just wanna askyou right off the top,

what was your initial reaction?

Were you surprised when youheard about the editorial?

- Well, I'm not really surprised,

because Christianity Today, the magazine,

has been moving to the left for some time,

and they've been the network trumpers,

and have opposed him from day one.

So I wasn't really that surprised.

- Reverend Graham, thePresident, he's responded.

He says that Christianity Today is, quote,

a far left magazine.

Would you characterize it the same way?

- I would, it has certainlymoved to the left.

That's the way I would put it.

When my father started the magazine,

it has moved considerablyto the left over the years.

My father actually quitreading the magazine

some time ago.

- A lot of strong reactioncoming because of this article.

What do you see as the long-term fallout?

Do you think Christianity Todaywill pay a price for this?

- I can't say.

But not question, Christianity Today

has changed, and it's unfortunate.

But at the same time,

they're the ones thatinvoke my father's name.

And I just thought that it was important

to speak out for him,and let the readers know

my father would have beenso disappointed in this.

And the fact thatChristianity Today took sides

in something that was sopartisan, and obvious partisan.

And the President said he's not guilty

of what he's been charged with,

and I would have to agree with him,

'til proven differently.

- Reverend Graham, wereyou at all saddened

to have to disclose your father's vote?

It's something you had never done before.

- Never done that, and I was.

So I just felt that it wasimportant that we do it.

Let the people know that myfather supports the President,

and supported him in this last election,

and if my father were alive today,

he would have defended himself.

- Well, the CT website includesa quote from your father,

it says "Christianity Todayshould take the responsibility

of leading in love,

what so much of our evangelicalwork has failed to do

in fighting and name-calling."

Do you think the editorial inany way meets that calling?

Maybe taking an unpopular stand,

or do you think the magazinehas lost its moorings?

- No, I don't think

that's what my father intended whatsoever.

The President has beenaccused by the Democrats.

Not one Republican sided with them.

And not all the Democrats sided with this.

And so it's obvious it's so partisan.

And the President has not had a trial.

And the fact that they hadcalled for his removal,

based on what Nancy Pelosi,

and Senator, well,

Schumer and the others,

what they're calling for,

it was just absolutely wrong.

And they certainly don't represent

most of the Bible-believingChristians in America today.

They represent anunfortunate growing number

of evangelicals whoare moving to the left.

- Reverend Graham, even still,

do you think this articlehas any kernel of truth,

or any merit at all?

- No, I really don't, none.

- Well, it's interesting,

you were just talking aboutthe unfortunate aspect of this.

The editorial does exposedivisions among Christians.

So what about the political fallout,

the political polarizationin that fallout,

which seems to be splitting believers.

How can Christians beeffective ambassadors for Jesus

if they're so split publicly?

- Well, my father,

the last time he wasat Christianity Today,

they wheeled him there in a wheelchair,

and he spoke to them.

And basically was warning them

that they should all be focused

and stay focused on the Bible.

And I think that'swhere Christianity Today

is getting off point.

The President is not thepastor of the country,

they talk about takingthe moral high ground,

and that is absolutely a bunch of garbage.

What moral high ground do we talk about?

President Obama and hissupport for same-sex marriage?

Hilary Clinton's supporting her husband

as he abused women?

I mean, where's themoral high ground here?

And for them, for Christianity Today,

to try to claim that theyhave the moral high ground,

is just wrong.

And they should have stayedout of this completely,

in my opinion.