Lots of words being used here to assume the motivations of a lot of different types of people. Seems a lot simpler to me.

White Evangelicals seem, for the most part, to hold that the US Constitution, now that the heinous 3/5 clause has been negated by amendment, is in its essence a document which precludes "supremacy" of any sort.

Ergo, a strict adherence to Constitutional principles (call it "originalism" or "textualism" as you like) is the solution to race-based unfairness, not the cause of it.

I assume that advocates of CRT would disagree. And that, perhaps oversimplistically, summarizes where we are TODAY.

So, religious people then set out to find religious justification for their political views. This "interepreting to match a preferred narrative" doesn't have a very good historical record, and efforts tend to fall apart over time, to which the article tangentially refers.

I'll not engage in the assuming of motive from the statements of various religious groups; that's another practice which tends not to end well. What CAN be said, more specifically, is the following:

1) None of the source documents of any of the three Semitic religions can HONESTLY be used to justify race-based discrimination (obviously, there have been plenty of dishonest interpreters in the past.)

2) Similarly, the Biblical references being cited (it appears) to make the religious squirm don't do so at all. It is perfectly consistent to say "I agree there should be no unjust laws (or policies)" and then disagree whether a specific law (or policy) is in fact just or unjust."

3) It obviously follows that the author is correct about one thing, and that is that the Christian witness of the organizations is weakened by association with Mr. Trump. That association was driven by anti-abortion sentiment, not doctrine or dogma, which is a fairly simple observation.