Daniel Jose Camachro, of Sojourners on CTand the Editor not addressing racism

Source--https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1208089391660457986.html

Christianity Today's outgoing editor, Galli, didn't address racism in his editorial. When asked on NPR about *white* evangelicals' support for Trump, he deflected and talked about their passion for pro-life and religious freedom issues.

I'll tell you why this is significant.
Many scholars have demonstrated that the origins of the Religious Right can be traced back to resistance to racial integration. "Pro-life" framework came later and took shape within this racial cultural project


This is not to say that evangelicals today aren't sincerely "pro-life" or "pro-traditional marriage" but that these beliefs can't be separated from racial anxieties and fears.

It's clear that racism is a central animating force to Trump's politics and his evangelical support.
Billy Graham, who founded Christianity Today and who mellowed out a bit later in life, opposed civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr. earlier in his career.

This is often overlooked, but Billy Graham also vigorously opposed the New Deal. I think we should keep this in mind as conservative Christians respond to Democrats pursuing bold, progressive policies including the Green New Deal.


Going back to today's era. White evangelicals have been consistent outliers, in that they've held more favorable views of Trump in comparison to all other demographics


Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are unique in the extent to which they feel demographic change will represent a negative development for the U.S. ..."


I've also interviewed @robertpjones where he talks about his research, and addresses evangelical views of race


mentions It's clear according to history and all recent polling, that race has consistently been a central animating force within the Religious Right.

It's also clear that racism has been central to Trump, his campaigning, his administration, his policies, his rhetoric.
mentions So, why not directly address the elephant in the room? Why dance around the water in which in all of this swimming?

I can't be sure of someone's motives. But I can try to think, more broadly, about what this reluctance does.
mentions Galli's answer on NPR plays into the presumption of white evangelical innocence, the presumption that white evangelicals' beliefs about "pro-life" and "religious freedom" are *really* what this is about and that racism is somehow this embarrassing anomaly.
mentions And in this context, the move to oppose Trump also makes sense as a move to protect the image and integrity of conservative white evangelical politics.

It's not about people of color, immigrants, women, or LGBTQ people, but about finding another "Provider"...
mentions A "Provider" who delivers on similar goods (pro-life, religious freedom... i.e. anti-abortion and anti-gay) but who himself is not an "Abuser" (i.e. not the personal moral abomination that is Trump) and does not tarnish the image of white Christianity.