I agree with your assessment almost entirely. You are right that American evangelicalism is a constellation of different figures and institutions, many of whom compete with one another for donors and attention. This attenuates the likelihood that they work together on many things, but there is some unity among the politically conservative camp of the evangelical movement, especially now. In the wake of stunning Republican defeats last week, movement leaders among the Religious Right are seeking to “circle the wagons” and identify some promising new leaders. My sense is that this next cohort of Religious Right leaders will be individuals with political experience, but not necessarily leadership experience with parachurch organizations. Dobson and Falwell may be replaced by Huckabee and Jindal, or people like them. Also, many of the secular leaders I interviewed for Faith in the Halls of Power are, indeed, uncomfortable with the evangelical label. They are important, powerful people with intriguing stories, but they are not likely to become the Religious Right’s new guard. For that, a clearly identified religious label (usually evangelical or conservative Catholic) is required.

My original post did not mention Rick Warren because he, like Billy Graham, stands over and above the political fray, even though both minister to the nation’s top leaders in government. Sorry if my mentioning him suggested that I thought he was becoming part of the new guard of the Religious Right. That will not happen. Instead, he will retain a more pastoral role with the political elite, and someone else with sharper elbows will emerge as the next luminary of the Religious Right.

Thanks for this inside perspective. I suspect that all of your insights are correct but I am not sure how they fit together. You begin by saying that pastor Rick Warren is essentially the Billy Graham of our time but you conclude by suggesting that leadership will come from those with secular training and that the evangelical subculture will not be the source of evangelical leadership. Maybe I am just unclear about your concept of what it means to speak for evangelicals and how the evangelical movement mobilizes for leadership. Perhaps we are talking about distinct roles–pastor to the nation and presidents, potential Presidential nominees, leaders of Christian political groups, bestselling authors and tv personalities, etc. Surely there are distinct pathways to each of these roles.

Your posts today suggest a kind of agency or unity in the evangelical movement that allows it to act as a movement rather than as a loosely connected web of people and organizations that share similar theological and political beliefs but act independently. I am still a little puzzled about how “the movement” does anything. To an outsider, it often seems like a series of separate empires with interests that often conflict. Furthermore, as you point out in your book, many of the emerging leaders with secular training, such as evangelicals elites in business, are comfortable with neither the evangelical label nor hoi poloi evangelicals and their “evangelical subculture.”

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Rick Warren has said repeatedly in public and in private that he’s not Billy Graham’s successor. When he and I talked, my initial response to his five-minute explanation of how no one would be the “next” Billy Graham was “Methinks thou doth protest too much.” I have felt the same way ever since. There is within American Christianity a long tradition of religious entrepreneurs wanting to hand the reins of their ministry over to their children. Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, Jerry Falwell, and John Osteen are just the most recent examples. I think Pastor Warren is trying to avoid any appearances of usurping Franklin Graham’s birthright. But he is most certainly poised to become the next version of America’s First Pastor.

In response to being on speed dial from the Oval Office, I don’t think the evangelical left is as organized or as disciplined as the evangelical right, certainly not in terms of mobilizing masses of people. The only person in that camp who seems to have benefited from his proximity to power is Jim Wallis. Knowledgeable sources I have spoken with have suggested that Wallis is perceived by many political leaders on the left in much the same way that James Dobson is perceived on the right. They both can mobilize certain groups to action such that it’s important to be on their good sides. But they are not seen as close advisors or as spiritual counselors. One can be a modern-day prophet of sorts or a priest to those in power, but not both.

So if this is a hinge moment for the evangelical movement, who will they mobilize behind for leadership? I suggest a couple of political figures (Huckabee or Jindal), and I think that’s the larger trend within the evangelical movement today. Whereas most movement leaders in the previous generation were pastors–or at least seminary graduates–the leadership class of American evangelicalism today is noticeably more “secular” in orientation, having spent most of their careers in the corporate world or politics. Just look at who’s being tapped to lead evangelical parachurch organizations. They have MBAs, not MDivs. Their work experience is very different from the movement’s leaders of the last half-century.

When trying to identify the movement’s rising leadership cohort, don’t look to the evangelical subculture. Instead, pay attention to those figures who already have experience in the public limelight, people with track records of success in non-religious settings. As evangelicalism continues to “mature” as a movement, it will increasinly rely on leaders with more cosmopolian backgrounds and orientations.

It will be very interesting to see…

This is a very informative post! I hope you will consider a follow-up post describing the potential mechanisms through which “the Religious Right will solidify its support behind two or three newer figures as they seek to remake the movement’s public image.” How do you think this will take place? Will it happen as an evangelical expands his (will it inevitably be a man?) influence by building an empire, following the example of Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson? In this case, the support of “the Religious Right” would presumably come from average evangelicals. Or do you think that networks of elite evangelical leaders will use their influence to promote some individuals who lack such an empire? If so, which networks do you think will be most influential and how might they exert this influence? To what extent should we expect consensus from “the Religious Right” about the new generation of leaders?

Could being on President Obama’s speed dial be as significant for leaders of the evangelical left as was the connection to Reagan for Falwell? By comparison, how did Bill Hybels and Tony Campolo’s connection to President Clinton influence the way they were perceived by the Religious Right?

My suspicion is that America’s evangelicals will not agree about who speaks for them. For that matter, many of the cosmopolitan evangelicals you spoke with in your book did not seem to feel that the evangelical old guard spoke for them. Did ordinary evangelicals feel that Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson spoke for them? It seems to me that media access gave these figures much of their influence.

Perhaps who speaks for evangelicals will vary by audience. Larry King and President Obama may look for different characteristics in an evangelical spokesperson.

Finally, any predictions about the future influence of Rick Warren and Joel Osteen in the evangelical community?