Hey Aaron, thanks for this post. It’s timely for me, as my wife and I have been discussing whether I should pursue a PhD in Clinical Psychology from an APA-accredited program versus a PhD in Counseling through a seminary-based program.
One of my primary concerns with attending a more pluralistic academic institution is navigating humanism alongside biblical truth. As an evangelical mental health provider, I feel a deep burden to articulate a compelling vision of healing as God intends - one that genuinely integrates Scripture and science, rather than overemphasizing one at the expense of the other.
What I found most encouraging in your article is your call for evangelicals to be present and influential in the cultural systems where power actually resides, particularly those that distribute and normalize ideas at scale. (For me, that would look like getting a degree from an APA institution which certainly comes with more exposure and opportunities professionally).
This is not about power for its own sake (which Jesus clearly warns against), but about stewarding power and influence in a way that reflects faithfulness and cultural responsibility. In other words, a serious consideration of both the means and ends of power.
Why, then, are evangelicals so rarely encouraged to take up positions of dominant cultural influence?
It seems to be a misnomer to equate withdrawal with meekness or to baptize passivity with language like, “God just didn’t lead me there.” That posture feels especially dangerous when applied to individuals who are clearly gifted and capable of entering those spaces, yet encouraged to forgo such spaces. The decline of Christian influence in culture should not automatically be interpreted as God’s moral will or design, despite how often that sentiment is echoed from pulpits.
The Harvey Fellowship was an attempt to do some of what you're describing. Past Harvey Fellows include Ben Sasse and Michael Lindsay. https://www.28twelvefoundation.org/about
Does it matter if there are evangelical elites? No. Since it doesn't, the second question doesn't apply, but in a way it does. They'll be assimilated or absorbed by the updated mainline Protestants, as suggested at the end of the article. My Anglican church is a prime example (and from a previous article, you can maintain traditional Anglicanism with a large convert community. You just have to be intentional).
Evangelicalism - too broad, hard to truly define
Lacks a unified identity
Farm team for systemically and historically stronger denominations.
Worship determines how you live, think, and act. Evangelical worship and theology are the opposite of what is needed to establish a cultural elite. Every aspect of Evangelicalism is anti-elite, at least as it applies to the world. Maybe that's the point, who knows.
I do not live in the USA but it seems to me as if the Evangelical Homeschoolers and the Pronatalists are already doing the sort of work you are looking for in terms of building leadership and structure. Perhaps you can find national leaders among the regional leaders there? Not sure you can get them to wear the "elite" label, though. I suspect they find it prideful.
I wanted to add that the evangelicals are big about expressing themselves with another person. It’s very emotive. Protestantism is generally very rationalist. Rationalism goes hand-in-hand with analysis which is breaking things down. Emotivism is very particular making it not very connective with other fields. It also quickly shuts down anything outside what is being emoted. Rationalism is a bit more universal by itself, but, by itself, it leans into individual priors. Rcc thomism allows a grouping through teleology.
1.) Evangelicals love equality. It's the faith of the masses and will always serve *and accept as adherents* those who would become an embarrassment to elites. There is so little gatekeeping. It prevents a ratchet effect for upscaling, no matter how rich a congregation may be. Guilt by association is also just accepted because it's "for Jesus". The balance between contentment and capability is, as others have noted, off. It lends to the idea that no one will make us look bad because of Christ, and no one will make us look good because of man.
2.) Low-level leadership in evangelicalism is lazy, and we are experiencing the result. Think of student ministry. Youth pastor is a role where immaturity is often mistaken for talent. Young men in particular will not want to be led by a sub-par man who cautions their ambition. My dad grew up in a region where few men left, and said he would be drinking at high school parties where 40yo guys were still showing up, and he decided he didn't want to look like that, which is essentially what youth pastors look like, just dorkier. College ministry interns are the gleanings from a refuse bin of people who don't know what they want to do and need a couple more years of college sans coursework. These people are friendly, intelligent, even hard-working, but don't inspire. The level of social momentum I experienced was that when my house created a standing open-invite event, leadership asked to co-opt it to count for their hours. Friends who went into this route were surprised by the level of talent in some staff they met because that was not the norm of the students they met opting to intern, in other words, God was hardly in the picture for many of these graduates, functioning as little more than an excuse.
3.) Evangelicalism has a muted understanding of the spiritual realm, with various concepts bleeding into one another. This loops back to the end of the first point, but spreads farther, and is fair to bring up for a people who believe in the supernatural. 3a.) Think of the "biblically accurate angel" trope that broke reddit containment and the idea that in heaven people become angels. The radical reformation brought in a lot of terrible theology that supplanted the work of centuries. 3b.) YEC is not a pitfall problem if the nature of God is taken seriously, but most Christians are content with, and functionally stop at, the salvation bit and also tend to be disinterested in OEC arguments. The indefensible position in the 21st century is lacking wonder. 3c.) Prayer is fairly low-status, and is treated as such, because it's an easy aspect to dip in or out of. Silent prayers that are answered do not glorify God the way that public one's do, and by emphasising silent witness public prayer has been handed to eccentric personalities that declare miracles and predict events that do not occur.
I've noticed that evangelical Christianity tends to produce middle-class Americans. This works in 2 ways:
1. It raises people who would otherwise be in poverty. These are people who have grown up in rough, chaotic environments, but became serious believers, so now they discipline themselves to live by biblical teachings. They avoid drugs and alcohol, abide by laws, live chastely, work at jobs, and avoid expensive vices like gambling, smoking, etc. As a result, they rise far higher than most people from their original neighborhoods, even if they only tread water in the lower middle class.
2. It prevents many people from higher class backgrounds from maximizing their potential in terms of income or influence in elite circles. This is due to a variety of factors, including:
- Bright young people choosing to enter the ministry, rather than the elite track.
- Evangelical women choosing to leave the work force to stay at home with their children. If they homeschool, this extends their years out of the workforce exponentially.
- Cultural practices that make it hard for us to network. Most of us choose not to engage in underage drinking during the college years, which can severely limit one's social life on campus. Many of us choose to abstain from alcohol altogether, which means we either avoid situations that involve social drinking, or we go and stand out as weird.
Because of our commitment to chastity, we tend to get married and have children far younger than our peers. In upper middle class circles, this is generally regarded as irresponsible, working-class coded behavior, and our reputations suffer for it. It also limits socializing. A twenty something guy with a wife and kids can't hang out as much with his elite track peers. For us women, having kids significantly younger than your peers will often get you quietly dropped from the group. You're simply living in another world. Everyone feels awkward around you. You lose a lot of your elite track friends, and with it the networking opportunities.
- As other commenters said, we refuse to affirm the sexual revolution. So many jobs will require you to affirm the sins of co-workers, patients, or students. Any Evangelical Christian who takes these jobs will have to compromise or face consequences.
A book that touches on some of this is God, Grades, and Graduation: Religion's Surprising Effect on Academic Success by Ilana M. Horwitz. IIRC, one of the findings was that Evangelical Christian boys from lower class backgrounds tend to do much better in school compared to non-Christian boys from similar backgrounds, but Evangelical Christian girls from upper middle class backgrounds tended to be less successful than non-Christian girls from that background.
What I see among the current crop of those who consider themselves conservative American Christians is greater confidence in being AMERICAN Christians (perhaps in response to the oikophobia they’ve experienced in recent years) than confidence in being CHRISTIANS, citizens of Christ’s Kingdom. It looks like we’ve swapped a doctrine of catholicity for forms of Christian Nationalism. I’d rather see us exhibit joyful robust love to those outside the Kingdom than marching lockstep with other nationalists. But maybe I’m the oddball here.
There is a feeling that many Evangelicals want to live like monks in the world. The putting on a pedestal of missionaries seems like another manifestation of this.
My old church spent an entire month preaching out overseas missions. It struck me as odd that we would funnel so much money into sending cultural illiterate Americans to countries where they can't even speak the language, especially when most of those countries are 80-90% Christian. IMO those trips are simply virtue-signaling slop where well-meaning but ignorant people take pictures with poor brown kids and poorly paint a church.
I think a much better way to use our resources is by building a strong church where you live and by catechizing your families properly. Our country has plenty of problems and our primary focus needs to be cleaning up our own house first before we try to convert the "heathens" in Central America (they happen to mostly be Christians anyway).
When you hear from the Roman Catholic "Christians" from Latin America who were converted by evangelical missionaries, they often talk about how they went to Mass their whole lives and knew almost nothing about the Bible or Jesus Christ. Sorry, but that's an inconvenient truth that has to be faced on this subject.
The Catholic church isn't perfect. I think there are many opportunities for reform and improvement. There's also plenty of crappy Catholics who go to a few services a year and then complain that they never heard the gospel. I've been attending mass for a few months now and nothing I've seen has been unbiblical.
You said that you have been attending mass for a few months and haven't seen anything unbiblical. My reply is that your experience might not match the experience of an attendee in a Latin American village, which was my original topic for discussion.
Late to this party, but just have to chime in. Great and needful topic. One of my huge hot buttons with my community of faith, which it might not be before too long ....
Anyway, back in my college days, Campus Crusade absolutely told us, "Go to your lectures and your T.A. sessions and your labs. Being a responsible student is part of your testimony. But if you're spending alot of time studying to make the grade, you need to remember that the Lord needs workers in his harvest fields, and this college is one of them. If you are in God's will doing His work, he will make sure you get the grade on the exam that He needs you to have." (In fairness I hear that "Cru" has changed alot over the years, but I can't speak to that personally.)
I have seen this attitude propounded in evangelicalism alot over the years. There are only two things in the world worth doing: spreading the gospel and raising children. So, preachers and mothers are golden and the rest of the men have to be beta males and single women are held in suspicion.
Preach and mother. Anything else is second rate. And any preparation to excel in anything else is a distraction from what you need to be really doing. And then we wonder why we can't affect the culture.
I don't know that we have to make any real effort to occupy the commanding heights of culture. But just stop grinding into the dust anyone who has an interest, an enthusiasm, or a real talent for some sort of real world activity and maybe, eventually, affecting the culture will take care of itself. Just a modest proposal.
I would argue that the focus should be on developing Christian leadership at the local and county levels rather than the elite. The current elite is rapidly losing the confidence of their own members and the public. We need a bottom up development of leadership instead of a top down development. This bottom up development could eventually become an elite so to speak but going straight for the elite I think is a mistake.
I was raised in Non-Denominational Rick Warren/Greg Laurie-style churches. I soured on them, became Orthodox in my 20s, loved it and never looked back. My prediction is you'll never solve your problem as long as you insist on staying Protestant. "Men need a masculine Protestantism", says the American Reformer. "We need a more elite, intellectual style of Protestantism", says the American Reformer. The Orthodox Churches have no such "needs" because the Life of the Church is equally balanced between male and female, the intellectuals and the populists exist in harmony because they recognize one another's worth. So if you're serious about solving these problems, you have to be willing to consider: maybe the Reformers were wrong about Sola Fide, TULIP, the Intercession Of The Saints and Iconoclasm. If you refuse to consider that, no help will ever come to you.
Christian or evangelical "elite" by its very nature should be an oxymoron
Wasn’t this the purpose of Patrick Henry College? Why hasn’t it worked?
Sounds like a lot to put on the backs of little Patrick Henry College. Are they supposed to be another Ivy League school by now?
Hey Aaron, thanks for this post. It’s timely for me, as my wife and I have been discussing whether I should pursue a PhD in Clinical Psychology from an APA-accredited program versus a PhD in Counseling through a seminary-based program.
One of my primary concerns with attending a more pluralistic academic institution is navigating humanism alongside biblical truth. As an evangelical mental health provider, I feel a deep burden to articulate a compelling vision of healing as God intends - one that genuinely integrates Scripture and science, rather than overemphasizing one at the expense of the other.
What I found most encouraging in your article is your call for evangelicals to be present and influential in the cultural systems where power actually resides, particularly those that distribute and normalize ideas at scale. (For me, that would look like getting a degree from an APA institution which certainly comes with more exposure and opportunities professionally).
This is not about power for its own sake (which Jesus clearly warns against), but about stewarding power and influence in a way that reflects faithfulness and cultural responsibility. In other words, a serious consideration of both the means and ends of power.
Why, then, are evangelicals so rarely encouraged to take up positions of dominant cultural influence?
It seems to be a misnomer to equate withdrawal with meekness or to baptize passivity with language like, “God just didn’t lead me there.” That posture feels especially dangerous when applied to individuals who are clearly gifted and capable of entering those spaces, yet encouraged to forgo such spaces. The decline of Christian influence in culture should not automatically be interpreted as God’s moral will or design, despite how often that sentiment is echoed from pulpits.
Hello there Aaron, I hope you’re having a good weekend, and are well.
I’ve been reading your notes for a while now, just wanted to say thank you for always sharing something interesting.
I thought you may enjoy my approach to history, through the lens of historic books (pre 19th century):
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/what-shape-is-the-world?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
The Harvey Fellowship was an attempt to do some of what you're describing. Past Harvey Fellows include Ben Sasse and Michael Lindsay. https://www.28twelvefoundation.org/about
https://jeremyvogan.com/2025/12/20/it-is-not-mine-to-give/
Does it matter if there are evangelical elites? No. Since it doesn't, the second question doesn't apply, but in a way it does. They'll be assimilated or absorbed by the updated mainline Protestants, as suggested at the end of the article. My Anglican church is a prime example (and from a previous article, you can maintain traditional Anglicanism with a large convert community. You just have to be intentional).
Evangelicalism - too broad, hard to truly define
Lacks a unified identity
Farm team for systemically and historically stronger denominations.
Worship determines how you live, think, and act. Evangelical worship and theology are the opposite of what is needed to establish a cultural elite. Every aspect of Evangelicalism is anti-elite, at least as it applies to the world. Maybe that's the point, who knows.
I do not live in the USA but it seems to me as if the Evangelical Homeschoolers and the Pronatalists are already doing the sort of work you are looking for in terms of building leadership and structure. Perhaps you can find national leaders among the regional leaders there? Not sure you can get them to wear the "elite" label, though. I suspect they find it prideful.
I wanted to add that the evangelicals are big about expressing themselves with another person. It’s very emotive. Protestantism is generally very rationalist. Rationalism goes hand-in-hand with analysis which is breaking things down. Emotivism is very particular making it not very connective with other fields. It also quickly shuts down anything outside what is being emoted. Rationalism is a bit more universal by itself, but, by itself, it leans into individual priors. Rcc thomism allows a grouping through teleology.
A few points:
1.) Evangelicals love equality. It's the faith of the masses and will always serve *and accept as adherents* those who would become an embarrassment to elites. There is so little gatekeeping. It prevents a ratchet effect for upscaling, no matter how rich a congregation may be. Guilt by association is also just accepted because it's "for Jesus". The balance between contentment and capability is, as others have noted, off. It lends to the idea that no one will make us look bad because of Christ, and no one will make us look good because of man.
2.) Low-level leadership in evangelicalism is lazy, and we are experiencing the result. Think of student ministry. Youth pastor is a role where immaturity is often mistaken for talent. Young men in particular will not want to be led by a sub-par man who cautions their ambition. My dad grew up in a region where few men left, and said he would be drinking at high school parties where 40yo guys were still showing up, and he decided he didn't want to look like that, which is essentially what youth pastors look like, just dorkier. College ministry interns are the gleanings from a refuse bin of people who don't know what they want to do and need a couple more years of college sans coursework. These people are friendly, intelligent, even hard-working, but don't inspire. The level of social momentum I experienced was that when my house created a standing open-invite event, leadership asked to co-opt it to count for their hours. Friends who went into this route were surprised by the level of talent in some staff they met because that was not the norm of the students they met opting to intern, in other words, God was hardly in the picture for many of these graduates, functioning as little more than an excuse.
3.) Evangelicalism has a muted understanding of the spiritual realm, with various concepts bleeding into one another. This loops back to the end of the first point, but spreads farther, and is fair to bring up for a people who believe in the supernatural. 3a.) Think of the "biblically accurate angel" trope that broke reddit containment and the idea that in heaven people become angels. The radical reformation brought in a lot of terrible theology that supplanted the work of centuries. 3b.) YEC is not a pitfall problem if the nature of God is taken seriously, but most Christians are content with, and functionally stop at, the salvation bit and also tend to be disinterested in OEC arguments. The indefensible position in the 21st century is lacking wonder. 3c.) Prayer is fairly low-status, and is treated as such, because it's an easy aspect to dip in or out of. Silent prayers that are answered do not glorify God the way that public one's do, and by emphasising silent witness public prayer has been handed to eccentric personalities that declare miracles and predict events that do not occur.
I've noticed that evangelical Christianity tends to produce middle-class Americans. This works in 2 ways:
1. It raises people who would otherwise be in poverty. These are people who have grown up in rough, chaotic environments, but became serious believers, so now they discipline themselves to live by biblical teachings. They avoid drugs and alcohol, abide by laws, live chastely, work at jobs, and avoid expensive vices like gambling, smoking, etc. As a result, they rise far higher than most people from their original neighborhoods, even if they only tread water in the lower middle class.
2. It prevents many people from higher class backgrounds from maximizing their potential in terms of income or influence in elite circles. This is due to a variety of factors, including:
- Bright young people choosing to enter the ministry, rather than the elite track.
- Evangelical women choosing to leave the work force to stay at home with their children. If they homeschool, this extends their years out of the workforce exponentially.
- Cultural practices that make it hard for us to network. Most of us choose not to engage in underage drinking during the college years, which can severely limit one's social life on campus. Many of us choose to abstain from alcohol altogether, which means we either avoid situations that involve social drinking, or we go and stand out as weird.
Because of our commitment to chastity, we tend to get married and have children far younger than our peers. In upper middle class circles, this is generally regarded as irresponsible, working-class coded behavior, and our reputations suffer for it. It also limits socializing. A twenty something guy with a wife and kids can't hang out as much with his elite track peers. For us women, having kids significantly younger than your peers will often get you quietly dropped from the group. You're simply living in another world. Everyone feels awkward around you. You lose a lot of your elite track friends, and with it the networking opportunities.
- As other commenters said, we refuse to affirm the sexual revolution. So many jobs will require you to affirm the sins of co-workers, patients, or students. Any Evangelical Christian who takes these jobs will have to compromise or face consequences.
A book that touches on some of this is God, Grades, and Graduation: Religion's Surprising Effect on Academic Success by Ilana M. Horwitz. IIRC, one of the findings was that Evangelical Christian boys from lower class backgrounds tend to do much better in school compared to non-Christian boys from similar backgrounds, but Evangelical Christian girls from upper middle class backgrounds tended to be less successful than non-Christian girls from that background.
What I see among the current crop of those who consider themselves conservative American Christians is greater confidence in being AMERICAN Christians (perhaps in response to the oikophobia they’ve experienced in recent years) than confidence in being CHRISTIANS, citizens of Christ’s Kingdom. It looks like we’ve swapped a doctrine of catholicity for forms of Christian Nationalism. I’d rather see us exhibit joyful robust love to those outside the Kingdom than marching lockstep with other nationalists. But maybe I’m the oddball here.
There is a feeling that many Evangelicals want to live like monks in the world. The putting on a pedestal of missionaries seems like another manifestation of this.
My old church spent an entire month preaching out overseas missions. It struck me as odd that we would funnel so much money into sending cultural illiterate Americans to countries where they can't even speak the language, especially when most of those countries are 80-90% Christian. IMO those trips are simply virtue-signaling slop where well-meaning but ignorant people take pictures with poor brown kids and poorly paint a church.
I think a much better way to use our resources is by building a strong church where you live and by catechizing your families properly. Our country has plenty of problems and our primary focus needs to be cleaning up our own house first before we try to convert the "heathens" in Central America (they happen to mostly be Christians anyway).
When you hear from the Roman Catholic "Christians" from Latin America who were converted by evangelical missionaries, they often talk about how they went to Mass their whole lives and knew almost nothing about the Bible or Jesus Christ. Sorry, but that's an inconvenient truth that has to be faced on this subject.
The Catholic church isn't perfect. I think there are many opportunities for reform and improvement. There's also plenty of crappy Catholics who go to a few services a year and then complain that they never heard the gospel. I've been attending mass for a few months now and nothing I've seen has been unbiblical.
You're not in a village in Latin America, either.
What's your point?
You said that you have been attending mass for a few months and haven't seen anything unbiblical. My reply is that your experience might not match the experience of an attendee in a Latin American village, which was my original topic for discussion.
Late to this party, but just have to chime in. Great and needful topic. One of my huge hot buttons with my community of faith, which it might not be before too long ....
Anyway, back in my college days, Campus Crusade absolutely told us, "Go to your lectures and your T.A. sessions and your labs. Being a responsible student is part of your testimony. But if you're spending alot of time studying to make the grade, you need to remember that the Lord needs workers in his harvest fields, and this college is one of them. If you are in God's will doing His work, he will make sure you get the grade on the exam that He needs you to have." (In fairness I hear that "Cru" has changed alot over the years, but I can't speak to that personally.)
I have seen this attitude propounded in evangelicalism alot over the years. There are only two things in the world worth doing: spreading the gospel and raising children. So, preachers and mothers are golden and the rest of the men have to be beta males and single women are held in suspicion.
Preach and mother. Anything else is second rate. And any preparation to excel in anything else is a distraction from what you need to be really doing. And then we wonder why we can't affect the culture.
I don't know that we have to make any real effort to occupy the commanding heights of culture. But just stop grinding into the dust anyone who has an interest, an enthusiasm, or a real talent for some sort of real world activity and maybe, eventually, affecting the culture will take care of itself. Just a modest proposal.
Thanks for sharing.
I would argue that the focus should be on developing Christian leadership at the local and county levels rather than the elite. The current elite is rapidly losing the confidence of their own members and the public. We need a bottom up development of leadership instead of a top down development. This bottom up development could eventually become an elite so to speak but going straight for the elite I think is a mistake.
I was raised in Non-Denominational Rick Warren/Greg Laurie-style churches. I soured on them, became Orthodox in my 20s, loved it and never looked back. My prediction is you'll never solve your problem as long as you insist on staying Protestant. "Men need a masculine Protestantism", says the American Reformer. "We need a more elite, intellectual style of Protestantism", says the American Reformer. The Orthodox Churches have no such "needs" because the Life of the Church is equally balanced between male and female, the intellectuals and the populists exist in harmony because they recognize one another's worth. So if you're serious about solving these problems, you have to be willing to consider: maybe the Reformers were wrong about Sola Fide, TULIP, the Intercession Of The Saints and Iconoclasm. If you refuse to consider that, no help will ever come to you.
I came to this same realization and am now becoming Catholic.