I'm not familiar with any of those people. The only contemporary Christian writer I've read is Peter Hitchens, whose blatant and blunt approach in the British media I am very entertained by; though there is a point where his beliefs stop short of where I'm willing to go, which is true for any Christian I've come across (innate populism/religious humanism). Though, he does support the monarchy in a meaningful fashion, which is very intriguing.
I'm not very fond of the terms "reactionary" or "conservative", since they imply that they arise only as a reverse approach to an existing stimulus. It assumes the designation of "progress" to have meaning.
Additionally, "conservative" in the mass consciousness has come to mean "identifying with the values of the American/French Revolution", which is actually the reverse of what we would prefer. (I recently had a discussion with a Marxist academic who stated that the "emancipation of women" was compatible with conservatism. I didn't know how to respond. I guess it appears that way if your view of history starts in the 18th century...this guy also thought Thatcher was a lower-case conservative...)In reality, the American "founding fathers" were "crowdists" and I have severe problems when Amerika.org praises that era of our history as if it was ideal...why Brett Stevens praises Reagan/Romney etc is another thing that I do not understand.
I agree with you that there should be terms to distinguish between populations, however I'm irritated that the left has hijacked all the terminology. I've started using the term "reality-based thinkers" in conversations to describe views such as Amerika.org when talking to people who think George Bush was a conservative. Catches them off guard, since they have no pre-built reaction to the term.