In fact, Obama said “Christmas” eight times, twice as often as he mentioned “holidays.” With his family at his side, the president also used an even more controversial word — “Christian.”

“Each year we’ve come together to celebrate a story that has endured for two millennia,” he said. “It’s a story that’s dear to Michelle and me as Christians, but it’s a message that’s universal: A child was born far from home to spread a simple message of love and redemption to every human being around the world.”

Politicos did the Beltway math and got this number — 2012.

God talk is back in the political equation, as the clock ticks toward another campaign. Insiders are counting how often Obama clearly mentions his Christian faith and then subtracting, to cite a key statistic, the number of times he quotes the Declaration of Independence while clipping God from the line that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Many pastors seem to be paying attention as well, according to a recent LifeWay Research survey that asked 1,000 Protestant pastors to judge the faith of five public figures. Researchers interviewed a spectrum of clergy, with the selection of participants based on the sizes of their national denominations. Thus, conservative flocks had more votes.

The question: “Which, if any, of the following people do you believe are Christians?” It was thumbs up for former President George W. Bush (75 percent) and GOP lightning rod Sarah Palin (66 percent), but thumbs down for Obama (41 percent), as well as media superstars Glenn Beck (27 percent) and Oprah Winfrey (19 percent).

Among the pastors who said they were Republicans, 23 percent said Obama is a Christian, a stark contrast with the 80 percent of the pastors who identified themselves as Democrats. Among “independents,” 52 percent called Obama a Christian.

Bush was viewed as a Christian by 75 percent of the pastors, including 84 percent of those who identified their politics as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Meanwhile, 25 percent of the “very conservative” Protestant clergy declined to call Bush a Christian.

One thing this survey made clear is that many American clergy have clashing definitions of the word “Christian,” said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, which is linked to the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention.

For many Americans, he said, “Christian” is “simply an identification on a form. They see a box on a survey and they say, ‘I am not Hindu or Jewish. I am from America, so I must be Christian.’ … Pastors may see this differently. For example, evangelical pastors tend to link the term ‘Christian’ with conversion experiences.”

Thus, conservative Protestants believe that people are not born into Christianity, but enter the faith by being “born again.”

This is why the Obama controversies are so hard to understand, stressed Stetzer. On several occasions — including in his memoirs — Obama has described what is “clearly a conversion experience of some kind” in which he made a public profession of Christian faith and joined the United Church of Christ.

Nevertheless, Obama supporters were stunned by last year’s much-publicized Pew Research Center poll that said 18 percent of Americans continue to believe that Obama is a Muslim, while only 34 percent identify him as a Christian. Another 43 percent did not know his religious faith.

There is no way to be sure why so many of the clergy who participated in the LifeWay survey declined to call Obama a Christian, stressed Stetzer.

A few may think he is a Muslim, while others may believe that Obama is so progressive that he is trying to affirm multiple faiths at the same time. It is likely that many conservatives believe that Obama sincerely thinks he is a Christian, but that his religious beliefs are too unorthodox to be considered doctrinally sound.

“I just don’t think that the Muslim controversy alone is enough to explain what we’re seeing here,” said Stetzer. “At the end of the day, we only know that the pastors answered this way, not why they answered this way. We have more work to do on this.”

Call him “Adam.” He is a church administrator, a “worship minister” and a self-proclaimed “atheist agnostic.” That last detail is a secret. After all, his wife and teen-aged children are devout believers and he needs to stay employed.

“Here’s how I’m handling my job. … I see it as playacting. I kind of see myself as taking on a role of a believer in a worship service, and performing,” he said, during an interview for the “Preachers who are not Believers (.pdf)” report from the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

“I know how to pray publicly. I can lead singing. I love singing. I don’t believe what I’m saying anymore in some of these songs. But I see it as taking on the role and performing. Maybe that’s what it takes for me to get myself through this, but that’s what I’m doing.”

The researchers behind this report do not claim they can document whether this phenomenon is rare or common. What they have right now is anecdotal material drawn from confidential interviews with five male Protestant ministers — three in liberal denominations and two from flocks that, as a rule, are conservative. An ordained Episcopal Church woman was interviewed, but withdrew just before publication.

The authors of the report are philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, an outspoken leader in the movement many call the “New Atheism,” and Linda LaScola, a clinical social worker with years of qualitative research experience. She is also an atheist, but, until recently, was a regular churchgoer.

“We started with a pilot study because this is very new ground,” said LaScola, who conducted the interviews. “We are planning to do a larger study in the future.”

The key is circulating this early material and then finding more ministers who are willing to be interviewed. The initial participants were found through contacts with the Center For Progressive Christianity and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. As this report candidly states: “Our sample is small and self-selected, and it is not surprising that all of our pastors think that they are the tip of an iceberg, but they are also utterly unable to confirm this belief.”

What unites these ministers is their isolation from the believers in their pews, their awareness that they cannot honestly discuss their doubts and evolving beliefs. They also struggle with labels such as “atheist” or “agnostic,” often insisting that they remain believers of some kind — although they reject Christian doctrines or even theism.

This tension, the authors stressed, is “no accident” in these postmodern times.

“The ambiguity about who is a believer and who a nonbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can’t know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all,” noted Dennett and LaScola. “This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don’t know what they are being asked.”

More than anything else, the report offers a striking mix of voices and motives.

“Darryl” the Presbyterian still calls himself a “Jesus Follower,” but adds: “I reject the virgin birth. I reject substitutionary atonement. I reject the divinity of Jesus. I reject heaven and hell in the traditional sense, and I am not alone.”

There’s “Wes” the United Methodist: “I think the word God can be used very expressively in some of my more meditative modes. I’ve thought of God as a kind of poetry that’s written by human beings.”

A retired United Church of Christ pastor, “Rick,” has learned to add this subtle disclaimer when reciting creeds: “Let us remember our forefathers and mothers in the faith who said, ‘dot, dot, dot, dot’.”

“Jack” the Southern Baptist has concluded that the “grand scheme of Christianity, for me, is a bunch of bunk.” Thus, he is quietly planning a new career.

“If somebody said, ‘Here’s $200,000,’ I’d be turning my notice in this week, saying, ‘A month from now is my last Sunday.’ Because then I can pay off everything.”

A journalist was chasing Wasilla Bible Church members in the aisles, trying to convince somebody, anybody, to dish about his flock’s most famous church lady. The craziness had started as soon as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the GOP’s nominee for vice president.

Suddenly, there were satellite dishes out front and worshippers were trapped inside, trying to escape to the safety of their cars in the parking lot.

Kroon tried to control the chaos, telling journalists they were free to participate in worship services, but not to film or interrupt them. The pastor also asked them not to “fish for interviews” as members arrived or departed. He thought these rules were enough. He was wrong.

“We can look back and say, ‘Whoa. We really should have done this or that differently,’ ” said Kroon. “I was naive enough to think this wasn’t going to affect us — but it did. We ended up scrambling to get from day to day. We had that deer in the headlights look for quite a while.”

Wasilla Bible Church leaders encountered professionals from the New York Times, CNN, Time, Fox, the major television networks and just about everyone else — from America and around the world. Flocks of alleged journalists arrived from every corner of the World Wide Web, as well.

After hurricane Palin, Kroon met with management consultant James Stamoolis and prepared some tips for clergy who struggle with media attention — wanted or unwanted. Some of those tips are relevant again in Wasilla, since Palin’s faith plays a big role in her new “Going Rogue” memoir. Here’s a sample, drawn from a talk with Kroon.

* Never accept an interview without confirming a reporter’s identity and his or her current employer. Just because someone has written for the Associated Press doesn’t mean that he isn’t currently a blogger for PalinIsADummy.org or something like that.

* Help reporters understand that private communications between clergy and the faithful are, in fact, privileged and guarded by the same kinds of laws that shield reporters and their sources.

* Keep contact information for community leaders — such as telephone numbers and email addresses for church elders — in a firewall-protected section of your congregation’s website. Post contact information for staffers who are prepared to handle media requests in a timely manner.

* Ask if reporters or producers have experience covering religion news. Some journalists sincerely want factual information that will help them cover a story fairly and accurately, while others “are in a hurry and they simply want what they want. You may think you’re helping them understand who you are and what you believe, but they just want a good quote and then they’re moving on,” said Kroon.

* It may help to post information about your denomination or tradition, including frequently asked questions about worship, media relations, how the congregation is governed and the meaning of unique terms (such as “born again” or “charismatic”) that newcomers will encounter.

* Understand that a two-hour interview may be reduced to 20 seconds and that the journalist decides what goes in that soundbite. So avoid lectures and focus on the key points that you must make to explain your congregation’s point of view. It’s also important to remember that silence is the reporter’s problem, not your problem.

* In the Internet age, there is no reason that a pastor cannot — as a condition for talking to a reporter — insist on the right to record and transcribe an interview. That way, the professionals on both sides of the transaction know that they are on the record and the results, if needed to clarify a point, can be posted online or emailed to a publisher.

Kroon stressed that he was truly impressed by many of the journalists, especially with their commitment to accuracy and fairness. They wanted to get the story right. But others arrived in Wasilla with their minds clamped shut. They came to get the story that they already knew that they wanted to write.

“Pastors need to understand that there are really good reporters and there are some really bad ones, too,” he said. “You also have to understand that even the really good ones are going to push you to your boundary lines. That’s what they do.”

Democrats are mad at Republicans who are mad about President Barack Obama’s health-care plans. Democrats are mad at other Democrats who are raising questions about hot-button issues in the legislation, especially questions about tax dollars and abortions. Republicans are mad about lots of other things and they have YouTube videos to prove it.

Right now, America’s political elites are getting angry about the fact that so many people are angry. It’s almost a Zen thing.

All of this anger is supposed to be a bad thing, a sign that the nation is coming unglued. But that may or may not be true, depending on what these angry citizens are mad about and what they choose to do with their anger, noted Leon J. Podles, a Catholic conservative known for his slashing critiques of the church hierarchy’s weak responses to decades of clergy sexual abuse of children.

“If the politics of anger can’t lead to constructive actions, then all that anger is meaningless and, ultimately, doesn’t do anyone any good,” stressed Podles. “Still, I would argue that anger is more positive than apathy, especially when citizens are angry about issues that are worth being angry about.

“Anger is certainly better than people sitting back on their sofas and saying, ‘Ho hum, millions of unborn babies are dying.’ It’s better than people saying, ‘Ho hum, people are dying because they don’t have health care, but so what?’ These are issues that should make rational people get angry.”

Writing in the ecumenical journal Touchstone, Podles argued that it’s especially important for Christians and other religious believers to understand that anger is not always a sin or an emotion that must be avoided. In fact, that there are circumstances in which it is a sin not to feel anger. The ultimate question, he said, is whether anger leads to rational, constructive, virtuous actions.

Who would argue, for example, that it was wrong for the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to feel righteous anger about the impact of racism and economic injustice on the lives of millions of black Americans? Who would argue that it was wrong for Nelson Mandela to draw strength from the anger he felt during his 27 years in prison under South Africa’s apartheid regime?

It’s crucial in both of these cases, stressed Podles, that these men did not allow their anger to turn into hatred of their oppressors. Instead, it led to courageous and strategic acts to accomplish worthy goals.

“Anger must be more than mere emotion,” he stressed. “Anger must also be proportionate to the evil that provokes that anger. Take road rage, for example. That kind of anger is completely irrational and it accomplishes nothing.”

Then there are cases in which powerful people fail to feel anger about issues that are directly under their control, issues that their actions could affect in direct and positive ways. In his book “Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church,” Podles attempts to understand why so many bishops failed to be outraged by the sins committed by some of their priests and, thus, failed to channel that anger into actions to stop the crimes.

“If the bishops had not coddled these priests, if they had not hidden them and then put them back into parishes full of children and parents who were kept in the dark, they could have prevented evil acts against thousands of victims,” he said. “There were bishops who could have acted and they should have acted. But they didn’t act. … For some reason they never got angry and, as a result, they never acted to protect the laity, especially the children.”

There are times that call for unity, diplomacy, conciliation and peacemaking in the church and in public life, said Podles. But there are also times when leaders must feel outraged about corruption and injustice. There are times when anger must be allowed to fuel actions that defend virtue.

“There are evils in this world that we can do something about and we should get angry about them,” he said. “In any battle, it’s hard to act in an effective manner without a kind of appropriate anger that energizes your actions. Without that anger, innocent people will suffer and evil will win the day.”

After all, debates about the Bible and sexuality had rocked America’s largest Lutheran flock since it was born in 1988 through the merger of three older Lutheran denominations. Similar fights have caused bitter divisions among Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Methodists and other oldline Protestants.

While the decision in the recent ELCA national assembly was a triumph for proponents of same-sex marriage, this media storm also focused attention on a question that often causes debates among liberal theologians and ethicists: What does the word “monogamous” mean?

The detailed social statement approved by the denomination does not specifically define the term, but states that clergy in same-sex unions should be held to the same standards as those in heterosexual marriages.

“This church teaches that degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment. This also suggests a way to understand why this church teaches that the greatest sexual intimacies, such as coitus, should be matched with and sheltered both by the highest level of binding commitment and by social and legal protection, such as found in marriage,” argues the document, which is entitled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

Thus, the Evangelical Lutheran Church continues to oppose “non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual sexual relationships of any kind. … Such transient encounters do not allow for trust in the relationship to create the context for trust in sexual intimacy.”

It’s hard to define “monogamy” without discussing what it means for one person in a relationship to be sexually “faithful” to another, said the Rev. Kaari Reierson of the national ELCA staff. She was part of the task force that produced the “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” document.

“When we talk about a ‘monogamous’ relationship,” she explained, “we mean that someone is supposed to be having physical, sexual contact with only one person.”

For some activists, however, “monogamy” is a fighting word.

As the national debates about same-sex marriage began to gain momentum a decade ago, the influential gay newspaper The Advocate stated this issue in a blunt headline: “Monogamy: Is it for us?”

This is not a new issue. As a gay United Methodist pastor explained to me in the early years of the AIDS crisis, few gay Christians embrace a “twin rocking chairs forever” definition of monogamy. Instead, they believe that it’s possible to be “faithful” to one’s life partner, while having sexual experiences with others.

The Episcopal Church’s first openly gay male priest went much further, questioning the relevancy of monogamy altogether during an address about what he called “sex-positive” theology soon after his ordination in 1989.

“My position on sexual exclusivity … is that it is NOT in fact a requirement for a valid Christian marriage,” stated Father Robert Williams, whose controversial views led to his departure from the Episcopal Church. He died of complications of AIDS in 1992.

A strict form of monogamous sexual fidelity, he noted, is “an option some couples choose. Others do not, and yet have lifelong, grace-filled, covenant relationships.”

The gay journalist Andrew Sullivan — a liberal Catholic — was equally blunt in his 1995 book “Virtually Normal,” arguing that, “There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. …. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.”

And in the ELCA? Several church representatives stressed that their leaders are still preparing the revised guidelines for clergy conduct, which may not be made public until the end of the year. However, Reierson said she believes they will strive to apply terms such as “monogamous” and “faithful” to the covenant relationships of both gays and straights.

Meanwhile, the current policy that “single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life” will remain in the guidelines, she said. This means no sex before marriage for all single clergy.

“I think what we have said is pretty clear,” she said. “I don’t see room in there for physical, sexual relations with another person outside of the covenant of a lifelong, committed relationship.”

This means well-connected American Jews have almost a full year to lobby for their favorite rabbi to make the unofficial, but totally buzz-worthy, list of the nation’s 50 top rabbis. The pre-Passover list in Newsweek was such a hit that the film-industry players who created it are already gearing up for the sequel.

The goal was to jump start discussions about what it means to be an “influential” rabbi today, said Jay Sanderson, head of the Jewish TV Network and producer of the PBS series “The Jewish Americans.” But it’s hard to talk about shepherds without discussing their flocks. That was the point.

“The whole concept of what it means to be an effective leader is changing so fast and this is certainly true for the Jews,” he said. “So some people are talking about the fact that we didn’t ask, ‘Who is the most learned rabbi?’ or ‘Who has the most powerful pulpit? Instead, we specifically asked, ‘Who is the most influential rabbi and what does that mean, today?’…

“Some of our rabbis are preaching in what can only be called ‘virtual pulpits.’ “

When it comes to buzz, it didn’t hurt that the list was created by Sanderson and two other top mass-media executives — Gary Ginsberg of News Corp. and Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton — rather than by panels of community leaders and scholars.

The result was an earthquake in the Jewish blogosphere and wide coverage in the mainstream press.

It also didn’t hurt that three of the top five picks were from Los Angeles, while the rabbi of the largest congregation in Washington, D.C., was ranked No. 10 and the leader of New York City’s largest congregation fell all the way to No. 23. The top pick was Orthodox Rabbi Marvin Hier of Los Angeles, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Museum of Tolerance and Moriah Films. The Top 50 list stressed that he is “one phone call away from almost every world leader, journalist and Hollywood studio head.”

The 2007 edition began with a 100-candidate shortlist and its creators plan to cast their nets wider next year. Feminists were upset that only five women made the cut.

The project’s guiding principles can be seen in the 100-point system used to rank the rabbis. First they asked if the rabbis were known around the world, as well as in America. (20 points) The other questions: Do they have media presence? (10 points) Are they leaders in their own cities? (10 points) Are they leaders within their branches of Judaism? (10 points) How many Jews, in one way or another, follow them? (10 points) Do they have political and social clout? (20 points) Have their careers had a major impact on Judaism (10 points) and the wider culture? (10 points)

In the first list, 18 of the top 50 were listed as Reform, 17 as Orthodox, 10 as Conservative, three as Reconstructionist and two as “Jewish Renewal” rabbis. Next time, said Sanderson, the team will make a stronger effort to identify rabbis with the various movements within that complex Orthodox camp.

After all, the Orthodox rabbi whose selection drew the most flack was Rabbi Yehuda Berg at No. 4, founder of the Kabbalah Center in Los Angeles. He has become a cultural phenomenon by preaching red-string power to Madonna, Britney Spears and many other trendsetters. Some Jewish leaders content that Berg is not really a rabbi.

“Any list that has Yehuda Berg on it is a list that I do not want to be on,” said an anonymous rabbi who made the list, but vented to the Jerusalem Post. “I think his name up there on the top tells you all you need to know about the Jewish sophistication of these folks.”

Sanderson welcomes the ongoing debate. The key, he said, is that rabbis have to take their various takes on the ancient faith directly to modern Jews — where they are.

“Picture a young Jewish woman on her treadmill watching the Today Show,” he said. “How do you talk to her about Judaism? The answer is that you have to go on the Today Show, because she isn’t going to be sitting in your congregation during the High Holy Days. That’s the reality, right there.”

The veteran chaplain quickly changed out of his simple brown habit and into his fire-department uniform — pausing only to comb and spray his hair. Judge was heading into danger, but he was also ready to face the cameras. Soon, a photographer captured unforgettable images of firefighters carrying the priest’s body out of the rubble and his name was on the first Ground Zero death certificate.

“While he was ministering to dying firemen, administering the Sacrament of the Sick and Last Rites, Mychal Judge died,” said Father Michael Duffy, at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in New York City.

“… Look how that man died. He was right where the action was, where he always wanted to be. He was praying, because in the ritual for anointing we’re always saying, ‘Jesus come,’ ‘Jesus forgive,’ ‘Jesus save.’ He was talking to God and he was helping someone. Can you honestly think of a better way to die? I think it was beautiful.”

Anyone who wants to know how to deliver a eulogy should study this poignant section of Duffy’s remarks at the funeral of his close friend, said Cyrus Copeland, a former advertising executive who edited “Farewell, Godspeed” and the recent “A Wonderful Life,” two collections of famous eulogies. The new book includes a chapter focusing on Judge and three other men who died on Sept. 11, 2001.

This one anecdote reveals two sides of the same man, mixing humor — the final ritual of comb and hairspray — with a vision of a faithful priest’s willingness to risk his own life to provide comfort to his unique flock.

These days, said Copeland, the loved ones who gather at a funeral want to hear a celebratory toast to a life well lived, just as much or more than they want to face spiritual issues involved in their loss.

“People want honesty,” he said. “They don’t want to hear about the saint that nobody knew. They want to hear about the real Father Mychal, a man who loved the human soul, but also knew a good photo opportunity when he saw one. ? They want to hear about life, more than they want to hear about eternal life. Eulogies today are more human and they are becoming less religious.”

Copeland is convinced there are several reasons that the art of the eulogy has changed so radically in recent decades.

For starters, most people alive today have grown up in a video age, surrounded by celebrity news and, more recently, the tightly edited rush of “reality television.” They have seen their share of high-profile funerals. Millions wept as Lord Edward John Spencer spoke at the funeral of his sister, Lady Diana. Many watched as superstar Cher laughed and cried her way through a eulogy for her former husband, Sonny Bono.

Clergy rarely command the spotlight during these rites.

“It’s important to remember that the celebrity memorial service was the first kind to be secularized,” said Copeland. “So you expect to hear about heaven in a eulogy for Father Mychal Judge, with a priest in the pulpit. But eulogies for celebrities like Marilyn Monroe may not mention heaven at all. That’s just the age we live in.”

There’s another practical reason that eulogies have changed so much. Friends and relatives are taking control of the microphone.

In the past, loved ones asked the family’s pastor, rabbi or priest to deliver the eulogy. Today, it would be hard for most people to name such a person. Most modern families are scattered across the nation, divided by career choices and, far too often, broken relationships. Family members may not even share a common faith and they certainly have not spent most of their lives in the same neighborhood in the same city.

Clergy used to deliver about 90 percent of all eulogies. Today, “that number is about 50 percent and it’s falling,” said Copeland.

“So for many people a memorial service simply isn’t a religious event anymore. It offers us a chance to say our good-byes to the dearly departed, but many people no longer think of this event as a bridge between this life and the next.”

“We’re No. 1 because there really isn’t a No. 2, which is a good business plan if you think about it,” said Craig Gross, co-founder of the ministry in Corona, Calif.

Two years ago, Gross and partner Mike Foster opened their first booth at the Adult Video News trade show in Las Vegas, handing out anti-porn brochures to hardcore consumers and sharing their faith with porn stars and producers. The youth pastors took their wives as chaperones and to take turns inside their church’s full-body rabbit costume. The approach was goofy, but intrigued the Los Angeles Times, ABC, Playboy and others.

This year XXXChurch.com teamed up with veteran pornographer James DiGiorgio — producer of videos such as “The Sopornos #3” — to make a surreal public service announcement called “Pete the Porno Puppet” warning parents not to expose kids to explicit images. As it turns out, “Jimmy D” is also a parent who worries about porn.

Now comes the hard part. Yes, the online ministry offers anonymous education, counseling and prayer support. It has free X3Watch software to help porn users form accountability groups. It has hip media products for skeptics.

But a website is not enough, said Gross, speaking at the annual North American Christian Convention. Sooner or later, church people will have to talk about pornography.

Sadly, it’s easer to discuss God with porn stars than pornography with many pastors.

Why? A poll by Leadership magazine found that four in 10 pastors with Internet access had visited a porn site and more than a third had done so in the previous year. Many skeptical pastors said those numbers were too low.

“If 37 percent of our pastors are looking at this,” said Gross, “then this is not a subject they’re going to feel comfortable with in the pulpit. … Think about it. What is going through a pastor’s mind if he wants to look at online porn before he preaches on Sunday morning? What’s that all about?”

Many believers prefer to ignore such questions. Faced with a minister who gets caught with porn, the typical church board will send the offender packing — quickly. Yet this kind of zero tolerance policy will drive other addicts deeper into fear and denial, said Gross.

“What the church keeps saying is, ‘Get out! We have no sin here,’ ” he said.

The goal is to take this secret sin seriously, while still offering hope to broken people in pews and pulpits, said the Rev. Gary Rowe, minister of pastoral care at the East 91st Street Christian Church in Indianapolis. Nevertheless, churches that create ministries for those struggling with pornography and other sexual sins will face unique challenges.

For example, it’s hard to promote small-group sessions for porn abusers without listing the times and locations in the weekly church bulletin or on a web site, he noted, during another session at the convention in Phoenix. This sensitive issue must be openly discussed in the pulpit and in church education efforts, yet without violating the privacy of those involved.

It’s also important to learn that the most effective ministry may not begin with the men.

“We had eight guys come forward when we started this work,” said Rowe. “But we immediately had calls from 100 women, looking for help with a husband or a child who was involved with pornography. That really impressed us.”

Gross agreed that wives almost always cry out for help before husbands. It is also important for church leaders to ask questions about pornography in premarital counseling and in parenting classes. Youth pastors have to realize that the teen years are crucial, since that is when most boys first come into contact with sexually explicit media.

The trick is to pull this subject out into the open with little or no warning.

“You can’t come right out and say, ‘We’re having a men’s breakfast and we’re going to talk about pornography,” said Gross. “Guess what? If you do that, nobody’s going to be there. You are going to have lots of pancakes left over. …

“We’re at the stage where you’re going to have to ambush people.”