Page 2024 – Christianity Today (2024)

A year ago, we wereblogging about the controversy surrounding the Tim Tebow pro-life ad that was to air during the Super Bowl. (It ended up airing anyway, and there were far fewer complaints after it aired than before it – scandal averted!)

Now we have another minor commercial controversy brewing. Fixed Point Foundation reports that Fox Sports hasrejected a proposed Super Bowl ad featuring a reference to the Bible verse John 3:16 – ironic since it has been showing up in the background on signsat sporting events for decades.

In the commercial (embedded below), Fixed Point – whose stated mission is “to promote a confident Christianity in the public square by fortifying the minds of Christians and challenging the faith of skeptics” – hoped to encourage viewers to look up John 3:16 and consider its meaning. The commercial directs viewers to a website (lookup316.com) with the verse and explanation. Neither the commercial nor the website sells a product or asks for money, but Fox supposedly rejected the commercial because it contains “religious doctrine.”

Still, some regions have opted to air the commercial anyway; a Fox station in Birmingham has agreed to air it twice during the big game. Here it is:

And here’s the Tebow ad from last year’s Super Bowl:

Video clips from recent undercover visits to Planned Parenthood clinics by a pro-life group called Live Action have stunned people on both sides of the debate and prompted the clinic to fire the employee caught on tape.

Planned Parenthood says they are “profoundly shocked” by the YouTube clips showing Central Jersey Planned Parenthood manager Amy Woodruff offering advice to Live Action operatives–posing as a pimp and his prostitute–on how to get medical care for underage sex workers without disrupting his business. The organization fired Woodruff for behavior which they say was a “very isolated” response to a “highly unusual” pair of inquirers.

Woodruff was “behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable,” said a Planned Parenthood official. Lila Rose, president of Live Action, says the New Jersey video “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of the young girls it claims to serve.”

A few weeks ago Planned Parenthood noticed a number of similar visits at clinics in several states and contacted the authorities about what they thought could be either a “multistate sex trafficking operation” or a ” ‘dirty tricks’ campaign.” They pointed to evidence that Live Action (with whom they had prior encounters) could be involved.

“These people have recorded ‘undercover’ videos of their conversations with our clinic staff and then selectively and maliciously edited the videos,” wrote Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards in a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder at the time.

Yesterday, Live Action uploaded a second video of an undercover visit to a Virginia clinic, which Rose said demonstrates that “Planned Parenthood’s problems go far beyond New Jersey.” Planned Parenthood says the staffer in the Virginia video acted “professionally” and notified her supervisor immediately afterward.

Rose and Live Action are hardly new to YouTube activism. Rose, who says she draws inspiration from 1960s activist Saul Alinsky, has organizedsimilaroperations against Planned Parenthood before. Critics call Rose a “propagandist” who “has a history of smearing the subjects of her videos,” comparing Live Action’s tactics to the misleadingly-edited clip that tarred Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod in 2010.

But Live Action has managed to put Planned Parenthood in the hot seat before. The organization apologized in 2008 after Live Action recorded a Planned Parenthood staffer appearing to sympathize with a potential benefactor who claimed he wanted to donate because “the less black kids out there, the better.” In 2010, the state of Alabama put a Planned Parenthood clinic on probation after Rose, posing as a 14-year-old, caught a clinic employee willing to violate parental consent laws. The state later found that the clinic had given abortions to nine minors without properly verifying parental consent.

As reporters and commentatorsweigh the import of the videos and of Woodruff’s actions, New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow plans to look into Live Action’s “very disturbing” allegations.

WASHINGTON – President Obama used his address at today's National Prayer Breakfast to reiterate his Christian faith, re-telling the story of his nonreligious upbringing and conversion to Christianity.

"My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years, all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time," Obama said. "We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God."

Previous polls have suggested that about 18 percent of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim.

Last year, Obama's speech emphasized civility, finding common ground guided by faith. "Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility," he said in 2010. Obama introduced the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at his first prayer breakfast in 2009. Michael Scherer of Time magazine notes that in 2009, Obama used "I" 15 times, in 2010, he used "I" 10 times, and this year, he said "I" 44 times.

Obama said earlier that he has chosen not to join a church, though a White House spokesman Kevin Lewis recently told The Washington Post, "We will be sure to confirm when they have made a decision on a church home," Lewis said after the Obamas visited Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in January.

The White House has instead focused on the relationships Obama has with several pastors and a daily devotional he receives on his Blackberry. In his speech today, Obama said that Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter and Texas megachurch pastor T. D. Jakes pray with him in the Oval Office, and that he receives "respite and fellowship" in the chapel at Camp David. White House staffer Joshua DuBois also sends Obama a meditation each morning.

"When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, I ask him to give me the strength to do right by our country and our people," Obama said. "And when I go to bed at night, I wait on the Lord and I ask him to forgive me my sins and to look after my family and to make me an instrument of the Lord."

Obama also plugged Charity: Water and its founder, Scott Harrison, saying, "That's the kind of faith that moves mountains."

He also threw in a few jokes for the audience. "Lord, give me patience as I watch Malia go to her first dance where there will be boys," he said to laughter. "Lord, let that skirt become longer as she travels to that dance."

He joked about telling Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla., who is a Southern Baptist deacon) that God would lead him to vote Obama's way. "It is comforting to know people are praying for you who don't always agree with you," he said. "Tom, It's gonna happen. A ray of light is going to beam down."

At the beginning of his speech, Obama briefly addressed the protests in Egypt, saying, "We pray that the violence in Egypt will end, and that the rights and aspirations of the Egyptian people will be realized, and that a better day will dawn over Egypt and throughout the world."

Braveheart writer and director of Secretariat Randall Wallace was the breakfast's keynote speaker, telling the audience when he was out of work during the Writers Guild strike. "I prayed that if I go down in this fight that I not do it on my knees to someone else, but standing up with my flag flying," Wallace said, which inspired a Braveheart scene.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton headlined last year's speech, while former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke in 2009.

One of the rescued Chilean miners, Jose Henriquez, spoke of the spiritual climate while they were trapped underground for 52 days in 2010. "We decided unless we prayed and God did a miracle there would be no way out," he said. "And that became our daily hope and confidence." He said each miner received a small Bible with his name on it while they were underground. He gathered the miners to pray just before they were rescued. "Some wanted to dive in and get in the capsule but I said, 'Hold it. Were going to pray first.' "

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's husband, Mark Kelly, offered some closing words. While his wife was in the hospital in Tucson, Kelly said he visited a makeshift memorial with religious symbols, saying that "it was like stepping into a church, a place with heaven itself as its ceiling."

Kelly closed the breakfast with a prayer a rabbi had given over Giffords's hospital bed just after the shooting asking that angels would surround her. Giffords was among 19 people shot on January 8.

The text of the speech will be posted below when it becomes available from the White House.

Click the image for a full-size version

Most television sports fans put up with commercials to enjoy the privilege of watching the game. When it comes to the Super Bowl, I’m one who puts up with the game to have the privilege of watching the commercials. For this high and holy feast of American culture, marketing geniuses pull out all the stops to create some of the most memorable ads of the year. It’s a day when America’s magnificent marketing muscle is flexed in all its splendor.

As such, Super Bowl Sunday reminds us how much marketing permeates our life. If Jesus is “in, with, and under” the bread of Communion (at least according to Martin Luther), then marketing is “in, with, and under” every facet of American life. Estimates as to how many ads Americans view each day range widely—250 to 5,000—but even the low figure boggles the imagination. We swim in the waters of advertising, we are nursed on marketing milk, we breathe the air of the latest offer—choose your worn-out metaphor!

It’s not surprising, then, that a church immersed in this environment would find it almost impossible to conceive of evangelism as anything but a form of marketing. If companies have slogans that make promises to customers, churches must have them as well. From “The family church, where everyone is welcome,” to “The place where transformation happens,” to “Every day in every way, growing closer to God,” or whatever, the message is: Join this church, and you’ll get some benefit.

Then there’s the ubiquitous use of come-ons: Sundays when clowns or magicians or celebrities come to church to attract visitors. And the giveaways to first time visitors: coffee mugs, Starbucks cards, pens, Bibles. And the marketing cards (though we call them “Welcome Cards”) for visitors to fill out so we can follow up. And on it goes.

The church’s greatest marketing tool is its pastor, of course. That’s why there’s such a demand for pastors who are both charismatic (in the non-spiritual sense!) and savvy, because churches know that their chief selling point is the personality of the chief operating minister. Pastors are encouraged to talk about themselves in their sermons as much as they talk about Jesus, because, after all, people want to identify with their pastor. Thus the ubiquitous use of personal illustrations from the pastor’s life and family—they’re funny, engaging, and make the church that much more attractive to newcomers.

Along the way—in sermons, in church slogans, and implicit in special evangelistic or missional events—are the promises. The therapeutic: Things will go better with Jesus. The practical: You’ll find ideas for life. The transformational: You will be all that you can be. And whether the church is draped in the Disney-like efficiency of the megachurch or the counterculture of hipster rebellion, coolness is often an implicit part of the mix.

This should not shock or alarm us. Immersed as we are in a Super Bowl culture, what else is a church supposed to do? We think we have a “product” (albeit head and shoulders above any other product) to “sell.” And we think we have to use good marketing if we’re going to get people to buy into Jesus. Though I’m clearly no fan of this approach, let’s face it: it often works. Many people come to faith and join churches by such means (even if they then have to spend years unlearning what such a method implies: that faith in Christ is a deal or transaction). So while I poke fun, I don’t think it wise to condemn a method a gracious God is willing to stoop to use.

Still, I believe there is a better way to reach out to those who don’t know how close God is to them. It’s a way that is much more in accord with the gospel we proclaim.

First, note three basic assumptions of marketing culture. First, people are basically in pretty good shape; they just need one more product or service to make their lives complete. Second, people just need an attractive offer to entice them to accept the deal. Third, life is fundamentally a deal, an exchange; companies offer goods and services, and we get them into our lives when we pay for them. As they say, there is no free lunch.

Note how the gospel’s assumptions turn these ideas on their heads. First, people are “dead in their trespasses” (Eph. 2:1). That is, their situation is utterly hopeless. They don’t need improvement as much as resurrection to new life.

Second, because they are dead, an attractive offer is not going to do any good. It would be like a salesman walking into a morgue to convince corpses to buy life insurance.

This is why Paul is so emphatic about how we come to faith in Christ. Replacing phrases like “plausible words of wisdom” with something contemporary, note how he describes his initial evangelistic visit to Corinth:

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with persuasive marketing techniques. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not framed in marketing logic, but in a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

Only the Spirit can bring the dead back to life. As Paul told his protégé Titus:

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-5).

Faith is pure gift, pure miracle, pure work of the Spirit. There is nothing we can do to bring this about. “Without any possibility on our side,” wrote Karl Barth in his exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, “God’s great possibility comes into view, making possible what is impossible from our side. It is God’s gift, God’s free gift not prepared for by anything on our side.”

It also is true that we can do nothing to prevent this from happening. No matter how hypocritical, uncool, or marketing inept a church is, the Spirit moves people to give their lives to Jesus and his church. If the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, and the Inquisition were not enough to sabotage the appeal of Christian faith, singing moribund hymns with a bunch of old ladies (or whatever else embarrasses us about the church today) will not stop the Holy Spirit.

Third, if the gospel is a transaction, it is a transaction that is offered and completed by the same party: God. God does not offer forgiveness on the condition that we repent. There is no quid pro quo, no this-for-that, no exchange. Instead, he offers forgiveness so that we might repent and enjoy abundant life! So there is, in fact, a free lunch.

To put it in commercial terms: Our credit rating is in the double digits. Our home is in foreclosure. Chapter 11 is our middle name. And yet along comes a developer who gives us the deed and the keys to a mansion. Naturally, in order to enjoy our new home, we need to open the door and step in. God wants us to enjoy a real participation in his life. But this is not a quid pro quo or a condition—the house is already ours—as much as it is simply the way we enjoy the gift. (That some refuse to enjoy the gift and do so stubbornly, for eternity, is a great mystery. But it does not change the miraculous and gracious nature of the gift.)

So if there is nothing we can do enable or prevent the Spirit’s converting work, what are we supposed to do? Here are three ideas.

For one, we can stop marketing the faith as if it were a product in the marketplace. We can stop thinking it our job to convince or cajole people.

Second, we can do what Jesus told us to do. He did not tell us to market our neighbors, but to love them. That means refusing to treat them as potential customers or clients who need to be talked into something. What made us think non-Christians would enjoy that type of relationship with us in the first place? Instead, we are called to love, to take the initiative to get to know others, to not hold their sins against them, to be generous with our time and goods, to be faithful and kind, and so forth.

This requires a lot more effort, discernment, and sacrifice—and the grace of the Holy Spirit!—than any evangelistic campaign we might work up (which may be another reason we’d much rather market people).

Third, when we have the opportunity to tell another about Jesus, let’s avoid come-ons, rhetoric, sales pitches, and pressure. Just a simple explanation of what Jesus has done on the cross and is doing in our lives. Francis de Sales, author of the devotional classic Introduction to the Devout Life, was one of the most effective preachers of his day (late 1500s, early 1600s). But his “method,” if we must call it that, was simple. His motto was: “He who preaches with love, preaches effectively.”

In order to share the gospel that announces God’s extraordinary love to dead sinners, doesn’t it make sense that instead of trying to cajole people into faith with marketing techniques, we would simply love them as God loved us all?

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today. He is author of many books, including the forthcoming Chaos and Grace: Discovering the Liberating Work of the Holy Spirit (Baker).

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

See also our January 2009 cover story, “Jesus Is Not a Brand.”

Previous SoulWork columns include:

One Wedding and Six Funerals | What it can mean to participate in the life of God. (January 20, 2011)

Blessed Are the Poor in Virtue | Why some people may want to abandon New Year’s resolutions as soon as possible. (January 6, 2011)

Me? Favored? By God? | The remarkable announcement to Mary—and us. (December 22, 2010)

Hating God is a compelling chronicle burdened by an overblown thesis. Bernard Schweizer, a professor of English at Long Island University, contends that misotheism is the neglected species of religious dissent in the West. By “misotheists,” Schweizer means those non-theists who, rather than object to God on epistemological or scientific grounds (a lá the New Atheists), object to him on moral grounds. They view God as the enemy of human flourishing—a cosmic sad*st who is our greatest foe. Always subordinate to their ethical grievances against God, opinions on his ontological existence vary considerably.

Within misotheism, Schweizer defines two subsets: the agonistic misotheist, who speaks of God like a jilted lover, wants to believe in him but cannot for emotional or experiential reasons. In contrast, the absolute misotheist regards God as the chief adversary of man, fearlessly and unflinchingly blaspheming him.

Schweizer has written an engrossing history, weaving together seemingly disparate writers like French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, African American novelist Zora Neale Hurston, and British author Phillip Pullman. It’s not every day an author puts Hurston and Pullman next to each other and invites us to compare them. Yet this is what Schweizer does, and he does it quite well. His treatment of Hurston’s passage reading “all gods who receive homage are cruel,” is especially satisfying because it comes from one of the richest sections of Their Eyes Were Watching God but, as Schweizer documents, is often neglected in scholarly circles.

However, an argument is only as strong as its thesis, and it is here that Hating God struggles to defend its subtitle: “the untold story of misotheism.” Perhaps Schweizer adopts this thesis out of a desire to reorient the contemporary discussion about God away from rigid empiricism and toward a more humanities-based approach. Or maybe he’s following the line of other writers by distinguishing between the atheism of older writers like Nietzsche and the atheism of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (though if that turns out to be the case, his inclusion of playwright Peter Shaffer and Pullman is puzzling). In any event, the thesis is problematic for a couple reasons.

First, “misotheism” is hardly an anonymous, unknown tradition in Western literature. If it were, one would expect Schweizer to find far more obscure writers to develop his case. French novelist Albert Camus, Proudhon, English poet Percy Shelley, and English critic Algernon Swinburne are many things: exceptional writers, original thinkers, and historically significant in the development of Western thought. But they are not neglected.

Second, the attempt to demarcate “misotheists” like those mentioned above and the New Atheists, like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens seems like a superficial, ephemeral distinction. To be sure, the emphases of Schweizer’s misotheists and of the New Atheists are different. As Schweizer notes, the New Atheists often end up being more anti-theist than anti-God. However, beneath the ontological arguments of the New Atheists there often exists a strong ethical argument that echoes the arguments of Proudhon, Swinburne, and the other absolute misotheists. The ethics-based argumentation that views God as a moral monster is especially prominent in Christopher Hitchens’ work. Therefore, the difference between the “New Atheist” Hitchens and the “misotheists”—especially the absolute misotheists—ends up collapsing.

If there is a difference between the misotheists and the New Atheists , it’s not in their philosophy but in their preferred medium: The New Atheists generally tackle these issues directly in essays. Their books bear titles like The God Delusion and God is Not Great. The misotheists, on the other hand, make their case indirectly, through literature, through characters like William Blake’s Urizen, Shelley’s Zeus, or even the impersonal forces of nature, as in Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God. But surely this is more a product of historical context than any real, substantial difference in philosophy? If Shelley had published something like God is Not Great he could have been arrested for blasphemy. Indeed, when he published The Necessity of Atheism as a young Oxford student, he was expelled. If Hurston had aired a diatribe against God, instead of being simply a black woman trying to publish in 1937 (no easy task), she would have been a blaspheming black woman trying to publish in 1937. Given their historical contexts, it would be more surprising and noteworthy if these writers were explicit with their hatred of God.

In the end, therefore, Schweizer’s book is an intriguing history with a muddled thesis. While he quite capably demonstrates that the misotheists opt for a different medium to present their views, he fails to show that their actual beliefs are substantially different from those of the contemporary New Atheist movement. In the end, we’re better served to follow the lead of St. Paul in Romans: We’re all innately god-haters. And some are saved to becoming lovers of God. It’s a cleaner, simpler distinction, and one that has been familiar to Christians for 2000 years.

Jake Meador is a writer and editor living in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Copyright © 2011 Books & Culture. Click for reprint information.

Leadership Journal is now in its 31st year of publication, and it seems that church leaders struggling with p*rnography has been a constant theme we’ve covered through all of those years–even well before the age of the internet. Does the rise of Calvinism and the Neo-Reformed movement have anything new to add to the conversation? John Piper speaks with Tim Keller and D.A. Carson about the role of gospel-centered theology in fighting the temptations of p*rnography.

What do you think? Do they have anything new or helpful to add, or are these the same answers and ideas you’ve been hearing for years?

Almost twenty years ago, Hugh McLeod contributed a shrewd essay to what was then the best all-around collection of essays debating the meaning and extent of secularization. That book, edited by Steve Bruce, was entitled Religion and Modernization: Sociologists and Historians Debate the Secularization Thesis (1992). In it McLeod used his own research for making a very nice point: to judge secularization, you must begin with a definite standpoint. Thus, in 1900 Berlin was far more secular than New York City if the question concerned the proportion of population in church on a given Sunday. But if the issue was the churches’ influence in political or academic life, Berlin was far less secular than New York. That kind of straightforward assessment, based on extensive ground-level research, has remained a hallmark of McLeod’s unusually productive career as the most insightful general historian of Christianity in modern Europe and Great Britain. McLeod’s important books include a comparison of religious life in major cities, an account of the relationship between the working classes and the churches, a closely argued case for the 1960s as a turning point just as important for religious history as the Reformation, and a much-used general survey, Religion and the People of Western Europe, 1789-1969 (2nd ed. from Oxford in 1998).

Now McLeod has been honored with a festschrift that replaces the earlier colloquium as the premier consideration of the topic. The book contains carefully researched historical essays, broader considerations of social forces that drive secularization (or may not do so), perceptive national studies (Australia, Canada, Scandinavia, Holland, Germany), and several illuminating discussions of McLeod’s own major arguments. The liveliest chapters come from sociologist Steve Bruce, enlisted this time as a contributor, and Jeffrey Cox, a noted historian of British missions and imperialism. Bruce argues persuasively that, when carefully qualified and oriented toward solid empirical work, secularization has clearly been at work in Western societies for a long time, while Cox is almost as persuasive with his contention that secularization is merely ideological wish-fulfillment from Europeans blind to the rest of the world.

This unusually informative book is a fitting tribute to a scholar whose own works have made first-order contributions to secularization discussions even as they provide others with unusually solid research for carrying on the debates.

Mark Noll is Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author most recently of The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith (InterVarsity Press).

Copyright © 2011 Books & Culture. Click for reprint information.

Last week I spent some quality time in my native (warm and sunny) California, far from my new digs in the Midwest. It was refreshing and delightful in every way. Not so much because of the weather, but because I got to talk with colleagues and friends about the state of worship in America. These are smart Who’s Who folks with vast experience in church growth and practices.

Their remarks, in part, might be summed up in these six questions and amalgamated answers:

1. How are we doing when it comes to the effectiveness of worship every weekend?

“We are both failing and succeeding–succeeding because we’ve never worked harder at growing our churches and bringing people in to ‘have a taste’ of the Christian faith. We’re failing because we are losing many believers out the back door because they think our emphasis on marketing is wrong.”

2. Do you believe modern worshipers are givers or takers?

“The fact that we’re trying to give our congregations exactly what they want musically suggests that they are takers, but a young and enthusiastic group of new leaders are taking congregants of all ages into expansive ‘giver’ explorations of missional opportunities.”

3. Are we going to move from the “Big Box” church mentality as was predicted a few years ago?

“We have already moved away from it in many ways. Multisite worship is huge in America and thousands of churches have moved out of the comfort of their huge sanctuaries into shopping centers and schools around the country. Home churches, too, are just about to regain some of the strength they had in the 70s and early 80s. While this information isn’t new, what is new is some recent statistics showing that we were not all equally prepared for the economic implications of losing folks from preexisting church facilities.”

4. Is our worship the same, better, or worse than it was 20 years ago?

“All three is probably the answer. It’s the same because we are still worshiping God and He hasn’t changed. It’s better because it has been revitalized in several ways–at least in the Evangelical church. It is worse because, given all the tools we have at our disposal in worship services, we still lack creative and imaginative ideas in a huge segment of our churches.”

5. Is excellence still a value in our churches?

“To the extent that ‘excellence’ is often seen as perfectionism, performance or some other pathological behavior, it has lost favor in the modern church. It has, however, another connotation which is often ignored but absolutely needed in the church–that is intentional, well-prepared, and unwavering passion for proclaiming and gaining the richness of God’s kingdom. We need to restore the values that treasured the ‘first fruits’ point of view in preparing worship experiences.”

6. Is the church and its worship practices more attractive or less attractive to nonbelievers than it was, say, 25 years ago?

“If you’re talking about the so-called ‘attractional church’ being, in reality, more attractional–it may be. Certainly the emphasis on families has engaged an increasing number of ‘soft’ Christians who were slipping away from the church. Music, casual dress and colloquial talk style have probably also helped. There is, however, a distinct lack of separation when it comes to the uniqueness of God and the secular world. If worship is too much like a town meeting or Amway convention, then our understanding of a sovereign God runs the risk of being trivialized out of our churches.”

There’s probably nothing surprising here for most of you. The most frightening comment coming from one of our interviewees, however, was that our worship services, “…might be the single least effective tool of building solid Christian believers.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) announced last week that he will not run in next year’s Republican presidential primaries, leaving an opening for other candidates to court social conservatives. Pence may not be a household name, but he is well-regarded among conservative activists.

Pence had the potential to be the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP—a black-horse candidate who could poll well among the ideological base of the party. Pence edged out Mike Huckabee and handily beat Mitt Romney (13 percent) and Sarah Palin (7 percent) in the 2010 Values Voter Summit straw poll.

In a recentRasmussen poll, likely Republican primary voters gave more support to Romney (24 percent) than to either Huckabee (17 percent) or Palin (19 percent). Among evangelicals, however, Romney came in third. Other polls show likely voters are split between Romney and Huckabee, with each polling around 20 percent of likely voters. About 15 percent say they will support Palin.

In an open memo to “conservative and evangelical leaders,” Mark DeMoss, of the Christian public relations firm The DeMoss Group, said that all of the potential candidates for the Republican nomination pass the traditional litmus tests on abortion and marriage. DeMoss offered a new litmust test: “A candidate for president of the United States should be capable of becoming president, and then competent to be the president.” For DeMoss, the candidate that passes that test is Mitt Romney.

“Those who would suggest I am placing values on the back burner will be misreading me and wrong. I am only saying that a candidate’s values alone are not enough to get my vote. For example, my pastor shares my values, but I don’t want him to be my president,” wrote DeMoss.

DeMoss’s memo highlights the challenges facing Romney. His base is the business sector, not values voters. He can raise millions of dollars, but he does not have the support of the activists on the ground.

Groups such as Focus on the Family have been critical of Romney in the past. In 2008, they lobbied Romney, who sat on the board of Marriott International, to have the hotel chain stop providing adult pay-per-view movies in their hotels.

Last week, Marriott announced it would stop providing adult movie services. Romney did not vote on the Marriott decision, however, because he recently stepped down from the board. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told the Washington Post that Romney recused himself from discussions over the adult movie policy.

Some are suspicious of Romney’s Mormon faith. A survey in 2008 found that 25 percent of Americans would be upset if a Mormon was elected president. In contrast, 15 percent said they would be upset with a Baptist being president.

There may be another prominent Mormon to consider in the 2012 presidential race. Jon Huntsman Jr., the U.S. Ambassador to China, resigned in order to consider a presidential campaign.

Huntsman is former Governor of Utah and son of billionaire Jon Huntsman, Sr., who founded the Huntsman Corporation. Huntsman, like Romney, holds traditional views on social issues, but his base would likely be among business leaders.