Just over a hundred years ago, a group of Trinity College, Cambridge students formed a covert society called the "Midnight Society". Many of the Society members became professors at Cambridge, while others became famous novelists, playwrights and authors. At a time when Christians generally considered fiction grossly inferior to non-fiction (and theologically devotional writings), the members of the Midnight Society were strategically using it. They understood that the values and the morals of a nation could be influenced by the fiction it consumed. And they had a radical agenda...
An example of the general attitude among Christians to fiction is summed up by the nineteenth century author, Hannah More-
The Midnight Society included Mathematician turned Philosopher, Bertrand Russell; acclaimed novelist, Thomas Hardy; historian, Lytton Strachey; and some non-Trinity members including George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells. There were no formal membership requirements of the Midnight Society except that members had to regard Christianity as irrational and needing to be removed from society. They regarded Christianity's morals as prudish and even "immoral". [Read the full article]"...constant familiarity with works of fiction disinclines and disqualifies for active virtues and for spiritual exercises."
Hannah More (1870), author of The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain, cited in Murray, p. 5
In the 1930s two men had a very public stand off. One was a soldier turned political leader, the other a pastor-theologian. As Adolf Hitler incited hatred, German church leaders stood idly by. Except one. His senior churchmen colleagues oft repeated the false mantra "Christianity has nothing to do with Politics!" They refused to withstand the leader of the Nazi Party as he began the systematic persecution of Jews, Gypsies, and Evangelicals. All the while, these fellow churchmen hid behind a veil of what they called "the Gospel" which they claimed had no bearing on how political leaders behaved toward their people.
But Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw things completely differently. He understood that the Gospel of Christ not only saved a soul but also salted a society with goodness for the benefit of all people. This stand eventually cost the young pastor his life after Hitler ordered him imprisoned and eventually executed just two days before World War Two ended. In the meantime, Bonhoeffer preached, wrote, went on radio, decrying the growing influence of the Nazi Party and its leader. After the War, one church leader regretfully said something like this, "When Hitler was killing Gypsies, we said nothing. When he started killing Jews, we said nothing. Then when he started killing us, it was too late."
This past week, many of us gathered at the University of Tasmania to defend the Institution of Marriage. I had the difficult task of sharing with a frequently heckling audience why Marriage was only between a man and a woman. I gave reasons why Marriage is not merely defined as being between a man and a woman, it is describedas being between a man and a woman. I showed that despite the Homosexual Lobby's claim that the current understanding of Marriage was "discriminatory", in actuallity, it treated all people equally without discriminating against any segment of society. Campbell Markham spoke from a Christian perspective and showed that far from Marriage being a political issue which was a distraction to the church preaching the Gospel, Marriage and the Gospel were inseparable. He showed that the New Testament teaches that Marriage is a demonstration of the relationship that Christ has with His people (Ephesians 5). Marriage therefore is a gift from God which serves to picture how God relates to people. Marriage is therefore a picture of the Gospel. Therefore, rather than being a political side-issue it is actually front and centre to the Gospel! Our third speaker, Senator GuyBarnett spoke about why Marriage is not only an Institution - it is a "bedrock" Institution that best protects the welfare of a soceity especially children within that society.
Paul wrote to the Romans, who dwelt in the city where the seat of power for the Roman Empire was, that they should challenge the sexual deviancy of their city. He particularly mentioned homosexuality-
This would have been particularly courageous for the Roman Church since the then Emperor, Nero, was a flagrant homosexual. The great Apostle didn't see it as merely a matter of sexual preference, he identified that what was at the heart of homosexality was idolatry - the rejection of otherness and the worship of sameness. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). Paul didn't excuse idolatry because its practitioners were non-Christians (I'm actually not sure that there is such a thing as a "Christian" idolater). Many people within the church falsely think that God does not expect people in the world to obey Him! But Paul didn't stop at calling non-Christians to repentance. He said that if Christians didn't challenge such sexual deviancy in their society there were approving of such things and therefore equally as guilty as committing them! (Romans 1:32)
There is a type of ugly political engagement that Church has been guilty of. It is an engagement where the Church tries to run government, rather than saltgovernment. I am not advocating that the Church runs a State. But the idea that the Church should just operate only within its four walls and only between the hours of 10AM to 12noon each Sunday is entirely devilish. The Apostle Paul was told by Christ to minister to "Kings", "Governors" and "Rulers". 
I was grateful for the many wellwishes I received after speaking at this event. Each time I take on one of these presentations to a potentially hostile audience, I am told that I am courageous, or brave. While I appreciate the unwarranted compliment, I am in a way saddened by it also because it paints public Christian engagement in the political/societal arena as the domain for only a few of us. But Christianity generally requires courage. That is, to be a Christian is to be a public witness. We should not be intimidated by the threats and rantings of people who vehemently oppose us for challenging their idolatry. Neither should we be intimidated by the internal threats that come from well-meaning brothers who say, as they said to Bonhoeffer, "Christianity has nothing to do with politics!" Of course they may word it cleverly in a form such as, "Surely the Church has bigger fish to fry than getting embroiled in this political debate about Gay Marriage?" But don't be fooled. It's not merely politics that's in play here. There is a profound and fierce spiritual battle going on over the souls of men. Every time we speak up for something (such as marriage, sexual purity, or family values) we must, I repeat must, in effect being against something. This is not being "negative", it is in reality being the most positive.