Last mont WND published my column "Why the Christian Right lost the culture war," arguing that when our culture was turning sour Christians jumped in to correct things but withered when they hit opposition. They then fabricated spiritual-sounding reasons for staying on the sidelines.
A friend suggested the column was simplistic in expressing anger with the church. He instead diverted blame to influences such as no-fault divorce, the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, the rise of gay power and the liberal infiltration of schools.
So the question remains, as this title suggests, "Who is responsible for restraining these kinds of evil influences and attacks on our culture; who has been given the mandate to fight them?" Let's pick through the options.
A saintly-sounding one is that God is responsible for restraining evil. There are many Bible passages that suggest and are used to suggest that his sovereignty alone controls this issue.
But if he alone is responsible for restraining evil, is he not also responsible for world evangelism? Wouldn't he also be responsible for my own personal spiritual health? If the latter is the case, I'll just have a few beers and watch football. He knows where I am if he wants me.
While this answer is not very satisfying, neither is the next: "Nobody is responsible for restraining evil." If this were true, evil would be allowed to expand unchecked. Cross another off the list.
Just a few options left. Perhaps individual people are responsible for restraining evil. Apart from personal spiritual exercises, how would individuals get the idea that this responsibility falls on them? Certainly, I'll contend with that jerk who stole my parking place or fight over an unjust credit card fee, but where would I get the awareness that it is my duty to fight something much bigger that influences more than just my puny affairs? Where should I get the validation and support that such efforts are justified?
Where do we look for moral instruction on any other issue than the church? Each Sunday, sermons are preached on what is right and what is wrong; on what we should pursue and what to avoid. For those of us who submit our conscience to this refining each week, should we not expect the church to provide instruction, support and organization on contending with the evil in our culture? However, a church that merely gives instruction but does not model its teaching is shallow indeed. To have any credibility in instructing others, the church must lead the charge in fighting moral evil.
Another person said his church does not get involved in politics or social issues but instead focuses on discipleship. "Discipleship" means trying to be like Christ. As I read the gospel accounts of Christ, I find him contending with the Scribes and Pharisees – those who held the hearts and minds of the Jews. These leaders returned the favor when they turned him over to Pilate to finish their work. Failing to contend with evil and enduring its wrath creates disciples of a pious but toothless Christ.
There is a reason few churches empower members to contend with evil: Evil does not like to be contended with. Evil is so much kinder to those who do not actively oppose it. Does this justify looking the other way?