What Christianity Is Not. Douglas John Hall

that occurred in the 1950s, more and more people within the once most established churches in North America and elsewhere began to notice some of the flaws of establishment religion. Today significant minorities in all the American and Canadian old-line denominations not only question the role of Christianity as a culture-religion but have sufficiently distanced themselves from the dominant culture so that they are frequently accused by self-declared conservative Christians of betraying both Christianity and their nation. Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of contemporary life in North America is that so many Christians in denominations that were until about 1960 the most culturally established of all have given various kinds of indication that they believe Christianity is fundamentally at loggerheads with our way of life. The nearly unanimous protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the part of the once-mainline churches of the United States and Canada is only one indicator of this new situation. I myself have lived long enough to observe my own denomination, the United Church of Canada, morph from being, certainly, the most culturally established Protestant church in Canada to achieving a countrywide reputation for radicalism and conspicuous divergence from the historical norms and counsels of conventional religion in our country. Even persons in these old denominations who lament the passing of social prestige and respectability have, most of them, been caused to wonder whether Christianity may not be—in its essence—something quite different from what it has usually been. As Sallie McFague writes, “Wiggle as we will, most of us North American comfortable mainline Christians know there is probably something wrong with a Christian faith that does not involve a countercultural stance.”18

      Perhaps just at this point, however, a parenthesis is required; for the mention of countercultural approaches to Christian faith and mission introduces another question, which critics of the Christian Left do not fail to belabor: Is there not a danger in some ecclesiastical circles that the Christian religion will be uncritically allied with certain countercultural ideologies, identities, and causes? Is it not possible for Christians who are critical of the dominant culture to pursue uncritical identity with counter- or alternative cultures, and is this tendency perhaps just as questionable from the perspective of prophetic faith as the older approach? When the church leaps from association with the establishment to greater solidarity with anti-establishment forces and factions, is it not in danger of seeking legitimization through association with the protesting minority, and thus of manifesting once again the same old lack of courage to stand alone—by faith alone?

      It would be wrong, I think, to dismiss this critique out of hand. Sometimes what we may call the habit of establishment manifests itself in quests for proximity to protesting minorities on the part of Christians who are disillusioned with the cultural majority. It is no solution of the dangers of establishment when Christians move from an unexamined conventional identification with established power to an easy endorsement of movements of protest against that power. It may be quite justifiable when the Christian protest aligns itself with other forms of social protest; but it remains true that Christians must always try to be quite clear about their own inherent reasons for protest. That is to say, theological reflection is always required of the church. It is not enough to assume that every cause that announces its espousal of justice, peace, and the integrity of creation can without further ado be embraced by Christians.

      One must speak of this openly, for there is a certain danger among ultraliberal or self-consciously radical elements in the once mainline churches that countercultural solidarity with this or that social protest will be thought natural, right, and good without any further theological reflection. The fact of protesting seems in these circles to justify the stance. There is a tendency here, not unconnected with the thrill of protest in itself, to seek Christian authentication through endorsement by popular countercultural causes and identities. As Christians, we have our own reasons for being ecologically, racially, sexually, aesthetically, and in other ways vigilant and involved in today’s changing social scene. We do not have to borrow from others a rationale for environmental stewardship or for concern over marginalized groups or for international economic justice or for world peace. We have an ancient, profound, tried-and-true tradition of ontological and ethical wisdom upon which to draw; and wherever Christian groups have drawn upon that wisdom faithfully and with imagination, they have not only brought an independent voice to the chorus of those who struggle for greater humanity in the earth; they have been welcomed by others because they could contribute insight and perspective often lacking in other protesting groups. We need not be ashamed of the tradition that makes our prophetic protest possible. We need not turn elsewhere to find authentication.

      Having introduced this topic parenthetically, however, I certainly do not want to overemphasize the need to maintain a little critical distance in our relationships with countercultural elements in our present society. One of the most hopeful aspects of today’s chaotic world is that as Christians we may quite legitimately make common cause with so many others who are concerned for the future of the planet and human civilization. Ours is a time of experimentation: old relationships are perhaps no longer reliable; new relationships may be possible and productive. George A. Lindbeck has named this period in the history of Christianity an “awkward intermediate stage”: we are moving (he says) from a position of “having once been culturally established” to one in which we are “not yet clearly disestablished.”19 In this interim it is, I think, inevitable that the most serious Christians and Christian groupings will experiment with all kinds of new arrangements and alliances. Some of these will prove unhelpful or wrong, and some will be or become important—will prove a way into the future. I think we should try to see in all such experiments, as in the mostly unorganized dissatisfaction with the so-called Christian cultural establishment that is their background, a certain continuity with what has been best in Christianity throughout the ages, and was of the very essence of the Protestant Reformation. “The most important contribution of Protestantism to the world in the past, present and future,” wrote Tillich in 1948, “is the principle of prophetic protest against every power which claims divine character for itself—whether it be church or state, party or leader.” And we could echo, with emphasis, Tillich’s next sentence: “this prophetic, Protestant protest is more necessary today than at any time since the period of the Reformation.”20