In 1837 Hans Christian Andersen’s classic folktale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, was published. In the story, two swindlers posing as weavers convince a vain (and gullible) emperor into purchasing and, more importantly, parading in, an outfit supposedly of such fine quality, so magnificent, so worthy of praise, as to be invisible to fools and people unfit for their office. Of course, no one could actually see the emperor’s new clothes (because they didn’t exist). But, tragically, no one – not even the Emperor himself – was willing to admit he couldn’t see it, lest he be outed as foolish and inept. In the end, the Emperor parades through the middle of town, wearing nothing but his “new clothes”, as the members of his court and his subjects lavish praises upon him, too embarrassed, afraid, and proud to speak the truth. The farce is finally exposed when an innocent child points out the obvious and embarrassing truth: the Emperor is naked!
Sadly, The Emperor’s New Clothes far too accurately describes the present condition of the church in America. A pair of swindlers – let’s call them Mr. Red and Mr. Blue – have convinced the church they can weave her a magnificent outfit that will make her so attractive as to be irresistible. The catch, of course, is that only “the right kind of people” are able to appreciate the exquisite handiwork of the demagoguing designers.
Mr. Red describes his designs as modest, traditional, and quintessentially American. According to Mr. Red, the church looks most beautiful when it evokes the colors and style of the American flag. Many in the church are captivated as Mr. Red describes the catalogue of classic apparel that promises to make the church great again.
Now, truth be told, though Mr. Red’s salesmanship resonates with some in the church, the buzz is coming from Mr. Blue’s camp, who’s edgy and irreverent style is gathering the large crowds. Many in the church fantasize with donning the clothes described in Mr. Blue’s catalogue. His pieces include the latest social justice, non-binary, equity-driven, minority-owned, environmentally-conscious, renewable, sustainable, locally-sourced, feminist, open and affirming, instersectionally woke, fashion trends modeled on the most elite and sophisticated runways of (secular) culture. Mr. Blue’s devotees insist the church’s beauty is accentuated by this haute couture, even as they disgustedly bemoan the grim garb that those with more traditional taste refuse to clear out from their closets. As far as they’re concerned, the church should not struggle to choose between the Debonairs and the Deplorables.
Interestingly, both camps would have you believe that their primary motivation is to adorn the bride of Christ. After all, how are we to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20), unless the Church and her message can turn some heads? Therefore, they are quick to point out that their preference for Mr. Red’s or Mr. Blue’s designs is based on Gospel principles. What both camps fail to see, however, is that they’ve been dupped. Mr. Red and Mr. Blue have been weaving wind and selling smoke. The naked truth is that the Church isn’t wearing any clothes.
Sadly, many of the divisions we see in the church today are less about Gospel principles than they are about political affiliations. Christians have become so preoccupied with earthly treasures (either in guarding them, or in procuring them), that we’ve allowed tribalism to be both the moth that destroys our Christian unity, and the thief that robs us of our joy. Political convictions – or, more accurately, political talking points – so starkly divide our congregations, that one might rightly accuse Christians of serving two different masters, neither one of which is Christ (Matthew 6:19-24)!
One need only consider the last twelve months to realize that many professing Christians privilege politics over principle. Should the government compel a person to give up individual choice to protect someone else’s life? That depends. Are we talking about babies in the womb, or about wearing masks?
To ensure public health, should the government be allowed to forbid gatherings in the middle of a pandemic? That depends: Are we talking about churches staying open, or about (peaceful) protests?
Speaking of protests, is the destruction of private or public property justified if it lends a voice to those who consider themselves to be oppressed, unheard, and disenfranchised? That depends: Who gets to decide whether someone is oppressed, and who is doing the destroying?
Should a private business be allowed to deny service to a client if rendering such services would constitute a violation of the company’s stated values? That depends: Is this about gay weddings, or is it about freedom of speech?
Should a woman who accuses a man of sexual harassment always be believed, whether or not there is evidence? That depends: Is the accused man a Republican or a Democrat?
Does being Roman Catholic make someone radical and dogmatic, or does it make one compassionate and decent? That depends: Are we talking about Amy Coney Barrett, or are we talking about Joe Biden?
Here’s my point: When Christians want to weigh the ethical merits of an issue, far too often our thoughts follow a flowchart whose directional flow is marked by arrows that are either red or blue. In other words, we ought to stop and ponder whether our moral compass is guided by partisan politics, or by Scripture.
In the meantime, we can be sure that Mr. Blue and Mr. Red will continue their weaving, promising to dress the church in a way that best suits her mission. But beware the snare: they are weaving a web that exposes our idolatry, our greed, and our lack of faith. Don’t believe the earthly hope that Mr. Blue and Mr. Red are selling. Wearing their colors doesn’t make the church more beautiful, nor her message more attractive. Instead, let us “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh” (Romans 13:14). For it is Christ and His message that suits the church best.
