Of Gnats and Camels

I never cease to be amazed at how adequately the words of Jesus apply to many religious people with whom I am familiar. Which particular words of Jesus am I referring to? The following:

“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Mathew 23:24 RSV

The case in point is with many of my colleagues among the Pentecostals. Recently while visiting a board that I am a member of, the discussion turned to the Pentecostal preacher T. D. Jakes. Someone was going on about how he had said something and how wise he was. Lest one think this is abnormal, I would hasten to point out that many Pentes greatly admire Mr. Jakes and listen to everything he preaches and read everything he writes.

What is the problem with that? Jakes is a unitarian; in other words, he is a Oneness Pentecostal believer. He does not believe that God is Trinity, rather He is Unity—1 person, not three. I have already tackled the idea that the Early Church was Oneness in a previous post, so I won’t go through that again.

What amazes me is that my Trinitarian Pentecostal friends have no problem with Jakes’ beliefs on this foundational doctrine of Christianity. This doctrine is no peripheral matter—it is the very heart of the Christian faith. A person’s beliefs about God are determinative in everything else a person believes.

Not only is Jakes accepted readily, so are other Oneness adherents. One example is Tommy Tenney. A few years back he became very popular among Pentes with his book, The God Chasers (the book, while failing to broach his heretical theology of the Godhead, has a multitude of other problems). Mr. Tenney is a part of the United Pentecostal Church.

The fact that these purveyors of completely heretical drivel could be accepted by orthodox Pentes is only half of the puzzle (the swallowing camels portion). The other half is (straining gnats) is that the same ones who gulp down these Sabellian heretics with relish will reject someone as a heretic because the person does not believe in the pretribulation rapture or some other doctrine that has no real bearing on salvation.

For instance, if a person were to be found that espoused the idea that speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, they could expect the “left foot” of fellowship to be administered to them in quick order. If a pastor were to teach his congregation that it was appropriate to baptize infants, he would be forced to find another form of employment. Were someone to dare introduce the Scriptural notion that the Communion is the body and blood of Christ, he/she would be rejected instantly as “Catholic” and “backslidden.” In each case, the persons involved would be deemed as heretics of the first order.

Thus, denying the nature of God as revealed by the Scriptures and Tradition are deemed as perfectly acceptable, while denying or espousing some minor doctrinal point is not countenanced. How can such things be? How can one view the foundation of the house as less important than the kind of curtain one places in the house? That is not to say that the above-mentioned doctrines are minor trifles but they do not have the weight of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I don’t have an answer as to why this phenomenon exists among Pentes. It is a mystery that bears some (more) exploration.