Vance Pitman Defending the 2011 SBC Pastors' Conference by Peter Lumpkins

  

 

 

    So far as I can tell, I was the first caulk mark on the board expressing concerns toward the 2011 SBC Pastors’ Conference. In a piece entitled, “Is the 2011 Pastors’ Conference over the top for grassroots Southern Baptists?,” I queried aloud:

"One must wonder if the platform Pitman handpicked is the appropriate channel through which the Holy One of Israel—the Lord God of Hosts—desires to breathe.  Understand:  God is God and He may choose to exhale His Spirit’s breath through any means He so desires.  The question is, do we have any solid reason (biblical or otherwise) to believe that at least some of the choices Pitman made will breathe life into Southern Baptist pastors rather than breathe death upon the Southern Baptist Convention?"

Now, in a Baptist news agency, Vance Pitman publicly responds to raised concerns>>>

In a piece entitled “SBC Pastors’ Conference slate raises ire,” Associated Baptist Press (ABP) writer, Norman Jameson writes:

“The Pastors’ Conference has long been a barometer for Southern Baptist theological weather patterns and a launching pad to the SBC presidency for its leaders. Consequently, although it is not an official organization of the SBC, its direction is closely monitored.”

Jameson is not ignorant of unwritten Southern Baptist polity.  He nicely captures the significance the Pastors’ Conference has historically maintained in influencing the Southern Baptist politico. It is not that the Pastors’ Conference has been merely political. Such reductionism is completely unfair and misses the heart-throbbing, soul-stirring, faith-growing inspiration the conference has also provided. Indeed for many Southern Baptist pastors, the only conference they will attend all year will be the SBC Pastors’ Conference.

Nevertheless,  Jameson rightly observes the Pastors’ Conference has been the “launching pad” for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention as well as to speak to the issues the present leadership desires to influence. One needs only think of 2010 Orlando when the Pastors’ Conference was characterized by some as one gigantic commercial for the GCRTF agenda.

In fact, it is because of this historic contribution of the Pastors' Conference that I find hardly adequate the platform defense by Pastors’ Conference President, Vance Pitman. Jameson writes:

“The president of the 2011 Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference defended a program he’s put together for June 12-13 in Phoenix, Ariz., saying critics who find it outside the convention’s mainstream hold too narrow a worldview. [In Pitman’s words:] “The main intent of our conference is to communicate the big picture of the Kingdom of God… God is alive and at work all over the world. We as the Southern Baptist Convention are one very small part of that.”

One surely must concede Pitman’s concerns.  Who denies either the “big picture” of God’s Kingdom and whether God is active all over the world, or that Southern Baptists are but a single part of the "big picture" Kingdom? Neither I nor anyone about whom I am aware has publicly raised any such issues. Hence, one has to wonder about whom Pitman is referring. Perhaps he is referring to the hundreds of protests he allegedly received through private correspondence. We do not know, and therefore his assertions at that point remain frustrating.

More disconcerting is Pitman’s implication that those of us who have expressed concerns about some personalities on the platform have done so more from a “judgmental spirit” than careful "discernment":

“Pitman, exasperated at what he feels is unmerited criticism for a conference lineup that will inspire pastors and give them an encouraging view of God’s work in the world, agrees it is important for believers “to be defenders of the faith.” There is a difference, however, “in being discerning and in having a judgmental spirit.”

Again, we are not sure what (or whom) Pitman is referencing, so it is very hard to understand his concern. While I happily agree with Pitman’s distinction between a “judgmental spirit” and proper "discernment," precisely how Pitman knows the difference--or properly discerns the difference himself rather than just being judgmental in spirit toward those who publicly raised concerns--we are not told. Nor are we informed that if any questions at all were publicly raised, how such questions would not fit his understanding of projecting a “judgmental spirit.” 

Unfortunately, the more Pitman “defended” his conference decisions overall, the more questions we think are raised whether clarity concerning the choices he made dominated the invitations he offered.

Allow me.

Defending Jamar Jones’ invitation, Jameson describes Pitman’s response:

“People Pitman trusts tell him “Jakes is not a modalist.” Besides, Pitman said, his books are for sale in SBC bookstores. “How ridiculous is it that we can sell his books but his music guy can’t play piano at our meeting?” he asked.”

I am unsure why this is supposed to answer the concern many have in affiliating with those who, at minimum, possess difficulty not in just explaining the Triune nature of God (who among us is worthy of such) but also difficulty in historically embracing the Triune nature of God. The concerns are real whether Pitman accepts it or not.

Nevertheless, even if Lifeway sells T.D. Jakes’ books as Pastor Pitman maintains, what does such have to do with whether the author of the Lifeway book (or his staff member) is an appropriate choice for the Pastors’ Conference platform?  Lifeway sells The Shack. Is, therefore, William Young an appropriate choice to address the Pastors’ Conference? Could Pitman conclude how ridiculous it is that we can sell William Young’s book but William Young himself can’t speak at our meeting? Indeed if selling books through Lifeway becomes an automatic vetting to getting on the Pastors’ Conference platform at the SBC, I’m afraid we’re in for a gargantuan jolt at future conferences.

In addition, Pitman termed accusations that he put together a “Calvinist” conference “beyond [his] wildest imagination.” While some may have suggested such (though I do not know off hand who explicitly has), my initial commentary was not directed toward a Calvinist line-up, but one heavily leaning toward Acts 29 guys.I wrote:

…Darrin Patrick, Vice President for Acts 29 Church Planting Network is scheduled to speak. Acts 29 is the network run by Mark Driscoll, the controversial pastor in Seattle, WA.  We’ve had our knocks at SBC Tomorrow for contending with his infatuation with explicit sexual themes not to mention the '”cussin pastor” controversy and “Bible and beer” church plants.  The Missouri Baptist Convention squeezed Acts 29 out of its funding protocol a few years back.  Why Pitman would invite Patrick is an enigma.  Unless, of course, it’s a way to reintroduce Acts 29 back into Southern Baptist pastors’ good graces”

To my knowledge, Pitman did not reveal why he would invite a speaker affiliated with an organization that an entire state convention has historically experienced severe problems—so much so, the convention stopped any type of fiscal support going to Acts 29 affiliated church-starts through its headquarters. How is having this organization so prominent on the Pastors' Conference platform supposed to inspire missions as Pitman suggested was his goal? 

Even so, since Pitman himself publicly breached the issue of Calvinism, the fact is, Acts 29 Network is exclusively Reformed in theology (non-Calvinists who make up the over-whelming majority of the SBC would not be welcomed into their network) and Reformed in ecclesiology (at least so far as ruling elders are concerned). Acts 29 online documents make this very clear. Nor do most Southern Baptists realize that Acts29 churches encourage missions giving primarily through their network not the Cooperative program .

Hence, the real issue concerning missions support is not that the Pastors' Conference platform does not support missions funding. To the contrary,  Acts 29 affiliates are encouraged to give heavily and generously to missions. Rather the issue is, Acts 29 affiliates are encouraged to support the Acts 29 Network, making its missions endeavors the predominate missions strategy. Consequently, the Cooperative Program is by-passed, and funds are given to Acts 29 Network. And, recall:  the GCRTF agenda specifically noted that the Cooperative program would remain the core, superior missions giving strategy for the Southern Baptist Convention.

When all of these concerns are connected together, one only wonders why Vance Pitman would not anticipate questions--serious questions--to be raised by concerned Southern Baptists.  And, frankly, no amount of Pitman's characterizing the legitimate concerns publicly raised to be indicative of a “judgmental spirit” will halt nor hinder our sincere inquiry. Regardless of being implicated as "judgmental in spirit," we will continue to raise the questions we feel are important for all Southern Baptists.

With that, I am...

Peter

UPDATE: TIM ROGERS HAS ALSO RESPONDED TO VANCE PITMAN'S ABP DEFENSE OF THE PASTORS' CONFERENCE

IF THIS POST IS HELPFUL MAKE SURE TO "LIKE" IT ON FACEBOOK BELOW

Comments

[Mary]

You really have to wonder why so many are attempting to distract and stir up so much division and discord in the process. Those raising issues about the importance of the Trinity and what message is Pitman intending to send to so many SBCer's who have issues with ACTS 29 are now being called racist, women hating, pedophile harboring, Phariseacal, judgemental haters. Makes me long for the days when people questioning leaders in the SBC were simply dismissed as "bloggers in housecoats living in their mom's basements." When men who are being elevated to leadership in the SBC respond to any and all criticism in such an immature, whiney, and in some cases hateful way, then perhpas we need to start rethinking what exactly are the qualifications for leaders in the SBC.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

I had a long response to Dwight McKissic's insinuation in the ABP article that race was somehow relevant to contention with Jones' and the platform. I chose not to publish it in the original piece above. I may tease it out and put it up as a stand-alone post--and most certainly will if Dr. McKissic continues to denigrate the SBC as plagued with racism. This really saddens me because I consider him a friend.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, it's getting pretty ridiculous over on a certain blog, but then certain people have a reputation for not being exactly in touch with reality. Alledgely all "voices" are "equal" but some "voices" are more "equal" than others. I dialogue with some folks online and they never post in certain places, because of the insanity of some of those posters and how they're allowed to treat anyone who disagrees with them.

Race is certainly something we can and should address in the SBC. The issues surrounding the Pastor's Conference had nothing to do with race. If anyone had a "perception" that it was about race they were absolutely wrong and I think need to examine their hearts about prejudices they are holding. That's a discussion that reasonable, rational people should have. There is real racism, but when you call racism where it doesn't exist then we get to a place where nothing is racism anymore. When we get to a day that anytime a black man is questioned about anything it gets labeled as racist it's a sorry day indeed. I would think as Christians our first prism to view anything should be Christ. Doctrine matters, but it seems race matters more to some.

I can't help but feel that we are fighting for the very soul of the SBC. Some are, I think, being manipulated in such a way to cause distractions such as this. Some are just pure fools who have no clue how the real world actually functions and will just hold up their idols and scream that we're not real Christians if we don't think exactly like them and bow down to their idols. I appreciate that you protect us from the fools here on your site.

[Steve Evans]

Very nice opinion from you on the the questionable calls made by our current President of the SBC Pastor's Conference. I applaud your faithful stand against things not scriptural (or Southern Baptist). Let our brothers from the Calvinist persuasion have a conference of their own. Let's go lead someone to saving faith in Jesus. Spread the Word - be instant in season and out. Do the work of an Evangelist. Hell is laughing at us! From a Minister of Music who loves souls..........

[peter lumpkins]

Steve

Thanks for logging on. And thank you for your warm comment. We attempt to speak the truth in love but obviously don't always succeed.

Grace, brother. And may your ministry increase a hundredfold souls for the glory of our Lord.

With that, I am...
Peter

[kim]

Good post, Peter.

Why am I still floored everytime a disagreement comes up, based on firm biblical grounds by the way, and then we who disagree are labeled judgemental, close minded, etc.?! I guess I keep thinking at some point, someone in a leadership role, will see these are valid questions and we'll actually have a real back and forth discussion. But sadly, it's the same ole, same ole, dismissal and your judgemental accusations whenever these issues are brought up.

These are great questions you raise Peter, so keep doing it! I've been where you and others are who want to go over this. Keep pressing ahead. At some point, enough folks will will also start questioning, and they won't be able to ignore it or dismiss it forever.

By the way, the comment by Mr. Pitman on their books being sold in Lifeway, I could go on about that for days, but I won't do that to ya. lol Seriously though, I contacted Lifeway a few years ago about this same topic, and the justifications I recieved were endless. I emailed Dr. Ranier and got a response from him and another gentleman in Lifeway. (name escapes me right now) Basically, it was we sell lots of books that many people will have disagreements with, and they said nothing is wrong with that, as long as they're biblically sound. That was my problem, the ones I asked about weren't. I mentioned that, but didn't recieve a response.

I am just so disappointed how much of this gets glossed over or dismissed. Who is deciding what concerns are legitimate, and whose aren't? I just don't understand why Christian leaders can't address these things. What are they trying to hide? I know, that's a bold statement, and it may not be they are doing that on purpose, but it's what it looks like from out here. The impression being given I would hope is not one they want.

[SelahV Today]

Peter...WARNING*. I have it on good authority that women are being marginalized in the SBC Voices Blog Madness 2011 Competition. SelahV Today is the only woman in the East Regional Division that stands a flea's chance of moving on to the second round of the entire Madness competition. She has just passed the infamous Peter Lumpkins for the neck and neck fight of her life to breach the good ol' boys' club. Just sayin'.... selahV

[this announcement is paid for by the Vote For A Woman Campaign in the SBC Voices Blog 2011 Madness conference] selahV Today...that is SelahV Today in the East Regional AT http://sbcvoices.com/sbc-blog-madness-2011/ Go get'em gals....!

[Liz]

I read somewhere (either on an SBC pastor's blog or our state Baptist paper) a list of the speakers and their CP giving. Do you, by chance, know where I may have read that?

On the list were all the CP giving stats of the speakers for the pastor's conference. It was reported that David Platt's church, Brook Hills, gave $0 to the CP. I was disturbed by that and I asked someone that I know who attends Brook Hills. She said it was false, that they do give to the CP and to the AAEO and Lottie Moon, etc.

If you happen to know where that article came from, I'd like to find it again.

Thanks,

[peter]

Thanks.  Well, I posted the names here.  And Platt is listed among the Pastors’ Conference speakers. While he is not on the present list of speakers at the Aspire website, I am unsure why. It could be he was posted on the website prematurely. It could also be I confusedly added him to the list. I honestly do not know. 

As for Platt’s church’s giving record, I’ll be glad to take another look at the info for his church. The confusion may be in what CBH gave and what’s reported. Obviously, if what’s reported as CP giving $0, then listing 0$ reported as given to the CP is about the only way one can list the gifts. Anyway, if I got the CP giving wrong, I’ll post a retraction asap. 

Thanks again, Liz.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter]

Liz,

Thanks for your patience. According to the stats from Southern Baptist Directory Services for Dr. Platt's church,

2009 - No Annual Church Profile ... submitted
2008 - No ACP submitted
2007 -
Baptisms - 80
undesignated giving: $7, 068,727.00
CP giving: $24,996
Lottie moon - section left blank - the assumption would be nothing given
Annie Armstrong - section left blank

Hence, I put the $0.00 (reported) above. Perhaps your friend can call her church's office for further clarification.

Thank you again Liz, for bringing this to my attention.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

BTW, I'll be glad to follow up again if the 2010 becomes available for his church...