The Criticisms of Vance Pitman Offered Up By Tim Rogers

Readers: my apologies. I didn't read Rogers' article close enough. I was too kind. The issue was NOT that Pitman invited TD Jakes, and that TD Jakes might be a modalist. The sin of Pitman was that he invited Jakes' MUSIC MAN to participate in leading of worship. So it is a sin to have Jakes, AND a sin to have Jakes' music man. Is it also a sin to hire TD Jakes' music man's caterer? What if I am driving the same kind of car that TD Jakes music man's caterer is driving?

And it is not that Pitman was seen at a table with a cup that might have wine...it is that one of the speakers Pitman invited was once photographed at a table where there might be wine. What if TD Jakes' music man's caterer was once photographed at a table with wine?
I have made editorial changes below to correct my oversights.
-------------

Stop the presses. We've covered crybaby pastors here on this blog, pastors who can't stand criticism, that complain how criticism from their congregants keeps them from doing God's will. One pastor said he can hardly go on, as he gets a criticism a day, and he correctly did the math and said it is "...over 300 a year."

So I can't help but smile when I read North Carolina pastor Tim Rogers' blog post openly criticizing another conservative SBC pastor, Vance Pitman (shown at left), for his decisions as the president of the 2011 SBC Pastor's Conference.

What did Pitman do to deserve Tim's criticism? Did he harbor a pedophile on staff? Did he cheat on his wife? Did he openly slander a church member? What did he do that has caused Rogers to write a long article criticizing everything from his church's giving to what he drinks for dinner?

Did Pitman lie and mislead congregations for a decade about his past, giving false stories of his childhood to make himself more marketable on the preaching circuit and book market?

You can read Rogers' article yourself, but let me summarize and simplify for those who don't want to bother, what are Tim's gripes with Pitman:

1. Pitman gave an interview to the "wrong" newspaper. Yep, Pitman dared to give an interview to the Associated Baptist Press to address his critics. Pitman has been criticized by a number of pastors, and Pitman did the right thing and actually tried to answer his critics by giving an interview that would be widely reported to Baptists. But according to Rogers it was the "wrong" news outlet. The ABP is a bunch of liberals, or at least started by liberals says Rogers, so Pitman should not have given the interview to THEM. Rogers mockingly strikes the word "news" in front of "agency" when describing the ABP. Seriously, what other profession besides "pastor" features graduate and Ph.D. level, supposed men of intelligence, making these arguments against each other?

2. Pitman is inviting the "wrong" guys to speak at the SBC Pastor's Conference. Pitman invited the music man of T.D. Jakes, who some say is a "modalist". (Not that he invited TD Jakes, but TD Jakes' music man). He invited Jon Piper, a Calvinist. He invited Rick Warren who is something else. The writer of the ABP article brought up the issue of race given that T.D. Jakes is black, and Rogers actually criticizes Pitman because he "let that stand". Nowhere in the article is Pitman quoted on the racial issue, but Rogers decided to hang that around Pitman's neck. That is not fair.

3. Pitman invited a speaker who was seen at a table somewhere with a glass that looks like it might have wine in it. Yes, Rogers links to a picture of some men at a table, one of whom apparently Darrin Patrick, where there are beverages on the table. I've posted it here at right. One of the men is Patrick - a speaker invited by Pitman - and according to Rogers, one of the glasses has wine in it. Could be tea, but it looks too much like wine for safety's sake. Egads, Patrick either consumed an alcoholic beverage that night, or he was at a table where one was consumed. Get the pitchforks.

4. Pitman's church doesn't give enough money to the SBC. It always comes down to money. Pitman's church only gave $61,000 to the SBC missions' fund (the Cooperative Program). Rogers cites the inequity of the $61,000 from Pitman's church and the $148,000 of SBC money going to the Pastor's Conference Pitman is leading. Holy cow, Rogers and his cohorts ELECTED Pitman to lead the conference, and now Rogers' is criticizing the giving of Pitman's church?

I realize some WD readers will agree with some of Rogers' criticisms of Pitman. But even if his open criticism, which I think much of it is unfair and unjust (and even illogical) is valid, why is he hurting the cause of Christ in this way? Rainer said it, this kind of criticism of pastors is "the Great Distraction", it is used by Satan to keep the man of God from doing God's will and is harmful to the cause of Christ. And if Rogers doesn't like his convention, why doesn't he just leave or choose not to attend, instead of criticizing one of it's leaders? Or is he jealous? These are all arguments preachers use against lay people who criticize their pastor.

Here is the unbelievable part of this: Tim Rogers never once spoke out criticizing Ergun Caner last year. He even had Ergun Caner in to preach to his church recently.

So while Tim writes long articles criticizing a pastor who speaks to the wrong news outlet, and invites a pastor to speak who appears in a picture with a glass of wine and whose churches give only $62,000 to missions, Rogers is completely silent, and in fact is openly supportive of...a pastor who misled congregations for nearly a decade with a false story of his past - who still to this day has not apologized to the many Christians he has wronged.

Which is worse: Pitman inviting a man who had a picture taken at a table with wine, or Rogers himself inviting a man to speak at his church who perpetrated a decade of deceit on evangelicals telling tall tales of his past to make himself into something he was not?

That is what we have for leadership in the SBC these days.