Frankly, I’ve not taken the time to respond to those on the internet parroting the idea that the TBC’s disagreement with Belmont is simply a matter of the TBC being money hungry for one reason: those who spew that kind of ignorance destroy their position simply by giving it voice. However, today is a slow day at work and I’ve read one too many of those kinds of posts so I’m going to take a moment to discuss this nonsense.

The main accusation presents itself in some variation on this theme: The only reason the Tennessee Baptist Convention won’t let Belmont University walk away from their decades long relationship is the TBC’s own hunger for money. The accusers and those sympathetic then enjoy a hearty round of patting each other on the back and congratulating one another on their keen insight.

So is that the truth? Is it only money that motivates the TBC to seek reparation for the financial investment they made in Belmont over the years?

What has to be stated is that money is most definitely an issue, of course. $57 million is no figure to sniff at. This is an issue of stewardship. The TBC began involvement with Belmont when it was desperately in the red financially. Over the years the TBC pumped institution-sustaining dollars into the Belmont entity until it has (happily) grown able to not only support itself but also to grow. So who is at fault when an organization feeds off another in the context of a well defined relationship then chooses, once the parent entity is no longer necessary to the dependent’s continued existence, to end that relationship?

Jesus told a parable that goes by several titles, one being The Unfaithful Steward. You probably know it well. He tells of a rich man who distributes some of his resources to three of his servants. Two take the money, put it to use, and return the profit to their master. The third takes the money and buries it in the ground. When his master comes to collect the servant is only able to offer the coin his master originally gave him. You and I both know that the story ends with the third servant being punished by his master for not being a good steward of what was committed to him. I think this story has several applications to the TBC/Belmont issue. In the parable you see that Jesus teaches us about His Kingdom in this passage through ideas like stewardship and accountability, specifically tied to monetary issues. Now, I’m not arguing that Jesus is here giving us direct insight into how to handle situations like the one with Belmont and the TBC. What I am saying is that by simply presenting what He did here Jesus is saying it is okay for agencies within the Kingdom to hold and be held accountable over issues of stewardship; issues in which money invested is expected to be put to good use.

Therefore the first application is one of stewardship. Belmont has been placed in the position of being a steward of the resources invested in them by the TBC for the purpose of glorifying God in the field of higher education. By using this money to sustain the institution then attempting to sever ties once they could walk on their own they are placing themselves (that needs to be stressed) in the role of an unfaithful steward. The relationship was never intended to be a welfare relationship – money invested into a struggling body until it was able to move out on its own. The relationship was always clear: Belmont was to be the means by which the TBC invested in higher education in Middle Tennessee, not on a temporary basis but one that was intended to extend indefinitely. Thus, Belmont creates the “bad” in this situation by failing to hold up their end of the clearly defined relationship. So when it is said that “the TBC only cares about money” that could be true (although a poor phrasing) if it is meant that the TBC is perfectly willing to allow Belmont to walk away, just give the money we gave you back (in good faith, understanding this to be a permanent relationship) so that we can pursue our goal (glorifying God through higher education in Middle TN) through another means.

The second direct application is to the TBC’s own stewardship of monies given in the name of God’s kingdom to the TBC for the purpose of investing in higher education in Middle TN. Before God the Tennessee Baptist Convention has to make sure that the money it committed – not just abstract funds from a particular institution but rather designations from the tithes and offerings of real people given to the TBC, trusting that the TBC would put them to good use – to Belmont is used in a manner consistent with the spirit in which it was given. Considering that the money was given at a time in which the TBC had a clearly defined relationship with Belmont then it is most logical to say that the money was given to support that (already mentioned) assumed-to-be permanent relationship. Now that Belmont has decided to sever ties, the TBC has to – as an attempt to be a good steward – seek a way to apply those funds in a manner consistent with the spirit in which they were given. Since Belmont leadership has effectively ended the opportunity to do so through their institution, the most logical step is to seek the monies back so that they can apply them toward the same ends through another vehicle.

It is funny to read and hear people speaking about the TBC “only caring about the money” as if the money was sought just for the sake of seeking it. Maybe the accusers think the Executive Board is going to take the funding and go on an all-expenses paid cruise with it. Or maybe (and I know Will will get a kick out of this) the TBC could use the money previously invested in Belmont to make sure no TBC church goes without fried chicken at any fellowship in the upcoming years.
In all seriousness, saying “all the TBC cares about is the money” fails to provide even the most basic level of insight in to what is happening between Belmont and the TBC. It would be entirely valid for an opponent of the TBC’s actions to try and prove that the TBC should just let Belmont have the money regardless of where it came from or why it was given. I’m suspicious that it is much easier for those who dislike the TBC and its direction to paint the convention as a money grubber rather than seriously interact with what is going on here. I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this but the banality of what is being said out there makes me despair of seeing something to contradict my suspicion.

The second (and more humorous) accusation that I read is that “no one cares about the students.” I won’t treat this hollow accusation with as many words as the previous. I’ll simply point out one gaping hole in that kind of statement.

The charge to end the relationship with Belmont in a manner fair to the TBC is headed by many graduates of Belmont. For example Ron Stewart, quoted and maligned for his perspective on the Belmont issue, is a Belmont alumni. One would think that it isn’t the alumni who aren’t concerned about the students considering that the leadership knows what it is to be in their shoes. Either way, I find it funny that the caricature being drawn is the menacing TBC who heartlessly steps on the poor, defenseless students. What I’ve not seen (and which would be very interesting to me) is specifically how the TBC is demonstrating that they don’t care about the students by pursing this action. Actually, I think it is much more likely (and actually this is the case) that the TBC’s concern over trustees isn’t so much about making sure it’s a Baptist-only party as much as it is making sure that men and women with bad doctrinal positions don’t exercise too much leadership over the school and thus influence the students negatively. While it is impossible to completely eradicate that possibility the best move to lessen its chance of occurrence is to see to it that the trustee board is composed of Baptists. But you’ll continue to read and hear the same old drum beat. I’m reminded of an episode of King of Queens where the lead character, an overweight man, tries to convince his wife that he stays heavy because children enjoy using him like a set of monkey bars. He says something to the effect of “It’s not that I enjoy eating too much, I’m fat for the children.” And that statement carries as much truth to it as any that says the TBC doesn’t care for the students of Belmont. The only difference is that the writers of King of Queens realize that they are writing fiction. I don’t think the accusers of the TBC realize that they are as well.

Really, all the empty hyperbole and straw man thrashing gets us no where. Can we please just be honest? Some people think the TBC should let Belmont sever ties, do whatever it is they want, and the TBC should do what Belmont tells them in regards to how the relationship should be dissolved. I adamantly disagree with that position but that is a much more honest and legitimate statement of what is being discussed here than the baseless charges I’ve spent the last 1600 words exposing. Who knows? Once it gets Really, all the empty hyperbole and straw man thrashing get us no where. Can we please just be honest? Some people think the TBC should let Belmont sever ties, do whatever it is they want, and the TBC should do what Belmont tells them in regards to how the relationship should be dissolved. I adamantly disagree with that position but that is a much more honest and legitimate statement of what is being discussed here than the baseless charges I’ve spent the last 1600 words exposing. Who knows? Once it gets out of the realm of false accusation (“It’s only about the money!”) and caricatures based on sentimentality (“The TBC doesn’t care about the poor students!”) and gets in to an honest presentation of why the TBC should accept Belmont’s decision we might be able to further the discussion into something profitable. However, no profit will be gained by further propagation of empty accusations and baseless claims.