There is an update on the Belmont University website regarding the Tennessee Baptist Convention lawsuit. Tuesday's news includes a letter from Marty Dickens outlining a proposed financial commitment by Belmont University to the TBC and the structure of an ongoing Belmont University relationship with the convention. From Mr. Dicken's letter:"Despite its firm belief in the strength of its legal position, Belmont has gone to extraordinary lengths to address the demands of the Belmont Study Committee without compromising the integrity of the University. To date, not one of Belmont’s efforts to preserve a relationship with the TBC has been favorably received by the TBC’s representatives. We believe that this situation hurts the witness of Christ and distracts all of us from the business of the Kingdom. Accordingly, we continue to search for a solution that honors our Baptist heritage and Jesus Christ."I want to thank Belmont University for making this information public. I do not understand why the Tennessee Baptist Convention hasn't demonstrated the same kind of openness in revealing its proposals. It makes it look like they have something to hide. It also opens up a whole lot of unnecessary speculation and raises questions regarding accountability and credibility .
Two things strike me as important. First, the dollar amount is significantly higher than the originally proposed five million dollar amount that the convention turned down at the meeting over at Jerry's place: 12.5 million in funding and scholarships over the next 10-15 years plus other commitment expenses. The second part of the proposal is the most encouraging part. Belmont has proposed an ongoing relationship that involves a new Tennessee Baptist Heritage and Ministry Center, an endowed chair for Baptist Ministry Studies, and a place for ex officio members on the Board of Trustees. It is a different kind of relationship with the TBC but I believe it is better than the shunning and ostracism that we are currently witnessing.
Belmont has extended the olive branch to continue a relationship. If this is not about the money, I would expect to see some reciprocal action/motion from the TBC meeting in Kingsport. It is time for this dark era of legal entanglement to be resolved in a manner that will honor God rather than continued gambling with over a million dollars in cooperative program funds.
It is a rare day when Baptists seated around a table, drinking coffee, get angry with each other...more often, you'll witness laughter and great fellowship. Maybe it is time to introduce this secret weapon (coffee) into the TBC vs Belmont debate. $1.5 Million would buy a LOT of coffee *smile*.
6 comments:
Can you really call 12.5 million an olive branch when Belmont has received nearly 60 million in funds from the TBC over the past 50+ years? Those funds and assets are now worth an estimated 250 million in today's figures. Belmont's "olive branch" sounds more like an attempt at grand larceny to me. What is really disturbing is that they are trying to make the TBC look like the bad guy in all of this. If my recollection is correct, they were the ones who changed their charter in the middle of the night on the eve of the '05 annual meeting without saying so much as a word to the TBC. I think the only reason Belmont is even offering anything is because they know they have a good chance of losing if this suit goes to litigation. The fact that the moderator of this site would cast Belmont in a favorably light in all this is a telling sign of what he is really all about.
Dear anon.,
Well, I did say that Belmont was offering an olive branch...$58 million sounds more like the whole olive tree.
If you believe that Belmont has a good chance of losing this case, then you are among those in the convention who are willing to risk another $750,000 of Cooperative Programs funds proposed in this year's budget to gamble on that chance. I'd prefer that money go somewhere besides attorney fees...maybe even something to support missions and ministry.
If the Baptist & Reflector included honest coverage of what has been going on at Belmont over the last year or so, I wouldn't be bringing out their side of the story. What we should be asking is, "What information is the TBC leadership, the Baptist Study Committee, and the slew of high-paid attorneys holding out?"
Your last post demonstrates that you really don't know what you're talking about. For starters, if Belmont was really interested in letting their "yes be their yes," then they would offer to repay all they owe to the TBC, as the 1951 reverter clause plainly states. That would be at least $58 million, not including the millions in other assets.
Further, you mention a "slew of high paid attorneys" working the case for the TBC. That is just a flat lie. The convention employs the services of one attorney - Randle Davis. So, contrary to what you are alleging, there are not a "slew" of attorneys getting rich in TBC life. In fact, if you will check the most recent Finance Report of the TBC, you'll see that only half that amount has even been used.
It's amazing to me how you're calling Tennessee Baptists to do what you think is "right," yet you seem completely willing to give Belmont a free pass. You fail to mention how the Trustees of Belmont have masterminded an attempt to steal a school that does not belong to them. You suggest that litigation is not an option for the TBC, and that if they do so then they are wrong for pursuing that option. Let me ask you this: Would it be right for the TBC to simply give away an institution that God gave them to use for His glory? The parable of the talents clearly teaches us that we are to be good stewards of that which God has entrusted to our care. Giving Belmont away for pennies on the dollar is not good stewardship, nor would it help to promote God's Kingdom agenda for years to come.
Frankly, I've tired of moderates lecturing Tennessee Baptists about how un-Christlike their acting. When are you going to preach a sermon on theft and lying? My guess is never because Belmont is much like yourself - theologically moderate.
Dear anon#2,
I'll do my best to address the issues you raise.
1. If the 1951 document that you refer to describes the current relationship of the TBC and Belmont, then your assertion is valid. Unfortunately, you and I do not get to make that determination. It is in the hands of the court.
2. I am afraid that you are badly informed on the attorney situation. Please ask Randle Davis about hours and the exact number of attorneys involved. He is not doing this by himself and that is a fact.
3. I'd prefer to call my "free pass for Belmont" something more like turning the other cheek. Those individuals that you prefer to call "thieves" are Belmont trustees, most of whom (60%) are still your
Baptist brothers in Christ. In spite of the personal attacks, this body of 'thieves' continues to support the Christian ministry and mission of Belmont University, increasing the 'talents' with each progressing year.
4. Litigation was to be an option after all other options were exhausted. Wouldn't you like to see the details of all the options that were exhausted before litigation began?...if you have those details, please make them public. I contend that if half the
effort that has been expended in litigation had been used on exhausting other options, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
5. I am glad that you are tired of moderates lecturing Tennessee Baptists about how un-Christlike they are acting. I suspect that moderates are tired of fundamentalists lecturing Tennessee Baptists on doctrinal accountability. I can speak only for myself, and I am tired of all this distraction from what Tennessee Baptists should be doing in missions and ministry.
1. If you had attended the '05 annual meeting and the special called meeting of '06, you would've clearly seen that the reverter clause is valid. As such, it states that all monies and assets are to pass back to the TBC in the event that Belmont is no longer under TBC control. Letting one's "yes be their yes" would mean that Belmont needs to either give everything back, or pay the TBC the $58+ it owes to the Convention. The $58 million is actually a low number because it doesn't even include assets (buildings, properties, etc.). Anything less than full repayment is not only breech of agreement, it is lying and stealing - plain and simple.
2. I've got an idea. Why don't you drop your anonymity and talk to Randle Davis yourself. Then you can tell all of us about your conversation. I know confronting invidivuals in person is probably not your style, but you really ought to give it a try.
3. You allege that all the Baptists at Belmont are "brothers in Christ." I have a hard time with that. Anyone that would lie and steal and then make the party they've offended look like criminals - I have something of a hard time believing that such persons are part of the family of faith. I pray that they are. If so, I trust that they will soon repent and make the situation right by making full restitution for their actions.
4. Mediation has been taking place between Belmont and the TBC for a year and a half now. Mediation is a private process between two parties, the details of which are not normally made public. My strong suspicion is that the reason the Belmont Study Committee did not accept a Belmont offer is because they probably offered the TBC pennies on the dollar. As I previously mentioned, that is poor stewardship.
5. If you are really tired of all the "distraction" that "fundamentalists" are creating in TBC life, then why not start blogging on more "missions and ministry?" Why not just leave the TBC stuff alone, quit attacking personalities, quit putting words in peoples' mouths, and report on missions and ministry in the TBC. I think the truth is that you don't really want to blog about missions and ministry. I may be wrong about that. If so, please provide me with your last post that had anything to do with missions and ministry in the TBC or SBC life.
Dear anon#3,
Thanks for taking time to add your input to the discussion. I'll attempt to respond to your 5 points, although you and I will not agree on the responses.
1. I have a copy of the 1951 agreement that you reference and I fully understand what it spells out. I was at the called meeting at Two Rivers. The TBC decided that the 'reverter clause' is valid. Belmont disagrees. Neither Belmont or the TBC (or you or me) get to make the decision on whether or not the agreement is valid, that is now in the hands of the court. I have my reasons for believing that the 1951 document does not fully represent the relationship with the TBC and that there have been authorized changes to the relationship over the years. You and I disagree. I understand your side of the issue. Let's move on...
2. I am hopeful that as part of the Belmont Study Committee report we will get an accounting of how last year's $750,000 was spent. I have attempted to speak with Randall Davis regarding the attorneys involved on this case and his office advised me that this information is privileged. My 'style' is to look at all of the information available and reporting on those findings, it has nothing to do with anonymity. I consider my source of information on the number of attorneys involved to be reliable.
3. Your choice to accept or reject another Christian brother or sister is just that, your choice. I'll offer you the same advice you offered me: drop your anonymity and sit down with some of these pastors and Baptist laymen on Belmont's board before condemning them without all of the facts. I would suggest that you'd not only discover Christian brothers but a trustees who are deeply concerned over the relationship between the TBC and the university.
4. Your assessment on the mediation may be valid. Negotiation and arbitration were other options included in the TBC's charge to the Study Committee. Unless you know otherwise, those options were given 'lip service' only.
5.Read through our blog. There are numerous mentions of missions/ministry, including some of the Tennessee Baptist variety that will never see daylight in Tennessee Baptist journalism. If I have attacked personalities, then I sincerely apologize. If I bring out positions that appear to be dissenting with my Tennessee brothers it is on no small part that I believe that people such as yourself are not hearing both sides of the issues. Whenever possible, my dissent is qualified with a link to supporting information or direct quotes from electronic documents. I wish you would consider backing your claims with similar links.
As far as posts that deal with missions and ministry, I offer the following October 2007 reading:
a. 10/24/07 TBC Elder's suggestions on getting more Tennessee Baptists involved electronically
b. 10/16/07 Commendations to Union and Belmont on recognition as colleges of distinction
c. 10/15/07 A review of Barna research on what teenagers want from church
d. 10/15/07 Commendation to Chansin Byrd for the top student journalism award in religion from Baptist Press
e. 10/04/07 Commendation to Union and Belmont for academic accolades.
Seasonal reports and testimonials like the one from 5/18/2007 (Three different mission teams) are items that Tennessee Baptists should be interested in but will never see in the B&R. I have no problem with individuals who wish to demon-ize Belmont's board of trustees based upon the information being fed to them by convention leadership. I do have a problem with individuals who choose to lump students in with that disdain...and that is exactly what is happening to students, even Tennessee Baptist students.
Thanks again for contributing to the discussion.
Post a Comment