Tom Law is the interim executive director of the Baptist Convention of Iowa. He was brought in after our previous executive retired and is trying to help us restructure and refocus our ministries here in Iowa. He is, to say the least, an expert in how NAMB policies are affecting state conventions.
On March 19, 2012, Kevin Ezell wrote an article titled “CHURCHES, NOT INFRASTRUCTURE, BEST WAY TO REACH NEW AREAS”. This was his attempt to outline the strategy which the North American Mission Board (NAMB) was implementing with regards to the State Conventions that relate to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). These new relational mechanisms were most pointedly focused at the State Conventions outside the South. Since then the “new work” states have been scrambling to understand how this will affect them, most particularly in the area of funding and staffing.
The irony is that I have not spoken with one State Executive Director who disagrees with Kevin with regards to the need for redesigning state infrastructure. Most had come to this conclusion and were in the process of restructuring. In fact, just the week before this document become public I had shared the same concepts with our state leadership as we began designing a new structure for Iowa. Therefore, the difference is not in the concept but in the implementation.
The current structure has been seventy years in the making. It was the best missiology available at the time and seemed the way to get things done more effectively and efficiently. Changing this in a year or even a few years is difficult and will require a lot of working together. That, in fact, is what I am hearing from the State Execs. Kevin stated “Being a missions agency also requires us to think in missiological ways.” The state conventions, especially the “new work” conventions” need a “missions agency” that will help them think “missiologically” developing strategies together that will be transformative.
What I feel we are experiencing is an organization that has decided that planting new congregations is the solution to all of the problems. Although I think that church planting is part of the equation I think that the problem goes much deeper. In fact, I think that it is a discipleship issue, but that is a topic for another article. NAMB, in spite of its denial, is becoming a Church Planting Network and just like the carpenter whose only tool is a hammer NAMB sees every problem as a “nail.” This does not work in carpentry and it certainly does not work in God’s Kingdom.
Unfortunately, Kevin Ezell and NAMB are going down the same road that their predecessor traveled some 70 years ago. Kevin correctly pointed out, “Historically, when Southern Baptists began work in North America outside the South, we sought to replicate state convention structures just like we have in the South. Thus, the same staffing model would be present in both places.” Yet we currently have a push being developed and promoted by those same southern boys who think that they know what’s best for the rest of the country.
There are at least three things wrong with the current strategy.
- Although the NAMB leadership is correct that the cities have become a magnet for people and are growing at the expense of the rest of the country they are promoting old strategies that have proven fruitless in years past. The most obnoxious of these strategies is thinking that throwing money at a problem will solve it.
- The primary question being asked is how many of the resources that are being sent to a “new work” area can be redistributed into church planting and how fast can we accomplish this. No real missiology has gone into this approach other than blindly accepting that more new church plants will automatically produce a healthier convention.
- Finally, rather than come alongside the state conventions to discover what is best in the culture in which the churches are to be planted they have proposed that the “new work” areas generate more funds or redirect funds that are currently coming to pay for outsiders to plant churches in cultures they do not understand using methods that have worked elsewhere but have not proven effective in the places where the planters now works. Although NAMB “tips its hat” at the missiological imperative of indigenous workers it has ramped up the numbers before helping us establish mechanisms to discover, train and launch those indigenous planters, therefore, forcing us to rely on outsiders in order to “hit” their numbers (notice I said their numbers not our numbers).
As I have observed the landscape in the “new work” arena I have discovered a few things that are not being addressed by this new strategy.
1) NAMB has focused on getting more church plants started. It has been decided that the best way to accomplish this task is to put more money into direct support of church planters. This allows for more church planters to be recruited and paid to plant churches. But we don’t necessarily have the infrastructure to support this process much less to make it replicable.
a) Although state conventions in the “new work” areas have been around for as long as 70 years in many places they are still dependent on outside (NAMB) funding and outside personnel. We have not done enough to create the leadership pipeline (or farm club) that will produce the indigenous church planters and church leaders necessary to make church planting replicable.
b) This new strategy only exacerbates the problem by suggesting that we need to make more money available to bring in more people from the outside to plant more churches that in all likelihood will fail in short order because they do not have any indigenous roots. The money will run out. The winters will be too cold for the southern boys. The people too slow to respond and the freshly minted church planter will return to the south where the picking’s are easier (or at least they think they are).
c) Finally, artificial countrywide goals for church planting have been determined without any consideration as to whether there are people to do the planting or places in which to plant churches.
2) So, although we do not need “state infrastructure” like we have in the south we do need some kind of systematic way of developing local leaders, discovering which of these leaders can become planters, promoting their indigenous planting efforts, and helping them develop other church planting leaders whom their churches can send out.
3) Finally, we in the “new work” states need a “missions agency” not a church planting network that promotes church planting and develops “exponential” or “catalyst” type gathering to rally the troop. This missions agency would:
a) Come alongside the state conventions in the new work areas to help us think strategically and missionally using good missiology. There is a world of difference between coming alongside to help and informing to instruct. The latter is what we have now; the former is what we need.
b) Help us know how to restructure and streamline our organizational processes in order to make them more effective and efficient rather than simply saying that NAMB is no longer going to “fund” infrastructure. It takes a level of infrastructure for cooperative program funds to flow both ways. It takes a level of infrastructure to make sure church plants are initiated properly, assessed adequately, held accountable, and who produce disciples that develop disciples and plant new congregations. It takes a measure of infrastructure to cast a vision, challenge the status quo, and draw the churches together to do more as a coordinated body than we can as independent entities.
- i) Help us find those mechanisms for connecting our people with the larger Southern Baptist family so that they do not feel they are living and working in isolation.
- ii) Help us discover ways of collaborating across state lines so that we can pool our resources and not have to “reinvent the wheel” in each of our locales.
- iii) Help us discover ways to doing more with less as the funds are withdrawn from infrastructure and invested in church planting.
c) Help us discover or devise replicable systematic discipleship processes that will produce disciples who disciple others who in turn disciple others and so forth. What we have now is a push to plant new congregations thinking that this will be the panacea that solves all of our problems.
d) Help us discover and devise church planting models that are culturally applicable to our environment and appropriate to penetrate the lostness.
e) Not only have a church planting network but help us connect to the dozens of strong evangelical church planting networks around the country that will help us plant churches in our states.
f) Help us develop leadership pipelines or farm clubs that will grow up leaders, pastors and church planters that are indigenous to our states rather than needing to recruit these from other areas.
g) Work with the seminaries to develop graduates that think missionally and have a strong missiological understanding of how to “parse” culture creating new methods to share the ageless message with different peoples and cultures.
There are numerous other aspects of the “missions agency” that we do desperately need, but this will get the conversations started toward discovering what is best for the “new work” states and how we can bring the transformational message of Christ to the lives of those people among whom we live and work.
Thomas L. Law, III
May 24, 2012
Dave,
Maybe you can help me here. From what I read Brother Law has some serious concerns about the new strategy. Or, is he saying these are just concerns that can be worked around as NAMB continues in its direction?
Tim, I don’t speak for Tom, but I know him. I am on the Executive Board, so I know that his attitude is that he is going to do the best he can under the circumstances.
I think it would be safe to say that he is concerned with the way NAMB is strategizing, but that he will attempt to make the best he can of things as they are.
He’s not some kind of angry firebrand who is out to get Ezell or anything. He agrees with NAMB’s objectives, I think, but not with the implementation.
I have scanned the article but must leave for most of the day. I would like to read it more closely and comment later today.
It appears to me that the only objections to NAMB’s changes are coming from (1) the “new work” states, and (2) the “established work” states.
Other than that, everyone seems to be getting behind this thing.
More specifically, the problem is with the way NAMB and the state conventions are relating.
It should also be noted some of the new work states and some of the established work states are happy to get “behind this thing.”
Yes that is correct Matt including Iowa. However, we have to be willing to discuss the issues we face. We don’t want to blindly follow a plan without addressing some obvious flaws. If the constructive criticism is taken with the right attitude, it will make the implementation better, especially for new work states. I suspect NAMB leadership is looking at the same elephant we are but from at a different angle. As you know, one six doesn’t fit all. Every culture generally presents a new set of opportunities.
A Work in Progress, Gene
This article reinforces what I’ve been saying for many years. The BEST way to start churches is when Churches start churches. NAMB needs to concentrate on DR, PR, Chaplaincy and ministry support and leave the church planting to local churches who have a burden for community’s and regions. Historically and with ample biblical evidence churches do a better job of starting churches – not conventions! Churches are the divinely ordained institution God placed here during this present dispensation for the purpose of glorifying God and propagating the Gospel. State and National Conventions and other entities of the SBC are to… Read more »
Home for a moment… Kev, you lack some facts here. NAMB’s church planting effort will be far more closely tied to local churches than before. In fact, no plant will be made that does not have ties to an existing church. As far as SBC identification goes, NAMB has detailed requirements and just clarified the matter of other networks. Perhaps you missed that here. NAMB has set out some bold plans but I haven’t seen any chest thumping over numbers, rather NAMB has taken steps to reduce the numbers of phantom church plants reported by the states. I believe you… Read more »
Kevin, I couldn’t disagree more with what you are saying above for the following reasons: 1) We have far too many dying Churches who are unwilling to support Church planting. 2) We have far too many small Churches who can’t support Church planting. 3) We have far too few medium and large Churches who can’t sustain the numbers of new Churches that need to be supported and many of which don’t want to start new Churches, but rather work on building their own kingdoms. 4) Church planting is the way of the NT Church – that’s how Paul did it,… Read more »
Mr. Law seems to be singing from the same songbook as a few other state leaders these days. His premise that “I think what we are experiencing is an organization that has decided that planting new congregations is the solution to all of the problems,” is either intentionally misleading or indicates that Mr. Law has paid little to no attention to many of the initiatives and announcements coming from NAMB in the first five months of this year. Ezell has noted several times on his webcasts that he talked too much about church planting in his first year—even apologized for… Read more »
Totally unfair, Robert. I don’t know you, but I know Tom. He has credibility with people who know him. He is not a traditionalist who is just trying to hold on to the status quo. You should see the restructuring he is leading us in here! No status quo about it.
But he works incredibly closely with NAMB – every day. Everything the BCI does is dependent on NAMB funding.
Look, I don’t mind if you disagree with his ideas – that’s fair. But he has credibility around here. And accusing him of lying is outside the pale.
Dave–I shouldn’t have worded it that way. I do think Iowa Baptists need to look back and ask if the current way is working. ACP says 76 churches in Iowa in 2001, today there are 96. I know there are other measures, but when it comes to winning people to Christ and discipling them, has the current way worked?
And we have been doing that.
Tom has us examining ourselves to the core and we are undergoing a radical reorganization.
Robert, You are right and we have seen that what we are doing has not worked. Our strategy team has devised a new model which I would encourage you to look at. You can find it on our web at http://www.bciowa.org. We feel that smaller organic units will help us relate better, discover those with leadership potential, develop those leaders, engage new church plant opportunities and make a significant impact for the kingdom. We are going to have to unlearn some things so we can earn some new things. It is going to take time and a lot of hard… Read more »
Mr Kelly,
You missed the point entirely. The key word is implementation. Regardless of what Mr Ezell said or didn’t say, the implementation is extremely cumbersome for new work states. I don’t know of anyone who objects to church planting. However, there has to be a pipeline built beforehand as well as an infrastructure with definable goals and accountability. A Work in Progress, Gene
NAMB has been described in private by one SBC power broker as a “150+ year continuous disaster”. That’s very different than what the folks in the pews are told when it’s Annie Armstrong time. I am thankful that Kevin Ezell has “kicked the dog” – we are now seeing the dog howl a bit. (State Execs and DOMs – “dog” metaphor used to represent the entire system and not aimed at you. I like my dog.) I would far rather see a clearly defined focus – plant churches – that we can all agree is in our great commission (practicing… Read more »
I think it’s a mistake to see NAMB as the owner and state conventions as the dog. NAMB is the dog biting the hand that feeds it.
Apparently my metaphor is lacking. All I’m really saying is that the whole system – NAMB and State Conventions included – needs to take a hard look inside and be shaken up a bit. I think that’s happening because Kevin Ezell has picked a path. Indecision is worse than no decision, and we don’t have indecision. If the state associations decide this isn’t working, they can cut NAMB funding. If the churches don’t like that, they can cut state convention funding. Looks like to me that in this instance, the convention is working (maybe painfully) as it should to flesh… Read more »
Meant to say “Indecision is worse than a bad decision”
Depends how bad the decision was, I guess.
Thanks for your thoughts Tom, and I agree completely. Funding church planting is a good idea, but it’s not enough. In Arizona, the state focused on the idea that healthy leaders grow healthy churches, and those churches plant new churches. I know in Iowa, there is a shortage of healthy leaders because they are over-worked, under paid and many are bi-vocational. Planting new churches won’t support these leaders. The most successful plants I have ever seen came out of local churches who had leaders who invested in new leaders who planted new churches. Many of the new leaders were bi… Read more »
While I have not kept up with these changes as much as have those in the state/regional conventions, Brother Law’s comments make sense to me. It seems to me that what Bro. Ezell is doing is attempting to take a dysfunctional organization and make it healthy by giving it a specific focus: one that is rather narrow and will require that the organizational energy move in that direction, viz., church planting primarily, to the exclusion of the infrastructure issues that NAMB has supported for however many years. While such a focus may be worthwhile, it ignores the root issue at… Read more »
I’ve been in meetings with Tom. He is frustrated by NAMB’s dictated changes (not negotiated with Iowa) but he is not some sort of anti-Ezell crusader.
I think we all realize Ezell stepped into a dysfunctional SBC entity and I for one appreciate many of the changes he has made.
My point is simply thi: if we want NAMB to be a healthy and purposeful entity which accomplishes its purpose, it must first be healthy. Without making it healthy first, no matter how carefully or specificially it is focused, the continuing dysfunction will manifest itself, sooner or later, in one way or another. And the powers that be–beginning with Ezell and the Trustees of NAMB–have to first admit there is dysfunction (on an organizational level, not necessarily an individual one), and next, be willing to deal with it.
John
John
Although I have hardly any first-hand knowledge of inner workings of either the NAMB or the state conventions, I can say, on the basis of 18 years of church planting and missionary experience, your ideas here seem to make a lot of sense to me. I am curious to know if you have had the chance to have any input into strategy development at the NAMB. Admittedly, there may be other factors involved that I don’t understand, but I would hope that Kevin Ezell and other leaders at the NAMB will give careful consideration to these ideas.
My question above, by the way, is directed to Tom, if he is reading the comments here.
I don’t know how much Tom is going to be able to join the discussion.
I’ve spoken with our state exec and given him my views on this. Namely, this: The CP funds to to the state. A certain amount of that went to Nashville, to NAMB, and back to the state in the form of funding of certain programs within the state. If those programs were needed in the state, then it’s our state convention’s duty to continue them, and if that means keeping more of the money funneling through here on its way to Nashville, then so be it. First Alabama, then the USA, then the uttermost parts. And frankly, we’re not doing… Read more »
Can I put forth an ignorant question so that the rest of you can point out how stupid I am?
Where, exactly, do we see a Biblical command to plant churches?
I find a Great Commission to make disciples. I do find that disciples seem to organize themselves into churches, even when Paul was only in town for a few weeks, but I’m still trying to find how “plant churches” became the command rather than “make disciples.”
So help me out, please…
There is no command to plant churches, it is (or should be) a bi-product of evangelism. If we reach new people, they are discipled and gather together and they are the church. The issue comes from our concept of “a church” which is an official organizational entity complete with building, staff, constitution and all that jazz. The concept of “planting a church” is not a New Testament concept, because the church is a group of Christians gathered together to worship and learn and pray. As you get a group of believers, there is an elder or leader or shepherd or… Read more »
“The issue comes from our concept of “a church” which is an official organizational entity complete with building, staff, constitution and all that jazz. ” Dan, I agree that church planting should be a by-product of evangelism. Your concept of “church”, as too many have come to know it, is quite a contrast in the description offered by Mike in his reply that it is “a gathering of blood bought believers.” You have adequately described the organized machine I have observed in my lifetime, in which the Holy Spirit has little room to act. In fact, if you were to… Read more »
Doug, I don’t think you will see a specific command in Scripture that says, “Go plant churches”. Especially, if by “Go plant churches” you mean something like “get a group of people together, buy a building, write a constitution, and give yourself a name”. But I think there are several places where church planting is assumed. Even in the Great Commission those things are lived out in the context of a local church. We can’t rightly “baptize”, “make disciples”, “teach”, apart from a gathering of blood bought believers. The Great Commission assumes church. And I think if you extend this… Read more »
Mike, you are my hero.
Dan,
Thank you. But I believe you have me mistaken for someone else. That wasn’t me in that Spider-man photo.
2 Timothy 2:2 comes as close as needed, methinks: ” And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.”
I serve in Montana and have also served in Wyoming, so I do understand some about the new work areas. We are dealing with some of the mandates here in Montana. Our DOM is now a church planting startegist, meaning we do not have a DOM. Our Association is being run by our “A-Team” (Team leaders) and doing a pretty good job. Here is my hope: As Tom stated, changes were needed. Ezell has implemented change, change that many see as positive. Some of those changes have happened very quickly (too quickly), and the pendulum has swung (maybe too far).… Read more »
“Go therefore, and make disciples . . . ” I have been a Southern Baptist since before I was born. I grew up in a small, rural congregation in the South, attending Sunday School, VBS, revival meetings, the whole ball of wax. However, I was not discipled very well until I actually arrived in Seminary. Now, I’m the pastor of a small, rural congregation in Iowa, and I’ve seen that the people in this 146-year-old congregation have not been discipled, either. I agree that the issue is discipleship, but no one seems to know how it’s done most effectively among… Read more »
If I am understanding Tom correctly, we are reading him wrong if we see this about pitting discipleship over against church planting. Church planting is one of the most important tools for making disciples. But just throwing money at it, sending out some folks to plant churches, and saying, “Get after it,” will not accomplish the job, either of planting churches, or making disciples. It will require some creative thought, and strategic missiology, and it will require working together with local believers in the cities and new work states that understand better than newly implanted people from outside the cultural… Read more »
“it will require working together with local believers … than newly implanted people from outside …”
Amen! More “creative thought and strategic missiology” should have been directed initially by NAMB to equip and mobilize troops already on the ground …rather than scrambling to recruit another army. Perhaps a focus by the “new” NAMB to fund fixes to the “old” NAMB would have been a more effective (and loving) route to treating what ailed in state ranks, rather than defunding that which didn’t comply with the new church planting model.
Generally speaking: As a pastor, I don’t want a state convention or a mission agency to stand in the position of ‘the expert’. I look to both as partners. I am happy to lead my church to give to both so that as other churches are in need of help they have a type of clearing house of resources available today. If the church I pastor has a need and we think our local association or state convention may be able to offer help via funds, dialog, moral support or an army of believers who can show up with help… Read more »
Tom, Much of what you said here makes sense, but there are some things that I believe you overemphasize to the detriment of the need for change: 1) You seem to put way too much priority on immediate “indigenous” Church planting efforts. What I mean is that you seem to say “we need our plants to be indigenous first and foremost”, but that never happens – in the Bible or on the mission field. Always is it outsiders who bring the message of the Gospel to new areas and plant Churches. Then the effort is taken up by those in… Read more »
D.R., Tom, having extensive experience with the IMB himself, is plenty capable of answering this, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth as well. My answer to your point #1 is, it depends. In IMB work, there are all kinds of different church planting situations. Though it is not an IMB site, the following webpage gives a pretty good overview of basic concepts and terminology describing different approaches to church planting (applicable, I believe, to both an international as well as a North American setting). http://www.efca.org/church-planting/reachglobal-church-planting/definitions-terms In many places, the preferred model with the IMB is catalytic… Read more »
D.R. I responded to most of your comments elsewhere, but wanted to say something about infrastructure. You and others seem to be reading into my comments on infrastructure what you have heard from others. I said that Kevin is correct in that we need to shrink and streamline structure. In fact, I have proposed a radical restructuring in Iowa that from 2011 to 2015 will cut out state staff in at least half. My point (on infrastructure) is that a certain level of infracture is necessary and it take time to change. At the association (what we are calling cluster)… Read more »
Friends, I’m on the road and therefor not able to chime in as I would like. I have just had my wife read me all your comments and I will respond as I can when I get to my destination this evening. I have appreciated David Miller’s responses in my absence. The Biblical mandate is decipleship and maybe one day I’ll get to share some of my thoughts on where we are on that issue. Deciples gather in what we call churches so it is difficult to separate the two. David Rogers is right in understanding my concern with strategy.… Read more »
As president of the Northwest Baptist Convention and as one having been involved in the revisioning and restructuring of our own NWBC over the past 5 years I heartily agree with the points Tom raises. Before being elected president I was chair of the Finance Committee of the Executive Board of the NWBC and helped develop and promote the budget after NAMB began their massive restructuring. Then, as now, I believe that we in ‘new work’ areas need to grow up and grow off of outside support, we cannot immediately do so. As Tom notes what is has taken decades… Read more »
“We need … further strengthening and developing existing churches. Ultimately it is not the assignment of the denomination to start churches, but to assist healthy churches to reproduce.”
And that says it all, brother! That, indeed, should be a primary consideration in NAMB’s mission.
Max, the best way to strengthen the exiting congregations is to get them to reach out beyond themselves. To think and act missionally. On-the-job training is the best training.
NAMB’s assignment it to be the missions agency for the SBC in the United States and Canada. As such it is to work with state conventions, associations, and churches to reach the USA and Canada for Jesus.
David Rogers, I have not been asked by NAMB to enter into any strategy discussions. I have only been at this for about nine months. Others may have participated in strategy talks early on, but I have not gotten the impression that State Execs were included in those talks. I do not disagree with Kevin or NAMB’s emphasis on church planting and the need for more streamlined state structures, but as you pointed out we need more strategic dialogues, not directives. My point is that we might acually get to where NAMB and Kevin want to go faster and better… Read more »
Furthermore, I am concerned that NAMB is increasingly taking on a life of its own independent of the Convention and certainly independent of the local church. The evidence is in the directives and lack of relationships with the state and local leadership. For that matter, even the State Conventions (mostly employees of NAMB) have continued to push things on the local church that the local church hasn’t asked for. A Work in Progress, Gene
D.R. 1. I can’t speak for other places but we have had those people you speak of in your first point in Iowa for almost sixty years. Not only that but I am not closing the door to those outsiders (more about this in #2). What I am saying is that our emphasis needs to be on creating a leadership pipeline to cultivate and develop local talent (disciples) that will become leaders, sunday school teachers, small group leaders, church planters, and pastors. If our primary means of starting new congregations is relying on those from other places we will never… Read more »
We are in the process of trying to implement some of these things in Iowa. I am meeting with our church leadership to see how we can most effectively address the needs we have. Our strategy team has dveloped a proposal that we are reviewing with our leadership. You can see the initial proposal on our website: http://www.bciowa.org. We feel that we need to focus on three things: Leadership Development (Discipleship), Church Planting, and Missions. We feel that the best way for us to accomplish this is through three initiative: forming small organic cluster of churches led by cluster champions,… Read more »
I appreciate all of your comments. As I told Dave Miller when he asked me to write something, I want this to be constructive. I know that God wants to do something great through us and it is going to take us working together to get it done.
The sentiments expressed by your interim exec differ from what has been the usual kickback from other state execs, and I appreciate that. It is a thoughtful, serious piece. A few criticisms: 1. The assertion that NAMB is “…an organization that has decided that planting new congregations is the solution to all of the problems” is overreaching, as noted above by Robert Kelley above. Although Tom labeled it as what he “feel[s]”, I suspect that he has sufficient data to understand this to be an unjustified assertion. NAMB is aiming for 50% going to church planting, which leaves $55-60 million… Read more »
Mr Thornton, If it is overreacting then show me a build out. We can’t build a house starting from the rooftops. So, why are we trying that approach with churches? If we are going to plant churches, are we then going to build them through churches who aren’t reproducing disciples? If they aren’t reproducing disciples then how do we expect them to reproduce churches? I recommend a build out that starts with the fundamentals of disciple making which extends into developing small groups who reproduce which develops into planting churches that reproduce. I recommend taking a close look at Real… Read more »
William,
Thank you for the complement.
As for the criticisms:
1. It is my observation that everything NAMB is doing is done through the prism of church planting. Even things that are not in the church planting arena. What’s more that subject shadows all other conversations and may keep NAMB from taking the role of mission agency as seriously as I would like them to.
2. You are correct I should not have used that much hyperbole and I apologize.
Tom,
I appreciate your leadership in Iowa. You are helping us get beyond our sacred cows and broken paradigms and traditions and assisting us in refocusing on loving Jesus and obeying His commands.
A Work in Progress,
Gene
Thanks Gene. You guys are making the job here in Iowa easier and I am excited about what God is going to do through us. Blessings, Tom