FAQs

TRANSITION YEAR Q&AS

POST-ANNUAL MEETING

Got more questions??? Want more answers???

(Most recent Q&As on top)

Added - 08-25-08

Q(6): On the website the transition schedule for January 2009 says: "ANNOUNCE: The proposed new strategic alliance".

What alliance are you referring to? I haven't seen anything on the web site to indicate that there was a proposal for a new strategic alliance. Am I missing something?

A(6): Maybe. It will help if you can consider the term "strategic alliance" as a generic term describing a working relationship either between someone with whom we are already working, or someone with whom we may be working in the future.

Currently, six strategic partnership groups (four neighboring districts and two IBC work groups) are preparing proposals or reports.

These proposals and reports will be evaluated by the Task Force... and a recommendation will be formulated. It is expected that their recommendation will describe some kind of new arrangement of people and resources—“the new strategic alliance”—you found on the website.

Q(7): By the continual use of the word "alliance" would it be fair to assume that you do not believe a "restart" is a viable option since it is never mentioned on the transition schedule? Or, does the word "alliance" include in it a "restart"?

A(7): The word “alliance” is intended to include any arrangements of peoples and resources, whether they come from within the current autonomous IBC district producing a restart, or whether they come from outside the district producing a merger, etc.

Q(8): So why call something within Iowa a new alliance?

A(8): To be viable, any restart within Iowa will require new resources… new arrangements between existing people… and/or new people! Otherwise, if the district would decide to keep using the same resources… and doing what it has been doing in the same way it has been doing it, and utilizing the same people to do it... while expecting different results... it would suffer the classic definition of “insanity!”

Added - 06-02-08

Q(1): At a Town Hall meeting, I noticed you (Skip Hansen) extended a rather open-ended invitation for lay people in the audience to get involved with aNEWthing process. What will be the extent of their involvement? And are all the district’s lay people going to be involved in "evaluating" all the future options?

A(1): We want as many lay people as reasonably possible engaged in various parts of this process. Of course it is not feasible for everyone to be directly involved in everything… and so participation is not without some limitations.

For example, all the lay persons who registered as IBC delegates have already begun their involvement… first by evaluating and electing the Board of Overseers (BOO)… then by delegating to the board the overall responsibility for aNEWthing! The registered delegates will remain involved by continuing to receive information… and passing it on to their church bodies throughout the year. With all that information in hand, they will also return next year to discuss and cast their votes.

In addition, throughout the year the Board of Overseers, (themselves comprised of lay persons and pastors,) regularly handles IBC’s business affairs… between annual meetings. As part of their involvement and oversight of aNEWthing!, these board members will be the ones who will "evaluate" all the options discovered during this process.

Q(2): So what exactly did you offer the rest of us at the Town Hall meetings?

A(2): I deeply regret and apologize that my invitation was not clear. What I intended to offer to other non-board lay persons was an opportunity to come beside me… to contribute to me whatever specialized counsel they might have… or to lend other special strengths in areas that I might identify as needful… as the process unfolded

Q(3): It feels a bit like you are just looking for "yes" men. Is that true?

A(3): Yes… and no!

First… YES! There’s an old saying that goes, “Too many cooks spoil the broth!” And no less authority than the Word of God says, "Is it possible for two to go walking together, if not by agreement?"

If even simple things like cooking or walking require agreement… how much more crucial is “agreement” when building and preparing a whole team… for playing an important game?

I’m using the metaphor of a game to describe the process. The IBC delegates (the owners,) have instructed the BOO (the coaches) to schedule IBC’s team to play in, and to win, a crucial high-stakes 12-month game—aNEWthing! To win this game, the players must correctly discover together the will of God… the new thing God has in His mind for the district!

The coaches have assigned the role of starting quarterback to the Director of Transition. So, he will be the one calling the plays in the huddle.

I am the quarterback… but people who know me, know my heart has always inclined toward team-building! As a leader, I love providing lots of people opportunity to get off the bench and get in the game! So I’ve invited anyone who wants a chance to play in this game to “raise their hand…” expressing their availability and desire to play.

But following the pattern of the Apostle Paul, (2 Timothy 2,) and for the success of this team, I am compelled to entrust the outcome of this crucial game only to players who are “faithful, available, and teachable…” in other words… those who demonstrate spiritual maturity and ability to “walk, play, and work” together well in the context of aNewthing!—discovering correctly together God’s will for the district!

Second… NO! Even great players occasionally argue about what play should be called in the huddle. A good quarterback knows that strong personalities will argue once-in-awhile. If kept in proper proportion, he knows it can make the team stronger. However, the quarterback must decide how much is helpful… versus how much will undermine his leadership… and become destructive to the welfare of the team.

Q(4): If I’m still interested… how can I get involved?

A(4): Remember what I said, “We want as many lay people as reasonably possible engaged in various parts of this process.” You can begin by sending me an email, or giving me a call.

Tell me what you think you may be good at in this particular metaphorical game—what skills you have (running, blocking, carrying or catching the ball) or what position are you interested in playing (e.g., editor, proof reader, spiritual counselor, prayer warrior, financial specialist, strategic planner, detail communicator, or chief cook and/or bottle washer, etc., etc.?)

Then… as the process unfolds, and I become aware of need for a particular kind of player… and am confident that a particular person can fit in and play well… I will delight in inviting that person to play on my team!

However… willing individuals should avoid becoming easily offended. Consider… if a team already has six running backs… who have proven they play well together… and already know the team’s rules and plays… it wouldn’t be common sense for someone who doesn’t know the team’s playbook, and has never practiced or played on the team, to expect to jump in at running back… once the game is already underway!

Q(5): If a lay person chooses not to get involved directly… but wants to know what is going on… is there a timeline by which district lay people will receive information?

A(5): Praise the Lord! Technology allows IBC to publish on its website far more information than any previous IBC administration has ever published anywhere! And it will continue to publish appropriate information in a timely manner.

However, this should not be interpreted as to infer that all possible information will be published.

The determination as to what is appropriate will be made by the Director of Transition, either alone or in consultation the BOO and/or other teammates.

Ultimately, as the process moves forward, the BOO will determine whether more, or less, information should be made publicly available.

PRE-ANNUAL MEETING

(Most recent Q&As on top)

Added - 04-10-08

15(Q). Much of IBC’s communication uses the word “alliances.” Doesn’t this imply some kind of merger, partnership, marriage or whatever—in other words somehow adding ourselves to someone else, or adding someone else to us?

15(A): Yes. See the email newsletter article March, 2008, entitled “We Are Not Alone.”

In reality we are already seeking input, advice, counsel (rudimentary “partnerships?”) with others through whom we anticipate God will help us meet our needs. The depth, breadth and length of each of these alliances are undetermined at this time. Whether any of these, or any other, will become permanent is undetermined at this time.

Making these kinds of determinations will be our principle focus… if the delegates vote to proceed with a NEW thing!, over the coming year,

While the IBC Board of Overseers and staff’s considered opinion is united in their anticipation that some sort of an “alliance” will be part of the IBC’s future picture, at this early date, nothing (including continued autonomy) has been removed from the table. It will be the Pastors at the Statewide LEAD meeting who will begin to narrow the field.

16(Q): How can those pastors accomplish such a major task in only two days?

16(A): First, I’m expecting our pastors will be well-prepared and well-versed during the weeks prior to the May 1-2 meeting. They will be constantly directed to stay up-to-date with the growing information on our IBC website. Pastors will also be participating in face-to-face discussions at their regular regional LEAD meetings. And… over the coming weeks they will have additional opportunities to participate in regional town hall meetings with other pastors and lay persons. That’s a lot of preparation!

Secondly, our purpose (our “major task”) will not be to come up with a final proposal… but rather a list of possibilities that seem best for us to investigate further. This isn’t a win-lose, fight-for-right proposition… but simply a narrowing of the funnel… moving us into more focused investigation… whatever direction(s?) they deem best.

Thirdly, during the statewide meeting, I will be facilitating the process using some group decision-making techniques that have proven effective every time I have used them in the past.

All in all, I believe we will come to that meeting having already established the requisite right relationships, provided adequate time, and having proven procedures in place which will help facilitate a good Spirit-led decision-making process.

17(Q): Do you see any trends emerging from the first survey… inside and outside the box ideas?

17(A): Yes. I see some interesting trends. Here are a couple threads.

First, while most/many surveys focused on a wide array of variations involving new alliances, I also found a significant thread of ideas pointing toward, or favoring, some kind of re-alignment of our existing ministry in a manner that would allow the IBC to retain its autonomy. My guess is this idea may survive the narrowing process on May 1-2… and receive further examination next year.

A second thread weaves its way around our camping ministry at Pine Lake. My guess is this will be the most passionately discussed topic of a NEW thing! I will remind everyone that these discussions will require the greatest maturity and sensitivity to one another… and responsiveness to the Spirit who dwells within each of us!

18(Q): Do you know how much IBC’s camp at Pine Lake is worth?

16(A): No. No one actually knows its exact value. But, everyone associated with Pine Lake knows it has real value... both spiritual and financial!

19(Q): Why doesn’t the IBC board or staff know its dollar value?

17(A): Historically, the IBC has focused more on the spiritual value than the financial value of the camp. Frankly, IBC has never had occasion to determine it.

In addition, its value is constantly shifting. Over the past fifty years IBC has purchased many additional small parcels of property… combining these piecemeal... and physically changing the whole facility… one building, one concrete-pour and one nailed-board at a time. The focus is usually pressing forward to get ready for the next camp… and not the next "appraisal."

20(Q): Wouldn’t it be important to know its value?

18(A): No… and yes. I don’t mean to be evasive… over these decades… the Board of Overseers has not deemed it important to know the dollar value. (See above.)

But also… yes. However… its dollar value is directly related to one’s intended purpose. For example… what would a property like ours be worth...

For personal residence/estate purpose: For most people, it would probably have minimal or no value. But an uniquely qualified person might see our property as having great potential as a family estate! Value: Unknown today.

For partial agricultural purpose: For a local farmer... our ~15 tillable acres and ~5 acres of timber… purchasing the entire 49 acres @ $3500/acre = potential value $171,500.

For a “commercial” camp or other “developmental” purpose: Our property features— 49 acres, a six-bedroom/eight bathroom lodge, a three bedroom house, an A-frame cabin, a dozen other buildings, a swimming pool, a dining hall, a meeting hall, a basketball court, and direct access to Pine Lake State Park… plus that ~5 acres of maturing walnut trees.

For Tax purpose (if IBC property were taxable): Although IBC received a donation of $250,000 for the construction of Parr Lodge, Hardin county has assessed the entire property value at $267,620.

So back to the original question… what’s the value of Pine Lake? As the old saying goes, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” so it is with “the value” of this piece of property called Pine Lake Christian Camp.

There is a TV commercial which draws attention to the dollar cost of various activities … and then ascribes a more intrinsic value to the event… its memories… which are deemed… “priceless”?

The donors who funded the construction of our camp have always assessed Pine Lake's spiritual value on generations over the past fifty year as… "priceless."

Others may still be interested to know the dollar value.

21(Q): But still… why not find out today what our property is worth right now?

19(A): Actually, at various times, the IBC Board of Overseers (BOO) has discussed obtaining an official appraisal or market value analysis. But the BOO has always decided against it.. for the following reasons.

Appraisals for such properties are very difficult. They involve professional research, analysis and comparison against recent sales of “comparable” properties. Without comparable properties, (in both current time frame and regional location,) such an “appraisal” has little meaning and questionable value.

Appraisals are time-is-of-the-essence documents. They quickly expire… as well as subject to the upturns and downturns in the real estate market.

THEREFORE: Historically, the BOO has consistently concluded that spending hard-earned donor’s dollars to acquire something as “soft” as an appraisal would not be good stewardship … an expensive misuse of lour imited resources… and ultimately inappropriate since we were not actually preparing to sell the property.

However, if the IBC were to place itself in a position where an appraisal would be appropriate, the BOO would want obtain one! At that time we will ALL know what the dollar value answer to what Pine Lake is “worth!”

22(Q): I’m not sure I’m comfortable with Skip Hansen serving as the Transition Director. Can he effectively serve as a truly unbiased consultant after having served all these years as the Iowa DEM?

20(A): First, it is important to understand that the whole concept of me serving in this role originated with the president of the BGC, and others among the DEM’s council. (Personally, when this subject arose, I was preparing to seek ministry placement elsewhere.) These national leaders know me well... and counseled that I was the appropriate person to serve this transitory role.

Second, I humbly serve the district at the pleasure of the Board of Overseers. If by any measure they deem me inappropriate, biased, or whatever, I shall graciously seek continue to seek ministry placement elsewhere.

Third, I openly acknowledge this one bias: I care passionately about the future health of the ministry in Iowa. But… having chosen not to be a participant in that future… I thereby do not have a personally vested interest( or stake) in the outcome.

If aNEWthing! is confirmed at the annual meeting, my position is that “Everything is on the table.” I have pledged, “I will not press for my own personal preferences.” And as a man of integrity, I offer myself to be held publicly accountable for those statements.

So what is my agenda? My agenda is to "finish well" by lending my skills and strengths in assisting those folks who will remain in Iowa after I am gone... to determine, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, their own future for themselves. I recognize they are the ones who have to be satisfied… not me.

There is one caveat. Hopefully everyone understands that, in the end, no one person (or church) should expect to “get their own way” about everything. Some may not “get their way” about anything. Hopefully that reality will not result in any unfounded charge of “bias” against any transition leader personally.

23(Q): Is there any unique benefit that IBC gains from having Skip Hansen serve as Transition Director?

21(A): Yes, I believe so. Over the past 7+ years, I have gained a great deal of personal knowledge and built positive personal relationships in the district, with BGC national leaders, and other district executive ministers. I am aware of the historic broad spectrum (various points of view) among IBC’s people. And I know where the various “hot buttons” are!

This "knowledge base," combined with these positive personal relationships, uniquely position me to serve the district as a "bridge" to any potential parties that might become involved in our process.

24(Q): If you serve as Transition Director, what will be your guiding philosophy?

22(A): This might seem like “geek talk.” So many readers may want to skip this!

Boiled down to its essence, I believe this is a problem solving situation.

Philosophically… (and spiritually,) I approach every problem believing it has a solution. But since the days of Adam… we live in a world without perfect human solutions… only imperfect solutions accompanied by more problems. But… any good solution is accompanied by smaller problems than those one started with.

The problem solving process is a journey through a series of “problems/solutions” cycles… until one reaches a final satisfactory solution (accompanied by its acceptably smaller problems).

Therefore, over the coming year, as IBC leaders suggest/examine/sort through various solutions (strategic alliances or ministry re-alignments), one of my key roles will be to use my "knowledge base" to alert decision makers regarding associated problems that may be unknown to them… so that adequate solutions can be found.

This process will continue until we arrive at a final solution—one that Magnifies God and satisfies the needs of the district churches… a solution with the fewest and most-manageable problems in the end.

Does that make sense?

25(Q): We are the smallest BGC district. Has BGC established a “standard of viability,” or any minimum requirements for what it takes to create or maintain a district?

23(A): No. As historic Baptists, we function by, and sometimes feud over, our autonomy! Since districts were never formed “top-down” by the national BGC organization… the national office has never established standards of viability for a district.

Some forty years ago… there was informal agreement that by tithing to a "district," a group of ten churches could afford one staff person (district minister, secretary, or superintendent.) Such intimate alliances were beneficial… but limited in what they could accomplish. Those “baby” districts depended fully upon those church tithes… hoping for the ministry to mature (“grow up”) as more tithing churches were birthed, or joined them!

More recently, the informal agreement for the number of churches necessary to form a "district" was thirty churches! (Churches weren’t tithing anymore.)

Most recently, one DEM’s informal research led him to conclude that “number-of-churches” was the wrong parameter for determining district viability… due to the widely inconsistent level of each church’s financial support. (For example, considering churches of equal size in the following: If 10 churches @ 10% are necessary to fund a viable district... it would take 100 churches @ 1% to accomplish that same result. Whereas, 20 churches… @ 3%… wouldn’t create a viable district.)

Therefore, he asserted the measuring stick for district viability should be money… (a pre-determined level of financial support.) He calculated it would require ~ one million dollars per year to operate an effective district… not including any camping ministry.

NOTE: IBC will operate on $530K next year… with ~$367K committed to our camp. The remaining $164K supports the balance of our ministries. By either measure, our IBC reality reflects an unsettling difference… from $1M.

26(Q): Is the (ill) health of the district related to ill-health in our churches?

24(A): That is a good question. I would NOT call IBC “unhealthy”… but under-funded. There are many powerful and meaningful ministries taking place today.

Of course there is a connection between an organization's finances… and its “health.” And therefore, there is a connection between the health of IBC churches and the partnerships into which they enter.

I think the entire IBC constituency would benefit greatly, in many ways, from a renewed Holy Spirit of generosity! For example, local churches could/would be stronger if their people tithed! Ask the pastors.

Unfortunately, churches often get trapped in the belief they do not have enough money… beset by a “scarcity” mindset… perhaps weaker faith… or perhaps a fear of taking great risks for a great God. Combined with a strong focus on local church autonomy, independence and freedom… and we can expect to see churches focusing mostly on their close-to-home ministries… and world missions. The result is what I call, "a missing middle ministry."

However, I also see churches where they excitedly engage planting other churches… or proactively lending their strength to neighboring regional churches. And when I do see those kinds of churches… those appear to be both spiritually “healthy” and growing as well!

ADDED - 02-13-08

11(Q): I understand Skip Hansen's role and title are changing. What’s the actual difference for Skip… between being the "DEM" and being the "Transition Director"?

11(A): The most visible difference will be his focus.

As Transition Director, Skip has been assigned a focus on designing and implementing a multifaceted, district-wide, year-long process exploring potential new strategic alliances and ministry alignments.

This comprehensive process will engage both IBC pastors and lay leaders, as well as various entities outside the IBC, throughout the course of the year.

For an overview of the process check out this website’s Process At-A-Glance page.

The Transition Director's primary day-to-day focus will be on discontinuity, change and transition… instead of a DEM’s normal focus on continuity and sustaining IBC’s “business-as-usual” each day. However, Skip will retain some level of involvement in certain selected situations where his continued participation is deemed necessary.

Less visible will be the “handing off” of various portions of the DEM role to others. For example, several pastors have been trained to assist neighboring churches with their search committee process—Ministry Placement Network. IBC staff and LEAD team head coaches also will be asked temporarily to take a more proactive role wherever it is appropriate and feasible.

12(Q): Why bother to change Skip’s title from "DEM" to "Transition Director"?

12(A): Again, it is a matter of focus. Changing the DEM’s title to Transition Director will help everyone across the conference focus-in on the reality that some kind of transition is being explored… and is expected to take place by the end of next fiscal year.

13 (Q): What’s the actual difference for Skip… between being the DEM and the Transition Director?

13(A): The most visible difference will be his focus.

As Transition Coordinator, Skip has been assigned responsibility to design and implement a multifaceted, district-wide, year-long process exploring potential new strategic alliances and ministry alignments.

This comprehensive process will engage both IBC pastors and lay leaders, as well as various entities outside the IBC, throughout the course of the year.

For an overview of the process check out this website’s Transition Year At-A-Glance page.

The Transition Coordinator’s primary day-to-day focus will be on discontinuity, change and transition… instead of a DEM’s normal focus on continuity and sustaining IBC’s “business-as-usual” each day. However, Skip will retain some level of involvement in certain selected situations where his continued participation is deemed necessary.

Less visible will be the “handing off” of various portions of the DEM role to others. For example, several pastors have been trained to assist neighboring churches with their search committee process—Ministry Placement Network. IBC staff and LEAD team head coaches also will be asked temporarily to take a more proactive role wherever it is appropriate and feasible.

14(Q): Wouldn't it be best for us to brainstorm face-to-face rather than through individual surveys?

14(A): Yes! My guess is the best brainstorming will be done during the LEAD team meetings. The survey materials will serve as the seed-for-thought, the launching point, for the face-to-face discussions!

ADDED - 02-06-08

1(Q): I’ve heard about something called a NEW thing! What is it?

1(A): The BOO has reviewed the results from “Five Loaves and Two Fish,” considered our overall situation, and is recommending a NEW thing!

a NEW thing! sets aside next year for us to focus on exploration and transition--pursuing a new strategic alliance of some kind!

The rest of this special website describes the entire process by which we will seek to discover that new strategic alliance. The intended outcome will be some kind of new alignment of the ministries we are currently sharing together as the IBC.

2(Q): Is this decision made? Is it a done deal? Who actually gets to decide if the IBC moves forward on the Board of Overseers (BOO) recommendation next year?

2(A): The constituent delegates at annual meeting will decide on May 3. They will vote to approve/disapprove the BOO’s recommendation to pursue a NEW thing!

3(Q): I’ve heard some people suggest IBC is “dead-in-the-water!” Aren't we really “closing up shop?”

3(A): No. IBC is certainly NOT dead-in-the water. We are not closing up shop!

We are making some temporary alterations in the size of the load we are carrying right now, but we are maintaining our existing ministry course—mobilizing, multiplying, and creating spiritual memories that last a lifetime!

4(Q): With all the cutback, I've heard about, it still feels like a funeral. Am I wrong?

4(A): The most accurate image is that of an impending marriage… not a funeral. We are looking forward to a new union… a new life… a new future!

Brides and grooms want to look their best. To prepare for their wedding, they often choose to shed some weight before the big day! At the wedding, a father may shed some tears as he “gives away” his beloved daughter. But as he watches his beautiful daughter walk the isle, he sees a new son-in-law! Seeing them together, he looks forward to the grandkids!

With a new strategic alliance, the ministries we share together in IBC today can be carried on and multiplied… greater than ever before!

Roger Sutton gave me another great image--an hour glass. Right now, we may feel turned upside down. But keep in mind, after the squeeze, our all-important “sand,” (our ministries,) will continue flowing in the other chamber!

5(Q): You mentioned “marriage.” Do you mean “merger?”

5(A): Not necessarily. Merger will be only one of the things on the "menu."

6(Q): What “menu?”

6(A): Over the next 60-90 days, I will be working with a group of "Brainstormers!" They will be brainstorming… creating that two-page “menu”… listing all the possible scenarios we can think of for our future.

I suspect "merger" will among the items on the menu's first page. That page will focus on “inside the box” options... those “normal” ideas we all have… such as various ways of merging one district with a neighboring district.

But the menu will also have a second page. This page will focus on "outside the box” options. I'll be asking a group of people to stretch their minds and faith... and give us some great “outside the box” God-sized ideas… such as???… well, maybe you can help us fill in the blank!?

The Brainstormers will include pastors and lay leaders. We will be utilizing interviews, on-line surveys, LEAD team meetings, and Town Hall Meetings.

7(Q): What will happen with all those menu options?

7(A): Nobody at a restaurant eats everything on the menu! Neither will we! We will “focus in”... narrowing down our options to a smaller group of “best choices.”

8(Q): Who will narrow down the menu to the “best choices?”

8(A): Our pastors will gather for our annual Statewide-LEAD meeting May 1.

Together they will review and assess all the menu options received by that date… and maybe create a few new ones!

Together, they will review, assess and prioritize all the ideas. Then they will select a manageable few.

These few selections will be presented the following day to the annual meeting delegates. We want our delegates to know what kind of a New thing! we will be pursuing over the coming year.

9(Q): A year seems too long! Why can’t we just “get on with it?” Can’t we let the BOO make the decision and move forward!

9(A): No. There are a lot of people involved… both in Iowa as well as among our potential partners. Think back to the “marriage” concept. A great marriage is built on making the right decisions… not quick decisions!

A “great match” takes time.

Local church's pulpit/search committees spend significant time gathering crucial information to help them understand themselves and who they are looking for as God’s "best match” pastor.

As a district we also need to spend time identifying who we are… discovering what we want to preserve, what we want to avoid, and what we want to achieve in the future.

We need to produce an accurate profile… so that potential partners can know what we are bringing to the table of any “marriage.”

IBC churches want a voice in their future.

For forty churches to move forward together, we need to provide them ample opportunity to help shape our profile. We also need to provide them enough time for them to evaluate and make their own good decision regarding their participation in the proposed alliance.

On the other side, potential partners won’t want to feel pressured or rushed. They will have their own processes that will require time. They will want to be certain they are making a good decision as they consider a new strategic alliance and new ministry alignment with us.

10(Q): "Change" makes my church a bit nervous. What happens if my church "holds back" until we see which way the “wind is blowing.” How will that decision impact the IBC?

10(A): Holding back will hurt the IBC’s current ministries… and will also hurt any potential relationship we seek to develop with others.

Over the coming year IBC must continue to meet our responsibilities—helping churches without pastors, helping existing pastors/churches remain together and strong, helping our church planters grow their churches, helping our camp touch hundreds of spiritual lives, and lending strength to one another as we work carefully through a year of transition.

The added financial burden of any churches “holding back” will not only make our current ministry less effective and less focused, but will damage our future potential as well.