I’ve had a few conversations lately about new areas of ministry that our church is considering. I have not been alone in wondering at what point pursuing every opportunity that comes our way may becomes counterproductive, and may stretch us too thin. I am of the mindset that it is better to do a few things well than a lot of things poorly. We see so many needs around us, and there are so many opportunities to serve, it’s hard to say no. But the way I see it, whenever you say yes to something, you are saying no to any number of other things. When I say yes to serving on a new committee that meets every Wednesday night, I am saying no to spending that time with my family, or with friends, or praying, etc. How does a church (or an individual, for that matter) make these decisions about when to slow down and concentrate on excellence in what is already happening? Is there a way to do that and remain flexible enough to follow the Spirit wherever it may lead?

I know some folks who have quite a bit of money, and are generous with sharing it. The other day I was talking with friends about their strategy of giving money, that it is does more good to give large sums to a few organizations rather than smaller amounts to many different charities. I wondered if our “ministry capital” works the same way. God has infinite resources at his disposal, but individuals and congregations are only called to be stewards of the time, gifts, and resources that they have. I wondered what would happen at our church with 300 very capable people, if we picked two or three issues in our city and encouraged everyone to focus their time and energy on those. In a small city, with some real problems in areas like affordable housing and public education, a group of 300 committed people could have big impact.

Is committing to just a few things a good idea for a church, and if so, how do you get there?

I just got back from a very full weekend retreat with our High School students. We narrowly escaped disaster many times - here’s a sample:
1) I lost the keys to our rental van while I was snowboarding. There was no spare key - so there was no way to get home if I didn’t find them. A bunch of dreadlocked stoner guys found them on the side of the mountain and had the good will to call the number of the rental company on the keys. What are the odds?
2) We got about 18″ of snow overnight on our last night there. We needed to be out of town by 9:00 to be on track to get the kids and the rental vans back on time. We got everyone dug out and were gone by about 9:15. One of my youth leaders, a SoCal native with no snow driving experience, was driving my truck with our luggage and spun off the road. He didn’t hit anything, or get stuck.
3) One of the students, a first time snowboarder, took a nasty spill and earned a free snowmobile ride down the mountain and to the first aid cabin. What looked like a sure trip to the ER ended up being just a sprain.
4) On the way home we had gusts of wind like nothing I have ever seen. I felt like I was driving a sailboat. The wind ripped a 2′ x 5′ lid completely off of one of our coolers. It tore the hinges in half. Rather than smashing into a windshield of oncoming traffic, it bounced off into the desert, like a tumbleweed.

Are all these happy endings just coincidences? I have no evidence to suggest otherwise, but I am perfectly happy giving God the credit for how lucky we were. Last night as I was going to bed I played all of these situations out in my head, imagining they gone the other way. I thanked God repeatedly for these little moments of grace this weekend that made all the difference.

I’ve been thinking and writing about a lot of heavy things lately. Maybe it’s a good time for a movie review. I saw The Queen on a plane, and was pleasantly surprised, as it is not a movie I think I would have sought out on my own. I’m not the least bit interested in the British monarchy. Maybe I liked it more than I normally would have because it was free.

Many people believe that we are currently experiencing a shift from a “modern” to a “postmodern” era. I think that is what this film is about. It is about how England, in general, and this Queen, in particular, are navigating this cultural shift. The stoic, distant, out-of-touch Queen Elizabeth II is juxtaposed against the young, casual, and politically savvy Tony Blair. Based at least loosely in reality, the plot revolves around how the royal family responds in the days immediately following the unexpected death of Princess Diana.

The Queen represents those who are anchored to all things modern, and confused by how the old ways of doing things suddenly don’t work anymore. It is about her struggle to accept the new ways that power and meaning are governed in the postmodern world, and her choice to adapt, or die. For me, the most interesting scenes of the film involved a sub-plot where a majestic stag was hunted and eventually killed. The Queen has an encounter with the deer, and realizes that she is looking in a mirror. This stag is powerful and magnificent, but is unable to compete with the technology of humans, and becomes easy prey for the hunters and their guns. While it may have ruled the woods at one time, that day has passed. The Queen seems to learn from the fate of the deer, and finds the humility to adapt and survive.

The Queen is portrayed, surprisingly, as an underdog. The film paints a sympathetic portrait of her as someone who is doing her best to fulfill her duty in the way she was raised. This is a woman without any real authority who is disliked, even despised, by her people. As an essentially private person living the most public life imaginable, she is misunderstood.

I’m at a conference for my denomination (The Evangelical Covenant Church) this week, and on Tuesday I went to a seminar on revitalization in the church. The presenter laid out a framework of four types of churches, and asked us to place our churches in one of these four categories. The categories are: healthy missional churches, stable churches, critical moment churches, and at-risk churches. Here are the criteria they suggested as a way to measure what kind of church you have:
• People coming to Christ
• People integrating Scripture into life
• People engaging God in worship
• People growing in Christ
• People serving with their gifts
• People loving and caring for each other
• People rallying around a compelling vision
• People trusting one another and working collaboratively
• People meeting compassion, justice, and mercy needs in their community
• People believe in the leaders and the leaders believe in the people
Healthy missional churches experience these indicators routinely, stable churches experience them occasionally, critical moment churches experience them rarely, and at-risk churches do not experience them at all. I think any effort at trying to statistically categorize something like a church community is awkward and will have omissions, but I think this method is better than most I’ve seen. I think these indicators are better than the ways we often measure health (attendance, budget, property, etc.)

I said I thought that my church, Pasadena Covenant, was a “stable church” by these standards, where most of these things happen, but not on a regular basis. Here is what they said life is like in a stable church: We feel safe and comfortable, we are self-sufficient, everything is in order organizationally, we are doing fine – why change? The presenter went on to talk about how stable churches were actually the hardest to move towards being healthy and missional, because people have become comfortable and have no sense that anything needs to change. Stable churches are alive and active, but typically lack a sense of excitement, creativity, and are more focused inwardly than outwardly. In these churches there is not a lot of risk taking, because so much is invested in the status quo and most of the energy goes towards maintaining the church as an institution.

I think there are many signs of life to celebrate at our church, but this seminar was a good reminder that it is important to talk honestly about shortcomings we might be blind to.

So I’m in Denver this week for a pastor’s conference. The temperature right now (in honor of John Elway, I presume) is 7 degrees. Last night I went out on the town with some friends and was surprised how many people were out on the streets of downtown Denver asking for money, even in this extreme cold. I didn’t give anybody any money (or food, or time, or anything but a smile and a “sorry, not tonight”). I almost never give money to people asking for it. If I take the time to do anything, I might buy a sandwich or just try to strike up a conversation - but that dosent’ happen very often. I usually just walk away, last night to a trendy restaurant, feeling a bit like the characters in the Good Samaritan parable who just walk by. This morning as I logged on to my two hours of free wireless, there was a link to a website (http://www.giveabetterway.org/) dedicated to convincing you not to give to panhandlers. The logic is that giving money dosen’t really solve the problems of the people on the street, and likely just keeps them there and possibly feeds their addictions. This site suggests donating to an orginization that provides for the “real needs” of the homeless: job training, mental health care, rehab. This makes sense to me, and is the logic behind my decision to not give out money. It makes sense to me logically, but I am still always left with these feelings of guilt and doubt after I walk by the homeless. Anybody have any suggestions for what you do with these kinds of encounters?

By the way, if you feel compelled to donate to some folks who are working to help homeless people, may I suggest Christ House, a 32 bed facility in Washington, DC that provides 24-hour a day medical care for the homeless (http://www.christhouse.org/).