Church Plant Chat

Revitalisation Review: Asking the hard questions (Part 1)

• Paul Pavlou • Season 5 • Episode 54

Share episode

Episode 7: Asking the Hard Questions (Part 1)


Episode Summary

In this episode, we explore why asking hard, often uncomfortable questions is essential in church planting and revitalisation. The questions you ask can shape the culture you lead.


Key Topics Covered

·       The power of curiosity and courageous questioning

·       Why not asking hard questions leads to shallow planting

·       Real-life examples of tensions that need facing

·       How hard questions foster depth, clarity, and resilience

·       Practicing grace and truth in leadership conversations


Reflection Questions
·       What hard questions are you avoiding right now?

·       Are you creating space for others to speak honestly?

·       How do you respond to challenge—with defence or curiosity?

·       Where do you need to model vulnerability as a leader?

·       What difficult conversations might unlock growth in your context?


Connect & Continue the Conversation
Instagram: @churchplantchat

Email: churchplantchat@gmail.com

Subscribe for future episodes exploring insights from revitalisation, planting, and discipleship.

Support the show

Buy 'Journal of a Church Planter' here:

https://amzn.eu/d/dcFw9By

Speaker 1:

Hi everyone and welcome to episode 7. This is actually going to be a two-part episode on the topic of asking myself the hard questions. Out of all the episodes prepared for this season, this one and the next one are perhaps the ones I feel the most nervous about, as they uncover quite a few of the mistakes or, perhaps more positively, the learnings that I've made along the way. Not all of them, you know we don't want to be here all day, but I wanted to share these as it's all part of the learning right and hopefully it can help others who are on their journey to maybe avoid some of the same learnings or to go into this a little bit more prepared, with eyes open into some aspects of what it can be like. As I said, this is going to be split across two episodes, so let's get into part one. What did we do to prepare for the revitalization and how did we graft in so learning one? I should have chosen to be licensed at our sending church rather than the church we were inheriting.

Speaker 1:

We landed in Coventry in September 2021 and I got licensed in the church that we were grafting into, and I got licensed there straight away and then, over a nine month period spent most of my time with the sending church, which was also new to us. We weren't part of this church prior to moving to Coventry, so everything was alien. And over that nine month period I took some services at the church we inherited, whilst also chairing their PCCs over Zoom whilst still being at the sending church. And the key issue with this, if you haven't guessed it already, was that the authority I was given wasn't really being embedded and I was leading from a distance, both geographically and relationally, and stretched across two very different settings from day one. Had I been licensed at the sending church first, it would have given me more freedom to dictate when we would have been ready to migrate from the sending church to the church we grafted into. But because I'd already been licensed at the church we were inheriting, there was this kind of building pressure to move into there sooner rather than later, which you can understand from their point of view, although they weren't the ones necessarily pressuring me to do so. So each of these learnings build upon the other. So learning two building from that is that leading an inherited congregation from a distance with no relational foundation and driving change there at the same time is not ideal, would you believe.

Speaker 1:

It wasn't just day-to-day PCC meetings that I was leading from from afar. I had to help them get to a place of receiving the funding that had been agreed by the diocese and actually signing on the dotted line to receiving that and becoming employers and having this actual revitalization take place as a result, because if they didn't, my funding for my role wouldn't have been given either. And it became apparent, really, that the existing church that I inherited had either not been prepped well enough by the diocese or, if they had, they'd forgotten what it would actually entail. And I was chairing, you know, these PCC meetings of high level change management which people didn't really seem to have the heart or understanding of. And I'm trying to do that, or I was trying to do that, without really knowing any of them and whilst they did vote everything through, it was very difficult because I was trying to work with people who, essentially, were not ripe to receive a revitalization. They weren't ripe to receive a revitalization and I was implementing strategy without relationship. Said it before, strategy without relationship is a waste of time and consistent with this learning is that I hadn't been around the inherited church enough prior to migrating in. So my understanding of them and their culture was underdeveloped, which in turn affected communication, planning ideas, everything from the ground up basically planning ideas, everything from the ground up basically essentially effective listening and observation was missing ahead of us moving in, which in turn set us back a lot. We were working from a minus point rather than even just a generous zero.

Speaker 1:

And there's something I really want to highlight here because it's so important for any kind of revitalization project. In my opinion, there is something here about a shared responsibility across stakeholders when entering a revitalization like this. Ie, if it's Church of England, it's the diocese ie the diocese, the sending church, the church that's being graft planted into, and the planter. It's the duty of all four stakeholders to be aware and on board with what's going on and to have had the relevant conversations and work done together ahead of the revitalization taking place. So it's no one stakeholder's fault or blame, it's not just the diocese, it's not just the existing church, it's not just the sending church and it's not just the planters. Instead, it's actually a shared responsibility that needs to be built up from the beginning. Without that scaffold in place, which essentially is a pastoral scaffold, gaps like the ones that I'm highlighting about our project will form and it affects the trajectory and pace of the entire project, from a basic operational level through to high culture, vision setting, learning.

Speaker 1:

Three we grafted in too soon so arrived licensed end of August, beginning September 21. Then in May 2022, just nine months after licensing and landing on the ground, getting to know everyone from both churches, due to being licensed at the inheriting church, and also pressured by funders to develop plans quickly and to actually do stuff quickly because the money timeline was ticking, I, as the plant lead, felt very pressured to get started when really things were not in place relationally or operationally and I was far from ready. And I, with a few people from the sending church, migrated and some others on the fringe of a couple of other churches joined in too, not really as a team but, to be honest, just a few that wanted to come with Hayley and myself. In the main we were kind of strangers to each other. And then in the autumn term of 2022, some staff team joined in as well, including a curate, again all new to each other and the environment, entering a place which I hadn't really built relationship with ahead of that shift. So you can see and kind of guess at the problems we would have had with that in mind Again following on learning four, following from the last learning, I should have built the team and then moved in with them all, rather than flying solo and then building a team in the midst of being there. So we joined in with the traditional Eucharistic 9.30 service that was at the Inherited Church, and then, over a six-month period, I built up a team whilst being at the graft, rather than going in with a team formed from day one, and we then started missional activity and a new worshipping community at an 11am alongside the traditional. A couple of sub-learnings to note here.

Speaker 1:

The main team built was a paid staff, one from the funding we received. This is, of course, a huge blessing, right. Let's not try and say it's not. It's an amazing blessing, okay, however. However, where I went wrong with this is that I quickly had to focus my time and energy on the staff team in order that they could get things up and running, which meant that those that came with us were not brought into the inner circle, if you like, of things, as much as I would have liked. Nor were existing church members that we inherited, because the trust hadn't been built up because I was too removed, distance and relationally ahead of us going in.

Speaker 1:

Looking back, I would have brought all of them into the mix with much more intentionality and frequency from the word go, rather than trying to keep things separate. So, but cash comes at a cost, and one of the reasons for it going down this route whilst I'm not trying to get rid of any of my own responsibility in this is I had to create the plans, the vision and the strategy by myself, basically ahead of me going in, because of the pressure from funders to get documents and things in place ahead of moving in and things in place ahead of moving in, which created whether it was subconsciously or consciously, I guess a mentality for myself to carry things alone and do things alone and not invite that many others in. Again, hugely problematic, as you can imagine, and it may have just been a byproduct of having front loaded funding, but I could have balanced all these things better. Looking back and it's something to be mindful of if you're being given funding for a team staffing paid staff was also problematic in the sense that the existing congregation just a few of them, not all, and I do get it felt that it made them feel, I think, that their prior work was irrelevant because we were now having to get paid people in, and I do understand that dynamic. It's an alien thing and I understand where they were coming from. Even though I didn't strip away any responsibility or activity, this was kind of the story, or impression at least, that they had got themselves into. And so there was this cultural clash that set in very early on, which took a lot of time and relationship to clear up and regain traction on for moving forwards, and that didn't last forever. But at the very, very beginning it was an an issue. So it's something to be aware of. If you're getting front-loaded funding and bringing staff into a place which maybe isn't used to that, okay, like I said, it's a shared responsibility. Um, these learnings, you know it's on everyone to kind of work for a revitalization project to be as healthy as possible from the word go. So those were some of the things that were tricky. I mean there's plenty more, but let's let's talk about what went well in some of the preparation. So with the sending church I built relationships with the sending church quickly and well. I got on with their team. I got to know a few people from there to come with us whilst leading their students ministry for a bit. That was really enjoyable With the inherited church.

Speaker 1:

Some of the things that went well was that the good within the hard conversations we had at the beginning was that I always made sure I was up front, even if I had to say the phrase I don't know, which I have said a lot over the last four years, but I was always up front about what was coming and what was being done. So at times some of them may not have liked it, but at least they knew that I meant what I said and that I would see things through after I said them. And I didn't try to hide any of that from people and tried to be as gentle and kind throughout, although I'm sure there were times where I was probably more brash than I would have liked to have been. But probably the best thing in the prep was realising that the inherited church weren't ripe for the revitalisation, and so that forced me to acknowledge how dominant change management would be in my time here, which meant that I realised two things early on One, it kind of framed my ministry really and my vision.

Speaker 1:

One, what my purpose has been here which was, excuse me which was to break up the ground, to soften it, to sow and lay the foundations in order for the next person to come and water and nourish it. So my role, I realised quite early on, was to pave the way for someone. That's what I felt I had capacity and grace for, but likely I wouldn't have capacity and grace for the next chapter to follow on from that, which would be to build on the foundations that I'd laid. And actually that's come to pass. I've got through that phase and at the time of this recording I'm in the throes of getting ready to move on from here so that the next leader can come in and build. Point two I had become aware early on what the main things would be that I wouldn't compromise on in that time scale, which are preaching the gospel without restraint and starting missional activity as soon as possible, so to turn the church outwards once again.

Speaker 1:

And by coming to terms with the context here, what our start point was and some of the frustrations and where we were at relationally, I was able early on to reframe my approach and decide what were the main things I wouldn't budge on and how I could frame what I had capacity for in my time in leadership here, and so in doing so, it forced me to identify the missional opportunities early on, before even building a team, because other than the weekly lunch club for the elderly which is brilliant there wasn't actually much else happening here before we arrived other than the eucharistic service on a Sunday too. But within one term of getting the team here, we had three new missional outputs up and running, as well as revamping seasonal services like Christmas and outreach things that we had going on. So actually we were able to start with mission you know the out bit of the triangle really quickly, before we had any infrastructure or culture actually set. Mission was where we were front-footed. Actually we're now seeing four years on or technically three, because I was there for a year before the team. We're now seeing the fruits of that early work and the gospel is being preached regularly and it's opening up discipleship conversations and healthy challenge across the church and the community, which is brilliant.

Speaker 1:

So what would I do differently? Well, there's is spread across three areas preparation, pace and perceiving wins. So the first one, preparation. You probably can assume a lot of the things I've done differently in the prep just based on the learnings I've shared already. But as a summary, essentially I would have been more curious.

Speaker 1:

We spoke about curiosity in a previous episode. It dials into this area really importantly. So I would have been more curious and would have asked more of the right questions to discern for myself whether this church was ripe to receive a revitalization. Um, I came in very enthusiastic and quite naive, just to get on with it and didn't really do my homework in that area. So again, that shared responsibility comes in. Yes, you want people to pave the way for the planter, but actually you as the planter need to be prudent in how you assess what you might be taking on. So curiosity ahead of grafting in or revitalizing plants, and actually when you're doing that, you're discerning whether it's actually right to do it at all as well.

Speaker 1:

So some of the things I would ask I would have asked more of the diocese with the prep. I would have asked the diocese more questions about where the church really was with regards to finances and where their heads were at with change management to finances and where their heads were at with change management. I would have asked someone at the diocese to carry out a full church health survey ahead of me going in. I would have asked for a full history of the church's leadership over the years, the ups the downs. I would have asked whether they truly accepted that they had been in a state of decline across the church's life, or whether or not they hadn't accepted that yet. I would have asked for agreements to be in place for the change management process that was going to happen. You know something, a list of changes that people would have actually agreed to, including having some ex officio members on the PCC from the sending church ahead of me coming in. I would have also asked the diocese if they had given the resource church get their people embedded into their church that the planter would be inheriting so that they can build relationship ahead of them coming in. Are any of them able to be on the PCC? Like I just mentioned, how much discussion has been had between the sending church leader and the church wardens? What pastoral infrastructure has been set up across the project to help mediate conversations and to check in with the planter and the sending church leader in order to maintain open and safe conversations for existing church and new team joining? Essentially, it's pastoral scaffolding.

Speaker 1:

Second thing would be pace. So that's just briefly on preparation. Second thing pace. In a nutshell, I would have set the pace slower and I would have pushed back more against funders with regards to timing pressures. The problem is that funders bless them are very excited about these projects and they're investing into them and they want to see lots of stuff happening because they're excited. Right, I get it, you know it's good intent, but it doesn't always translate well onto the ground. So the problem is that funders had set their expectations, I believe, against maybe a blank canvas model of church planting rather than a graft revitalization plant, and you cannot have the same timelines or expectations for them. They're completely different in how they unfold on the ground.

Speaker 1:

So I would have slowed down and I would have held back from getting licensed at the church I inherited. I would have got licensed at the sending church until, and stayed there until, I was really ready to migrate. I would have also slowed down when we migrated into the church with people from the sending church. From the day that we moved to Coventry to the day that we migrated, it was only nine months, which, with the way things were set up, was no way near long enough to build up enough people to come with us or build proper relationships with Inherited Church and we also hadn't really built an official team by then and I would have slowed down starting a new service and considered waiting it out in order to understand the community better.

Speaker 1:

But again there was pressure from funders to get things up and running. If I were to do it again, I wouldn't have started our 11am worshipping community as quickly. I would have maintained the traditional, which I did, maintain it it's still going but I would have maintained the traditional and looked at maybe starting Messy Church earlier than we did and slowly maybe tweaking the traditional, so to end up producing a kind of spruced up traditional 9.30 or 11am alongside a 4pm messy church gathering on a Sunday. But you know there's hindsight right. Again I felt pressured to produce. I can't blame others for this. You know I need to take responsibility for my own insecurity, playing its part and confidence. And you know, at the moment we're now tweaking or have been tweaking and playing with things to work closer towards what I've just said. I would have done differently, but it's taken time, you know. Just remember cash isn't necessarily a problem, but cash comes at a cost. This kind of pressure to produce quickly is one of them.

Speaker 1:

Third thing, perceiving wins. Looking back, I was, I think, too focused on wanting big outcomes or, you know, I don't know what you want to call them maybe platform outcomes and wins and in doing that I misunderstood really our context and missed out, at least initially, on what God was doing here. I hadn't really had grasped a good enough understanding of estates ministry and estates planting, which is far more on on the ground, one-to-one relationship building, rather than big platform speaking, vision casting kind of stuff, and the wins I now perceive as wins, whenever the wins I thought I'd be looking for in planting. This is partly due to me not realizing that the winds of a graft revitalisation look very different to the winds of a blank canvas plant, at least early on they don't anyway, and I've had to learn to meet our people and the area where they're at and where my ministry is at as part of that, and I now see that for us the winds here are around helping this church to become healthy, and the way the Spirit seems to be doing that is by engaging us in what we've talked about before the ministry of the one, working with one person at a time on their own unique discipleship track and gradually helping people take one step at a time.

Speaker 1:

It's a slow work. We were also working with a backlog of decline in many areas of the church's life and so turning each of those around simultaneously whilst birthing these new blank canvas elements of church planting took time. And it has involved a lot of under the hood or underground work, the fruit of which takes time to emerge. You know, it's kind of that picture of the seed and all the roots growing underground which looks amazing. It's all this wonderful growth happening and developing structure forming underground, but on top of the soil you can't really see anything. That's what a lot of the revitalization in our project has been like, and it's only really in the last year that stuff has really started to push through the ground and emerge so that can impact what you see as the winds in the day-to-day of church life and culture shift. So the perceived wins here are small and our story here has become one of a series of consistent, small cultural change wins both within the church we've inherited and in the connections being made with the community that was outside of it. Small wins at the start that I wouldn't have perceived but I've learnt to cherish along the way.

Speaker 1:

So as we wrap up part one of this two-part episode. Here are some questions to consider, if you didn't have enough already around preparation, pace and perceived wins. One what homework on the church that you're looking to revitalise, have the diocese, your sending church and you done already? How much has been relationally invested ahead of you planting into that space? What is the pastoral scaffolding looking like? Number two what are the expectations of those that you're inheriting yourself, the diocese, the sending church and the funders for your project? These expectations will affect your planning and anticipated pace for the project. Number three essentially, are all the stakeholders having the right conversations at the right time, and is there an authentic unity or are they just kidding themselves? Number four what do you anticipate being the wins within your first year? Do any of these need to be challenged? How are you going to log and celebrate the wins, both expected or unexpected, that come your way?

Speaker 1:

Thanks for listening. If you didn't know already, there's an instagram account for this podcast, which is at church plant chat, where you can keep up to date with what's happening on the podcast and other bits about planting, but you can also dm me on there if you ever wanted to chat or pray. I can also be contacted by email at churchplant chat at gmailcom. Please do check out the show notes in the description. I'd love to connect with you. Do get in touch. Thank you for listening to part one. Coming up is part two. See you next time.