I was struck by Adams's three diagnostic questions that he put to his team at their "crisis" meeting - they were well formulated to stimulate thinking about what needed to change in the church's ministry and why. I wonder however if the same approach would have worked quite so well if the appetite for change wasn't already there? Presumably you'd have to ask different questions to try to elicit anticipation of long-term needs.

I agreed with:

The basic premise, beautifully encapsulated as: "Leading change is not about manipulating others to do things your way. It’s a process of discovery that opens a person’s mind to new possibilities."

I disagreed with:

nothing in particular, just that I would nuance the long-term, anticipatory thinking based on my experience of being on the buildings project committee at my church. We anticipated the need for better buildings years back - including better facilities for youth groups - but then the death of our vicar and Covid set these plans back by nearly a decade. So any anticipation of long-term need to be adjusted in the light of unforeseen forced changes.

I agreed with pretty much everything written in this chapter. The visual of the best times to bring about change were really helpful, trying to change just as the ministry is beginning to arch downwards.

I didn't really disagree with anything. Similarly to Jonathan, I think that this may be a slightly idealistic representation of change. This chapter seems very helpful for getting a change off the ground, but it seems it could be strengthened with a bit more on how to/whether to maintain a change. Perhaps that is a later chapter in the book.

Like Jonathan, I enjoyed the usefulness of the 3 questions to bring awareness to the other leaders of the need to change, even though in my experience many times to the last question: "are we being successful?" the answer has been "yes, for the most part"

I agree that as culture and society are in constant change, the church needs to adapt as well to the newer challenges our children face, while remembering and upholding the unchanging truth of God's Word!

I disagree that the change needs to be something at the very "core" or "foundation" of the ministry (if that is what the author is discussing about). If the foundation is pretty solid already (like a ministry that adops a purpose-driven method), the change needed over time might be "secondary" on the topics or approach used, rather than systematic.