Theological schools sit at the crossroads of higher education and the church. Not surprisingly then, like most churches and institutions of higher education, the blessing and struggle of mission and resources is part of daily institutional life. Moreover, these organizations are made up of people – people who are not always pulling in the same direction, who define the Mission from different perspectives, and who may be looking out for the maintenance of their own areas of work rather than looking out for the common good of the institution as a whole.
Most theological schools would represent that they are under-staffed and under-resourced. They would say that the most important factors impacting their ability to fulfill their missions is a lack of human resources and a lack of money. Living daily with this perceived lack of resources may create a climate of scarcity. In a moment of theological clarity, they may define it as dependence upon God, but their daily living may still reflect a climate of scarcity. This may be a school that is running out of Money before it runs out of Mission, but this may also be a school that is living in a mission of the past without re-balancing or reorganizing itself to the mission of the present.
Still other theological schools live out of abundance. They may be blessed to have lots of students. Even more, they may be blessed to have lots of resources. Living daily in this perceived richness of Mission & Money may lead to an institutional climate of complacency. In a moment of theological clarity, they may experience it as a blessing of God, but their daily living my still reflect an environment of self-contentment. If not careful, this may be a school that runs of Mission before it runs out of Money. This may be a school that is too satisfied with today without interrogating the present to see the appropriate missional calling into the future.
This short-sightedness of strategic thinking in theological schools is common. The climate of scarcity keeps the challenge of the annual budget at the forefront of decision-making. The climate of complacency and contentment keeps schools from asking the deeper questions about appropriateness of Mission or the utilization of resources. As a result of these factors, I have come to recognize strategic thinking as following two distinct patterns in theological education: Incrementalism and Innovation.
Incrementalism. This is the type of strategic thinking that is characterized by tweaking, adjusting, or modifying in small, technical, and often insignificant ways. For example, schools that have budget challenges will cut their budgets in 1%-2% annual increments, never get to the point where they get out of deficit, and perpetuate the cycle of climate of scarcity. Year after year. Cut after cut. Never getting to where they need to be. Incrementalism might be the result of leadership who does not take adequate account of or seek the veracity of its grasp of Mission & Money.
Innovation. This type of strategic thinking is characterized by bold, imaginative, and adaptive action that leads to substantive and mission-inspired change. In the same example related to budget challenges, innovative strategic thinking and leadership seizes the opportunity to live out of the blessing of what God has already provided rather than wanting more. It radically rethinks the educational and economic paradigms to live into the institutional realities. By reimagining Mission & Money in light of the current realities and future possibilities, an innovative leader avoids incrementalism and sets up the future of Mission & Money to become a strength of the institution.
In the 1960s, ATS commissioned a group of financial folks led by Warren Deem to analyze and give a report about the state of graduate theological education at the time. In his report to the ATS membership, Deem reported on the four challenges facing theological education: (1) declining student enrollment; (2) reductions in student/faculty ratio; (3) small average size of seminaries; and (4) increasing costs per student. Sound familiar? I could provide you with data that shows that the issues raised by Deem are even more compelling today (almost 60 years later). Deem went on to say, "If survival is the only goal…it appears that most seminaries will survive. A more serious question confronting theological seminaries today, however, is not whether they can survive but whether they have the financial resources to change." If I could rephrase Deem's statement to include my own vernacular without changing the substance, this is what I would say, "If survival is the only goal of seminaries, it appears that an incremental approach will be sufficient for seminaries to survive. A more serious question confronting seminaries today, however, is not whether they can survive but whether they have the commitment to innovative strategic thinking that supports Mission and Money, considers intergenerational stewardship, and stays committed to having the institutional resolve to make the necessary change for the flourishing of their God-ordained missions."
(This is a section from a talk that I gave at the Kern Family Foundation Summit in June 2019. I use the phrase Mission & Money throughout the talk. In this talk, Money represents all of the resources -- human, financial, physical, and others -- available to fulfill in the mission.)
Do you think incrementally or innovatively? Does our institution think and act incrementally or innovatively? What steps could you take to begin to adjust in appropriate ways?