Innovation in theological education is not a single idea or program but a way of being shaped over time through shared practices, systemic thinking, and deep organizational alignment rooted in mission.
That conviction anchors a conversation in the In Trust Center’s Practicing Innovation video series titled “Integrated Innovation.”
Hosted by Greg Henson, president of Kairos University, and featuring Brent Sleasman, Ph.D., president of Winebrenner Theological Seminary, the video’s thesis is that innovation becomes sustainable only when it is embedded in the daily life, structures, and culture of an institution.
Henson opens the conversation by naming a common temptation in higher education: equating innovation with launching a new program or solving an isolated problem. Sleasman elaborates, gently but firmly: True innovation, he argues, is systemic. It recognizes that “everything affects everything,” and that sustainable change requires attention to how information flows, how decisions are made, and how people across an organization truly understand their shared purpose.
As Sleasman illustrates, this insight at Winebrenner led to rethinking inherited siloed structures. Rather than separating academics, marketing, governance, and denominational relationships into distinct lanes, Sleasman describes intentionally creating shared meeting spaces where information is held in common.
When all stakeholders have access to the same information, every touchpoint can reflect the institution’s mission more faithfully, he says.
This integrated approach challenges long-standing assumptions about how organizations function. It also requires a willingness to move beyond the illusion that any one leader or department must control every decision. Innovation, Sleasman suggests, emerges not from tighter control but from deeper trust and collaborative effort.
Integration That Produces Real and Lasting Outcomes
The impact of this way of thinking is not merely theoretical, Sleasman says. Over the past several years, Winebrenner has reduced the cost of education to roughly one-third of what it once was, doubled enrollment, and decreased its annual budget by nearly $1 million. Notably, these outcomes did not come from adding new degree programs or expanding bureaucracy. Instead, they resulted from aligning people, structures, and decision-making around a shared mission.
This shift also extended to governance. Board committee meetings became more collaborative and action-oriented, functioning less as reporting mechanisms and more as spaces for shared discernment. The goal was not efficiency for its own sake, but alignment, ensuring that faculty, staff, board members, and administrators were solving the same problems in service to the same mission.
From Holding Permission to Permission Giving
One of the most significant cultural changes Sleasman describes is moving from “permission-withholding” to “permission-giving” leadership.
In many institutions, authority is concentrated at the top levels of administration, and innovation stalls while faculty and program staff wait for approval to proceed. Winebrenner instead sought to create systems where mission clarity itself grants permission for people to act.
If an initiative advances the institution’s mission and aligns with its strategic priorities, Sleasman argues, leaders should feel empowered to act, while keeping others informed so that the institution’s initiatives remain integrated.
This is not abdication of responsibility but a reframing of accountability, he says. Leaders remain connected, not so much as gatekeepers, but as collaborators and celebrants of good work.
Underlying this shift is a deeper theological claim: There is one mission, one kingdom purpose. When organizations take that seriously, artificial hierarchies and information barriers begin to lose their power.
Using Innovation As a Path for Organizational Formation
Henson names this process as a kind of “organizational formation.” Just as individuals are shaped through spiritual disciplines and practices, institutions are formed by the habits they repeat. Meetings, communication structures, decision-making processes, and assumptions about authority all discipline an organization into a particular way of being.
Sleasman adds a prophetic dimension to this insight, noting that theological education has sometimes prioritized professional identity over discipleship.
Reclaiming innovation as a spiritual practice requires re-centering identity in the gospel rather than in credentials, titles, or academic guilds.
Alignment, then, begins to transcend the merely structural and becomes something more spiritual.
A Long Path of Faithfulness
As the conversation draws to a close, both leaders note what has been absent: There is no silver-bullet program, no single initiative to replicate. Winebrenner has actually reduced the number of programs it offers, focusing instead on widening access points and removing unnecessary barriers to participation.
Innovation, in this vision, is a long game. In fact, for an institution, it unfolds over years of intentional practice, trust-building, and shared discernment.
In the end, it is less about what institutions build and more about who they are becoming.
For theological schools navigating uncertainty, Henson and Sleasman offer a hopeful reminder: When innovation is rooted in mission, shaped by shared practices, and sustained through alignment, it becomes not merely a strategy for survival but instead a faithful way of supporting the church and fostering new expressions of ministry.
And that should be good news.
For the full video, visit bit.ly/ITPracticingInnovation
