Theological schools confronting enrollment pressures, shifting ministry pathways, and rapid cultural change may need to prepare for something deeper than program innovation or new marketing strategies. According to leadership consultant Aaron Einfeld, the real work ahead may involve a difficult but necessary reality: loss.
“All change begins with loss,” Einfeld said on a recent episode of the Good Governance podcast. “People don’t necessarily fear change or resist change. They resist the vulnerable feeling that change inevitably creates, and they resist the loss.”
Einfeld, founder of Awaken Leadership Solutions and a longtime leader in theological education, said seminaries and their governing boards may need to recognize that navigating the current environment will require not only strategic adjustments but also a willingness to question long-standing assumptions about how theological education works.
The pressures facing theological schools are widely recognized. Many institutions have experienced enrollment challenges in recent years, alongside financial constraints and changing denominational pipelines into ministry. Alternative pathways to ministry leadership have emerged, and some churches increasingly train leaders through nontraditional programs.
But Einfeld suggested that focusing solely on those visible pressures risks missing a deeper issue.“We believe something, and then we see things in the world that confirm it,” he said, describing a concept organizational psychologists call “sensemaking.” “We filter out the disconfirming data and allow in the confirming data.”
To illustrate the idea, Einfeld pointed to a historical example from medicine. In the early 20th century, doctors examining pediatric X-rays sometimes noticed children with multiple healed fractures. Physicians often attributed the injuries to brittle bones or other medical conditions. Only later did researchers recognize the pattern as evidence of abuse.
“The evidence was right in front of them,” Einfeld said, “but they were literally unable to see it because of the way they understood the world.”
He believes theological schools may face a similar challenge when interpreting data about declining enrollment or changing student behavior. Institutions may assume that the problem is simply that prospective students do not understand the value of theological education.
“When enrollment is going down,” Einfeld said, “the sensemaking is, ‘We just haven’t convinced enough people how important this is.’”
In some cases that may be true, but Einfeld suggested that in other cases the problem may lie in the alignment (or lack of alignment) betweeneducational models and the realities of students’ lives and church needs.
He recalled one prospective student who took an admissions call from inside her closet because it was the only quiet space she could find away from her three children. She was deeply committed to ministry and eager to study theology. Yet the practical demands of time, travel and program structure created barriers.
Those dilemmas highlight the kinds of structural questions theological schools increasingly face: How much residential time is necessary for formation? What counts as effective learning? And are traditional degree structures addressing current realities?
For governing boards and senior leaders, Einfeld said, the challenge is not only strategic but also pastoral. People often experience institutional change as a personal loss: the loss of familiar structures, traditions, and ways of understanding the mission. Acknowledging those losses openly can help communities move forward.
“Figure out what the loss actually is,” Einfeld advised. “Who is going to lose what? And pastorally walk people through that.”
Listen to the full conversation at intrust.org.
