Over the decades, theological education has had a clear understanding that there is a larger purpose for its work – whether a divine calling or a greater good for society or a mix of both. But that clarity felt inside the walls of theological schools doesn’t necessarily hold true for the rest of society. Instead, in cultures that are redefining spirituality or the need for higher education, the question is what’s the value of a theological education – and how might theological schools communicate that?
The Rev. David Rowe, Ph.D., has served as president of a college and a theological school. He also has advised more than 45 schools, colleges, and universities on governance, strategy, and leadership, and he serves as the project director of the In Trust Center’s Governance Initiative. He sees several factors facing the field and calls on schools to refine their value proposition. In a conversation on the Good Governance podcast, he offers several takeaways for school leaders. (The full episode is at intrust.org/podcast.)
The sector can’t avoid the questions anymore.
Rowe noted that the field is going through many of the same issues that higher education in general has, including that institutions created generations ago are facing drastically new realities.
“Some of the factors that were in place that created so many different institutions across the country just aren’t existing anymore,” he said.
For example, Rowe noted how the interstate system in the United States and the rise of faster means and modes of transportation changed the equation that once held sway for regional schools. Students who once sought out regional schools now have plenty of options online. As well, institutions are facing different financial models, increased competition, and changing demographics since the days of the original G.I. Bill, when funding flowed to build educational infrastructure.
“The incentives to build and expand and grow higher education institutions – those faucets are down to a trickle now,” Rowe said. “The federal funding that even the large research institutions were counting on has kind of been choked off as well.
“Most of the time we’re talking about new business models with liberal arts colleges and theological schools, but now the large research institutions are having to ask exactly the same questions that this smaller sector has been asking for a long time.”
These pressures don’t erase theological education’s mission – if anything, they intensify the need to articulate it clearly. But there are many other issues in play for schools and students as well.
There are issues of supply and demand.
There are more ways now to get a theological education than ever, and that includes schools accredited by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS), as well as those outside of ATS. Students can take classes virtually, part-time, in cohorts, and through different modes, including competency-based models. But while opportunities have grown, the demand hasn’t necessarily followed.
“We’re growing the supply, and even though we’ve seen some closures and mergers, there are still other new schools popping up and we’re spreading the number of folks across more institutions,” Rowe said. “That math doesn’t work very well. In some ways, I liken this to the schematic history of the church. The divisions that we have at different points in our history seem really important at the point of the division.”
Rowe noted that what were once important splits may not have the same distinction or importance today.
Instead, schools have more similarities – and there may be a willingness among denominations to accept ministers who have studied at schools that are doctrinally similar. Rowe said that accreditation drives some of the similarities between schools.
“If you go to an ATS-accredited school, you’re going to be guaranteed some of the same types of resources, the same sort of curriculum,” he said. “There’s going to be a different theological lens for sure, but there’s a great deal of commonality of experience from school to school, which we love from a quality assurance standpoint.”
Rowe noted that while schools are recognized by peers through accreditation, it can lessen the differentiation among schools.
“Standardization is, on one hand good, and on the other hand it could be thought of as de-differentiation, with fewer and fewer significant differences among the various expressions of theological education,” he said.
When supply exceeds demand – and the differentiation becomes harder to perceive – schools find that it becomes tougher to recruit students.
Economic issues play a role.
For many students, understanding the need for a graduate theological education can be clouded by whether they can afford it or whether they are required to have a graduate theological degree. “Some churches may or may not be requiring an MDiv. right now, or a master’s degree at all,” Rowe said. “And it’s not necessarily anything anti-intellectual or anything against the quality of the degrees that people earn in these schools.”
Instead, the constraint is often a future financial concern for a student.
“It might just be trying to figure out what a congregation whose membership is declining can afford,” Rowe said, “and they might not be able to afford a pastor that has that sort of graduate educational experience.
“The employment market for pastors, is not necessarily keeping up with that expectation financially.”
For most of my career, we’ve thought about what we value that we should try to persuade the market to value, as well. So often our conversations have started internally and maybe used a megaphone to try to explain to the world why what we offer is valuable.
Rowe doesn’t diminish the role of calling and vocation, which “is at the heart of all of this,” he said. But he also said that calling and livelihood must be considered by denominations and churches because if someone can’t afford to live on a minister’s salary “it’s just really hard to make the case that theological education has economic value to the person that you’re trying to recruit.”
“If you’re called to be a pastor and you’re called to support a family, then you need to figure out how you’re going to do both,” Rowe said. “And sometimes these days, those things don’t live together as easily as maybe they once had in the past.”
The issue of student debt also comes up because if students take on debt for a theological education, a ministry job may be difficult to rationalize.
The question for theological schools is centered on how education provides value to a student and, perhaps, how denominations and churches can help find ways to make schooling more affordable and more accessible while providing ministry opportunities that pay a living wage. These are larger discussions that can be difficult to unravel, but those are areas for school leaders to consider as prospective students consider the value of a theological education.
Value propositions have to be sharpened.
That sounds evident, but it hasn’t been an easy thing. More than a marketing slogan, the value proposition has to provide an honest assessment of what a school offers students – both in the preparation and into the future and potential employment and ministry.
“This is a question that I don’t think we’ve had to ask as acutely over the decades because we’ve had more demand in the past for the MDiv.-educated pastors and more demand for this quality of education that’s accredited by ATS,” Rowe said. “Now that the competition is a little bit sharper, I think we have to ask some questions that typically our sector hasn’t had to ask before.”
Rowe frames the value proposition in direct terms: “What I’m saying is this: We, as a sector, have to start asking a harder question than we’ve had to ask before. And it’s ‘What does the market value that we can offer?’”
He knows the language can feel uncomfortable, particularly as schools consider the importance, and value of, their missions. But Rowe argues it is necessary, not because mission has become irrelevant, but because mission requires sustainability.
“Just now we’re seeing that our educational model and our mission are being compromised by challenges with funding and revenue, and our expenses are growing while our revenues are decreasing,” he said.
Rowe draws on a business model framework to help leaders think through this. He uses a model from the Harvard Business Review in 2008 that has four quadrants: value proposition, key resources, revenue formula, and core processes. When schools have thought about value, the conversation has often been internally focused.
“For most of my career, we’ve thought about what we value that we should try to persuade the market to value as well,” Rowe said. “Often our conversations about marketing or student recruitment have started internally and then maybe used a megaphone to try to explain to the world why what we offer is needed and valuable.”
Rowe argues for the reverse: “We need to shift the senses around. … We need to listen to the market and find out what it is that the market is seeking, what the market is demanding and what the market is requiring.”
Listening to the market may seem too business-minded or too focused on the bottom line in a field that has placed a premium on calling and mission, but Rowe believes there is a legitimate question to ask: “What are people willing to pay for?”
That doesn’t necessarily just mean the student – it also includes donors, partners, and denominations, all of which see the value of a theological education and developing the next generation of ministers.
But that requires having a clear value proposition and making a strong – and clear – statement for theological education. “You’ve got to actually demonstrate economic value to get some sort of cash through the door,” Rowe said. “Our mission has got to be rooted – at some point or another – in an honest assessment of what the need is.”
He said that leaders must also think clearly about what theological education is actually delivering.
“Increasingly, we have schools that have multiple business models to support the mission,” he said. “I don’t want people to misread what we’re saying here.
We’ve got to have some sort of way to keep this going. And so you’ve seen schools shift and experiment with part of the value proposition … so you see a shift toward maybe more hybrid models or more online or remote learning models.
“We’re not saying that we need to supplant the idea of mission with the idea of business in the same way that a for-profit institution or for-profit organization might look for just money wherever money is. We’re looking for money to support the mission, right?”
Rowe noted the different ways school have tried to support the mission through sources other than tuition.
“We’ve got to have some sort of way to keep this going,” Rowe said. “And so you’ve seen schools shift and experiment with part of the value proposition. For example, a student might ask: ‘Am I able to do this on my own time, am I able to do this asynchronously online?’ So you see a shift toward more hybrid models or more online or remote learning models or maybe even just learning centers and regional hub models where we’re bringing the educational experience to the student. And convenience becomes part of the business model.”
There can be a conflict, though, with the longstanding value proposition of the “traditional seminary experience,” Rowe said, because “our language has been one of transformation, that when you come here as a lay person, you will leave qualified as clergy.”
The problem is that transformation may not be the goal of all students. They may expect a different experience. Drawing on the book The Experience Economy (1999), Rowe said, “They would say there’s a service business model, there’s an experience business model, and there’s a transformation business model.” A service model may apply to someone who just wants a certificate or a degree. Other students might want more of that, up to a full transformational experience. All three models can belong in theological education, Rowe said. Trouble comes when schools price and design them as though they are the same thing, and for boards, that is a significant consideration.
“What happens is we end up offering transformation at a service price. It’s the difference between going to a large department store and shopping on Amazon,” he said. The convenience and the experience may be different, and so is the work involved by faculty and staff – as is the cost to the institution.
Rowe argues that clearer differentiation can actually create new sustainability pathways. If institutions become more intentional, “then we can actually create different price points because we’re actually creating different types of value.” He believes there remains demand for deep formation, but he adds, “That’s a different value. It’s a different economic value, and it’s a different cost structure.”
The mission still matters.
Rowe encourages schools to think about creating an innovation lab where experimentation is encouraged to see what the need is. He deeply believes in the value of theological education.
“When have we ever needed more people who could reflect ethically on policy decisions, incorporate their faith into their professions, find meaning in life, and temper technological advances with moral reasoning?” Rowe asked. “Theological education has a lot to offer besides the professional preparation that we’ve come to know and love.”
