October 20, 2025
by Greg Henson, Kairos University President and CEO
As we have noted, innovation in theological education is often treated as an exercise in technical change. Often, this means it is relegated to the area of “program development.” A new initiative is launched, a degree is revised, a delivery model is updated. These actions may be necessary, but if they are pursued in isolation, they rarely produce lasting change. Instead, this fosters creative paralysis. Institutions may find themselves busy with projects, but disconnected in purpose. The isolated nature of such a focus on technical change or targeted creativity around programs may seem to produce short-term results.
In practice, however, theological education is not a collection of independent parts. It is a deeply integrated whole. Anything we do in one area of institutional life inevitably affects the others. A curriculum change reshapes student services. A shift in partnerships influences assessment. A financial decision impacts the pace and scope of learning. Therefore, any fresh expression of theological education must be integrated with the broader life of the institution. Innovation is not about creating something new on the side. It is about attending to the relationships between all parts of the system.
This way of thinking draws on the work of Larry Keeley and his Ten Types of Innovation. In my adaptation of it, I refer to it as integrated innovation. Rather than focusing on isolated solutions or better products, integrated innovation considers the full context in which the institution operates. It asks how the different dimensions of the school (e.g., academic, financial, relational, organizational) interact with one another. It seeks alignment, not just activity. And it invites the community to think in terms of systems, not silos.
Integrated innovation also challenges institutions to reimagine how they relate to the broader ecosystem of theological education. No school operates in a vacuum. Churches, nonprofits, community organizations, donors, and ministry partners all contribute to the formation of students. Rather than trying to do everything alone, institutions can begin to think like platforms. Configuring themselves, therefore, in ways that invite collaboration and shared value creation.
This approach requires a shift in posture. Instead of building programs that assume all expertise and resources are housed internally, institutions begin to see themselves as part of a network. They identify opportunities to partner, to share, and to co-create. They recognize that students are shaped not only by what happens inside the classroom, but also by what they encounter across the broader landscape of their formation.
Thinking broadly in this way allows institutions to be more agile and responsive. It helps them steward resources more effectively and opens space for new voices and perspectives. Most importantly, it reflects a deeper theological truth: that formation is communal, and that innovation flourishes when the body of Christ works together.
In the next post, we will turn to the final practice in the series: what it means to adapt freely, resist permanence, and embrace a posture of ongoing change.