In considering Tod Bolsinger’s observations in “Adaptive Leadership” (Winter 2025), we must be intentional to foster trust, without which no orientation to adaptive leadership will be successful. The following, therefore, assumes that there is enough banked trust to collectively move forward, even if initially anxiously. Actions by individuals or groups within an organization to undermine goals and processes can manifest in avoidance, spreading misinformation, or creating obstacles to progress. Such sabotage is often not a matter of malice, but of resistance to change. One way adaptive leaders can address institutional sabotage is to foster experimentation and continuous learning. Embedded within institutional culture, these can allow an organization to test new ideas, enabling everyone to identify what works and what doesn’t. This helps to build resilience and adaptability, as it encourages staff and faculty to embrace change and view failures as growth opportunities. Learning is equally crucial when adaptive leadership nurtures an environment where everyone feels safe to share their insights and experiences, revealing systemic obstacles that perpetuate resistance, and mitigating the impact of institutional sabotage. It empowers everyone to take ownership of their roles and contribute to a shared “clarity of mission and values.” Finally, trust is dependent on shared understanding of our mission and values. If not, then that is where we must begin. If so, then experimentation and learning become significant adaptive commitments that will help us navigate the change before our seminaries and schools.
Richard Manley-Tannis, Ph.D.
Principal, St. Andrew’s College Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Matt Hufman’s exploration of the changing needs of ministry students in theological schools (“Students’ Changing Needs,” Winter 2025) draws on important new data from the Association of Theological Schools. The lament that theological schools do not prepare their graduates sufficiently for ministry has been around a long time. Confessionally, I complained a lot when I was a seminarian back in the 1980s. But as Hufman points out, recent ATS data show that graduates want and need more background in spiritual disciplines, and in interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies. Given the challenges of COVID, societal degradation, and environmental degradation, this is to be expected. In fact, these issues are not going away anytime soon. The resistance in our field to making our programs more relevant to the current needs of clergy and congregants is well documented. In my experience, one way to move out of this stagnation is to develop deeper relationships with denominational partners, pastors, and other ecclesial bodies. Hosting listening sessions with alumni and other clergy and creating an advisory council of ecumenical denominational leaders are good ways to reinvigorate not only the relationships with the wider church, but also the shared responsibility we have to support the education and formation of clergy and congregants, as Hufman and our ATS colleague, Jo Ann Deasy, point out. In my experience, denominational leaders are seeking ways to work more closely together with us to provide non-degree educational opportunities. When seminaries participate in these collaborations and actively foster them, everyone benefits.
David M. Mellott, Ph.D.
President and Professor of Theological Formation Christian Theological Seminary
In Trust magazine welcomes your letters! Please email them to editors@intrust.org.