DMin, Leadership and Global Perspectives: Crafting Ministry in an Interconnected World

The Great (Teleological) Transformation (of Innovation)

Written by: on January 21, 2020

Innovation is inherently philosophical. Nearly every useful definition of innovation consists of two parts: a highlight of what is “new,” “novel” or “fresh,” and the second part nearly always points to  “added value” to some group of people. When “value” is discussed, the conversation turns necessarily to philosophy – What is value? Value towards what end? Value for whom? Value at what other (hidden) expense? To engage in innovation assumes a telos. Much innovation over the last 150 years is largely impacted by the philosophical implications of the Industrial Revolution. 


Karl Polanyi’s written one of those books that has weathered the storms and chaos of time. His insightful work, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, written at the close of World War II, describes the economic transition before and after the Industrial Revolution. Pertinent to innovation is his concept of double movement. The first movement is an increase in scope and influence of a self-regulated market. The second movement is a counter to the first, and seeks to protect from the overreach of the market into social life. I will argue that these movements have created a dualism in innovation (market innovation and social innovation), unintentionally positioned market innovation over social innovation, and finally, will call for a new, eschatological movement in which to align and orient towards for innovation.


First Movement


The first movement Polanyi describes has impacted innovation in countless ways. The new fictitious commodities of land, labor, and money provide many motivational drivers for innovation (Polanyi, 71-80). These commodities are now leveraged in unprecedented ways and combine to form a three-headed beast in many ways as wealth is accrued, and the market leveraged in new ways. Much of the current innovation space typified in Silicon Valley is still very much in step with this movement. One of the perhaps unintended consequences of this movement was its formational nature. It provides a picture of the “good life,” informs a telos, and promotes individualism. Innovations of this sort often increase the gap between the rich and poor (Rogers). Polanyi shines not just as an economist, but also as a philosopher, when he writes, “It was this innovation [of the self-regulating market] which gave rise to a specific civilisation” (Polanyi, 3) It didn’t give rise just to an economic movement, but to a particular civilisation forming a particular worldview.


Second Movement


The second movement was concerned with an unbridled reign of the self-regulating market and had high social concern. Uncertainty of labor (Polanyi, 96) the legislation of Poor Laws(Polanyi, 73), and the need for general social reform were quickly realized. One might point to the concept and renewed vigor of “social innovation” to capture the essence of this movement. Stephen Quilley, in his article “System Innovation and the New “Great Transformation,’” writes, “From this historical perspective, social innovation refers to a renewed attempt to tame self-regulating markets and build societal protection into the fabric of economic life” (2). Quilley later asserts the new economy has moved beyond Polanyi’s double movement of concern with economic and social capital to focus on the “twin imperatives of social and ecological capital” (2).

A Delayed Movement


I find many examples of individuals or companies who personally walk these two movements in their own life, often chronologically. The first movement helps them procure wealth, power, and influence, while there often is a pause and a reposturing to consider the second. Let’s consider the case studies of Bill Gates and Ideo – a leading design firm. Riding the first movement, Bill Gates leveraged (digital) land, labor and money to become the richest man in the world. Ruthless (some would say “savvy”) business practices and strategy lead to a deinstentivising monopoly (some would say “leading market share”). Upon riding the wave of Polanyi’s described first movement, then a concern for the welfare of others seems to have become a priority. The social innovation coming out of the Gates Foundation right now is inspiring, but one can left wondering why the delay was needed, or might contrast Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft and Bill Gates, the co-chair of the Gates Foundation. 


Similarly, IDEO is recognized as one of (if not the) leaders in product development and innovation education. They developed the first mouse as a client of Apple. It wasn’t until they dominated the design space did they launch which seeks to “design products and services alongside organizations that are committed to creating a more just and inclusive world.” The doctrine of common grace shines in these examples in one regard – we were created to help bring about justice and flourishing for all of humankind. On the other hand, it begs the question if there is another way.


Social Innovation and social concern deserves the best minds, best resources, and best solutions, not the “sloppy seconds” of Silicon Valley. It was largely the Industrial Revolution, as Karl Polanyi surveys, that ordered these movements in the minds and hearts of people from a formed telos.


The Call for an Eschatological Movement


Christianity contains within its worldview the resources to circumvent a delayed movement to prioritize social concern and restore a balance in the innovation capital available for solving the world’s greatest problems. Revelation 21 and 22 provide a vision for the Christian telos – life with God in a community seeking justice righteousness and peace. John describes his eschatological vision like this; “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (v. 3-4). Beginning with this end in mind, true innovation surrenders and submits to this agenda. Land, labor, and money are no longer the most powerful innovation commodities in this “economy,” but are eclipsed by a people who are oriented to this vision, walking in the power of the Spirit who hovered over the waters at creation. Innovation in this lane is no longer just a “protective movement” from a self-regulated market, but a new movement altogether, aimed at the redemptive purposes of God, pictured in the new heavens and the earth.

___, accessed January 21, 2020.

Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

Roggers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 2003.

About the Author


Shawn Cramer

13 responses to “The Great (Teleological) Transformation (of Innovation)”

  1. Darcy Hansen says:

    Your highlighting of Bill Gates is fascinating. Seems the reality is for him to do the good work, he needed to first do the ruthless work of “leverag(ing) (digital) land, labor and money to become the richest man in the world.” How often do we, as Christian, maintain a similar posture of scarcity, where once we reach a certain plain of success, we can then help others along?

    I love the hopefulness in your conclusion. As you continue to consider innovation and Kingdom purposes, what does this “new movement aimed at the redemptive purposes of God, pictured in the new heavens and the earth” look like? How do you mobilize an organization (Cru) that depends on land, labor, and money to achieve its mission to “surrender and submit” to God’s eschatological vision?

    • mm Shawn Cramer says:

      None of the three fictitious commodities are inherently wrong. It’s a shift from exploiting land to custodians, pushing the boundaries of labor to healthy labor, and worship of money to stewarding. In terms of organizational change, probably the single, most impactful thing we could do is change our Key Performance Indicators that would inform the ‘how’ and ‘why’ and not just the ‘what.’

  2. mm Jer Swigart says:

    Really solid, Shawn. Truly.

    I appreciate the way you highlight the chronology of the movements and how they have set a template for us: wealth first / social concern second. Would you make an argument that Christian innovation could/should interrupt this standard or is it a necessary standard to operate within based on the realities of the world that we live in?

    • mm Shawn Cramer says:

      It feels like you’re lobbing me a fast ball. The beautiful thing about God’s redemptive work is the use of ordinary people for extraordinary results. I have to believe (often by much faith!) this thread of the gospel story. I’m reminded of women in 19th century Britain foregoing the use of tea to make a stand against the slavery within Caribbean sugar production. Peace by way of war, social concern by way of exploiting profit, and empowering by amassing power are three great traps of WEA.

  3. mm Greg Reich says:

    “Social Innovation and social concern deserves the best minds, best resources, and best solutions, not the “sloppy seconds” of Silicon Valley.”

    Do you feel that in many ways the best minds are in it for the money? What would you say is the most significant innovative idea over the past 20 years that specifically was oriented toward improving social concerns?

  4. mm Steve Wingate says:

    I am always curious in discussions like these how they directly support the primary mission of the church: Matthew 28:16-20.

    • mm Shawn Cramer says:

      Steve, if you’d provide me a little more context, I’d love to dialogue with you on this. Given the Great Commission I think of fresh thinking that enables that kind of ministry – new methods for an unchanging Message and Mission

  5. mm John McLarty says:

    I think for many, there is a sense of responsibility to “send the elevator back down” as we reach higher levels of accomplishment and influence. I know how this has worked in my life (on a much, much smaller scale than the examples you gave!) As I’ve demonstrated competence and success, more opportunities have emerged. I try to be mindful to leverage those in order to invest in those who are earlier in their development, but I’ll also confess to enjoying the perks. I think of innovation (at its best) as a collaboration and co-creating with God and others for the sake of making the world a better place. What’s a good benchmark for knowing the balance between what is mostly just for me and what belongs primarily to the world?

    • mm Shawn Cramer says:

      John, I like your definition of innovation. In fact, I’ve put in my permanent notes on the topic, so thank you for that. To embody a principle of true innovation, the litmus test for innovation is an assessment BY the intended audience if they have value added. The key to this is not an assessment from the outside – “Look how much better their lives are.” Maybe they aren’t or maybe it’s a cultural preference.

  6. mm Dylan Branson says:

    Shawn, who would you say are the big names within social innovation? Has there been social innovators who haven’t had to do the “dirty work” of leveraging commodities before getting to the actual social concern? How would you compare the way social innovators leverage commodities out of social concern vs. other innovators?

  7. mm Shawn Cramer says:

    Unless one is in the niche community of being an explicit social innovator, the names are unremarkable. (
    However, I believe this is a good thing. It is more about people stewarding their gifts and talents to meet needs in their communities (and beyond) than to become a cultural icon (black turtle neck and designer glasses)

  8. mm Chris Pollock says:

    Yes, a movement away from gain and toward using all of the amazing gifts that people and companies have and have used to capitalise on this ‘seemingly’ unregulated market to come up with ‘another way’!

    I’m not too sure how to interpret the doctrine of ‘common grace’ in this regard? That perhaps, in the giving numbers are considered and ‘gain’ is still the point? I want to hope and believe a tad more optimistically for ‘another way’.

    Thanks Shawn, so appreciate your perspective and deep care.

Leave a Reply