





































Panel Discussions  173

The Meanings of 
“Innovation” in Theological 
Libraries: Bold Ideas or 
Empty Promises?
Part 1: Examining the “Theological-
Industrial-Complex”
By Anthony J. Elia, Bridwell Library, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist 
University

ABSTR ACT The use of the term innovation in recent years has been 
widely debated, but also widely used in theological education. The 
question we are asking is whether innovation is inherently a set of 
“bold ideas” or merely “empty promises,” based on a systematic need 
to change environments for the sake of change, rather than the sake 
of need. In the first presentation, we will discuss the history of the 
term “innovation,” why it has become tied to technology, and what the 
underpinning power-structure of the “theological-industrial-complex” is 
and has to do with innovation in our theological institutions. 

INTRODUCTION: INNOVATION AND ITS PLACES 

In our panel today, we will be exploring the ideas behind the perva-
sive narrative of “innovation,” or as we have asked: “bold ideas or 
empty promises?” In my section, I would like to ask a few questions 
about what constitutes “innovation,” and how it has played out in 
the common parlance of higher education, in the library scene in 
the United States, and in theological education. Specifically, I want 
to examine the relationship between “innovation narratives” and 
the variously defined Theological-Industrial-Complex, which I will 
detail for this paper shortly. What I will argue is that innovation and 
innovation narratives are often different and come out of a desire 



174  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

and need by institutions and the greater community of theological 
education to demonstrate recognizable change and change agents, 
in order to express utility within those frameworks, whether or not 
their products are in fact innovative. Additionally, “innovation” is self-
determined as either “renewed” or “effective” by the bodies enacting 
those changes and can be seen in its scalability—that of basic change 
(vs. basic language) and that of radical change (vs. radical language). 
As we look at these scenarios, we must ask the following questions: 
Is something truly innovative? And what does that mean? Is it world-
changing? Or is it merely something that has been altered to appear 
different, new, renewed, or “innovative?”

The discussion here is around the notion that the system of guid-
ance and control—the overarching Theological- or Christian-indus-
trial-complex, which is fostered and built and sustained by structures 
of checks and balances—requires us to continually do new things. That 
is basically what life itself requires! But in this push for commodifi-
cation of activities, and moves toward qualifying everything we do as 
progressively developing the next best thing, the question must be: are 
the innovations being driven by the desires of the working person, the 
librarian, the staff, the faculty, the students; or are they being driven 
by the corporatization of activities? Let us look at a general definition 
of the military-industrial-complex: “. . . a gridlock of military, politi-
cal, and business interests that formed a self-benefiting association 
of preferential relationships that went against the public interest.”1

This may seem like a rather grim or at least uncharitable defini-
tion, especially in relation to how we are defining “innovation” and its 
roles. But it is worthwhile for us to recognize where our terminologies 
are coming from. Imagine, then, if we were to replace “military” with 
“theological” or “Christian,” how then might we understand this? And 
though the expressions have been used variously, I would specifically 
include the following terms to describe what constitutes the nature of 
the theological-industrial-complex, especially as we are writing about 
it today. These include: 1) the corporatization of theological educa-
tion, ministry, and church organization; 2) the overuse of metrical, 
analytical, and assessment-oriented tools without studied reflection; 3) 
the expansion of business-based models into theological education 
and administration; 4) finance-driven theology and ministry and 
broad commodification of the church; and 5) technologically infused 
language that purports that it will solve all institutional problems. 



Panel Discussions  175

I want to be very clear though—I do not suggest that any one institu-
tion, person, committee, administration, or other body is responsible 
or negatively affecting how innovation is impacted, approached, or 
promoted; rather, this is an open question to our community, which 
asks whether or not, and to what extent, we are driven by a systematic 
expression of business-theological-corporate design and the accom-
modation that pushes us toward this system and innovation. The 
language in libraries around innovation is relatively new, and seems 
to have arisen around the time of the commodification of education 
in the 1980s. 

As we have considered these terms, and as we have looked at inno-
vation as both an idea and an expression of our times, we will need to 
reconsider the origins of the term’s development. As we’ll see next, 
the concept of innovation is almost exclusively tied to an expression 
of technology. The changes in our language, as well as the evolution of 
our perceptions about newness, are rapidly altered and enhanced by 
our social and collective design, work, and thought. All of these ideas 
are part of our social and cultural existence.  

THE GENEALOGY OF INNOVATION  
AND ITS CATEGORIES

The key term in this presentation is “innovation,” and I would like to 
begin with one of the best treatments on this subject, which explores 
not simply the meaning of the word “innovation,” but critiques the 
deeper place and category of the term. That is to say, how has the idea 
of “innovation” been treated, how is the term of “innovation” under-
stood, and why might the expression of “innovation” in society and 
broader culture be necessary for how we engage in developing new 
ideas and implementing these ideas in our social orders?

The work I speak of is titled “Innovation: The History of a Cate-
gory,”2 by Benoît Godin, a Canadian scholar in Montreal, who explores 
the intellectual history of the term innovation in the context of distinct 
fields of study (e.g. “technological innovation”) and questions the 
rise and entrenchment of such use in our social languages. Godin 
describes it as such:

Innovation is everywhere. In the world of goods (technol-
ogy) certainly, but also in the realm of words. Innovation 
is discussed in scientific and technical literature, in social 



176  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

sciences such as sociology, management and economics, 
and in the humanities and arts. Innovation is also a central 
idea in the popular imaginary, in the media and in public 
policy. How has innovation acquired such a central place in 
our society? . . . This paper looks at innovation as category and 
suggests an outline for a genealogical history. It identifies the 
concepts that have defined innovation through history, from 
its very first meaning as novelty in the Middle Ages to the most 
recent interpretations in sociology and economics. The paper 
suggests a genealogical history of innovation through the 
following three concepts: Imitation → Invention → Innovation.3

Godin starts off with an intriguing review of this ever-increasing 
rise—perhaps even “obsession”—of innovation by citing scholarship 
of Helga Nowotny, who delves deeply into our social conditioning and 
energetic attention to the innovation obsession in our societies.4 In 
the introduction of Godin’s article, we have the beginning of this issue 
and its assessment, which we should consider:

Briefly stated, innovation has become the emblem of the 
modern society, a panacea for resolving many problems, 
and a phenomenon to be studied. As H. Nowotny defines our 
epoch: it is a fascination and quest for innovation (Nowotny, 
2008; 2006). The quest for innovation is so strong that some 
go so far as to suggest that drugs like Ritalin and Adderall, 
used to treat psychiatric and neurological conditions, should 
be prescribed to the healthy as a cognitive enhancement 
“technology” for improving the innovative abilities of our 
species (Greely et al., 2008).5

This assessment may be both astounding and commonplace—or 
rather, expected—because for many of us, it is a truism. We know that 
it is true, even if we think that it is problematic. Godin continues by 
evaluating the issues at hand with innovation with a series of ques-
tions about how to handle this assessment—with three necessary 
questions. Godin writes:

First, why has innovation acquired such a central place in 
our society or, put differently, where precisely does the idea 
of innovation come from? To many, innovation is a relatively 
recent phenomenon and its study more recent yet: innova-



Panel Discussions  177

tion has acquired real importance in the twentieth century. 
In point of fact, however, innovation has always existed. The 
concept itself emerged centuries ago. This suggests a second 
question: why did innovation come to be defined as techno-
logical innovation? Many people spontaneously understand 
innovation to be technological innovation. The literature 
itself takes this for granted. More often than not, studies on 
technological innovation simply use the term innovation, 
although they are really concerned with technological inno-
vation. However, etymologically and historically, the concept 
of innovation is much broader. How, when and by whom did 
its meaning come to be “restricted” to technology? Third, 
why is innovation generally understood, in many milieus, 
as commercialized innovation? It is hard today to imagine 
technology without thinking of the market. One frequently 
hears of innovations that are marketed by firms, but other 
types of innovation are either rapidly forgotten or rarely 
discussed. By contrast, every individual is to a certain extent 
innovative; artists are innovative, scientists are innovative, 
and so are organizations in their day-to-day operations.6

Godin continues with a genealogical approach to the history of the 
term and how it has been utilized, appropriated, and charted through-
out the last few hundred years, and what we are to make of this change. 
What can we make of this then? It is likely that the expressions of innova-
tion, specifically how we use the term “innovation” itself, will continue 
to be linked to how we perceive technology in our societies—perhaps 
the most quickly changing thing in our world, besides political opin-
ions and weather, is technology. With this all said, we need to under-
stand that change and innovation can be good, but that there may be a 
greater force at work, as we’ve seen from these scholars, which coerces 
our operations, companies, and organizations into forced innovation. 

CATEGORIES OF EXISTENCE: WHAT IS THE THEOLOGICAL-
INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX, AND  
WHY DOES IT MATTER?

The second portion of this research deals with how we understand this 
three-part term, and how it fits into the question at hand: what is inno-
vation and how is it driven in theological circumstances with broader 



178  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

society? We may look at different levels of influence in what asserts 
our need to explore and pursue innovation in our working environ-
ments; for instance, how do our departments engage with the idea of 
innovation? How do our libraries engage? How do our seminaries or 
larger institutions engage? These are not the theological-industrial-
complex, but are components of the broader encompassing system, 
which this falls under. The issue at hand is not so much that we partici-
pate in pressing for innovation, because reasonably, innovation and 
its effects and changes are inherently good and positive expressions in 
our society. Rather, it is the compulsion and overarching narrative, as 
noted by Godin, related to the innovation narrative, and the system-
atic changes in perception over the last generations, that seem to have 
come out of the entwined social system we are calling the theological-
industrial-complex. 

We can turn to a listing of examples (Appendix 1) where I’ve 
detailed the various uses of terms: “theological/Christian/reli-
gious-industrial-complex” and how these terms are both utilized 
and viewed. For the most part, there is a negative sense attached to 
these terms, but this should not be conclusively determined. In some 
respect, the Eisenhower-inspired language—itself comporting a nega-
tive tone of control and marginalization of our national interests—is 
a lexicon describing the necessary resources that guide, direct, and 
enhance the system of theological expression and practice in Ameri-
can higher education and congregational communities. Yet, within it, 
there is the underlying problem that comes with any large, sprawling, 
oft-unconnected, though related, enterprise—that is the thing about 
which we are speaking that has become an “imagined community” 
(to use Benedict Anderson’s term) of theological education, educa-
tors, students, and staff, which is by its nature a blurred bureaucracy 
that simply functions on levels tied to business needs and demands. 
As we have moved more toward a world that is tied to metrics, assess-
ments, and functional costs, return on investments, and other finan-
cial terms, our theological education becomes commodified in a way 
that cannot return to some glory days. There are, additionally, prob-
lems with this idea—that there was even such a pristine time of learn-
ing, which did not account for monetary or financially solvent needs 
in that theological learning space. 

An argument I have heard among many educators in higher educa-
tion is the very point about value of what is being learned and how it is 



Panel Discussions  179

not something that can be justified by monetary value or metrics—it 
just is. Yet, even if this were the case—that classes or other activities 
were not monitored by metrics, analytics, and statistical analysis, as 
they are today—institutions, broadly speaking, have been looking at 
their numbers (of students, enrollment, payments/revenue, and costs 
across the board) since the beginning. It is merely the language that 
we use, and how elements of commodification have changed in the 
last thirty years—around the time when students began to demand 
of their teachers a more transactional relationship; uniformly, this is 
the time when many of my own colleagues began hearing complaints 
from students about such quid pro quo education. The line began in 
the late 1980s and early 1990s, when faculty described accounts of 
students demanding good grades “because they paid for their grades 
through tuition dollars.” 

The theological-industrial-complex, then, is a broad expression of 
the ethos, which drives a widely socially accepted notion of what we 
should be looking at as members of a capital-driven society—a soci-
ety that values monetary gain, sourced from varieties of change and 
abilities to profit from that gain; and in that, innovation (or variations 
of that term) is positioned at the center of that place. 

Now, this may be the more cynical position: that innovation is 
merely an aim at eventually finding a way for institutions and commu-
nities to increase their capital, but there is, if we want to look at this 
more humanely, a humanistic and moral component, which is to say 
that innovation makes us better people. We would hope that this is the 
more radical and truer reason. Yet, monetary gains, as part of any 
industrial-complex, are core aspects of the human condition, at least 
in how many people see their worldly survival and livelihood.  

APPENDIX 1: HISTORY OF THE EXPRESSION: “THEOLOGICAL-
INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX”

Feb. 21, 2003
A review of the film “The Magdalene Sisters” in the newspaper the 
Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3590173/
Sisters-without-mercy.html):

“The asylum is a theological-industrial complex designed to extin-
guish any glimmer of free thought or will. Stripped bare of anything 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3590173/Sisters-without-mercy.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3590173/Sisters-without-mercy.html


180  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

resembling creature comforts, it’s a place where inequality is regarded 
as a virtue. In a scene straight out of Oliver Twist, we see the sisters 
fatten themselves on sizzling bacon while the adolescents in their 
charge poke disconsolately at the thin gruel dished up before them.” 

INTERPRETATION Term used to express the power structure of the 
church, but also conveys sense of inequality between those in the 
system of power and those who are subject to its oversight and control. 

Dec. 6, 2004
A blog called “Reading the Pictures” featured the use of the term 
(https://www.readingthepictures.org/2004/12/today-sunday-morn-
ing-tomorrow-the-world/): 

“Really, the true God in America is unchecked consumption. As 
such, I can envision the denominational powerhouses taking to the 
airwaves to assert themselves as the new ‘Chrysler’s,’ ‘Ford’s,’ and 
‘Chevy’s’ of the Bush II generation. In other words: welcome to the 
rise of the ‘Theological-Industrial Complex.’ (By the way, with all the 
controversy over this ‘rejected’ spot, you can’t tell me the ad people 
for the United Church of Christ aren’t thinking they’ve died and gone 
to heaven. Certainly, they are now guaranteed far more visibility than 
if the ad had been accepted.)”

INTERPRETATION Term used to express the role of American Christi-
anity (or “Christianities”), including churches and their power in the 
American social and political systems.

Dec. 29, 2006
Use of “Christian-Industrial Complex” in blog online (http://www.
internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-122906-the-christian-industrial-
complex):

“Examples of the Christian-Industrial Complex are easy to see. 
The Women of Faith conferences, for example, rake in more than 
$50-million per year and are part of a for-profit, publicly traded 
company. The Christian retail industry topped $4.5-billion last year. 
(A bit of context: $30 per month can support many pastors in devel-
oping countries. That means that Americans spend enough annually 
on “Jesus Junk” to support 250-thousand Third World pastors—for 
50 years!)”

https://www.readingthepictures.org/2004/12/today-sunday-morning-tomorrow-the-world/
https://www.readingthepictures.org/2004/12/today-sunday-morning-tomorrow-the-world/
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-122906-the-christian-industrial-complex
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-122906-the-christian-industrial-complex
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-122906-the-christian-industrial-complex


Panel Discussions  181

INTERPRETATION Term used to express the commodification of 
church-related and branded materials, whereby that industry then 
becomes its own economic and even political entity. 

April 21, 2011
The blog “An Extroverted Quaker: Reflections of an ESFP who has 
fallen in love with Quakerism” used the expression in the following 
way (https://extrovertedquaker.wordpress.com/2011/04): 

“The implications of participating with non-Westerners on an 
equal footing in the theological process are staggering for Western 
theologians and the Theological Industrial Complex. One of the key 
difficulties shared throughout the compilation is that the average 
theological writing costs as much money as most non-Westerners 
engaged in theological tasks make in a year. Lois McKinney Doug-
las writes that ‘Far too many programs are being driven by prag-
matic concerns related to accreditation, funding, recruiting, and the 
expectations of constituencies.’ [9] While Douglas was addressing the 
concerns for theological education, she adequately sums up the thrust 
of this book and the discussion by challenging those of us in the West 
to set aside the idols of power, privilege and national identity to serve 
humbly in submission to Christ and our brothers and sisters.”

INTERPRETATION Term used to express the Eurocentric and Western 
theological tradition that has driven many of the academic and politi-
cal discourses around power and privilege.  

Dec. 5, 2011
Zouch online magazine, article “Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas 
Pynchon” Review, by David Eric Tomlinson (http://zouchmagazine.
com/gravitys-rainbow-by-thomas-pynchon/#):

“But it’s not all doom and gloom . . . Pynchon truly cares for his 
characters. If the global military-theological-industrial complex 
is one side of the story, the individual humans suffering under its 
oppressive weight are the other side.” 

INTERPRETATION Term describes the sense that America and Ameri-
canism is an enterprise that is hand-in-hand with militarism and 
American Christianity as a brand or superstructure of society. 

https://extrovertedquaker.wordpress.com/2011/04
http://zouchmagazine.com/gravitys-rainbow-by-thomas-pynchon/#
http://zouchmagazine.com/gravitys-rainbow-by-thomas-pynchon/#


182  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

May 15, 2017
The online newspaper Commonweal used the term in an article titled 
“Letter from Rome: Who’s Responsible for the Benedict Complex?” 
by Robert Mickens (https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/letter-
rome-124):

“Even though some in Benedict XVI’s entourage have used the 
‘pope emeritus’ to further their own personal agenda (and this is a 
serious issue), the ‘theological-industrial complex’ is not primarily 
a product of the theology of Ratzinger or his followers (the Ratzing-
erians),” Faggioli wrote.

INTERPRETATION Term describes the power and structure of the 
Catholic Church and especially as it is seen through different periods 
of Catholic leadership. 

Part 2: How Do We Talk  
About Innovation?
Kris Veldheer, Catholic Theological Union

ABSTR ACT This was a presentation in three parts with the second 
part being about how we talk about innovation. Several points were 
raised, including the language of innovation and the myths of innovation. 
Finally, based on an article by Girish Rishi, three paths to innovation were 
highlighted, along with a number of lessons to be implemented, as well.

How do we talk about innovation? Is there a certain language of inno-
vation? I think we give meaning to innovation when we attach it to 
something else, like innovative thinking or innovative practice; the 
implication being that innovation is making something new or differ-
ent than it was before. So if innovation implies something new, then 
how do we describe it? How do we talk about it?

There are many myths about innovation, but three that stand out. 
First, innovation isn’t necessarily always about the new. You also don’t 

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/letter-rome-124
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/letter-rome-124


Panel Discussions  183

need to be a genius to be innovative. Lastly, it doesn’t matter how 
many innovative ideas you have, if they remain just ideas. Innovation 
requires action to take place. In that case, innovation is not a mysti-
cal act, but rather, I see it as a journey. I think once you start being 
innovative, you will find additional ways to continue to be innovative. 

Girish Rishi, writing for Forbes Community Voice, identifies three 
paths to innovation: the Moonshot, the Pivot, and the Incremental.7 

For me, the Moonshot asks the big question, what has changed our 
industry? My first thought to that was the coming of electronic data-
bases and how electronic resources have changed the way libraries 
work. On a different tact, the Pivot makes me think of what ways or 
means do we use to introduce innovation? I would suggest we use the 
Pivot when we offer a new service in the library such as remote refer-
ence or innovations in our online catalogs. Anything that makes it 
easier for our users, I see as an innovation. Finally, Rishi talks about 
the Incremental. For me, those are the little innovations that no one 
really notices or sees, such as slight upgrades to websites. If we think 
of using these different paths for innovation, I think we will be inno-
vative in our libraries without even knowing it.

Finally, there are a number of innovation lessons you can imple-
ment in your own libraries. I will mention a couple that may not seem 
that innovative. The first is, that the responsibility for innovation is 
in the mirror. That means you. No one else knows your context better 
and is better poised to be innovative. Whether or not you follow any of 
Rishi’s paths mentioned above or find another way, you cannot look 
outside to others to bring innovation. However, a second lesson of 
innovation is to expect the unexpected. When you think you are being 
innovative, your library users will think you are not, and vice versa. 
Even depending on the size of the innovation can bring unexpected 
consequences. So, be innovative no matter what style and means your 
innovation takes. 



184  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Part 3: Culture of Innovation or  
Innovation of Culture?
Bob Turner, Harding School of Theology

ABSTR ACT When we think of innovation, we often associate the 
word with digital technology, such as software, apps, and electronic 
books. Yet our view of innovation should not be limited to the stuff that 
we create, or that others create for us. Instead, we can think of innova-
tion as the way that we creatively understand and apply our strengths 
to our workplaces. In this paper, I will argue that the creative use of 
our strengths, not the total remaking of our libraries, is the best way to 
adapt to the constant changes in our field and world.

I recently took the CliftonStrengths assessment.8 CliftonStrengths 
rates your strengths out of a total of thirty-four. The lowest-payment 
package ($20) will tell you your top five strengths. You can pay ($90) 
and see all thirty-four of your strengths ranked. I’m not sure why 
someone would pay $70 to see a full ranking of their weaknesses, but 
some might. 

The assessment of strengths provides two pieces of critical infor-
mation. First, it details the ways proper use of our strengths contrib-
utes to our best work. This is not particularly novel, but it is a reminder 
that our best work comes through our strengths and not the correction 
of our weaknesses. Second, it shows the ways improper (or immature) 
use of our strengths can often contribute to our worst work. It is not 
the case that our worst work comes when we rely on our weaknesses. 
Instead, it is more true that we often fail when we don’t realize how to 
maturely and wisely apply our true strengths. 

This is why I think theological libraries should exercise true 
caution when throwing around words like innovation. I’m not sure it 
is in our strengths. I’d like to propose that libraries are wise to honestly 
consider what it is that we have historically done well and then to build 
and capitalize on those things. 



Panel Discussions  185

GOOGLE AND LIBRARIANS

When I was in library school I once heard a person suggest that Google 
was nothing more than a bunch of library-types beating librarians 
to the punch on creating the world’s largest index. Though bold, the 
claim had some validity. And it had no trouble winning over this 
particular room, packed with optimistic twenty-somethings who had 
an easier time envisioning themselves in a Silicon Valley coffee shop 
than at the circulation desk of Neglected Township Public Library. So, 
I get the appeal. But I don’t think Google necessarily is something a 
community of librarians would have created. We can debate whether 
Google is the most robust index and catalog of information in world 
history. The difficulty comes when we recognize that Google is not just 
an index, but also the world’s largest billboard—realizing the majority 
of its annual revenue through the sale of ads.9 I’m not sure a librarian 
would have it that way. Let’s be honest: half of our profession is uncom-
fortably hanging donor trees on the wall, much less surrendering the 
search page to ads for cat food and plastic surgery. 

The Google comparison fails to appreciate the strengths of theo-
logical librarians. Have theological librarians contributed to some 
really significant indexing projects, such as Religion Index One, Reli-
gion Index Two, and the ATLA Religion Database? Absolutely. But these 
were not innovations in the way that we often associate with emerging 
technologies. Instead, these utilities appropriated known technol-
ogy for use in the context of theology and religious studies. I might 
argue that theological librarians have excelled in contextualization, 
rather than innovation. It is why all of us are here in Indianapolis for 
ATLA, but probably missed out on Austin for SXSW. We aren’t strictly 
innovators: we are experts in our respective contexts. We know our 
collections and our communities. Within theological communities we 
would even add that we understand a set of commitments. The short 
way of saying this would be that we understand our library’s culture.

THE CULTURE CODE

In his book The Culture Code, Daniel Coyle argues that three factors 
set great groups apart from all others. Groups who consistently excel 
provide: 1) a safe environment for everyone, 2) shared vulnerability, 
and 3) a clear message/mission.10 I think theological libraries are wise 



186  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

to remember that innovation is not on this list, despite the fact that it 
is one of the most frequent questions we get from the public (“So what 
are you doing about e-books and all that?”). 

In fact, innovation is not a requirement to be successful in most 
fields. Some groups innovate (Facebook, Apple, FedEx), while others 
perfect things that have existed forever (Procter and Gamble, Whole 
Foods, Brooks Brothers, Starbucks, Chick-fil-A). It seems that if 
theological libraries want to deliver on promises, we’ll need to start 
thinking more about maximizing strengths and less about chasing 
innovation. This advice by Coyle fits well with that given a generation 
earlier by Jim Collins, which is that the move from good to great will 
come through appreciating our current strengths, rather than trash-
ing everything and waiting to be rescued by an outsider messiah.11

I went ahead and listed some of our strengths: hospitality, circulat-
ing print collections,12 physical meeting space, support for ministers. 
These strengths are not simply things we do well, but also part of our 
library’s culture. The other piece of our culture relates to how well we 
attend to these strengths. In order to evaluate this, I’d like to reflect on 
three recent developments in the Harding School of Theology Library 
and explore how they relate to our strengths and culture. 

THREE CONTEXTS

I wanted to establish our library as the leading theological library for 
the support of Christian leaders, particularly those in Churches of 
Christ. Yet this aim could only come from our strengths, since we are 
not strong at everything.13 So, what does our particular culture think 
of when they think about the library? Collection strength, expertise in 
knowing that collection (much due to the work of Don Meredith and his 
encyclopedic knowledge of the collection), and support for ministers. 

Early in 2018, I created a twice-monthly email resource called 
Footnotes: Curated Resources for Ministers. While hardly innovative, Foot-
notes builds on some of those strengths of our culture. It is high in 
content and relatability. I write it from the perspective of a minister 
who understands some of the stressors of needing to craft content 
on a weekly basis. The email is not, however, innovative. I mean, it’s 
an email. In 2018. And I’ve disabled any hope of people engaging 
with one another, as they would on Facebook. I’m not interested in 
building a community around it; people already have enough super-



Panel Discussions  187

ficial community. But the email has gained a broad following (450+ 
church leaders) who have given supportive feedback. I think it has 
been successful among ministers because it fills a need. I think it has 
been successful for our library because it aligns with our brand.

Our Admissions Office was looking for publicity for its Facebook 
page. We were interested in helping, but also eager to do something 
within the range of our brand. We typically use the Facebook Live 
videos for book reviews. We’ve also done a few interviews with profes-
sors and previews of items in our special collections. Videos regard-
ing special collections have unquestionably been the most popular 
(according to page views, likes, etc.). While this might be creative, it 
is hardly innovative. We are simply speaking to an existing commu-
nity using a universally known platform. Most of our videos average 
around a thousand views. That is pretty modest, but we get strong 
feedback, and it provides traffic to the school Facebook page.

Over the years, students have suggested we have coffee service. 
The fact is that we lack the foot traffic to justify a staffed coffee bar, 
and don’t necessarily have the staffing or interest in making coffee 
throughout the day in a traditional pot/carafe style. So we tried to 
think of our culture. What connects coffee and how our community 
views us? We had card catalog cabinets that were not in use, but are 
really beautiful. We began serving single-serve pour overs from the 
drawers of these cabinets, merging creativity with some of the clas-
sic elements of old libraries. We were tempted to go larger with some 
ideas that required a significant financial investment and more risk. 
But again, we played to our strengths. We were convinced that our 
patrons would come and drink coffee, but were not convinced they 
would come to the library to drink coffee. Serving it from an antique 
made the whole project a nice fit.

Each of these three projects took our context seriously. What ways 
do they identify with our library? What do they expect from us? What 
can we reasonably offer? How does this advance our mission?

CONTEXTUAL CREATIVITY

I think we find ourselves more interested in recycling than produc-
tion. Most of what we’ve done built on something we had done in the 
past. Footnotes is a larger version of what my predecessor Don Mere-
dith formerly accomplished with his Bibliographic Research Guides.14 



188  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Facebook Live is a video version of a blog, which is a digital version 
of a print column in the school newsletter of recent acquisitions. The 
coffee bar is obviously recycled. I’m not sure any of these are new 
ideas. But I’m also not sure we needed newer ideas. We just needed 
our ideas to be done better. 

In that spirit, I’d like to propose that theological librarians leave 
the innovation to people in other fields. My hunch is they are better at 
it anyway. They have a different skillset, workforce, and profit motive. 
That does not mean we need to go backwards in time. Instead, I think 
we can consider ways we can be contextually creative. How do we 
appreciate our specific culture and its strengths? But then how can we 
creatively offer that tradition in such a way that it gains new meaning? 

This notion of contextual creativity can have an impact on every 
aspect of our profession. 

 •  How would our Special Collections websites change if we asked what 
is the most contextually creative way to present the documents?

 •  Do our Technical Services practices appreciate our specific 
communities? Do we employ folksonomies in our local catalogs 
that help our users navigate them?15

 •  I estimate (anecdotally) that about 25-30% of our New Books 
section circulates during the few weeks before we move them 
to the Stacks. I’m curious how we might use our social media to 
promote collections of other print books to enhance circulation.

There are certainly more ways contextual creativity can increase 
the quality and effectiveness of our efforts. As we enhance our appre-
ciation of our specific cultures, we are better positioned to capitalize 
on our strengths and to make constructive changes that, although not 
innovative, will position us for a stronger future.

NOTES

1 See definition at: https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.
com/10-institutional-emergent-industrial-complex/ ; see also 
work by C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2000).

2 Benoît Godin, “Innovation: The History of a Category,” in Project 
on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper No. 1, 2008, 
http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/IntellectualNo1.pdf.

https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/10-institutional-emergent-industrial-complex/
https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/10-institutional-emergent-industrial-complex/
http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/IntellectualNo1.pdf


Panel Discussions  189

3 Godin, Abstract of text.
4 See Nowotny’s works: Insatiable Curiosity: Innovation in a Fragile 

Future (Boston: MIT Press, 2010) and Cultures of Technology and the 
Quest for Innovation (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006).

5 Godin, 5.
6 Godin, 5.
7 Girish Rishi, “Three Paths to Innovation,” Forbes Community 

Voice, May 22, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestech-
council/2018/05/22/three-paths-to-innovation/#57e82c681eb5.

8 It was formerly called StrengthsFinder,  
https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com. It is one of these 
personality assessments that we don’t want to take because we 
hear about them from our friends, and let’s be honest: we don’t 
really care how our friends perform on such things. It’s like the 
Enneagram, which is like your cholesterol: it’s nice to know your 
number, but that doesn’t mean you want to listen to your friends 
talk about theirs.

9 For more perspective on Google’s broader strategies, see Safiya 
Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce 
Racism (New York: NYU Press, 2018).

10 Daniel Coyle, The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly Successful 
Groups (New York: Penguin Random House, 2018).

11 Jim Collins, Good to Great (New York: Harper Business, 2001).
12 Amy Fry, “Factors Affecting the Use of Print and Electronic 

Books: A Use Study and Discussion,” College & Research Libraries 
79, no. 1 (January 2018): 68-85.

13 For example, we have peer libraries in our tradition who have 
deeper holdings in their special collections, greater amounts 
of foot traffic due to being on undergraduate campuses, larger 
electronic database portfolios, better social media presence, and 
larger staffs.

14 https://hst.edu/library/research-tools/
15 A student asked me this week if we had a way of discovering 

what materials in our collection were written by graduates of the 
school. The answer is basically, “No.” But it did seem like that 
would be a really nice catalog feature in the notes field or else-
where.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/05/22/three-paths-to-innovation/#57e82c681eb5
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/05/22/three-paths-to-innovation/#57e82c681eb5
https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com
https://hst.edu/library/research-tools/

