ABSTRACT:

This essay explores how Werner Gitt’s concept of Universal Information (UI) enriches librarianship by framing information as a relational and purposeful message rather than mere data. Building on Part One’s discussion of Gitt’s definition, it connects his view with Esther Meek’s covenant epistemology, showing that true knowing—like true information—is relational, transformative, and grounded in personal commitment. Applying Gitt’s four dimensions of information—structure, meaning, use, and purpose—the essay reimagines information literacy as discerning messages that carry intention and moral responsibility. Through examples in reference, research, cataloging, and collection development, librarianship is portrayed as a vocation of faithful communication that fosters wisdom, builds trust, and glorifies God through the stewardship of truth.

FULL ENTRY:

Intimidated. Awkward. Uncomfortable. I could not even tell if I was looking at the squiggly lines correctly. However, after rigorously examining the repeated zigzags and curves, the puzzle pieces began to fall into place. I could comprehend what once looked like a child’s scribble, and the Old Testament book of Ruth in classical Hebrew started making sense. This transformation—from confusion to understanding—reminds me that, with careful guidance and patient effort, initially daunting concepts can be grasped. In the same way, this entry aims to move readers from confusion to clarity by applying Werner Gitt’s idea of Universal Information (UI) to librarianship.

This entry is part two of a two-part series that aims to define information. Part one demonstrated that Gitt’s UI provides a viable, working definition. Gitt (2023) defines UI as “a symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s). In this context, ‘message’ is meant to include instructions for carrying out a specific task or eliciting a specific response” (p. 86). If we adopt Gitt’s definition, what implications does this have for faithful librarians? As information plays a critical role in the library profession, our understanding may help us better serve others, faithfully honoring Jesus Christ as we do. This essay argues that Gitt’s UI enriches librarianship by offering a theological framework in which information is not merely data but a relational message that carries divine purpose and moral responsibility.

Both Gitt’s UI and Esther Meek’s covenant epistemology see relationships as key to discovering truth. Gitt emphasizes the communication and purpose of information, while Meek focuses on the relational commitment that makes knowing possible. Together, they portray information and knowledge not as data but as relational and transformative. Covenant epistemology binds the knower and the known together through commitment, responsibility, and mutuality (Meek, 2011, pp. 157, 184-185). In parallel, Gitt (2023) argues that meaningful information is always tied to persons, relationships, and intent (p. 86). Both frameworks shift the focus away from knowledge and information as impersonal data and facts and towards relational and transformational encounters. Meek and Gitt remind us that librarianship, like any field devoted to information and knowledge, involves more than organizing, retrieving, and synthesizing. True knowing and, subsequently, authentic information depend on personal agency, relationships, and intentional commitment. These make information and knowledge relational and transformative at their core.

Is information literacy impacted by Gitt’s UI? It may seem a bit awkward to define information after beginning the discussion and critique of the Framework. In retrospect, defining information should have preceded this, since literacy cannot be understood without clarity about its object. An earlier entry defined information literacy as “enabling patrons to avoid first-order epistemological errors and guiding patrons to truth, thereby helping them avoid deception and lies. This is a critical ministerial task for faithful librarians because lies are a form of self-deception, distort reality, break trust, and separate individuals from authentic relationships with God and others.” Gitt’s definition doesn’t conflict with my earlier one; it deepens it. I provide a modified definition of information literacy: “the ability to recognize information as a coded message—one that carries form, meaning, action, and purpose. This understanding helps us discern intent, avoid deception, seek truth, and communicate in ways that build trust with God and others.”

What does this look like in practice? Let’s look at some examples. A few weeks ago, I was researching an academic project. I wanted to explore a possible connection between two ideas: the theological concept of perichoresis and the nature of knowledge. During my search, I found a blog entry that proposed such a connection. Recognizing information as a coded message in a specific form that carries meaning, action, and purpose gave me reason for caution in this context. First, the form that this information took was a blog. Therefore, it was essential to consider a blog’s overall purpose. While some blogs can be written in pursuit of scholarly endeavors, most do not demonstrate the rigor of peer-reviewed research. Therefore, the intent of a blog differs from that of a more scholarly resource. Recognizing this helped me treat the post cautiously. In addition to this, the blog was written by a layperson rather than a scholar (impacting its meaning), and I questioned its reliability. In my research, I sought the truth and wanted to avoid being misled. After reading the blog, while agreeing with some of the author’s points, I recognized a need for further evidence before accepting their argument. Because of the blog’s form and purpose, which affect its meaning and impact, I could not rely on it alone. For those familiar with information literacy, looking at information in this manner is unlikely to be a surprise. However, the focal point using this definition is distinct: looking at information through Gitt’s UI strengthens information literacy and the critical role it serves in the process of seeking and discovering truth.

In addition, following Gitt’s fourfold concept of information, a faithful librarian’s ability to discover truth from various resources guides them toward specific actions that build trust and strengthen relationships with God and others. For a faithful librarian, this means that accurate information decoding leads to acting in a godly manner—reflecting truth, integrity, and obedience to God’s revelation (cf. Proverbs 1:7). Teaching information literacy moves beyond simply teaching students how to locate and evaluate sources (e.g., Al-Zou’bi, 2021; Mills et al., 2021). Faithful librarians can teach patrons to explore information through its four dimensions—structure (syntax), meaning (semantics), use (pragmatics), and purpose (apobetics)—fostering deeper engagement and training patrons to avoid deception while seeking truth.

Another model displaying how this plays out in practice is my own research on faith integration over the last 20 years. In this context, I notice that Gitt’s UI structure integrates alongside information literacy protocols. For example, one of the first questions I asked when starting my research was: “What questions need to be asked to integrate my faith in Jesus Christ into the profession of LIS?” Or, “What is my objective in aiming to integrate my faith into LIS?” Questions like these aim to familiarize me with the various contexts I will use (i.e., syntax). Because of my background in both biblical and theological studies and librarianship, I was familiar with much of the syntax. Lacking familiarity with either discipline would hinder my ability to understand how to integrate my faith into LIS. Once I had answers, I aimed to define terms and concepts, such as “integration” and “librarainship” (i.e., meaning or semantics). Both provided clarity to my goals and objectives. Information literacy played a critical role in the first two components of UI, guiding me to discern the intentions of various sources, avoid deception, and seek truth. By guiding me to the truth, information literacy helped me communicate in ways that build trust and strengthen relationships with God and others. Yet my own sinful tendencies—distraction, self‑justification, and resistance—created “noise” that led me toward error and deception (cf. Jeremiah 19:7; Romans 7:11; Ephesians 4:22). Participation (Gitt’s pragmatic component) in this research endeavor has truly led to transformation (Gitt’s apobetic component). In this sense, my research itself has been apobetic: it has served my long-term goal of being conformed to the image of Christ (cf. Romans 8:29; Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5). Gitt’s UI eloquently aligns with the larger purpose of information literacy: avoiding deception, seeking truth, and transformation.

Gitt’s definition of information also corresponds with a reference interview as a critical ministerial task for faithful librarians. For example, a student steps into my office, noting they need help finding information on spiritual gifts, a topic with extensive literature that offers varied interpretations. My first inquiry desires to clarify syntax by attending to and refining the patron’s language about spiritual gifts. In other words, I want to make sure that we are on the same page. I ask, “Could you tell me a bit more about what you have in mind when you mention spiritual gifts?” Questions like this guide the dialogue toward an understanding of the distinctions among terms such as “spiritual gifts,” “calling,” and “charisms,” clarify what the student wants, and confirm that we are working with shared, well‑defined terms. This process is in line with Gitt’s emphasis on the formal structure of information. Next, I explore semantics by probing the patron’s context, aiming to understand the meaning they seek—biblical teaching, theological interpretation, or discernment of their own gifts. I ask, “When you mention spiritual gifts, are you thinking more in terms of Scriptural passages that mention spiritual gifts, how different denominations have utilized spiritual gifts, personal discernment, or another angle?” Then, I address pragmatics: what the patron hopes to do with this understanding, such as serving in ministry, making life decisions, or completing an assignment. I ask, “What do you hope to be able to do or understand better after gathering information on spiritual gifts?” These correspond to Gitt’s concern for the actions that information is intended to produce. Finally, I attend to apobetics by gently surfacing the deeper purpose or hoped‑for outcome behind the inquiry. I ask, “Can you share what you hope will come from your study or inquiry into spiritual gifts?” The apobetic domain, Gitt’s highest level of information, focuses on ultimate purpose—helping patrons clarify the deeper goals behind their questions while staying within professional boundaries.

Grasping Gitt’s UI and its connection to Meek’s (2011) covenant epistemology can also profoundly shape how we approach acquisitions and collection development. Gitt reminds us that information is not just raw data waiting to be collected, but something that takes shape through thoughtful interpretation and meaningful conversation within communities. When deciding which titles to purchase, this shifts the librarian’s role from simply gathering resources that present facts to carefully selecting materials that invite reflection, dialogue, and shared understanding. When librarians select resources, context is crucial. Gitt’s pragmatic and apobetic levels remind us to consider how a work will be used and what purposes it serves. Information isn’t neutral; it’s woven into the ongoing conversations of scholarship and society. Librarians have long developed collection development policies that foster growth, insight, and connection. With the conviction that both knowledge and information are transformative (or apobetic), faithful librarians have further warrant to continue being stewards who shape these conversations by curating collections that foster growth, insight, and connection (cf. Trotti, 2002). Seeing our work this way transforms librarianship into a dynamic, relational practice—one that not only preserves knowledge but also nurtures the communities it serves.

Cataloging and metadata creation benefit from Gitt’s UI. Seeing information as layered and purposeful turns cataloging and metadata work into interpretive, communicative acts rather than simple technical routines. When catalogers recognize the intentionality behind every record or subject heading, they create metadata that better reflects context. By applying three of Gitt’s four dimensions—syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic—catalogers can produce richer, more layered records to enhance discovery and better meet varied research needs.

With books all around me, computers with internet access nearby, and my iPhone at my fingertips, information flash floods become common. Like the havoc and chaos caused by flash floods, information overload can quickly lead to mayhem and disarray. In this context, can Gitt’s UI and Meek’s covenant epistemology help a faithful librarian to embrace: “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, [that] will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7, ESV)? Gitt (2023) notes that nature’s complex information—like the DNA in each cell—points to God as its ultimate source (pp. 341–342). Unlike the disorder of information overload, God’s revelation remains unique, reliable, and distinct from everyday data noise. The pragmatic and apobetic domains of information shift the focus from the information itself to its purpose and use. The ultimate objective of life, and subsequently, the purpose in seeking information is “to glorify God and to enjoy him forever” (Westminster Assembly Divines, 1647/2019, Q. 1). Perhaps such a focus helps the faithful librarian avoid being consumed by the flood of information and its rushing waters, allowing them to rest solidly on Jesus Christ, the rock.

Gitt’s UI shows that information always has structure, meaning, action, and purpose; Meek’s covenant epistemology shows that knowing is relational and transformative. Our work as faithful librarians goes beyond organizing books or teaching research skills. Librarianship is a vocation that guides others toward wisdom, fosters discernment in a complex world, and reflects the Creator’s intentionality. Faithful librarians are stewards of messages that aim to form people, not merely managers of data. In uniting Gitt’s structure of purposeful information with Meek’s vision of relational knowing, faithful librarianship becomes a living form of communication—one that mirrors God’s own act of revealing truth in love.

Works Cited

Al-Zou’bi, R. (2021). The impact of media and information literacy on acquiring the critical thinking skill by the educational faculty’s students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100782

Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2010). What is information? A multidimensional concern. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism, and Critique, 8(1), 77–108. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v8i1.76

Gitt, W. (2023). Information: The key to life. Master Books.

Meek, E. L. (2011). Loving to know: Introducing covenant epistemology. Cascade Books.

Meek, E. L. (2023). Doorway to artistry: Attuning your philosophy to enhance your creativity. Cascade Books.

Mills, J., Flynn, R., Fox, N., Shaw, D., & Wiley, C. W. (2021). Beyond the checklist approach: A librarian-faculty collaboration to teach the BEAM method of source evaluation. Communications in Information Literacy, 15(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2021.15.1.7

Trotti, J. B. (2002). The theological library: In touch with the witnesses. In Christian Librarianship (pp. 48–54). McFarland & Co.

Westminster Assembly Divines. (1647/2019). The Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Westminster Standard. https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-shorter-catechism/

In an earlier entry, I defined faith-integration for librarianship as “one’s effort to practice and understand how Jesus Christ can be displayed as Lord of all domains through librarianship.” I also noted the critical roles epistemology and revelation play in implementing faith integration. Apart from the conviction that all truth is God’s truth and, subsequently, that differing academic disciplines can speak to each other (epistemology), and that God speaks through the ordinary (general revelation), faith integration crashes and burns (cf. Estes, 2019). Yet even the most rigorous theology must yield to love, for revelation’s goal is not mastery but communion. The Message recovers the poetic immediacy of Paul’s vision:

If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don’t love, I’ve gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I’m bankrupt without love.

Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have.
Love doesn’t strut,
Doesn’t have a swelled head,
Doesn’t force itself on others,
Isn’t always “me first,”
Doesn’t fly off the handle,
Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn’t revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end (1 Corinthians 13:3-7, The Message)

Acknowledging Jesus Christ’s lordship over all domains implies that love is central. In other words, I cannot be a faithful librarian apart from love: loving God, loving patrons, loving co-workers, loving my supervisor, loving my family, and loving strangers. Even if every reference interview I conduct gives a patron access to God’s truth, without love for the patron, my work is in vain. Teaching a one-shot information literacy session may help students discover more about God, but when I fail to express love toward the instructor who invited me, my efforts become futile. Similar to trying to find a book without a call number, striving to be a faithful librarian apart from love is pointless.

Why do I write this? Just as a conductor orchestrates beautiful music by elegantly using all instruments, so a librarian who integrates faith gracefully strives to fuse love for God and love for neighbor into their professional endeavors. Love bonds theology with librarianship. My blog entries tend to be technical, exploring critical premises. If I do this, however, without love, writing these entries (and the attempt to put what I write into practice) is merely “the creaking of a rusty gate” (1 Corinthians 13:1, The Message).

As we enter the Christmas season, may we embrace God’s act of love revealed in the birth of Jesus Christ. “When the time came, he (Jesus) set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process” (Philippians 2:6–7, The Message, emphasis in original). Faith-integration’s purpose is to encourage serious, faithful, humble thinking, leading to truly knowing God, loving God, and loving others. Such a process empowers an understanding of how Jesus Christ can be displayed as Lord of all domains through librarianship and enables the faithful librarian to manifest God’s love in all facets of the profession. Faith integration failing to manifest God’s truth in love reeks like a rotten vegetable and, similarly, should be trashed. I am hopeful that these entries reflect God’s loving nature and become like fresh, vital, and appealing garden-fresh vegetables, nourishing faithful librarians.

Because the works of Jesus Christ, both his birth (his setting aside the privileges of deity) and his death, burial, and resurrection, were acts of love, faith integration also begins and ends with love. It is love that interprets knowledge rightly, love that redeems our professional labor, and love that bears witness to the Lordship of Christ through the profession of librarianship. To love in this way is to practice the gospel within the stacks, behind the desk, and on the screen—to manifest the Word who became flesh through the joyful work of ordering, serving, and giving. May every cataloged record, every information literacy session, every patient reference interview whisper the reality that God so loved the world. For when our vocation is steeped in that love, our labor will not be in vain.

Reference

Estes, D. J. (2019). Psalm 19, Revelation, and the Integration of Faith, Learning, and Life. In A. J. Spencer (Ed.), The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis (pp. 48–57). Wipf & Stock.

ABSTRACT:

This entry explores the persistent ambiguity surrounding the concept of “information,” focusing on how Library and Information Science (LIS) scholars can benefit from integrating Werner Gitt’s theory of Universal Information (UI) with José María Díaz Nafría’s multidimensional framework. While Díaz Nafría’s threefold syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic model illuminates the layered complexity of the term, it stops short of providing a definition. Gitt’s Universal Information extends this conversation through a fourth, apobetic dimension—emphasizing purpose as the ultimate determinant of meaning. By mapping key LIS theories (Bates, Buckland, Cornelius, Pratt) to this unified fourfold model, this paper argues that Gitt’s framework provides a constructive tool for aligning philosophical, operational, and theological understandings of information. In doing so, it highlights how information, properly conceived, is never neutral but inherently purposive—directed toward ordered understanding and transformative knowledge. This synthesis not only clarifies how “information” functions within scholarly discourse but also opens new pathways for understanding librarianship as a purposeful vocation grounded in meaning, context, and intentionality.

FULL ENTRY:

Does any word cry ambiguity as frequently as “information”? Everyone speaks about information with confidence, but when asked how, precisely, one defines information, the conversation soon resembles a lively Bible study: thoughtful interpretations abound, no two quite the same, and consensus lingers. Sadly, despite its critical role in Library and Information Science (LIS), much scholarly literature aiming to define the term “information” faces similar challenges. Werner Gitt’s concept of Universal Information (UI), read alongside José María Díaz Nafría’s dimensional model, clarifies the philosophical and operational boundaries of the term. By mapping leading LIS definitions to Gitt’s depiction, this entry proposes UI as a foundational tool for an interdisciplinary understanding of information.

Gitt’s UI stands as a promising beacon in conversations about what information truly means. But to engage his concept thoughtfully, it will be helpful to establish a broader context. Díaz Nafría’s (2010) multidimensional framework provides precisely this—mapping out the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects and how they shape how we understand information. Starting with Díaz Nafría’s (2010) comprehensive structure provides a foundation for assessing Gitt’s definition and helps us understand how UI fits within the larger tapestry of information theory.

Díaz Nafría (2010) observed a decades-long trend in which the scientific use of the concept of information became more precise yet less manageable, creating greater tension in efforts to provide a straightforward definition (p. 78). Subsequently, Díaz Nafría (2010) argues that the term “information” remains deeply ambiguous in contemporary discourse, balancing its historical roots with diverse interpretations shaped by everyday use and scientific precision. This ambiguity is heightened by tensions between rigid, mathematical theories and open, complex models across different disciplines and cultural contexts (pp. 77–78). Díaz Nafría (2010) uses a “dimensional approach” (pp. 84–87) to address information’s ambiguous nature, highlighting how three dimensions can clarify the term “information”: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Such a process aims to clarify by examining the “scope and intention of the different information concepts” (Díaz Nafría, 2010, p. 84).

Díaz Nafría’s (2010) syntactic dimension looks at how information is expressed or structured (p. 84). For example, the physical shape, color (red), and letters “STOP” are the raw signals or symbols on a stop sign, and they are presented this way to create meaning. The physical symbols—the shape, color, and letters—function at the level of syntax; they are organized in a recognizable form. Just as the components of the red stop sign express syntax, likewise, a Library of Congress call number has syntax: SB1.A65 I55 2010. For a call number, the syntactic level focuses on the arrangement of letters, numbers, and punctuation according to cataloging rules. If I argued that SBIA 16520.0155 was a Library of Congress call number, I would likely be considered silly because this number does not follow the structure (or syntax) of a Library of Congress call number. Perhaps this is similar to what it might be like to see a green square-shaped sign with the letters “SOTP.” Awkward! The syntactic dimension does not focus on what the information means (although changes at the syntactic level do impact this), but on the way the call number (or stop sign) expresses the information (Díaz Nafría, 2010, p. 84). The call number SB1.A65 I55 2010 follows the syntax of a Library of Congress call number, and the octagon-shaped red sign with the letters “STOP” conforms to familiar norms. Therefore, I can use syntax to proceed to Díaz Nafría’s next level—the semantic component—to understand what they are communicating. Although SBIA 16520.0155 and a green square-shaped stop sign may adhere to specific rules, neither conforms to the protocols we are familiar with. Subsequently, they cannot be considered information apart from the establishment or discovery of rules; in other words, until one has syntax.

Díaz Nafría’s (2010) next dimension is semantic. The semantic dimension examines what the information means in specific contexts. When I am driving and see a red octagon-shaped sign with the letters “STOP,” I recognize it as a stop sign. Semantic typically refers to meaning in the context of language or logic. Many people in developed nations are familiar with the red, yellow, and green of traffic lights and their use on roads and streets internationally. However, if someone driving saw a stop sign and was unfamiliar with the language and logic behind traffic signals, they would likely run right through it because the red stop sign would have little to no meaning. Similarly, in the context of the Library of Congress call number, SB1.A65 I55 2010 bears little meaning if one is not familiar with the semantics of a library and a library call number (knowing that “SB” is a subfield of “S,” that “2010” represents a date of publication, etc.). Lacking semantics, an individual with this call number is like a driver approaching a four-way intersection with a red octagon-shaped sign displaying the letters “STOP,” yet unaware that they actually need to stop. Both contexts, lacking semantics, brew potential devastation.

Semantics point to pragmatics: the actual impact or use of the information. In the context of the stop sign, the driver, having understood the syntax and semantics, applies the brakes and stops the car. The pragmatic effect depends on the situation: obeying the sign to prevent an accident and conforming to social and legal rules in context. Similarly, Díaz Nafría’s (2010) third information dimension is pragmatic; how does one value or use the information in a particular context? In a library, the call number SB1.A65 I55 2010 has little value unless used to actually locate the book. A curious student researching international agriculture wants to confirm whether this work will help them understand contemporary issues in the field. Therefore, in assisting the student, a librarian takes them to a book with this call number. The librarian uses the information to find the book. In a pragmatic context, the usefulness of the information plays a central role.

While Díaz Nafría’s (2010) three dimensions provide a framework, illuminating information’s scope and ambiguity, they do not themselves define the concept. Werner Gitt (2023), in his book, Information: The Key to Life, takes Díaz Nafría’s work one step further and defines information. Gitt (2023), aligning with many scholars who aim to determine the meaning of information (cf. Belkin, 1975, p. 54; Buckland, 1991, p. 351; Capurro & Hjørland, 2003, p. 354; Dretske, 1981, p. 44; Floridi, 2005, p. 351; Gabor, 1953, p. 2; Jones, 2010, para. 7; Machlup, 1962, p. 14; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 58; Qvortrup, 1993, p. 7), notes “(t)he word ‘information,’ as it is used in everyday language, is somewhat vague and subject to confusion…” (p. 18). Gitt (2023) labels his definition as “Universal Information,” abbreviated as UI (p. 18), to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding.

Gitt’s (2023) UI has four components:

1. Symbolically encoded – The message uses symbols (e.g., words, numbers).
2. Abstractly represented – Goes beyond physical forms; meaning is not tied to medium.
3. Oriented towards action – Delivers instructions for performing specific tasks or responses.
4. Directed by purpose – Includes the purpose or objective of the message (p. 86).

Gitt’s (2023) first three elements align closely with Díaz Nafría’s (2010) dimensions. Gitt’s (2023) first component, “symbolically encoded,” refers to the way information is represented using symbols—such as letters, numbers, or genetic codes—rather than the actual things themselves (p. 43). Similar to Díaz Nafría’s (2010) syntactic dimension, in the context of a stop sign, Gitt’s (2023) symbolically encoded component implies that it contains encoded symbols intended for a receiver to decode (p. 43). Similarly, a call number like SB1.A65 I55 2010 combines letters and numbers to represent specific details about a book, such as its subject, author, and publication date. While each part within the call number carries a particular meaning, Gitt’s focus is on the symbols used to encode information according to agreed-upon rules, which are then decoded by a receiver.

Gitt’s (2023) second element of UI includes abstract representation as a symbol or sign that carries meaning beyond its physical form, which he refers to as semantics (p. 91). For example, a red stop sign is more than just a red octagon—it is an abstract representation that conveys the meaning “stop,” which drivers understand through shared knowledge and conventions. Semantics is the bridge that connects those abstract symbols to their meaning. Without this semantic layer, the stop sign’s shape and color would be meaningless marks. Gitt emphasizes that both the creation and interpretation of meaning require intelligence, making the semantic level crucial for information to have purpose and be understood within UI. Similarly, Díaz Nafría (2010) notes that when given information, an individual automatically looks for meaning and context, in other words, its semantic domain (p. 84). In the example of the Library of Congress call number stated above, patrons do not merely gaze at it; they strive to understand its meaning. Because one uses the Library of Congress call number in a specific arena (a library), this context allows the patron to know that a call number — a coded form of alphanumeric characters — represents the book’s identity and essential information; it conveys meaning without directly describing the book itself.

Gitt’s (2023) third dimension is pragmatic (p. 62). This bears striking similarities to Díaz Nafría’s (2010) third category, which bears the same label. Both Díaz Nafría (2010) and Gitt (2023) note that information is always presented with some kind of response. In the context of the stop sign, the pragmatic component (in most contexts) is fairly straightforward: STOP! Similar to how a driver who sees a stop sign should not simply ignore it and plow through the intersection, a library patron given a call number for a book with the title, The International Dimension of the American Society of Agronomy, is not expected to just leave the library or to crumple up the paper upon which the call number was written and throw it away. Such action would be vulgar. Instead, the call number acts as a guide or address that helps the patron locate the specific book within the library collection. At a minimum, one expects the patron will go to the book’s location and retrieve it. Alternatively, if in a hurry, the patron may write the call number somewhere to prevent it from being misplaced, explaining their apparent rudeness and indicating their intention to attend to it later.

Thus, while both theorists emphasize the pragmatic expectation of a prompt response, Gitt advances the discussion by questioning the response’s ultimate purpose. In doing so, he develops information’s fourth component: apobetics. The apobetic domain “refers to the intended goal, the purpose, that the sender wishes to achieve” (Gitt, 2023, p. 68). Gitt (2023) argues that this component is critical because the individual sending information does so for a purpose (p. 68). Gitt develops apobetics constructively by asking: “For what purpose has this information been sent?” Gitt’s UI demands that the call number has a purpose (cf. Puddefoot, 1992, pp. 15, 19–20). For example, in this context, the librarian provides the book’s call number to help the patron locate it for their research.

The apobetic domain comes into play with Library of Congress call numbers because by following its protocol, books on similar topics will be nearby. The Library of Congress’s classification is based on the assumption (valid in many cases) that a person looking for a work will be interested in other works on similar topics. Subsequently, the call number system orders the library’s holdings, placing works by topic and directing researchers and readers to sections related to the information they seek. Aligning with Gitt’s apobetic domain, the structure undergirding the Library of Congress call numbers enables creative engagement by enabling connections, comparisons, and syntheses of texts on similar topics. The Library of Congress call number also exemplifies Puddefoot’s (1992) claim: information reveals its true nature and purpose only when situated within a broader, meaning-bearing context (pp. 22–23). Just as divine information in God’s Word orders creation, sustains possibility, and makes relationship and creativity possible (Puddefoot, 1992, pp. 10–11, 14–15, 22–23), so the humble call number, meaningless on its own, becomes an instrument of order, direction, and meaning when embedded in the dynamic system of the library and utilized by the patron. For faithful librarians, information always has purpose, never incidental, but integral—rooted in creation and reflecting divine intentionality at every level of meaning (cf. Puddefoot, 1992).

As noted earlier, covenant epistemology suggests that knowledge has two parts: listening to trusted authorities and following their instructions, so that the learner can rightly perceive and inhabit what is being disclosed (cf. Johnson, 2015, loc. 481). Gitt’s definition eloquently aligns by implying that information cannot simply be left at a syntactic (that we understand it) or pragmatic (that we know what to do) level; individuals involved in information exchanges must also embrace the apobetic component (understand why such an exchange is taking place). Understanding the crucial role of Gitt’s (2023) apobetic domain emphasizes the intended goal of information: not merely to transmit signals but to create the conditions under which meaning and coordinated understanding—critical for transformation—can occur (cf. Main, 2024; Patrontasch, 2025; van Ruler, 2018). Subsequently, Gitt’s apobetic domain of information creates a fertile soil upon which knowledge (i.e., perceiving and inhabiting what is being disclosed) can flourish.

While Díaz Nafría’s (2010) and Gitt’s (2023) discussions correspond well, a vast amount of LIS literature also aligns eloquently with Gitt’s definition. In her article “Fundamental Forms of Information,” Marcia Bates (2006) addresses the ambiguity surrounding the ways people define information by proposing a foundational understanding: information is “the pattern of organization of matter and energy” (p. 1033). Bates’s (2006) definition fits into Gitt’s syntactic frame, emphasizing structure and arrangement, but lacking meaning (p. 1041). Similarly, in his essay, “Theorizing Information for Information Science,” Ian Cornelius (2002) notes how information arises only in a context with incomplete knowledge (p. 403), aligning with both the semantic and pragmatic dimensions, stressing information’s functional role in reducing uncertainty and driving purposeful engagement with knowledge. In his article, “Information as Thing,” Michael Buckland (1991) concisely differentiates between “information-as-thing” (p. 353) and “information-as-knowledge” (p. 351), mapping onto the syntactic (material representations) and semantic (meaningful content) frames, with his emphasis on information’s capacity to facilitate transformation reflecting the pragmatic dimension. Finally, Allan Pratt (1977) conceptualizes information as an event shaping an individual’s internal image of reality. This situates his work firmly within the pragmatic frame, while also implying apobetic considerations by underscoring information’s role as a transformative agent (pp 208, 215). As Table 1 below indicates, these interpretations demonstrate how diverse definitions of information can be coherently situated within Gitt’s framework, highlighting its potential for integrating other existing or emerging definitions. Subsequently, Gitt’s four frames provide a structured approach for understanding the multifaceted nature of information across disciplines and epistemologies.

Framework	Syntax	Semantic	Pragmatic	Apobetic
Gitt (2023)	✓	✓	✓	✓
Díaz Nafría (2010)	✓	✓	✓
Bates (2006)	✓
Cornelius (2002)		✓	✓
Buckland (1991)	✓	✓	✓
Pratt (1977)			✓	✓

Table 1

Despite information’s ambiguous nature, Gitt’s (2023) UI provides a working definition aligning with the literature: “… a symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s). In this context, ‘message’ is meant to include instructions for carrying out a specific task or eliciting a specific response” (p. 86). The question still remains: “So what?” The following entry on this topic will examine how this definition might influence the practices of faithful librarians.

References

Bates, M. J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 57(8), 1033–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20369

Belkin, N. J. (1975). Towards a definition of information for informatics. In V. Horsnell (Ed.), Informatics 2: Proceedings of a conference held by the Aslib Co-ordinate Indexing Group on 25-27 March 1974 at New College, Oxford (pp. 50–56). ASLIB.

Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5%3C351::AID-ASI5%3E3.0.CO;2-3

Capurro, R., & Hjørland, B. (2003). The concept of information. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 37, pp. 343–411). Information Today. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370109

Cornelius, I. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393–425). Information Today. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360110

Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2010). What is information? A multidimensional concern. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism, and Critique, 8(1), 77–108. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v8i1.76

Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information (1st MIT Press ed.). MIT Press.

Floridi, L. (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x

Gabor, D. (1953). A summary of communication theory. In W. Jackson (Ed.), Communication theory (pp. 1–24). Butterworths.

Gitt, W. (2023). Information: The key to life. Master Books.

Jones, W. (2010). No knowledge but through information. First Monday, 15(9). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3062/2600

Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton University Press. http://www.archive.org/details/productiondistri00mach

Main, P. (2024, February 6). Communication theories. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/communication-theories

Meek, E. L. (2011). Loving to know: Introducing covenant epistemology. Cascade Books.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Patrontasch, A. B. (2025, May 16). Communication theory powers Shyft’s core research features. https://www.myshyft.com/blog/communication-theory-application/

Pratt, A. D. (1977). The information of the image: A model of the communications process. Libri, 27, 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.1977.27.1.204

Puddefoot, J. C. (1992). Information and creation. In C. Wassermann, R. Kirby, & B. Rordorf (Eds.), The science and theology of information: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Science and Theology, Geneva, March 29 to April 1, 1990 (pp. 7–25). Labor et Fides.

Qvortrup, L. (1993). The controversy over the concept of information: An overview and a selected and annotated bibliography. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 1(4), 3–24.

van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication theory: An underrated pillar on which strategic communication rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452240

ABSTRACT:

In this post, I share how I struggled with dualism—the false separation between the sacred and the secular—and how discovering the concept of faith integration transformed my perspective on librarianship and life. I explain that integrating faith and learning means submitting every area of my life, including my professional work, to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and I explore how both epistemology (how we know what we know) and the doctrine of revelation (how God reveals truth through both creation and Scripture) are foundational to this process. I reflect on how general revelation, seen in the order and structure of creation, and special revelation, found in Scripture and Christ, both shape my approach to serving others in the library. Ultimately, I argue that true faith integration goes beyond simple professionalism or courtesy; it calls me to practice radical love, patience, and service, even when it’s difficult because these actions reflect God’s character and grace in every interaction.

FULL ENTRY:

I often see a challenge in integrating faith and learning. The same challenge appears when integrating faith into almost any aspect of life. This challenge is called dualism. In the context of the Christian faith, dualism frequently assumes a chasm between the private and the public, between the natural and the supernatural, and between God’s work in the spiritual realm of our soul and spirit and God’s work in the physical arena. Because of this dualism, I often assumed that while the spiritual has a bearing on my personal life, it has little to no bearing on other aspects, like my professional endeavors. This assumption drove me crazy. In a somewhat infamous idea (often taken out of context), many use a statement made by the early church father, Tertullian, to justify this separation or dualism. Tertullian (n.d.) rhetorically asked: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (chapter 7), implying that Athens and Jerusalem (what some today assume to be identical, respectively, to “secular” and “sacred”) had no commonality and subsequently should not be joined. However, the idea that God’s salvation impacts our souls (sacred) but has little bearing on the rest of our lives (which some consider to be “secular”) brews problems. Dualism often infers that God’s work is limited to the spiritual and personal arena, making one’s faith challenging to apply to many arenas of life, including librarianship. The Lordship of Jesus Christ demands that faithful librarians look at life differently, or as Abraham Kuyper (1988) fervently stated, “(t)here is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” (p. 461).

It was an “aha” moment when I had my first exposure to faith integration. I began to see the possibility of submitting every square inch of my life (family, church, work, personal endeavors) to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Faith integration countered the dualism I had incorrectly assumed, and fortunately, the idea of dualism quickly shattered. I was astonished at how easily my presupposition of dualism was crushed. Much of what I practiced and learned about librarianship began to connect with my Christian faith. The context for exploration regarding what faith integration might look like in librarianship seemed ripe and ready for harvest. Why did this connection come quickly for me? In an essay by Daniel Estes (2019), he notes that two critical components undergird faith integration: epistemology and revelation. When I started my work trying to understand how my faith should drive librarianship, a fair amount of work in epistemology resulted. Librarians deal with information, and there is much dialog on the connection between information and knowledge/wisdom. While epistemology was a reasonably new field, my theological background familiarized me with the dialogs, making it easy to jump into the conversations. I connected the dots even further thanks to my recent reading of Estes’ (2019) essay. I began to see how my understanding of the doctrine of revelation, specifically general revelation, in addition to epistemology, played a critical role in my faith integration journey.

The concept of information often has strong connections with knowledge. Subsequently, for Library and Information Science, a connection between how one sees epistemology and an ability to do faith integration makes sense. However, in his essay, Estes (2019) implies that understanding epistemology has a bearing on all disciplines. He suggests that understanding epistemology is critical to one’s ability to see any discipline through a perspective of faith. How does one’s understanding of epistemology drive the integration of faith and learning in all disciplines? We are all familiar with disciplinary silos; they are typical in many contexts (including Library and Information Science). Disciplinary silos often come about when disciplines lack connectivity to other academic disciplines. As a result, some argue that academic disciplines can lose their vibrancy and applicability to real-life scenarios. Disciplinary silos develop naturally. This is because disciplinary mastery often requires a certain level of expertise. Subsequently, in pursuing a discipline, scholars often fail to generate familiarity with how other disciplines work. They lack an understanding of how other disciplines attain knowledge and grow and develop. The extensive amount of research and writing done in almost all disciplines often fortifies disciplinary silos and challenges interdisciplinary work. Disciplinary silos frequently assume that different disciplines lack commonality, and, again, the depth of disciplinary work often warrants (although falsely) such an assumption. Disciplinary silos cause one to ask, using Tertullian’s language: “What does English literature have to do with chemistry?”

It should be noted that compared with other disciplines, Library and Information Science is often seen as the odd man out regarding interdisciplinary work. The nature of many jobs related to librarianship asks us to be familiar with a broad range of disciplines, making mastery of one (as is common in academia) a challenge. Assuming that disciplines lack commonality challenges the concept that one discipline can offer any insight to another. From this perspective, one question is how theology (often only seen as another discipline or falsely presumed to simply be a “preferred religious expression”) should drive my understanding and practice of Library and Information Science. However, a premise of Christian epistemology (and, subsequently, of how Christians should practice research) is that “all truth is God’s truth,” which drives one back to the idea that all truth comes from God. This infers that all disciplines (even disciplines lacking remote similarities) should find common ground because all truth comes from the same root: God. Acknowledging this is critical for integrating faith and learning because these epistemological bases are often foundational to a discipline. Faith integration frequently cannot occur if one lacks the epistemological premise that all truth is God’s truth and subsequently lacks a warrant for connecting theology and theological studies with their discipline. Theology provides epistemological grounding (i.e., “all truth is God’s truth“) that assumes that knowledge from multiple venues can still have a unified source. This assumption helps one further understand their discipline (hard sciences, teacher education, psychology, sociology, accounting, etc.) and confirms that the connection between disciplines is not only possible but beneficial.

I noted above that both epistemology and the doctrine of revelation were critical for the integration of faith and learning. Let me provide a brief overview for those unfamiliar with the doctrine of revelation. The doctrine of revelation is self-explanatory; it discusses how God reveals himself to humanity: how do we know God? There are two standard components of the doctrine of revelation: general and special revelation. General revelation argues that God makes himself known to humankind through nature, history, and even our personalities. However, due to the sinful nature of humanity, individuals fail to recognize God’s self-revelation through these entities in and of themselves (Erickson, 2015, p. 34). As a believer in Jesus Christ, I look at the sunrise and am amazed by the glory of God displayed in the beauty of it. I look at my family and am grateful for their blessing and all that God has taught me and continues to teach me about himself through them. I look at myself and acknowledge that God’s grace and mercy are new every morning. God uses ordinary things to teach the extraordinary (general revelation). However, the fact that I am a follower of Jesus Christ (my response to special revelation) makes me recognize God’s work through his creation, relationships, and myself, also known as general revelation. Unfortunately, these aspects of general revelation can be very easily overlooked.

On the other hand, special revelation infers that individuals need more than just nature, good relationships, and general history to know God. Romans 1:19-22 expresses this well: “For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…” (ESV). In other words, the sinful nature of humanity tends to mess up our ability to understand and comprehend general revelation.

Special revelation includes historical events through which God speaks (such as God’s revelation of himself at Israel’s exodus from Egypt [Exodus 12-14]), divine speech, the incarnation of God in Christ, and specifically Scripture. When I read the stories of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness and their subsequent disbelief, I often wonder why they acted so foolishly. They saw and experienced much of God’s revealing of himself (special revelation) but did not trust God. However, after stating this, I am reminded that I also see much of God’s general revelation and quickly reject it. For example, I frequently see humanity’s work in medical arenas. While I am often quick to show praise and appreciation towards those involved (which is often well deserved), I quickly forget that such a discovery is a product of God’s general revelation. Again, Scripture is a primary (but not an exclusive) means through which God reveals himself to humanity and the primary (again, but not exclusive) means of special revelation.

So, let’s get back to the point of this entry: how does my understanding of the doctrine of revelation help me understand faith integration? Scripture does not explicitly address many components of life, including many components of Library and Information Science. For example, neither Scripture nor divine speech explicitly guides how a reference interview should be framed in a Christian worldview. However, Scripture states truth (such as loving one’s neighbor) and establishes theological premises (such as the order and structure of creation) that affect how one might do a reference interview. These theological premises (in this context, special revelation and general revelation) are foundational to practices performed during a reference interview (regardless of the individual’s religious context or lack thereof). For example, in a reference interview, one frequently expects a librarian to be kind and respectful to a patron, displaying love for their neighbor. If this is the case, is simply being kind to a patron an example of faith integration? Is faith integration manifested when I simply treat a patron respectfully and smile as they ask for help pursuing a topic? While I do not want to dismiss the incredible value of a patron, nor am I aiming to argue that it doesn’t matter how we treat another individual, I believe that faith integration is much more profound. It needs to be directed by much more than general courtesy and professionalism. Why? Because of general revelation.

General revelation supposes that God’s character is evident in many facets of creation. Psalm 19:1-2 speaks well to this when it states: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (ESV). One example is how when God created the heavens and the earth, God brought order and structure to it: night and day, land and sea, heavens and earth, etc. The essence of structure in the creation narrative assumes that God is a God of structure and order, and the fact that we can use the disciplines of mathematics, physics, geology, etc., to build structures that can sustain an earthquake confirms that we can create things that align with God’s order and structure.

Similarly, God’s general revelation speaks volumes to Library and Information Science. In the context of the reference interview, general revelation can guide me to treat an individual kindly and with respect. The simple premise that one should treat people in manners identical to how they want to be treated (i.e., the golden rule) can quickly provide a premise for treating a patron respectfully in a reference interview. While the golden rule itself is not general revelation, one can often use reason (e.g., that they have seen the golden rule as effective in prior circumstances) and conscience (e.g., a general awareness that treating others with respect is good) to understand the validity of such a statement. In other words, general revelation often plays an indirect (but critical) role in how we act. If I had no understanding of general revelation, I would have difficulty connecting the premise of the golden rule with God’s character (reflected in our reasoning process and conscience). A God-given conscience (i.e., a manifestation of general revelation) has broader implications than just a reference interview. For example, general revelation allows a library’s ethos to be where it is currently: to share its collection, advocate for open access, be friendly to patrons, welcome a community of strangers, provide a place for community gatherings, etc.

There are many other examples where God’s general revelation can impact Library and Information Science. As noted above, the belief that God created the universe implies that the universe has some order and structure. One can see order and structure by looking at the seven days of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. For example, God did not create man on day one because where would man be? On the formless and void earth (Genesis 1:1)? There was structure and order to God’s creation. The premise of structure and order (a manifestation of God’s general revelation) is critical to many facets of Library and Information Science.

My understanding of general revelation is critical in integrating my faith into all domains of life because God speaks through all domains of life. Most importantly, if I do not understand the role of general revelation in God’s work, it can be challenging to see how my faith connects to things often considered ordinary, like showing respect to a patron. However, suppose I lack understanding that God’s revelation is my foundation. In that case, I quickly lose warrant for treating a patron with respect, particularly when the patron is rude, out of place, or mean-spirited. The conviction that all individuals are made in God’s image (a theological premise) gives conviction behind loving a patron and, from that love, offering superb service, even when it is not deserved. After all, acknowledging God’s revelation leads us to recognize our own depravity and the depth of God’s grace and mercy, which we do not deserve. Our reciprocal display of grace and mercy to others is critical in undergirding many facets of our lives, including librarianship, and can be displayed through superb service.

Is simple professional courtesy an example of faith integration? Faithful librarians must go further because God has revealed himself to believers in Jesus Christ. Faithful librarians must practice radical courtesy because of God’s radical love for us. Faithful librarians must show kindness and compassion both when it is well-deserved and when it clearly is not because this reflects the special revelation of God’s work of redemption. Faithful librarians must show radical patience with all patrons. Why? Because these actions are reflections of God’s work with us. Is it difficult? Do I even need to ask that? I think many are aware of how difficult it is. Praise God that as faithful librarians, we find our worth in the work and person of Jesus Christ, who enables us to serve, empowers us to encourage, and strengthens us to lead.

References

Erickson, M. J. (2015). Introducing Christian Doctrine (3rd ed.). Baker Academic.

Estes, D. J. (2019). Psalm 19, Revelation, and the Integration of Faith, Learning, and Life. In A. J. Spencer (Ed.), The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis (pp. 48–57). Wipf & Stock.

Kuyper, A. (1998). Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Eerdmans.

Tertullian (n.d.) Prescription Against Heretics. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm.