ABSTRACT:

This entry asks whether Christians who are librarians can affirm the ACRL frame “Information Creation as a Process.” It argues that they can, provided the frame is grounded not in a constructivist epistemology alone, but in God’s creative work, covenant epistemology, and a view of information as intentionally produced by intelligent agents. Information creation is presented as a genuinely human, relational, and transformative activity that helps students move from raw information to meaningful knowledge. The essay contends that research and writing are not merely technical tasks but formative processes that shape learners intellectually, morally, and spiritually. Drawing on Genesis, covenant theology, and the concept of Universal Information, it frames information creation as a way humans image God through purposeful, responsible, and truth-seeking work. For faithful librarians, then, the process of information creation should be embraced, deepened, and taught as part of Christian formation and sanctification.

FULL ENTRY:

Can Christians who are librarians affirm Information Creation as a Process, one of the frames from the ACRL (2016) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education? In this entry, I argue that Christians can faithfully affirm the Framework’s frame “Information Creation as a Process” as a genuinely human, covenantal, and transformative practice, even while remaining critical of aspects of its constructivist epistemological base. This entry will provide a brief overview of the query, “Can information be created?” It will answer this with a qualified “yes,” and examine how the process component of information creation may assist a faithful librarian.

Specifically, countering the frame’s constructivist epistemological base, faithful librarians must ground the process component of information creation in (1) God’s own processual work of creation, (2) covenant epistemology’s emphasis on relational, responsive knowing, and (3) a robust account of information as intentionally created by intelligent agents rather than by impersonal mechanisms or machines. On this basis, I suggest that faithful librarians should not only adopt the frame’s basic practices but also deepen them, inviting students to see information creation as a form of imaging God that shapes them intellectually, morally, and spiritually.

The “Information Creation as a Process” frame embodies a constructivist perspective on knowledge by viewing information as actively created, interpreted, and refined through research, writing, revision, and sharing (ACRL, 2016; Lloyd, 2010, pp. 10–14). This frame assumes a connection between information and knowledge, with no development of that connection. In fact, some go as far as to state that the development of information literacy requires an understanding of how knowledge is created and disseminated (Folk, 2025, p. 5). While I do not disagree with such a connection, its lack of development in either the Framework or other scholarly literature is alarming. I developed this connection in an earlier entry, and it will help to summarize it here: information is understood as raw material and knowledge as what happens when that material is interpreted through a worldview (Christian or otherwise), so the move from one to the other is as much spiritual and ethical as it is intellectual. It also frames librarians as connectors who help people turn facts into understanding and new insight rather than just handing over information. For example, in a reference interview, a patron’s vague request remains merely information until the librarian clarifies what they really need, such as whether they want statistics, historical causes, or theological analysis. It becomes knowledge when that information is interpreted and connected to a real question, helping the patron understand and use it meaningfully rather than just collecting facts. In this context, how should we understand information creation?

The ACRL (2016) frame “Information Creation as a Process” rightly insists that a piece of information is not merely a product to be retrieved but the outcome of a process—one of intending, researching, revising, and disseminating a message in a chosen format. On this, the frame and Gitt (2023) agree, and Universal Information gives that process a definite shape. Because UI is, by definition, “symbolically encoded, abstractly represented” and directed toward “expected action(s) and… intended purpose(s)” (p. 86), the creation of information proceeds from the top down: it begins with purpose, moves through intended action and meaning, and only then arrives at the encoded symbols a receiver can perceive. The frame’s central pedagogical instinct—that experts attend to the process of creation and not only the finished artifact—thus finds a philosophical warrant in Gitt’s apobetic dimension. To ask how a stop sign or a call number came to be is to ask, first, what purpose it was made to serve; the red, lettered octagon is not first a shape that later acquired significance but a purpose (keep drivers safe here) given, in turn, a response, a meaning, and finally a symbolic form.

Locating the origin of that process is where a faithful account both affirms the frame and parts from its usual epistemological base. Gitt (2023) places the beginning of any message in the sender’s goal, “the purpose that the sender wishes to achieve” (p. 68), and holds that both the creation and interpretation of meaning require intelligence. Information is created, then, whenever an intelligent sender forms an intention, determines the response it calls for, invests that response with meaning, and encodes it in agreed-upon symbols for an intelligent receiver to decode. The frame describes this same movement but often rests on a constructivist assumption—that the value, and sometimes the meaning, of information is finally negotiated within communities of practice, as though creation were construction all the way down. Gitt’s UI resists this. A purpose presupposes someone who purposes; strip away the sender’s intending mind and what remains is not information awaiting communal construction but mere pattern—Bates’s (2006) “organization of matter and energy,” syntax that no one meant.

For the faithful librarian, this is where the frame’s genuine insight is best secured rather than abandoned. Information creation is a process, and forming students to attend to that process makes them wiser readers and makers. But the process is not self-grounding. Puddefoot (1992) argues that information discloses its nature only within a broader, meaning-bearing context (pp. 22–23), and that divine information in God’s Word orders creation and makes relationship and creativity possible (pp. 10–11, 14–15). Covenant epistemology reframes the “process” accordingly: creating and coming to know are less the construction of meaning from nothing than the faithful reception, ordering, and passing-on of what has been disclosed (cf. Meek, 2011; Johnson, 2015). When a cataloger encodes a book’s identity to guide a patron, that small act of authorship participates in a larger pattern in which information originates in intentionality, and intentionality ultimately originates in the God who spoke creation into being. The frame can therefore be embraced without reservation once its foundation is shifted: creation is indeed a process, but a process of authoring and disclosing meaning, never of generating it ex nihilo apart from a purposing mind.

In a constructivist epistemology, information is not an inherent, fixed object. Still, it gains significance through interpretation and application, with understanding emerging as individuals engage with it in specific contexts and transform it into knowledge or action (Duffy & Orrill, 2004, pp. 167–169). From a constructivist standpoint, meaning is derived from how people interpret and use information, not from the information possessing a fixed meaning independently. This emphasizes learners’ engagement with research goals, the process of information creation, and the tools used, and frames information literacy as a dynamic social practice that fosters individual development and community learning. This perspective aligns with social constructivism’s view that meaning arises through interaction with others and various information landscapes, rather than passive reception of static, decontextualized facts (ACRL, 2016; Burke, 2017, para. 6; Lloyd, 2010, pp. 10–14).

I cannot fully embrace a constructivist epistemology because constructivism tends to ground knowledge in convention, human perception, and social experience (Boghossian, 2006, p. 6). Such assumptions often imply a lack of external, transcendent realities. However, with the premise that all truth is God’s truth, and given that constructivism includes useful components (such as the focus on the learner), rejecting this frame solely because of its constructivist foundation is unwarranted. In addition, some elements of covenant epistemology align well with a constructivist perspective. For example, covenant epistemology does not imply a degradation of the knower in the learning process; instead, it affirms a relational and responsive nature of knowing, emphasizing the vital relational roles of both the knower and the known. This relational component, implied by covenant epistemology, is a key part of how a faithful librarian might understand the frame “Information Creation as a Process.” Thus, when teaching this frame, a faithful librarian can emphasize relational responsibility to sources and frame research as a covenantal encounter with God’s reality. I think most faithful librarians would embrace this frame, as it makes practical sense: when the context of the learner alters, so does their information need.

For example, when I research content for a blog entry, I am not merely sorting through neutral data; I am discerning how a source bears witness to truth within God’s world. A doctoral dissertation often carries greater weight than a Wikipedia article because its claims have typically been tested through rigorous scholarly review, making it a more reliable witness to truth for my purposes. Yet covenant epistemology reminds me that this discernment is not just methodological; it is relational. In receiving, evaluating, and using a source, I am responding before God to truth that already belongs to Him, which means even a less formal source like a wiki may still contain genuine insight that I must carefully and humbly consider. This posture also helps guard against what Dru Johnson (2014) calls epistemological error—the mistake of treating sources in ways that ignore their proper authority, context, or limits, and thereby misusing or misreading the truth they may contain. In this way, “all truth is God’s truth” gives me the confidence to receive truth wherever it is found. In contrast, covenant epistemology gives me the responsibility to do so faithfully, in relationship with God, the source, and my community of inquiry. Similarly, the frame notes that seeking information for the context of writing this blog is different from seeking information about the best restaurant in town, and that one should use other standards and protocols in various contexts (ACRL, 2016, para. 16).

To sharpen what we mean by “information” in this frame, I draw on Gitt’s concept of Universal Information (UI), which helps Christians insist that process presupposes personal agency. UI is distinct from the all-too-common ambiguous definitions of information. Gitt (2023) asserts that “(e)very piece of created (information) represents some intellectual effort; it can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised free will and who has an intelligent mind” (p. 184) and that information “originates only from a non-material component of an intelligent sender(s)” (p. 184). Gitt’s concept of information clarifies that the process of information creation must be carried out by an intelligent sender with intentionality (cf. Puddefoot, 1992, p. 7). One could argue that by writing this blog entry, I (a personal idea-giver with an intelligent mind, exercising my free will) am creating information.

If in agreement that information comes from an intelligent sender, is the creation of information a process as this information literacy frame insists? The frame notes that information creation is an iterative and purposeful sequence of activities involved in producing and communicating information in any format (ACRL, 2016, para. 14). While there may be contexts where information creation may seem instantaneous and not a process, such as the addition of 2+2, in most contexts, it is either a rigorous, discipline-driven process or a process that has become habitually engraved, making it seem instantaneous. However, sin’s impact on our intellectual ability (cf. Oliphint, 2025, p. 262) can make the creation of information all the more difficult. Yet the tedious process of information creation has immense value because of the pivotal, transformative role it plays in the learner. Information creation often results from wrestling with data, trying to understand an argument and its premises, and critically assessing a scholar’s work. Perhaps the only context in which information creation is truly instantaneous (and not a process) is when information is created by a holy and infinite God, lacking a sinful nature and therefore not in need of transformation.

If information creation is to be truly understood as a process, the creation account in Genesis may help us understand information creation. God is all-powerful; He could have easily created without using a process; everything He wanted to create could have been created instantaneously. However, God chose to spread out His creation, making it a process. Whether it took six 24-hour days or much longer, perhaps the fact that God created everything from nothing (ex nihilo) and did so in a process simultaneously underscores both the miraculous nature of creation and the crucial role of process. This component of the process is also noted in Genesis 2, where God has Adam name all the animals. This was a process whereby Adam learned (Johnson, 2014, pp. 28–29). Because of sin, process has become obscured. In some contexts, one understands that process – things such as growth, mediation, and unfolding – is part of the good design of creation. However, process can also reflect humanity’s fallen distortion when sin bends those same processes into delay, fragmentation, obscurity, or self-protective systems that no longer serve truth, goodness, or love. Sin does not introduce process; it makes process laborious. Therefore, when we talk about research as a process, we are not merely adopting a constructivist pedagogical trope; we aim to echo a godly process that reflects the creational pattern rooted in God’s way of working.

As the process is a key piece of the Genesis creation narrative, it raises the question: Why did God choose to create through a process? As the creation process happened before Adam and Eve’s fall, perhaps some observation may also help us differentiate between good and bad processes. Even though Scripture notes that God created humanity as complete, mature adults, not as infants or toddlers, I do not believe this necessarily implies that all facets of creation were complete (e.g., Genesis 2: Adam’s naming of the animals). In other words, while God had finished His work with creation, there was still much left to be done (Pearcey, 2023, p. 32). First, the creation mandate (Genesis 1:28) suggests that God intended humanity to work to complete what God started (cf. Mattson, 2011, pp. 78–98). Second, since humanity’s original sin in Genesis 3 affected humanity’s noetic ability, much of life has become complex and requires processes (cf. Watkin, 2022, p. 165). Thus, there are very few aspects of life that are not part of a process that one must work through, whether it’s sanctification, growing up, entering a professional arena, writing a blog entry, performing, or resolving a technical issue. All of these contexts involve varying degrees of refinement. Information creation is an example of a process that helps the learner grow. In a context where we now sell pre-worn jeans and generate essays on demand, our culture is losing its feel for process—in research and in life.

In the classes I teach, I always state that research is a process, just as the Framework suggests, and that the research process is often as valuable as the end product itself. Why? For me, the answer to this comes back to why I enjoy research and writing. While I do like my finished products, the process of dialoguing about my ideas with others, building arguments to support them, wrestling with opposing viewpoints, aiming to arrive at the truth, refining my positions, and editing my writing (i.e., the process of creating the information) is instrumental, as it is through the research process that God refines me and aligns me with His image.

Similarly, Gitt’s (2023) definition implies that process is crucial to information creation, because meaning ascends through the four meaning-bearing levels of UI (setting aside the purely statistical): the syntactic (that we can read it), the semantic (that we understand it), and the pragmatic (that we know what to do), until the apobetic (that we know why we are doing it). When one embraces this process, actions align according to the authenticated authority (cf. Johnson, 2014, p. 72). Understanding the crucial role of Gitt’s apobetic domain emphasizes the intended goal of information: not merely to transmit signals but to create the conditions under which meaning and coordinated understanding—significant for transformation—can occur (cf. Main, 2024; Patrontasch, 2025; van Ruler, 2018). So, Gitt’s process of information creation, coming to fruition in his apobetic domain, creates fertile soil in which knowledge can flourish.

Mike Higton (2013) captures this apobetic purpose well. Real learning, he argues, is never something the learner can stand over at a safe distance, emerging unchanged as the mere possessor of new facts. Instead, it puts her present understanding, her desires, and her whole way of being in the world at stake. To learn is to risk oneself—and yet Higton insists the gospel proclaims both that the learner must take that risk and that “that she is safe enough to take it” (p. 158). Held by God’s mercy, she is freed for the ongoing self-emptying that carries her deeper into God’s own knowledge.

How should a faithful librarian apply the frame “Information Creation as a Process”? The Framework provides knowledge practices and dispositions for each of its frames. Most of these are relatively straightforward for those familiar with the 21st-century information landscape. For example, one of the dispositions for this frame is to “value the process of matching an information need with an appropriate product” (ACRL, 2016, para. 16). In other words, if I really want this blog taken seriously, I cannot solely rely on content from Wikipedia that supports my views and opinions. I must use and interact with scholarly resources. Similarly, I should not simply peruse Reddit when inquiring about professional matters. In my opinion, applications such as these are rather elementary; faithful librarians are called to take applications deeper.

I am in the midst of preparing for a one-shot information literacy session for a course on fantasy literature. The instructor is asking the students to complete a research paper/project, and this will be my first time working in this course and with this instructor. I am sure that when I walk into that classroom next week, the students will be tethered to their devices, wearing their earbuds like badges of modern monasticism. However, despite the magnetic pull of their screens, the students will look at me and maybe even pay attention for a few minutes. In that brief time, I must invite these students to the transformative process of information creation, which can be assisted by technology but not replicated by it. Consequently, a Christian worldview directs information creation toward a truthful, loving, and worshipful process, a part of sanctification, that machines, as non–image bearers, cannot share.

For the fantasy-lit student in front of me next week, this reframes the entire assignment. The research paper is not a hoop to clear or a container to fill with sources; it is an invitation to be changed by what she finds. If she does the work honestly — sitting with an argument that unsettles her reading of a text, revising a thesis she had grown attached to — she risks something of herself in the process. Higton’s (2013) point made earlier is that this risk is precisely where the learning lives, and that under God’s mercy it is a risk she can afford to take. My task in that one-shot is not merely to show her where the databases are, but to invite her into a process that can form her, not just inform her.

It is common to focus exclusively on the end product and neglect the value of the process. As faithful librarians teach students about research, we must highlight that information creation is not accidental or merely mechanical but falls under a covenantal frame that involves intentional, meaningful acts grounded in human creativity and responsibility. In the context in which I will be teaching, this implies that, though it is countercultural, the research process is just as valuable (if not more so) than the final product students turn in. Just as God created an ordered, purposeful universe through a process, so humans create information with meaning, structure, and intentional design. This frame rightly aligns with the idea when it states that by “(r)ecognizing the nature of information creation, experts look to the underlying processes of creation as well as the final product to critically evaluate the usefulness of the information” (ACRL, 2016, para. 13). In other words, if one neglects the value of process, one’s information creation becomes merely a task, that devalues its transformative nature.

Covenant epistemology implies that knowledge plays a transformative role. Part of information literacy, then, is embracing the process of information creation, despite the frustration, irritation, uncertainty, and ambiguity that frequently accompany. Needless to say, embracing this is difficult. While information literacy is on a smaller scale, faithful librarians should be familiar with the challenges of process, as process is a key component of sanctification (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:12–13), the long and, at times, confusing process of how God uses all the scenarios placed before us to draw us closer to Himself (Romans 8:28). The welcoming of process in the context of sanctification calls on faithful librarians to embrace it in their research endeavors.

Is information creation a process, as the Framework notes? I answer this with a resounding, YES! Information creation is a process, a human endeavor, in which people are invited to partake. The process of information creation becomes a specific expression of humans’ imaging God in their intellectual, creative, and moral agency. Rather than seeing information creation as neutral skill-building, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ it becomes a participatory knowing which submits to Scripture’s authority, orients outputs toward love of God and neighbor, and results in transformation (Meek, 2011, p. 6).

Works Cited

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

Burke, J. (2017). From the AASL Standards to the ACRL Framework: Higher education shifts in pedagogical strategies. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2017/from-aasl-standards-to-the-acrl-framework-higher-education-shifts-in-pedagogical-strategies/

Boghossian, P. A. (2006). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Clarendon Press.

Duffy, T., & Orrill, C. (2004). Constructivism. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 165–172). ABC-CLIO.

Folk, A. (2025). From novice to expert: Exploring the relationship between information literacy threshold concepts and epistemological development. Communications in Information Literacy, 19(1), 4–30. 

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

Higton, M. (2013). A theology of higher education. Oxford University Press.

Johnson, D. (2014). Biblical knowing: A scriptural epistemology of error. James Clarke & Co.

Lloyd, A. (2010). Information literacy landscapes: Information literacy in education, workplace, and everyday contexts. Chandos Publishing.

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

Mattson, B. G. (2011). Restored to our destiny: Eschatology and the image of God in Herman Bavinck’s reformed dogmatics. Brill.

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

Oliphint, K. S. (2025). Creation, sin, and salvation: Essential categories for a Christian-theistic epistemology. In S. Chowdhury & R. Harvey (Eds.), Analytic Islamic Epistemology (1st ed., pp. 261–280). Edinburgh University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/jj.27775799.17

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

Pearcey, N. (2023). The toxic war on masculinity: How Christianity reconciles the sexes. Baker Books.

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.

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

Watkin, C. (2022). Biblical critical theory. Zondervan.

ABSTRACT:

This reflection centers on the ACRL Framework’s principle that “Authority is Contextual,” emphasizing how the authority of information depends on the specific context and information need. It highlights the challenge of personal biases in research that may skew perceptions of authority and calls for faithful librarians to discern appropriate authorities with humility and prudence. Drawing on Abraham Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty concept, it explains that different contexts require different levels and kinds of authority, always under the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ and Scripture. The piece contrasts intellectual lust with studiousness, urging librarians to critically evaluate sources and guide patrons towards genuine knowledge, avoiding epistemological errors in diverse research contexts.

FULL ENTRY:

How do you use authorities to prove you are right? I just finished discussing the connection between worship styles and church growth with a colleague. My colleague vehemently argued that any kind of connection was fallacious, but I had this conviction that there must be some kind of connection. So, what did I do? I began researching the topic. Before I continue this example, some red flags should be going off in the minds of faithful librarians regarding my context. While a conviction is not bad (and may even have a factual warrant), my context, which is that I already have a firm conviction regarding this topic, is likely driving my research to some degree. I often find myself drawn into a state of “insatiable curiosity”—a disposition that William of Baskerville, the Franciscan friar in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose (1983), warns may easily lead to corruption (p. 413). In this kind of context, “research” easily becomes one-sided. My insatiable curiosity to demonstrate a connection between worship styles and church growth leads me to selectively search databases and the internet for resources that reinforce my existing views. This repeated pattern reveals how personal conviction can skew one’s perception of authority within a given context. I note this example not to decry this component of the ACRL Framework, but simply to illustrate how easily specific contexts can foster information lust, which often leads to disregarding authority. Faithful librarians must critically consider the role of authority in research, always recognizing the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ and Scripture as the foundational norm. In this scenario, embracing the authority of Jesus and Scripture would lead me to acknowledge my own context (as a redeemed sinner), which would spur humility, leading me to recognize that my colleague’s point has strengths and my own understanding has weaknesses.

In our previous discussion of information literacy, I stated, “information literacy entails enabling patrons to avoid first-order epistemological errors (not listening to trusted authorities or listening to ‘authorities’ who should not be trusted) and guiding patrons to truth, which leads the patron away from 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.” This idea leaves several questions, such as: “How is anyone supposed to distinguish between knowledge and first-order epistemological errors?” As discussed in the previous entry, the answer to this, at least in part, stems from the issue of seeking guidance: turning to authorities relevant to the area of pursuit (Johnson, 2014, p. 208). How do we know who has the authority to provide guidance and speak the truth? How do we know which voices are authoritative and which are not? One of the frames in the ACRL Framework speaks to this concern when it states that “Authority is Constructed and Contextual.” In previous entries, I discussed how our understanding of epistemology influences our understanding of information literacy and the role of authority in epistemology. In other words, how we understand and apply the concept of authority influences our perception of knowledge, which in turn affects how we comprehend and practice information literacy. This entry aims to examine and critique the contextual nature of authority, as suggested by the Framework, through a biblical-theological overview of the concept of authority, particularly in the context of covenant epistemology. A previous entry looked at the first part of the Framework‘s statement on authority: its assumed constructal nature.

The ACRL Framework (2016) notes that authority is contextual “in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required” (para. 9). What is context? Context is a fairly broad concept, but for the Framework, the idea of context addresses the scenario that drives the research. For example, when I conduct research related to a blog entry, I want to confirm that I have reflected on and faithfully applied the works of scholars (individuals who are respected in their fields). There are several measures I use to determine whether or not I consider a scholar’s work authoritative (was the work published/peer reviewed, the date of the work, the reputation of the scholar, etc.) By contrast, a different context—such as choosing a place to eat with a friend—leads me to weigh authority differently. In the second context, a 4-star rating on Google will suffice for me to choose a restaurant. Whereas, the first context requires a more robust authority because intention, motivation, purpose, end result, and many more components differ. In other words, contexts differ, and subsequently, as the Framework notes, the level of authority I seek in the information I pursue will differ.

As faithful librarians, it is essential to acknowledge that our own sinfulness impacts the context that drives our need for information. For example, it would be easy for what we may see as an information “need” to actually be a lust for information. What is information lust? Douglas Groothius (2011) articulates this well by contrasting studiousness with curiosity or intellectual lust. “Curiosity,” Groothius (2011) notes, “may be no more than lust for what we need not know (or should not know), and it may be driven by ulterior motives, such as vanity, pride, or restlessness. Curiosity is not intrinsically good because it can lead to gossip, violations of privacy (snooping), and wasted time and effort—as represented by the content of any issue of People magazine. In other words, curiosity can be a vice, despite the fact that it is a principal passion (or lust) of contemporary Western culture” (loc. 1536). In contrast to this, Groothius (2011) notes that studiousness “earnestly inquires after what ought to be known in ways fitting the subject matter. Studiousness sniffs out its own areas of ignorance and pursues knowledge prudently, patiently, and humbly—not resting until what needs to be known has been pursued to its end. Thus, we labor to avoid both gullibility (holding too many false beliefs) and extreme skepticism (missing out on too many true beliefs)” (Groothius, 2011, loc. 1536).

Similarly, in Umberto Eco’s (1983) novel, The Name of the Rose, William of Baskerville, a fictional Franciscan friar, describes one of the monks, Benno, as a victim of great lust because “(l)ike many scholars, he has a lust for knowledge” (p. 413). In this dialog, William of Baskerville expands on what a lust for knowledge entails, stating that it is “(k)nowledge for its own sake,” “insatiable curiosity,” which often corrupts good and noble ends (Eco, 1983, p. 413). Benno, the monk from Eco’s (1983) novel, embodied many characteristics with which I am quite familiar: curiosity, an eagerness to learn, and a desire for what I write (including this blog) to be read widely. Because of these, I see the value of intellectual rigor and thoughtful study. Yet the Franciscan friar, William of Baskerville, says these desires were “insatiable,” resulting in “intellectual pride” (Eco, 1983, p. 413) rather than resulting in the edification of the body of Christ. Benno’s pursuit of knowledge for its own sake demonstrates an insatiable thirst for information. Such a research approach is “sterile and has nothing to do with love” (Eco, 1983, p. 413). Because the Framework notes that the specific context creating the need for information plays a critical role concerning authority, faithful librarians must practice studiousness to ensure that the context in which they seek authoritative work bears no similarities to Benno’s intellectual lust and skews their perception of authority (cf. Eco, 1983, p. 413).

Abraham Kuyper’s concept of sphere sovereignty may provide further insight regarding how a faithful librarian should understand the Framework‘s idea of context. Kuyper argues that different contexts, such as family, church, professional, and educational settings, have distinct responsibilities and authority (Kuyper, 1998, p. 467). For example, the kind of authority I have in my church when I am running audio-visual does not have a direct bearing on the authority I have when teaching a one-shot library instruction session. These two spheres are distinct, and each has its own particular authority (sovereignty). We would likely laugh at the idea that the authority I have to control what people hear and see when I volunteer to do audio-visual at my church carries over to the authority I have to teach information literacy in higher education, and rightly so. From establishing this premise, Kuyper argues that no single sphere should dominate the others. Similar to what the Framework states, these two domains (audio-visual in a church and teaching information literacy) must be separated. However, Kuyper (1988) takes this one step further: even though these spheres must operate independently, they are all under God’s ultimate authority (p. 468).

It should also be noted that, while Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty implies differentiation of spheres, he acknowledges that contexts can overlap. For example, while the two spheres of one-shot instruction and doing sound at a church are distinct, the content I teach in the one-shot session (information literacy) may have some bearing on how I run audio-visual at my church. In a one-shot session, I teach students how to find authoritative sources. Similarly, when I troubleshoot an audio issue during a church service, I acknowledge my context (that I am running a Behringer sound board) and turn to the Behringer YouTube channel rather than browsing the web randomly. Kuyper’s principle of sphere sovereignty maintains that each sphere has autonomous authority over its proper domain. Yet, this autonomy does not preclude the possibility that knowledge, wisdom, or practices from one sphere may inform or enrich another, so long as the distinctive responsibilities and boundaries of each are respected.

The Framework further states that context also plays a role in determining the level of authority needed (Association of College and Research Libraries [ACRL], 2016, para. 9). I work in Christian higher education. As mentioned earlier, my responsibilities include providing one-shot information literacy sessions to freshmen in college writing courses. In this context, I am often asked about Wikipedia. Although those asking these questions use different verbiage, a question is often asked regarding Wikipedia’s authority: “Can I use Wikipedia in my research endeavors?” One of the challenges that college freshmen face with research projects is that they often pursue topics about which they have little background knowledge. They may have personal experiences related to their topic or have read a magazine article about it, but they have rarely examined it in depth. In such a context, can Wikipedia be seen as authoritative? Understanding the nature of Wikipedia, its purposes, and how to utilize it effectively (i.e., understanding its sphere) can help one assess whether their use of the tool aligns with its authority (or, to use Kuyper’s phrase, its sovereignty). By asking this question, I am not implying that Wikipedia should be considered an authority on a topic for a student working on a Ph.D. dissertation; authority has a contextual nature, and different spheres require different authorities. However, for many in the sphere of exploring a new topic or investigating a field of interest for the first time, Wikipedia, when its purposes and limitations are understood, can be seen as an authority in that context, in its sphere of influence (i.e., its sphere of sovereignty).

In a class I taught recently, a freshman student in College Writing wanted to explore the negative and positive impacts of body image. In other words, how does our view of our own physical body impact us? This topic is significant, and this student knew little about it before expressing interest. Subsequently, I pointed them to Wikipedia as a great place to start. In this context, the information on Wikipedia could be seen as an authoritative source because the students’ knowledge of the topic is limited. However, the context is multi-dimensional, involving the researcher’s prior knowledge, the task at hand, and the broader theological framework informing interpretation. As a faithful librarian embracing the dual aspect of Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty, I not only need to look at the context of the patron whom I aim to assist (and their respective knowledge base), but I must ask, “How does the context of my faith in Jesus Christ impact my understanding of body image?”

Another of Abraham Kuyper’s (1998) statements is a good place to start when he 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). In other words, Christ is sovereign over all domains, or to use the language of the Framework, all contexts. While the information needed may drive the level of authority required, this does not imply that Christ’s rule in the content of Wikipedia should be considered any less than his dominion in the content of a scholarly, peer-reviewed article. Christ is the norma normans non normata, an authority that exercises control over all the other authorities and all contexts (cf. Shatzer, 2023, p. 18). Per Kuyper’s language, Jesus Christ’s response to Wikipedia is “Mine!” Because Jesus Christ is Lord over all domains, research contexts are multi-dimensional. Therefore, when one questions whether a resource is authoritative, one must consider the task assigned (the context for which the research is being conducted), one’s own knowledge of the topic (one’s personal context), and the context of God’s revelation.

One might argue that, since I am not an authority on body image, I should avoid reconciling Wikipedia’s content on the topic with biblical and theological insights. However, I believe God has given us many tools (such as conscience, conviction, and access to various resources, including Scripture) that play critical roles in forming our understanding of topics like these. Using these tools would include acknowledging the authority of theological inferences, such as the premise that humanity is created in God’s image, which influences how faithful librarians perceive themselves and their physical bodies. In such a context, I am seeking works to guide my convictions and life; subsequently, I would not consider a YouTube video by MTV a credible authority on body image, given its focus and values. I may instead turn to Sam Alberry’s book, What God Has to Say about Our Bodies: How the Gospel Is Good News for Our Physical Selves. A work like this may be insightful. It should be remembered that Alberry’s work does not necessarily carry more authority than that of a secular scholar; however, I can assume that it carries more weight than a YouTube video by MTV, given the doubts that MTV will provide a scholarly perspective on the issue of body image. However, Alberry’s distinction is that he aims to base his work on Scripture (the norma normans non normata). In this context, Alberry may have the authority to offer insight on the topic. Honestly, after spending only a few minutes perusing works of this nature, I chose Alberry’s work because it is published by Crossway, a reputable publisher in theology and biblical studies (in other words, again, when it comes to authority, context matters).

I began this entry by noting that to practice information literacy, we must be able to distinguish between knowledge and first-order epistemological errors, such as failing to listen to trusted authorities or relying on “authorities” who should not be trusted. This raises the question: “How do we know whom to trust?” The answer lies, at least partly, in understanding authority, and the ACRL (2016) Framework notes that “Authority is Constructed and Contextual.” While faithful librarians may initially feel squeamish about this idea, the content above and in the previous blog demonstrates that, to a certain extent, authority is both constructed and contextual. However, perhaps the reason faithful librarians are hesitant to embrace this part of the Framework is that, as some have noted, the idea that authority is both constructed and contextual is self-contradictory when the statement claims to be a universal truth about authority (Rinne, 2016, pp. 221-222). Perhaps faithful librarians, recognizing Abraham Kuyper’s (1988) sphere sovereignty, should acknowledge that authority is constructed and contextual in light of the ultimate authority—God’s revelation. In this context, faithful librarians can potentially embrace this aspect of the Framework, understanding authority’s critical role in learning, growth, and preventing epistemological errors while embracing Jesus Christ and Scripture, the norma normans non normata, the pinnacles of authority. In a recent blog entry, Jonathan Leeman (2025) eloquently summarized this when he stated: “(a)uthority and submission are beautiful things when done under God” (para. 8).

References

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

Eco, Umberto (1983). The name of the rose. HarperVia.

Groothuis, D. R. (2011). Christian apologetics: A comprehensive case for biblical faith. IVP Academic.

Johnson, D. (2014). Biblical knowing: A scriptural epistemology of error. James Clarke & Co.

Kuyper, A. (1998). Abraham Kuyper: A centennial reader. Eerdmans.

Leeman, J. (2025, January 31). Why do Christians care so much about authority? Crossway. Retrieved February 5, 2025, from https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-do-christians-care-so-much-about-submission-to-authority/

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

Rinne, N. (2016). Is authority always constructed and contextual? A classical challenge to the Framework for Information Literacy. The Christian Librarian, 59(2). https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl/vol59/iss2/6

Shatzer, J. (2023). Faithful learning: A vision for theologically integrated education. B&H Academic.

ABSTRACT:

In this entry, as a Christian librarian, I wrestle with what it means to navigate the idea that authority is not only constructed and contextual—as the ACRL Framework suggests—but also rooted in deeper biblical and theological realities. I reflect on how information literacy requires discernment about which authorities to trust and explore how covenant epistemology and Scripture shape my understanding of true authority. While I recognize that different communities construct and recognize authority in various ways, I argue that Jesus Christ and Scripture serve as the ultimate, non-constructed standards—norma normans non normata—against which all other authorities must be measured. This conviction leads me to approach research and information literacy with humility, acknowledging my limitations and seeking God’s wisdom while also being open to new perspectives and honoring the expertise of others. Ultimately, embracing Jesus and Scripture as the highest authority transforms my research practices and helps me guide others toward truth with humility and faithfulness.

FULL ENTRY:

If we embrace Meek’s (2011) idea that “knowledge is transformation, not mere information” (p. 6), and we agree that how we see knowledge impacts our understanding and practice of information literacy, how should this affect a faithful librarian’s perception of information literacy? Specifically, information literacy enables us to discern which authorities to trust, allowing faithful librarians to guide their patrons away from what Johnson (2014) refers to as “first-order epistemological errors” (p. 74). Johnson’s work suggests that authority is critical in epistemology, and subsequently, it is also an essential part of information literacy, which warrants its inclusion as one of the frames.

In our previous discussion of information literacy, I stated, “information literacy entails enabling patrons to avoid first-order epistemological errors (not listening to trusted authorities or listening to ‘authorities’ who should not be trusted) and guiding patrons to truth, which leads the patron away from 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.” This idea leaves several questions, such as: “How is anyone supposed to distinguish between knowledge and first-order epistemological errors?” As discussed in the previous entry, the answer to this, at least in part, comes back to the issue of seeking guidance: turning to authority relevant to the area of pursuit (Johnson, 2014, p. 208). How do we know who has the authority to provide guidance and speak the truth? How do we know which voices are authoritative and which are not? One of the frames in the ACRL Framework speaks to this concern when it states that “Authority is Constructed and Contextual.” This entry aims to examine and critique the constructed nature of authority, as suggested by the Framework, through a biblical-theological overview of the concept of authority, particularly in the context of covenant epistemology. A future entry will look at the second aspect of the Framework‘s statement: the claim that authority is contextual.

Whether we like it or not, we are familiar with authority being both constructed and contextual. If I am driving and I see a red light at an upcoming intersection, I typically slow down and prepare to come to a stop because I understand the authority that the stop light represents (a result of what I have been taught and has subsequently been constructed in my understanding) and my context (that a costly and dangerous incident will likely arise if I refuse to stop). I also understand that contexts may arise where such an authority can be disregarded (although if other authority figures disagree with my actions, there may be repercussions). The idea of authority being constructed and contextual makes sense in this context. However, this leaves questions such as, “How does authority impact other contexts, such as when amid a challenging season of life, I turn to Psalm 23 and Romans 8 for comfort?” The comfort I may receive from such passages is based, at least partly, on my convictions regarding Jesus Christ and Scripture and their reliability as guides and subsequent authorities. Are the authorities of Scripture and Jesus also constructed and contextual? These examples leave questions hanging, such as: “How do I know what should be seen as authoritative and what should not?” and “Does authority only work if it aligns with my convictions?”

Previous discussions argued that how we see knowledge (epistemology) impacts information literacy and that covenant epistemology provides a way to see knowledge through a theological lens. These two discussions infer the possibility of offering a perspective of information literacy based on covenant epistemology. The frames of the Framework consist of key concepts that provide anchors to information literacy (Association of College and Research Libraries [ACRL], 2016, para. 2). Can covenant epistemology help us understand the frames of information literacy, in this case, authority, and its assumed constructed and contextual nature, as well?

This entry assumes a connection between our understanding of epistemology and authority, and many share this assumption. For example, in his works on a biblical framework of epistemology, Johnson notes that Scripture’s concept of knowledge involves authority: knowledge entails “listening to the trusted authorities and doing what they prescribe to see what they are showing you” (Johnson, 2015, loc. 481). Epistemological errors involve the opposite of this. They are either “first-order errors,” which involve not listening to trusted authorities, or listening to supposed authorities who should not be trusted in the first place (Johnson, 2014, p. 74). Alternatively, there are “second-order errors,” which entail supposedly “listening” to authority as one should but not actually doing as the authority instructs (Johnson, 2014, p. 74). But the question remains, how do we know what is authoritative? How do we know who or what should provide guidance?

Scripture offers counsel regarding how one should determine what or who is authoritative. In a passage known as the Great Commission, Jesus states: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18, ESV). In his work on authority, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones (1958) expands on this passage and states that “we assert Him (Jesus), we proclaim Him, we start with Him, because He is the ultimate and the final Authority. We start with the fact of Jesus Christ because He is really at the center of the whole of our position and the whole of our case rests upon Him” (p. 14).

If we accept Jesus Christ as our ultimate authority, we are also driven to accept the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament because the interactions of Jesus with it display how he accepted its authority (e.g., Matthew 5:17-20, Mark 12:24-27; Packer, 1981, p. 20). Likewise, if we accept the authority of Jesus, we also accept the authority of the New Testament, as Jesus conferred his own authority upon his disciples (Matthew 28:18; Luke 24:27), many of whom wrote New Testament books or had close affiliations with those who did (Packer, 1981, pp. 20-21). In other words, the authority of Jesus and the authority of Scripture, while distinct, are intertwined; you cannot accept one apart from acceptance of the other (Berkouwer, 1983, pp. 170-171).

In his book Faithful Learning, Jacob Shatzer (2023) provides some insight into the authority of Scripture when he states: “When we think about Scripture as a source, the Reformation provided us with a helpful phrase: norma normans non normata. This Latin term basically means that the Bible is the norm, or standard, that norms—or standardizes—our knowledge of God without itself being normed or standardized. The standard that standardizes cannot be standardized. The norma normans non normata, in other words, is the authority that exercises control over all the other authorities and itself never submits to those other authorities. Scripture regulates our reason. Scripture exercises authority over our view of tradition. And Scripture stands over, authorizes, and standardizes our experience of God” (p. 18). If Jesus and Scripture are key points to how faithful librarians view authority, these imply that revelation is key to authority (Ramm, 1957, p. 20).

While Jesus and Scripture are primary venues through which God reveals himself, does revelation stop with Jesus and Scripture? An earlier blog briefly defined general revelation, arguing that God reveals aspects of His nature and existence through the natural world (Bavinck, 2003, vol. 1, p. 307; Estes, 2019, pp. 50-51). Subsequently, some components of God’s revelation of himself through the natural world can be seen as authoritative. For example, how science works regarding combining chemical compounds is seen as authoritative. Granted, many times, it takes an expert in the discipline to describe the value of such a phenomenon, but if anybody disagreed with something like the combination of two atoms of hydrogen with an atom of oxygen creating water, one could simply return to the context of a lab, repeat this combination and show time and time again that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom create water. This experiment and the chemical compound serve an authoritative role. While some may argue that this is a science experiment, not revelation, the creation of water from hydrogen and oxygen reflects aspects of God’s nature, such as unity in diversity and the life-giving nature of water. In other words, creating water by combining hydrogen and oxygen is a manifestation of general revelation and subsequently serves an authoritative function. Revelation is the key to authority, and Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of revelation (Lloyd-Jones, 1958, pp. 23-24).

Faithful librarians genuinely believe that Jesus Christ and Scripture are authorities. Does this mean that faithful librarians turn to Jesus when assessing whether or not a writer of an article bears the credentials to make their works authoritative? Do faithful librarians turn to Scripture when aiming to weigh the argument of a website? Maybe. In a context where a website’s argument directly contradicts Scripture, suggesting that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ never actually occurred, we can appeal directly to the authority of Scripture and claim that this argument is incorrect, thereby questioning the authority of the work that contains this error. But what about other contexts? As God’s means of making himself known includes both special and general revelation, there will be times when one can turn to general revelation as the authority through which truth is found. For example, if one claims that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to form carbon dioxide, I can appeal to general revelation to refute such a claim, compelling one to question the claim’s authority.

When the ACRL Framework (2016) notes that authority is constructed, it states that “various communities may recognize different types of authority” (para. 9). The role of community in authority aligns well with the strong social components embedded in covenant epistemology. In the context of writing this blog, I can cover various topics and draw on different types of authority, each with its own measures for assessing authority. For example, in an earlier part of this blog, I referenced the works of Bernard Ramm and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Their authority in theology and biblical studies would likely not extend to other domains, as differing communities have varying standards for authority. Therefore, Ramm and Lloyd-Jones would not likely be considered authoritative in the intellectual domains of the social sciences. Subsequently, I should not turn to the works of Bernard Ramm for authoritative insight on how to make a patron comfortable during a reference transaction. In this context, the concept of constructed authority makes sense.

Bernard Ramm (1957) notes a helpful distinction between acceptance and grounds of authority. Ramm (1957) argues that while authority is inherently personal, it also transcends individual perception, requiring recognition while maintaining objective grounds (pp. 13-16). In other words, just because something is authoritative does not automatically imply that this authority is recognized. In fact, an individual’s sinful nature frequently leads one to instantly reject something that God has established as authoritative (Romans 1:18-32). This should lead us to be cautious regarding the Framework’s (2016) view on authority, as it states that we should have an “attitude of informed skepticism” (para. 10). Such an attitude often reflects the trends of our sinful nature, which is to reject all authority. However, humility, fueled by a recognition of our sinful nature, should lead faithful librarians to cautiously embrace a component of the Framework (2016), which states that we should have “an openness to new perspectives, additional voices, and changes in schools of thought” (para. 10), assuming they align with the norma normans non normata (the non-constructed norms of Jesus Christ and Scripture).

In introducing this entry, I asked, “Are the authorities of Scripture and Jesus also constructed and contextual?” “How do I know what should be seen as authoritative and what should not?” and “Does authority only work if it aligns with my convictions?” Do questions like these imply that all authority is constructed? And how should a faithful librarian respond to constructed authority? Shatzer’s (2023) point regarding the norma normans non normata adds insight here. Jesus Christ and Scripture are the norms, or standards, that standardize all of our knowledge, including our knowledge of God, without themselves being normed or standardized. Yes, authority is constructed, but it rests upon the non-constructed norms of Scripture and Jesus Christ.

Let me provide an example. Many librarians are familiar with the works of Carol Kuhlthau. Her classic work, Seeking Meaning, has helped many librarians understand library instruction and information literacy. In one chapter of her work, she concludes in her summary by arguing that the help librarians provide should align with the patron’s stage of research (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 68). Is this proposition authoritative? Does it align with the content that my communities see as authoritative (my constructed authority)? Some widely accepted authority frameworks have led many to embrace Kuhlthau’s work (and rightly so). For example, her work, culminating in her book Seeking Meaning, began as a doctoral dissertation at Rutgers University. The rigor that typically accompanies a doctoral program is intended to confirm that a work from such a program should be considered authoritative. Likewise, many faithful librarians can affirm Kuhlthau’s summary through our experiences of helping patrons with research. For a faithful librarian, however, considering a work as authoritative does not stop here. We must ask further questions: Do Kuhlthau’s conclusions align with the key to authority: God’s revelation? Do Kuhlthau’s findings lead me to love God or my neighbor (from Scripture, a norma normans non normata, an authority that exercises control over all the other authorities)? In this context, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” In fact, one could argue that the effort a librarian takes to provide assistance aligning with the patron’s research stage reflects a genuine love for one’s neighbor, making Kuhlthau’s conclusion stand because of its alignment with God’s revelation (again, the key to authority).

How should a faithful librarian respond to the Framework when it states that authority is constructed? It is safe to assume that authority is indeed constructed in many contexts, and subsequently, the Framework‘s suggested response is notable. Therefore, when working with an authority in the context of research, faithful librarians are responsible for utilizing various constructed authorities to guide patrons and ourselves to reliable sources while simultaneously seeking God’s wisdom to discover the truth in line with the norma normans non normata of Jesus Christ and Scripture.

Cedarville University Librarians (2025) recently released “A Biblical Framework for Information Literacy: Dispositions for Christian Student Scholars.” This framework aims to provide a “set of dispositional mindsets from a biblical worldview that all librarians, faculty, and students can apply as Christian scholars” (Cedarville University, 2025, p. 1). A disposition is a person’s inherent qualities of mind and character. Embracing Jesus Christ and Scripture as the ultimate authorities acknowledges God’s sovereignty and generates particular dispositions in a research protocol. Humility, one of Cedarville University Library’s (2025) dispositions, results from a faithful librarian’s acknowledgment that Jesus Christ and Scripture are the norma normans non normata.

How should a faithful librarian apply humility in their research endeavors? In their “Biblical Framework for Information Literacy,” Cedarville University Librarians (2025) provide four ways to adopt humility as a mindset in a research endeavor. A faithful librarian, recognizing Jesus and Scripture, and not oneself, as an ultimate authority:

understands their own limitations in knowledge and accepts with deference and discernment the knowledge of others while maintaining Scripture as the ultimate authority;

seeks opportunities to give praise and credit to God and others for the success of their scholarship, both privately and publicly, when appropriate;

embraces their dependence on God through each step of the research process;

exhibits open-mindedness and a willingness to transform their attitude towards a subject as new information is uncovered, discerning it through the lens of a biblical worldview (p. 9).

Each of these provide great venues through which humility can be displayed in research protocol; humility fostered by embracing the authorities of Jesus Christ and Scripture (standards which standardize that cannot be standardized), understanding that all other authority is constructed from these norms. A faithful librarian’s confession that Jesus Christ and Scripture are the norma normans non normata will transform all of life, including their research protocols. Such a confession fosters humility in all facets of life, which overflows into the research practices of a faithful librarian because of the abundance of God’s riches and grace.

References

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

Bavinck, H. (with Bolt, J., & Vriend, J.). (2003). Reformed Dogmatics (Vols. 1–4). Baker Academic.

Berkouwer, G. C. (1983). The Testimony of the Spirit. In D. K. McKim (Ed.), The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture (pp. 155–182). Eerdmans.

Cedarville University, Centennial Library Research Librarians. (2025). A Biblical Framework for Information Literacy: Dispositions for Christian Student Scholars. Cedarville University. https://publications.cedarville.edu/library/dispositions/

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.

Johnson, D. (2014). Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error. James Clarke & Co.

Johnson, D. (2015). Scripture’s Knowing: A Companion to Biblical Epistemology. Wipf and Stock.

Kuhlthau, C. (2004). Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1958). Authority. Inter-Varsity Fellowship.

Meek, E. L. (2011). Loving to Know: Introducing Covenant Epistemology. Cascade Books.

Packer, J. I. (1981). Freedom and Authority. International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.

Ramm, B. (1957). The Pattern of Religious Authority. Eerdmans.

Shatzer, J. (2023). Faithful Learning: A Vision for Theologically Integrated Education. B&H Academic.