ABSTRACT:

The title of this blog series is “The Faithful Librarian.” But, what is a “faithful librarian”? This entry argues that a faithful librarian is a Christian librarian who seeks to bring every aspect of librarianship under the lordship of Jesus Christ. It frames librarianship not as a spiritually neutral profession, but as a vocation shaped by worship, service, repentance, and ongoing theological reflection. Drawing on Abraham Kuyper’s vision of Christ’s sovereignty and David Claerbaut’s four-step model of faith integration—philosophical justification, prevailing paradigms, critique, and build—the essay contends that librarianship should be examined through the lenses of Christian epistemology, ontology, and axiology. It critiques pragmatist and individualist assumptions common in LIS, especially when they conflict with the imago Dei, and proposes that Christian librarians develop theory and practice rooted in Scripture, neighbor love, and human dignity. This entry concludes that being a faithful librarian is not about spiritual elitism or coercion, but about humble, ordinary acts of service that witness to Christ through professional integrity, generosity, and wisdom. In this view, library work becomes a genuine site of sanctification and a means of glorifying God alone.

FULL TEXT:

I have named this blog series: “The Faithful Librarian.” While the about page gives the purpose and some context for my understanding of a faithful librarian, I feel it would be helpful to succinctly define a “faithful librarian.” In this blog series, a “faithful librarian” is a Christian librarian who seeks to glorify God alone by bringing every aspect of librarianship under the gracious Lordship of Jesus Christ.

My warrant for using the term “faithful librarian” is not to create a special spiritual category of librarian, nor to infer that I have somehow arrived at a final and flawless expression of my faith. On the contrary, I have been (and am convinced that I will always be) in a process of learning, repenting, revising, and growing. The process of becoming a faithful librarian is an imperfect endeavor, marked by my own flaws and errors, empowered by the richness of God’s grace.

Abraham Kuyper (1998), a Dutch statesman in the early 20th century, 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). If Jesus Christ declares possession of all domains, I have no warrant to confine my faith to specific contexts (e.g., “church time” or “devotional time”) and to treat a large part of my life as if faith has no bearing on it. Demanding that faith be separated from other domains of life denies God’s sovereignty and makes it difficult to see work (and many other contexts) as places where the Lordship of Jesus Christ can be manifested. If Jesus is Lord over all, then he is Lord of our professional lives, and librarianship becomes one of the ordinary places where we learn to manifest the extraordinary nature of God’s love. My motivation for integrating faith and librarianship is therefore not primarily strategic or institutional, but quite ordinary; I want my whole life, including my work life, to be brought under the domain of Jesus Christ. I want the hours I spend managing, cataloging, troubleshooting databases, meeting with students, and conducting reference interviews to be part of my sanctification—not cordoned off as spiritually irrelevant, but rather offered as a quiet act of worship that glorifies God

At the same time, I recognize that many Christian scholars and practitioners have labored faithfully to explore how Christ relates to their disciplines, including librarianship. Although their resulting models may be different from mine, I am deeply grateful for much of their work. In fact, my work and convictions stand on their shoulders. Therefore, instead of dismissing other models of integrating Christianity and librarianship or implying that my model is the only way to be a faithful librarian, I offer an additional model that will hopefully sharpen and enrich the broader conversation. Within that larger conversation, I am advocating a particular model of faith integration that I believe is especially robust. My claim, then, is not that I have the definitive model, but that the model I am working with offers a particularly rich way of drawing librarianship and Christian faith into a coherent whole.

I discovered this model in David Claerbaut’s (2004) work, Faith and Learning on the Edge. Claerbaut (2004) presents a four-step process that I have found especially helpful in shaping the questions I ask and in guiding my pursuit of understanding how I can glorify God in my work as a faithful librarian. Claerbaut’s four steps are: philosophical justification, prevailing paradigms, critique, and build.

Philosophical Justification. Faith integration rests on the premise that if Jesus Christ is Lord over every “square inch” of human existence, then no sphere of scholarship or work—including Library and Information Science (LIS)—is religiously neutral or exempt from this claim. In other words, integration is not an optional add-on for especially devout professionals but a necessity flowing from the confession that all of life, including one’s work life, belongs to Christ. Since every discipline is grounded in worldview assumptions about reality, knowledge, and values, treating librarianship as spiritually irrelevant would, in practice, be to deny that every square inch of human existence belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, rather than accepting the unchallenged defaults of secular frameworks such as scientism or individualism, a faithful librarian must bring these underlying assumptions under Christ’s Lordship. Instead of restricting faith to “church time” or “devotional time,” integrating Christianity with librarianship preserves intellectual integrity by resisting a divided life or vocation. This integration also unites all truth under God so that LIS can be approached from the ground up as an authentically Christian discipline. This is why, in the preceding paragraphs, I insist that my professional tasks as a librarian are not cordoned off from Christ’s domain but are ordinary sites where his Lordship rightly claims my thinking and loving.

Prevailing Paradigms. All disciplines, including LIS, implicitly operate on a paradigm or worldview that shapes how theorists and practitioners in those disciplines understand what is there (ontology), what is valuable (axiology), and how we know these things (epistemology). Since faithful librarians seek a paradigm consistent with the Lordship of Christ, they must investigate LIS’s prevailing paradigms to see whether they align with Christian presuppositions, premises, and worldview. While many paradigms influence LIS, LIS is generally a very pragmatic discipline (Budd, 2001, pp. 303-305; Cossette, 2009, p. 17; Emery, 1970, p. 88). Subsequently, pragmatism is often one of the prevailing paradigms that drives assumptions about truth, knowledge, persons, and society for LIS. 

Critique. Because the God of truth created everything, including us, we can find truth through God and throughout his creation. Therefore, God’s word (i.e., Scripture) offers the ultimate standard for weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the theories, worldviews, or assumptions that undergird LIS. This includes critiquing theories that justify themselves pragmatically by “what works.” For example, in Chapter 2 of his work, Leadership: Theory and Practice, Northouse (2025) discusses the trait approach (pp. 25–52). The trait approach draws on empirical correlations between certain relatively stable traits—such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, sociability, and Big Five factors like extraversion—and leadership effectiveness. The trait approach treats these as measurable predictors that organizations can use to select leaders who are more likely to achieve strong performance outcomes. While the trait approach has many implications, one could argue that it implicitly suggests that human value and leadership capacity are largely fixed and most fully realized in a “natural elite” whose traits yield desired results, blending an elitist anthropology with a pragmatist valuation of persons in terms of functional effectiveness. While Northouse acknowledges its weaknesses and provides a thorough critique of this leadership theory, faithful librarians must interrogate both its fixed-trait assumptions and its outcome-centered pragmatism through the lens of the imago Dei. Doing so reveals its flaws: Scripture affirms that every human bears God’s image with equal dignity, relationality, and Spirit-enabled growth potential (Gen. 1:27; James 3:9), not merely those whose trait profiles align with empirically successful leadership outcomes. For LIS leadership, this reframing could shift practice away from pragmatically driven, rigid trait-based hiring and promotion (e.g., privileging extraversion or high self-confidence because they “get results”), shifting it towards an imago Dei–honoring culture that mentors all staff, designs diverse roles that value quiet integrity alongside charisma, and measures success by communal flourishing rather than spotlighting a few “stars,” yielding more just and redemptive library teams.

Build. Because Jesus Christ is Lord of all, he shapes our ontology, axiology, and epistemology. Consequently, when these premises become Christ-shaped (e.g., we let the idea that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” drive our epistemological assumptions), they form a faithful librarian’s understanding of what librarianship might look like when grounded in Jesus Christ. From such a foundation, a faithful librarian can build faith-informed concepts and categories that can guide and norm practice, not merely inspire it. Faithful librarians can build biblical foundations such as the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge, neighbor-love in management, and image-bearing dignity for all patrons and staff. Such foundations can shape how faithful librarians understand knowledge, information, institutions, and authority, standing alongside or replacing prevailing LIS paradigms. These emerging theories can then inform the reconstruction of practice so that changes in cataloging, reference work, management, policy, and relationships are recognized as the outworking of a distinctively Christian understanding of reality rather than ad hoc adjustments. For example, after critiquing Northouse’s (2025) development of the trait approach (Ch. 2) for its elite and pragmatist assumptions, a Christian library director might first articulate a theological account of leadership rooted in the imago Dei, mutual service, and Christ’s kenosis (Phil. 2:5–8). From this, one could derive hiring and development practices—mentoring the potential of diverse staff, assigning roles that honor quiet integrity alongside charisma, and evaluating success by team flourishing and faithful service—that concretely instantiate this reconstructed theory of leadership.

A faithful librarian, in this sense, seeks to let Christ reshape both the ends and the means of librarianship. The ends are not simply that students complete assignments or that researchers publish papers, but that, over time, people are transformed into more truthful, humble, and loving knowers. The means include careful attention to the library’s structures, policies, and daily practices—how we describe materials, teach, decide what to purchase, and interact with those who come through our doors. None of this is done perfectly. Yet the aim is steady: that even the small, unseen acts of librarianship might whisper something of the reality of God’s love for the world.

I also want to stress that being a faithful librarian is not about using our roles to coerce or pressure patrons into explicit religious commitments. Rather, it is about allowing our love for Christ and our theological convictions to inform the quality of our service, the depth of our scholarship, and the integrity of our professional decisions. It will be expressed as patience with a frustrated student, generosity in going the extra mile for a faculty member, diligence in pursuing accuracy, honesty about our limitations, authenticity in our scholarly endeavors, and openness to learning from those who disagree with us. In all of this, the goal is not to draw attention to ourselves as “faithful librarians” but to quietly point, in word and deed, to our faithful Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

So, when I use the phrase “faithful librarian,” I am not designating an elite spiritual status. I am describing a posture: a librarian who, by grace, is trying to let the confession “Jesus is Lord” permeate the whole of his professional life, aspiring humbly—albeit imperfectly—to do it all soli Deo gloria. It is an ongoing, unfinished work. It involves continual repentance, ongoing learning, and a willingness to let Christ challenge my most cherished convictions, professional assumptions, and ungodly routines. My hope is that, over time, this way of understanding librarianship might help both myself and others to see that our work is not merely a way to earn a paycheck, but a concrete sphere in which we can love God and neighbor, bear witness to truth, and slowly conform ourselves, others, and the profession itself to the likeness of Christ.

Soli Deo gloria!

Works Cited

Budd, J. (2001). Knowledge and knowing in library and information science: A philosophical framework. Scarecrow Press.

Claerbaut, D. (2004). Faith and learning on the edge: A bold new look at religion in higher education. Zondervan.

Cossette, A. (2009). Humanism and libraries: An essay on the philosophy of librarianship. Library Juice Press.

Emery, R. (1970). Steps in Reference Theory. Library Association Record, 72, 88–90, 96.

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

Northouse, P. G. (2025). Leadership: Theory and practice (10th ed.). Sage.

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