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.