ABSTRACT:

This entry examines the fundamental virtues of a faithful librarian’s research protocol, emphasizing the principle of humility. Humility is central to the Christian faith and research practice, as seen in the biblical paradox of strength through weakness and wisdom through foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:21–25). The author argues that humility entails acknowledging one’s limitations, the contributions of others, and the value of critique, ultimately promoting authentic growth and service in librarianship. By grounding research in these virtues, faithful librarians glorify God and serve their communities with wisdom and grace.

FULL ENTRY:

What stands out in the research protocol of a faithful librarian? An earlier blog entry discussed the premise that “all truth is God’s truth” as one of these components. A faithful librarian can learn from scholars and practitioners with divergent foundational beliefs when reading and studying for research because all humanity is created in God’s image. Subsequently, even when differing methods are used, various premises are assumed, and results vary, we can be confident that all truth is God’s truth. The second Christian factor in research is integrity, which means doing what you say you will do. In the context of research, integrity has a wide range of applications, including confirming that one’s depiction of scholarly works provides an accurate representation and ensuring that what I accredit myself for writing was not a product of generative AI.

I have referenced this third factor of research, humility, many times throughout my blog entries. I am in firm agreement with the Early Church Father, Augustine (ca. 410/1995), when he states: “If you ask me what is the most essential element in the teaching and morality of Jesus Christ, I would answer you: the first is humility, the second is humility, and the third is humility” (p. 22). Likewise, for faithful librarians, humility plays a crucial role in all facets of our lives, particularly in the research processes we engage in.

Why is humility a central component of the Christian faith? While there are many examples of humility in Scripture, 1 Corinthians 1:21–25 offers a notable model of humility through its development of a paradoxical theology of the cross. In this passage, Paul presents a diagonalization between power/wisdom and weakness/foolishness when he states:

“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:21–25, ESV).

Diagonalization offers a third approach when facing what appear to be two distinct camps or positions; it often cuts across and rearranges false dichotomies, settling for neither and providing rich insight into how one should view a context (Watkin, 2022, p. 15). In the context of 1 Corinthians 1, Paul provides a diagonalization to note that the cross of Jesus Christ forces one to reconsider the dichotomy which often aligns power with wisdom and weakness with foolishness. Paul begins this diagonalization by noting that while pursuing religious endeavors, Jews demanded signs, and Greeks sought wisdom (Watkin, 2022, p. 16). Jews often expected messianic figures to display signs and powers (Matthew 12:38–40), and similarly, wisdom was a characteristic of power and authority in Greco-Roman culture. In these contexts, one would expect wisdom and signs from any change agent (Fee, 1987, p. 74). However, Paul provides a humble alternative: Christ crucified. While the idea of a messiah or Christ often “meant power, splendor, and triumph; crucifixion meant weakness, humiliation, defeat” (Fee, 1987, p. 75). The idea of “Christ crucified,” an oxymoronic scandal, brought utter confusion to both Jews and Greeks. The Jews saw hanging on a tree as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 21:23, a result of God’s curse. The Greeks saw worshiping someone crucified as utter foolishness (Fee, 1987, p. 76). In both contexts, the cross was a humiliating and reprehensible symbol. However, such reprehensible and cursed foolishness is the centerpiece of the Christian faith. In this passage, Paul notes that the cross of Christ, a model for humility, is a venue through which power is found in weakness and wisdom in foolishness.

Throughout its history, the Christian faith has cherished humility. Humility is “usually looked down upon in the world, being too often confused with ‘ever-so-humbleness,’ with willful self-disparagement, or with conventional descriptions of other sinners as ‘guilty, vile, and helpless worms.’ In Christian tradition, humility is highly regarded. With Barnabas, it was part of ‘inward fasting’; with Chrysostom, it was the ‘foundation of our philosophy'” (White, 1984, p. 537). Likewise, Thomas à Kempis and Bernard of Clairvaux held humility in high regard even though it was often looked down upon in their contemporary contexts (White, 1984, p. 537). Martin Luther stated: “(u)nless a man is always humble, distrustful of himself, always fears his own understanding, passions, will; he will be unable to stand for long without offense. The truth will pass him by. Humility is aptness for grace, the essence of faith” (cited by White, 1984, p. 537). Historically, humility has been essential to a spiritual journey and is critical for being a faithful librarian and for excellent research.

In contemporary contexts, some have argued that humility is a complex concept, implying that humility in one context may not be applicable in another (cf. Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). However, while not dismissing the distinctions of a particular setting, other scholarly works note considerable similarities, suggesting that the application of humility in an organizational context may have bearing on how humility should be applied in a personal or ethical context (Owens et al., 2013, pp. 1532-1533). This implies that while there are various contexts in which one can apply the concept of humility, they share similarities, and subsequently, what one can learn about humility in one context may have bearing on another.

Because the concept of humility has been applied in numerous settings, it has many nuances: in one context, an individual is praised for their humble demeanor, and in another, they are mocked for what appears to be a lowly or humble position. Despite its occasional negative connotations, humility has numerous benefits. For example, a Christian engaging in research practices humility by acknowledging their own limitations in knowledge and accepting with deference and discernment the knowledge of others, while maintaining Scripture as the ultimate authority (Cedarville University, 2025, p. 9). When rooted in Christ’s death and resurrection, weakness and humility serve as epistemological foundations that empower learning in numerous contexts, as they authentically acknowledge the dependency of learning and knowledge on others (Jipp, 2023, pp. 141–143). For example, my development of these blog entries rests on the shoulders of giants (i.e., other librarians, scholars, peers, and colleagues), and the blog entries represent my thoughts on how some of these principles might help me understand how I can glorify God through the practice of librarianship. If one cannot truly engage with the literature and be transformed through that engagement, perhaps humility is lacking. Knowledge is transformation (Meek, 2011, p. 6), and since transformation cannot occur apart from humility, affirming Jipp’s (2023) premise, humility is crucial for learning and growth and a critical component for effective research.

What is humility? The literature notes two foundations for humility, which align with Paul’s notion of the stupidity and offense of the cross. First, a common theme when defining humility is a “relatively stable trait grounded in a self-view that something greater than the self exists” (Ou et al., 2014, p. 37; cf. Nielsen & Marrone, 2018, p. 808). A critical foundation for humility is acknowledging that the work of the cross, as Paul articulates in 1 Corinthians 1, is more significant than one’s accomplishments. Resting securely on the work of another compels humility, and such a temperament is critical for research because research involves accepting, with deference and discernment, the knowledge of others (Cedarville University, 2025, p. 9).

Likewise, in the context of research, it is crucial to acknowledge that something greater than oneself exists, as it is essential to recognize that all research builds upon the work of others. Even if someone is pursuing a novel concept, their work builds on a foundation of scholarship established by others (Roberts & Woods, 2007, pp. 276–277). Such an acknowledgment fosters humility. For example, my undergraduate and graduate degrees in theology are foundational to my ability to understand and interpret Scripture, as well as to my ability to work effectively with theological concepts. Similarly, my understanding of integration primarily derives from books and discussions with colleagues. These contexts serve as a foundation for my blog and my knowledge of how I can glorify God through my work as a librarian. To develop my understanding of faith integration, I must humbly acknowledge that the journey has not been a solo one and that these interactions have played a critical role in shaping my understanding of integrating my faith in Jesus Christ into my professional endeavors. As research builds upon the works of others, a lack of humility makes research difficult. Part of humility entails how one accepts critique. Humility does not necessarily involve accepting anybody’s random critique of your work, as the non-constructed authorities of Scripture and Jesus must take precedence; however, it does mean that you take critique seriously.

A second component of humility, as expressed in the literature, is a consistent concern for others, which involves prioritizing their needs (Fu et al., 2010, p. 249; Galvin et al., 2010, p. 516; Peterson & Seligman, 2004, pp. 463–464). First Corinthians 1:24 aligns with this when Paul notes that God used the stupidity and offense of the cross to give God’s power and wisdom to anyone who believes (Fee, 1987, pp. 76–77). Many challenge the value of humility because it can be seen as destructive and self-abasing (Weidman et al., 2018, p. 9). While this critique is not entirely incorrect, as faithful librarians grow and mature in their relationship with Jesus Christ, their simultaneous understanding of their own depravity and the depth of God’s grace and mercy often deepens, which fosters a willingness to learn from others, not necessarily self-abasement (cf. Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2013, pp. 826–827). Subsequently, their willingness to learn from others, despite their differences (whether cultural, theological, political, or any aspect), also develops. The idea that “all truth is God’s truth“—regardless of its orientation—coupled with humility, makes it possible for believers to learn in any context. Humility acknowledges the reality of a faithful librarian’s sinful nature, which prompts them to recognize their habits, the norms to which they have become accustomed, their biases, and even their thoughts and intentions as being tainted with immorality. Nancy Pearcey (2004) summarizes this well when she states that the concept of depravity does not imply “that humans are hopelessly evil but rather that every aspect of human nature has been affected by the Fall, including our intellectual life—and thus every aspect needs to be redeemed. Nothing was left pristine and innocent. Even our minds are tempted to worship idols instead of the true God” (p. 93).

In conducting research, dependence on the person and work of Christ can be demonstrated when a Christian researcher seeks opportunities to praise and acknowledge God and others for the success of their scholarship, both privately and publicly (Cedarville University, 2025, p. 9). This component, at least in part, speaks to what motivates a faithful librarian’s research. Motivations are key for followers of Jesus Christ pursuing research in any field. I find it too easy to pursue research to prove a point or find evidence that agrees with my position on a topic. In doing so, I often overlook the opportunities to learn and be challenged through my research and learning endeavors. In their work, To Know and Love God, Clark and Feinberg (2003) highlight the critical role of motives in research. Research is often conducted to make significant contributions to the world of scholarship or to develop a novel idea that will impress colleagues. While making an important contribution is not wrong, it becomes easy to let the drive for significance bypass the importance of courage and humility in all research practices (loc. 4662). Clark and Feinberg (2003) summarize this in a statement that aligns with the tasks of a faithful librarian when they state that the scholarly work of faithful librarians “serves the evangelical community and therefore refuses to engage the scholarly world in search of personal reward. Serving the evangelical world as a member of the academic world can be a joyful but potentially costly calling” (loc. 4662). Faithful librarians are called to serve, and humility is displayed when we seek opportunities to credit God and others for their success in all contexts.

While humility is critical for research, it is also vital for life because “humility leads to love of God, which leads to knowledge of God. Authentic knowledge of God leads to the awe and gratitude from which humility springs, which leads to a further deepening of love for God. Humility, as the foundation of love for God, becomes critical to a person’s knowledge of God, as well” (McInerney, 2017, p. 86). Godly, effective, and productive research requires humility. Faithful librarians should embody humility in all aspects of their service to demonstrate the essential nature of humility in research and library services.

References

Augustine. (1995). Letter 118. In B. Ramsey (Ed.), R. J. Teske (Trans.), Part II – Letters: Vol. 2: Letters 100–155. New City Press. (Original work published ca. 410.)

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/

Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Humble beginnings: Current trends, state perspectives, and hallmarks of humility. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12069

Clark, D. K., & Feinberg, J. S. (2003). To know and love God: Method for theology. Crossway Books.

Fee, G. D. (1987). The first epistle to the Corinthians. W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’ transformational behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 222–254. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.222

Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01179.x

Hu, J., Jiang, K., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000277

Jipp, J. W. (2023). Pauline theology as a way of life: A vision of human flourishing in Christ. Baker Academic.

Lehmann, M., Pery, S., Kluger, A. N., Hekman, D. R., Owens, B. P., & Malloy, T. E. (2023). Relationship-specific (dyadic) humility: How your humility predicts my psychological safety and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001059

McInerney, J. J. (2017). Greatness of humility: St. Augustine on moral excellence. Pickwick Publications.

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

Nielsen, R., & Marrone, J. A. (2018). Humility: Our current understanding of the construct and its role in organizations. Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 805–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12160

Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble Chief Executive Officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213520131

Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795

Pearcey, N. (2004). Total truth: Liberating Christianity from its cultural captivity. Crossway Books.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Humility and modesty. In Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 461–477). Oxford University Press.

Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2007). Humility and epistemic goods. In Michael DePaul & L. Zagzebski (Eds.), Intellectual virtue perspectives from ethics and epistemology (pp. 257–289). Oxford University Press.

Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.006

Watkin, C. (2022). Biblical critical theory: How the Bible’s unfolding story makes sense of modern life and culture. Zondervan.

Weidman, A. C., Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2018). The psychological structure of humility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000112

White, R. E. O. (1984). Humility. In Evangelical dictionary of theology. Baker Book House.