ABSTRACT:

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

FULL ENTRY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another of Abraham Kuyper’s (1998) statements is a good place to start when he stated, “(t)here is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” (p. 461). In other words, Christ is sovereign over all domains, or to use the language of the Framework, all contexts. While the information needed may drive the level of authority required, this does not imply that Christ’s rule in the content of Wikipedia should be considered any less than his dominion in the content of a scholarly, peer-reviewed article. Christ is the norma normans non normata, an authority that exercises control over all the other authorities and all contexts (cf. Shatzer, 2023, p. 18). Per Kuyper’s language, Jesus Christ’s response to Wikipedia is “Mine!” Because Jesus Christ is Lord over all domains, research contexts are multi-dimensional. Therefore, when one questions whether a resource is authoritative, one must consider the task assigned (the context for which the research is being conducted), one’s own knowledge of the topic (one’s personal context), and the context of God’s revelation.

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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