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.

ABSTRACT:

In this entry, I reflect on how my faith shapes my understanding and practice of integrity in research as a Christian librarian. I share how I used to misunderstand plagiarism and justify it, but through study and correction, I came to see that true integrity goes far beyond simply avoiding plagiarism—it means being genuine, truthful, and faithful in all aspects of scholarship. Drawing from both Scripture and theologians like Millard Erickson, I explore how integrity in research involves not only honesty with sources and ideas but also a Christ-like commitment to truthfulness and reliability, even when it’s challenging. I discuss how faithfulness to both my profession and my faith community calls me to integrate biblical values into my research, teaching, and service, and I highlight how integrity is essential for real transformation in learning. Ultimately, I argue that as a faithful librarian, practicing research integrity is about more than following rules; it’s about seeking to honor God and foster genuine growth in myself and those I serve.

FULL ENTRY:

A few months back, I provided some background on the Christian factors of research. The Christian aspects of research investigate the question: “Should the belief of a faithful librarian influence how they conduct and teach research?” My answer to this question is a resounding “YES!” In my previous entry, I discussed the first factor: “All truth is God’s truth.” This entry returns to discuss the second component distinguishing research for faithful librarians: integrity.

Integrity is a fascinating concept for research due to its comprehensive nature and its widespread application in various contexts. For example, an individual can be seen as a person of integrity, a building can have structural integrity, and a corporation can be known for its fiscal integrity. While these contexts have differing implications, they share similarities: integrity is defined as “doing what you said you would do” (Engstrom & Larson, 1987, p. 10). For example, an individual with integrity remains true to his/her words; they are authentic. Similarly, a building with structural integrity can withstand the natural forces for which it was designed. Fiscal integrity typically refers to an organization following financial rules and regulations to which it is bound. All these contexts utilize the concept of integrity, which involves doing what you said you would.

When I think of integrity in the context of research, one of the first concerns that comes to mind is plagiarism. I do not need to elaborate on this idea further because academia generally disapproves of plagiarism and its various manifestations. Unfortunately, the availability of easy-to-use generative AI tools has only compounded the issue. Institutions of higher education and librarians work hard to discourage plagiarism and develop policies to counter it, and rightly so. However, I’d like to take a few minutes to discuss this topic because of a personal misunderstanding I had regarding plagiarism and the plagiarism I frequently justified based on my misunderstanding. I thought plagiarism simply happened when I copied a sentence, a paragraph, or a whole section of a book without providing a reference to the work from which it came. For example, if this entire blog entry was a verbatim copy of a chapter from Booth et al.’s The Craft of Research, and I simply noted this by a reference at the end of the section, I would have thought that since I was giving a reference, I was not plagiarizing. Such an assumption is absurd. At a minimum, if this whole blog entry were a verbatim copy of a chapter from Booth et al., it should be in a block quote format, even though that would look odd and copying that much of a text verbatim is typically not an acceptable practice for research and writing, it, at a minimum, properly acknowledges that I am copying a work verbatim.

Looking back, my understanding of plagiarism was incorrect and, again, simply ludicrous. As a faithful librarian, this gross misunderstanding of plagiarism reminds me that I am a sinner and that such a misunderstanding simply manifests my sinful nature. Subsequently, I have a warrant to seek humility in all professional endeavors due to the depravity caused by my sinful nature. Fortunately, my misconception was graciously corrected.

When preparing to write my master’s thesis, I had to read Booth et al.’s (2024) The Craft of Research. This book, along with its section “Guarding Against Inadvertent Plagiarism” (section 12.9), helped me understand what I was doing wrong. They delve into the details regarding how easy it is to plagiarize, the various ways plagiarism occurs, and the necessity of intentionally and aggressively avoiding it; otherwise, plagiarism happens.

Christianity argues that all humanity has a sinful nature (Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:23). In other words, people do not need to work to do wrong things; instead, it takes effort to do what is right and just. Again, my inclination to plagiarize and its ease is simply a byproduct of my sinful nature. That is not an excuse but rather an observation that may help explain the frequency of plagiarism in many academic contexts and the concerns it raises.

Before reading Booth et al. (2024), my justification for plagiarizing seemed to echo a shallow and false humility, as I stated, “This scholar articulates their ideas with such expertise that I really cannot express them any better, so why try?” Or I would argue (again with a very shallow manifestation of humility), “Who am I to critique work done by a scholar?” I did not understand the immense value behind trying to critique or articulate a scholar’s argument in my own words and context. A light came when I understood that analyzing and synthesizing are critical skills for which plagiarism and the improper use of generative AI impede development. Analysis and synthesis provide a more comprehensive understanding of the text to the reader, enabling them to identify where the scholar went wrong and/or the strength of the scholar’s argument. Using analysis and synthesis are critical to the learning and knowledge endeavors and play key roles in the transformative function of learning.

This understanding of integrity as a warrant for avoiding plagiarism, whether active or passive, is common among many librarians, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof). However, the broad application of the word ‘integrity’ alluded to earlier raises the question: Can the Christian faith offer an additional understanding of the concept of ‘integrity’ that might be helpful for a faithful librarian? In his classic work, Christian Theology, Millard Erickson offers insightful guidance on integrity. Erickson (1998) argues that integrity is closely tied to truth and that three dimensions of truthfulness — genuineness, veracity, and faithfulness — offer a distinct perspective on integrity (pp. 316-318). 

Erickson’s first point of integrity, genuineness, is often reflected in scholarship, as noted above, through the rigor and challenge of synthesis and analysis. After reading Booth et al. (2024), I had a course project for the following term: to write a review of one of the required texts. I wanted to practice what I had learned about plagiarism and intentionally not plagiarize. This may sound simplistic (and is actually quite embarrassing), but this was the first time I had composed a review apart from consulting professional reviews (i.e., other scholarly opinions) of this book. It may sound a bit unconventional, but I wanted to share my thoughts on an academic work and articulate them. Unfortunately, it was not until I was in a graduate program that I began to understand the roles that integrity and genuine reflection play in scholarly conversations. While it was a challenge to compose such a review, it was an incredible learning experience. I have had the privilege to repeat such a learning experience in many different contexts. Writing an authentic critical review of a book requires genuine reflection and invariably leads to a deeper understanding of the work, which is essential for all forms of scholarly conversation.

Erickson (1998) argues that a second component of integrity is veracity. The term “veracity” may be unfamiliar in the English vernacular. It means “representing things as they really are” or “habitual truthfulness.” (Erickson, 1998, pp. 316-317). What does veracity look like in research?

Ernest Boyer’s (1990) work, Scholarship Reconsidered, is foundational for 21st-century scholarship. On occasion, I reference his work in my teaching and writing. In some contexts where I reference Boyer, I aim to provide a foundation for why librarians should pursue scholarship and, more specifically, what that scholarship entails. In so doing, I often use a quote from Boyer (1990):

“The richness of a faculty’s talent should be celebrated, not restricted. Only as the distinctiveness of each faculty is affirmed will the potential of scholarship be fully realized. Surely, American higher education is imaginative and creative enough to support and reward not only those faculty uniquely gifted in research but also those who excel in the integration and application of knowledge, as well as those especially adept in the scholarship of teaching. If acknowledged, such a mosaic of talent would bring renewed vitality to higher learning and the nation” (p. 27).

Boyer (1990) argues that the concept of “scholarship” should encompass a range of talents, not just writing and research. Boyer’s (1990) work has significantly influenced how many view scholarship, particularly in the context of teaching and learning, in the 21st century. When referring to this quote in some of my writings, however, I take the term “faculty” out and put “librarian” [and put brackets around it when I do, so people know it is not part of the original] and suggest that Boyer may be providing a framework for scholarship for librarians. I am suggesting that Boyer (1990) is saying:

“The richness of a [librarian’s] talent should be celebrated, not restricted. Only as the distinctiveness of each librarian is affirmed will the potential of scholarship be fully realized. Surely, American higher education is imaginative and creative enough to support and reward not only those [librarians] uniquely gifted in research but also those who excel in the integration and application of knowledge, as well as those especially adept in the scholarship of teaching. Such a mosaic of talent, if acknowledged, would bring renewed vitality to higher learning and the nation” (p. 27).

Am I exercising veracity? Am I faithful to the text (i.e., Boyer’s original writings)? As I have used this example in a course to demonstrate my commitment to veracity, I have received pushback from individuals who questioned my representation of Boyer’s idea, specifically whether I was practicing veracity. My response, with humility, led to some fantastic dialogue and helped me learn more about the critical role of veracity in any research endeavor. Veracity is a vital component of integrity for a faithful librarian.

Erickson’s (1998) discussion of iniquity also adds insight to veracity. Erickson (1998) states that iniquity manifests itself in a lack of integrity, which is evident in the disunity of the individual, defined as “a discrepancy between present and past behavior or character” (p. 590). In other words, faithful librarians practice veracity (and integrity) in their research endeavors when they refine their understanding of a scholar’s work to eliminate (as much as possible) differentiation between what the scholar articulates and their understanding of that scholar’s work. Such an effort encourages humility as it awakens librarians to their own limitations and biases, prompting them to strive for an accurate representation of the works of other scholars, including their critique of those works, in their own scholarly endeavors.

John 14:6 adds insight to veracity as well. In this passage, Jesus states, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This phrase emphasizes that Jesus is the way (Beasley-Murray, 1982, p. 252); consequently, faithful librarians should strive to follow Jesus Christ in all aspects of life, including research. In this context, the concept of “truth” seeks to reveal how Jesus is the way (Beasley-Murray, 1982, p. 252). It “reminds us of the complete reliability of Jesus in all that he does and is” (Morris, 1995, p. 570). The biblical concept of truth encompasses faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, certainty, and veracity (Morris, 1995, p. 259). As faithful librarians strive to emulate Jesus in all respects, should our research methods not reflect Christ-likeness in being truthful and accurate? Again, veracity is a critical component of integrity.

Faithfulness is a third component of integrity (Erickson, 1998, p. 318). Faithful librarians often refer to God as faithful, as confirmed by passages such as Deuteronomy 7:9, which states, “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations….” The most familiar connection we have with this kind of faithfulness may be the faithfulness exemplified in a marital relationship, between a parent and a child, or between two friends. What does this have to do with research?

While integrity is often seen as a state of being, faithfulness is frequently the outworking of integrity: faithfulness to the text one is researching, faithfulness to the results generated from a survey (and what the results do and do not say), and faithfulness to what an individual expresses in an interview (both verbally and non-verbally). In all aspects of research, faithfulness is a critical dynamic of good research and faithful librarianship.

While the concept of faithfulness applies in numerous contexts, including research, writing, teaching, and librarianship, I would like to suggest that it assumes an even more critical tone for faithful librarians. Why? In many respects, Christian librarians inhabit two communities: the community of their profession, librarianship, and the community of their faith. I believe that faithfulness to these two communities demands integration; specifically, part of a Christian librarian’s “task is to think biblically about how to connect research, teaching, and service in the academy to the progress of the gospel in all of its dimensions, bringing shalom and blessing to all the earth” (Gould, 2014, p. 168). Faithful research done with integrity involves asking unique questions that align with a faith perspective. For example, in librarianship, my faith has led me to ask questions such as “How does the idea that ‘the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7) impact librarianship?” Questions of this nature often lead other disciplines to ask, similarly, “What is the role of forgiveness in international relations?” Or, “Can the biblical framework of redemption impact fiscal strategies?” These questions spur faith-driven research, which can be seen as a faithful endeavor, and must be conducted with faithfulness and integrity.

The introduction of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and the subsequent ease of integrating them into various areas of life, including research methodology, calls for librarians to respond with integrity. While I do not dismiss the value of integrity for its own sake, it is worth remembering that educational ventures, of which faithful librarians are often a part, are frequently viewed as learning opportunities. To lack integrity in research endeavors often forfeits educational opportunities. In her work, Loving to Know, Esther Meek (2011) eloquently states that “knowledge is transformation, not mere information” (p. 6). Lacking integrity in an educational journey sacrifices the opportunity for transformation: to learn, grow, and become more Christ-like. Subsequently, integrity is crucial for a faithful librarian who desires to see their role as part of a patron’s transformation.

References

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1999). John (2nd ed.). Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2024). The Craft of Research (5th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Engstrom, T. W., & Larson, R. C. (1987). Integrity. Word Books.

Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian Theology (2nd ed.). Baker Book House.

Gould, P. (2014). An essay on academic disciplines, faithfulness, and the Christian scholar. Christian Higher Education, 13(3), 167-182.

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

Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel According to John (Rev. ed). W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

ABSTRACT:

This post reflects on how this foundational idea shapes my approach to research and librarianship as a Christian. I share how teaching theological research led me to wrestle with whether Christians should conduct research differently. I conclude that our pursuit of truth must be rooted in humility and a genuine desire to discover what is real, not just defend our positions. Drawing from thinkers like Augustine, I emphasize that any truth—no matter where it is found—belongs to God, and this conviction should encourage me to engage with diverse perspectives, even those I disagree with, while maintaining integrity and openness. I recount my failures when I let fear and pride limit my research. I challenge myself and other faithful librarians to approach scholarship with humble excitement, always seeking to learn and grow, trusting that honest inquiry can draw us closer to God and better serve others.

FULL ENTRY:

Over the last few years, I have taught a course entitled “Theological Research and Writing.” My first year teaching this course was crazy – looking back, I see there was much I would have done differently. While working through the content for this course, I thought a lot about faith and learning integration. I began to ask myself, “Should research methods differ for a believer in Jesus Christ?” I could not help but answer, “Yes!” But when I answered that with a resounding “Yes!” it led me to ask, “But what should be different?” After thinking about this topic, I developed six Christian research factors, each of which will be discussed in a different blog entry. Some of these, I feel, are no-brainers: I would expect them from anybody doing research, anywhere, in any context. However, with the lack that many have of a developed Judeo-Christian worldview in many dynamics of life, I feel that these should be taught not just as “things to do so you don’t get in trouble” but as practices that reflect the beliefs of a faithful librarian.

The first component of research that should be different for a Christian is the presumption that “all truth is God’s truth.” This premise is critical in many facets of research and librarianship for faithful librarians. This phrase is generated from Saint Augustine’s (n.d.) work, On Christian Doctrines. In it, he states, “Nay, but let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master…” (II.18). The implication of this phrase is that regardless of the discipline, method, or scholar who discovers the truth, the truth belongs to God. This idea trickles down through the works of Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Arthur Holmes, and many Christian theologians.

The idea that all truth is God’s truth first assumes that there is truth. Secondly, implying that this idea should impact how a Christian does research, it assumes that the individual doing research can uncover the truth. For some, these ideas may seem pretty simple and straightforward. We understand that one can learn and grow by discovering the truth. If all truth is God’s truth, this leaves the question, “Can the discovery of truth impact one’s relationship with God?” With the proper posture, the discovery of truth (i.e., research) draws us closer to God. The idea that all truth is God’s truth rests upon the presumption that as we learn more about something like chemical compounds, we can see the hands of God’s creativity and the intricate structure and order upon which our world is built, which can play a role in learning more about God himself (cf. Frame, 1987, 64-67). As an individual striving to be a faithful librarian, my faith in Jesus Christ fervently points toward this presumption.

However, in the context of the 21st century, research can often be used differently. There are contexts where research may not be used for discovering truth, but instead, it is used to find argumentation supporting a particular claim, position, or ideology. Granted, we all do various degrees of research and writing to defend a claim or to find support for an argument. I often find myself reviewing what I wrote or an argument I made. While reviewing, I am reminded that I need documentation to support a particular argument: do scholars agree with my outlandish claim, or is it just my naive opinion? In that process, it is not uncommon for me to recall a scholarly work that stated specific argumentation, which I used in my project, and I meander back through the literature to find it. I am confident that this is common practice among many. However, contexts such as these are one thing I am not necessarily referring to when suggesting that doing research to find argumentation in favor of a specific position can counter the assumption that all truth is God’s truth. Ideally, in contexts like these, we have done the research and the work investigating a topic. Our process to find support for a position is based on our reading and study and (ideally) is not just something we feel must be justified. In so doing, we assume that the whole research process leads us to the truth. I hope that in such a context, one’s research endeavors begin with humility and a valid research question fueled by a pursuit of truth.

To what context, then, am I referring? A context where one pursues “research” simply to flaunt their own position (and I am using the term “research” lightly because whether or not such a process could really be considered research is debatable). In contexts where “research” (again, using that term lightly) is done to validate one’s view, one assumes either that their view is truth or that there is no truth. The former lacks humility, and the latter denies truth, implying either that there is no truth or that if there is truth, one’s research endeavors will not bring one closer to it. The claim that either there is no truth or that it cannot be discovered screams against the premise of the gospel. Accepting that truth exists is critical to my aim to be a faithful librarian. What would research look like if one assumed that there is no truth? Would research become simply a means to flaunt one’s position? This leads to poor research protocol (i.e., looking only for works that agree with your position and neglecting works that argue differing positions), further stimulating the mistrust placed upon research and academia. The idea that all truth is God’s truth assumes that there is truth, and research is a venue through which we discover God’s truth.

Unfortunately, I have an excellent personal example of “research” that, ashamedly, displays my own denial that all truth is God’s truth. I took a theology course in my graduate program, and instead of taking the final exam, the instructor allowed us to write a paper on any topic we wanted (as long as it was related to the course’s content). I excitedly took this option. At the time, I was wrestling with a theological issue, and I was convinced that my position was correct. Unfortunately, I did my paper for this course on this topic. Why do I say, “Unfortunately”? I say, unfortunately, because I took this opportunity to present the strengths of my position on this topic. I did not do research, I did not investigate all sides of the topic, and I did not even read works that opposed my position.

Looking back, I chose the easy way out, and fear played a leading role in using this project to validate what I already assumed was the correct view. I feared that possibly agreeing with the “opposition’s” premise might challenge my position. I feared what might happen if a scholar with whom I disagreed convincingly argued against my position and made me reconsider my point of view. Fueled by pride and arrogance, I was fearful of being wrong. The premise that all truth is God’s truth should have comforted my fears and, secondly, impacted my desire to invest in reading works that came from differing perspectives, even vastly different ones, understanding that one can learn from the works of others, even when in disagreement. The idea that all truth is God’s truth should have enabled me to acknowledge that a position I fervently held may not be correct. Most individuals doing research and writing are in pursuit of truth. However, all individuals are encumbered by a sinful nature, impacting all the work produced (in varying degrees) and the research endeavors that make them.

In any research endeavor, we must embrace the idea that all of humanity is created in the image of God. Subsequently, there may be kernels of truth in an individual’s work who has starkly different views or opinions. Why? Because the people holding that position were made in God’s image. Our responsibility as believers in Christ who are involved with research is to pull those kernels out for further dialog and investigation. As librarians, our responsibilities include teaching research protocol and providing resources that enable patrons to discover truth. Perhaps our convictions will be challenged in the research process, and doors will open for further growth. Looking back, I regret my “research,” which rejected the premise that all truth is God’s truth. (I put “research” in quotation marks because, looking back, I am skeptical that this was really research, but it was more of a paper advocating for my doctrinal position on a topic.) Why do I regret my lack of research in this context? Suppose I had gone into the research presupposing that all truth is God’s truth. In that case, I may have learned that my position was incorrect, or I may have developed more empathy for alternative positions (while not changing my own) and for individuals who disagree, or I may have been able to confirm my position even more robustly. Regardless, my purpose in doing that research should have been to pursue truth – all truth is God’s truth – and not to defend a particular position apologetically. Most importantly, however, my research would not be driven by fear.

Disciplinary silos tend to develop in academia. Subsequently, it is common for individuals to only pursue knowledge from resources within their discipline. However, the idea that all truth is God’s truth infers that one can learn from all disciplines. While this “sharing” is common in some disciplines (e.g., Library and Information Science tends to “borrow” a lot from other disciplines, which I think is a strength), it may not be as common in others. While separate disciplines tend to have differences in topics addressed, methodologies, and professional needs, if all truth is God’s truth, faithful librarians should be eager to learn from these other disciplines to learn how to best serve those doing research in that area. In the context of the services we offer patrons, the premise that all truth is God’s truth should also give us confidence in pointing patrons to resources outside of a conventional disciplinary range.

As a faithful librarian, how should my acceptance of the premise that all truth is God’s truth impact my professional endeavors? First, the idea that all truth is God’s truth should be reflected in a library’s collection development policies and practices. This idea provides a warrant for collecting works that some might consider controversial. In saying this, I am not necessarily implying that there is an element of God’s truth in all works out there; that is simply ridiculous. I am, however, inferring that we can learn from works with which we may have fervent disagreement. For example, perhaps a work like Engels’ and Marx’s The Communist Manifesto lacks appropriate reflection on total depravity and wreaked havoc when brought to fruition. A work like this may not reflect God’s truth in and of itself but reflects the reciprocation of ignored truth.

When the idea that all truth is God’s truth drives our research practices, it should provide a base for humbled excitement about research and learning. The humility should be reflected in one’s research posture, going into any topic (even those upon which we have firm convictions) with an eagerness to learn and a readiness to be challenged. Understanding that all truth is God’s truth should also excite research. In some contexts, research can be exciting because you learn. In contexts where knowledge is often seen as equivalent to power, many understand that research is exciting. However, in the context of a power-driven excitement for knowledge, the excitement can be problematic because the drive for research quickly becomes power, not truth. However, excitement immersed with humility can be invigorating. What does humble excitement look like, then? It is an eagerness to learn, regardless of where the results might lead. It is an understanding of the roles authority plays in research endeavors, whether that authority be the course instructor, the author of an article, or the scholar-in-residence. Humble excitement enables one to learn from authorities, even those with stark disagreements. The idea that all truth is God’s truth can generate an exciting humility critical to excellent research.

References

Augustine (n.d.) On Christian Doctrine (Book 2). https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

Frame, J. M. (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Baker.