Negative interdisciplinarity: Doing theology under the noetic effects of sin

Interdisciplinarity is an ever present imperative in the modern academy, and theology is no exception to this. Indeed, theologians have always borrowed from other disciplines. Yet the enthusiasm with which theologians embrace transgressing disciplinary boundaries varies enormously, and there is serious disagreement about the appropriateness, and even the possibility, of speaking about the divine using tools drawn from outside explicitly theological discourse (rooted in scripture and the tradition). In this article I offer a typology of theological views of interdisciplinarity, and argue for one particular vision as most appropriate. Theological assessments of interdisciplinarity depend, amongst many other things, on anthropological claims concerning the efficacy of fallen human reason. On the one hand, theologians who emphasise the continued power of the ratio tend to approach interdisciplinarity from an assumption of the inherent value of the other disciplines: this I call positive interdisciplinarity . On the other, those who stress the radicality of the noetic effects of the Fall tend to reject the other disciplines: that is, they take an anti-interdisciplinary stance. After sketching Luther’s paradigmatic anti-interdisciplinarity , I suggest a third way. A commitment to Luther’s radical hamartiology does not necessitate a rejection of the other disciplines but might encourage a negative interdisciplinarity . Recognition that noetic sin affects even theology might drive theologians to humble dialogue with other forms of knowledge production, not because they are stable sources of insight, but because theology also needs all the help it can get.