Transdisciplinarity and Christian Thought

Otniel L. Vereş (Babeş-Bolyai University)

Ioan G. Pop (Emanuel University of Oradea)

A New Methodology

Our approach starts from the conceptual and logical frame of Transdisciplinarity
which implies two aspects. The first one takes into account what Transdiciplinarity claims
to be, and the second one what Transdisciplinarity doesn’t claim to be. Transdisciplinarity
is not another discipline, even though at first sight and in the absence of a proper
description it may seem to be. At the same time, Trasndisciplinarity is not the secret key,
nor is it a magic wand which can solve obscurity and all the difficulties that knowledge
deals with in the present context of hyperspecialization and the division into fragments of
knowledge. If we borrow a term used by the catholic theologian Hans Küng to describe
his fundamental epistemological method of approaching Christian theology in the context
of globalization, we may say that Transdisciplinarity is a “critical rationality”, a new kind
of thinking and attitude, antagonistic to the classical and reductionist rationalism which
emphasizes objectivity,1 technicality and profit that led to the inward impoverishment of
the man and his turning into a simple object that has to bring profit. The human factor,
the inward side and subjectivity are increasingly missing aspects from the academic
education and from the general approach to knowledge at any level. Because of the fact
that Transdisciplinarity may be considered to be rather a methodology grounded on a
general survey, approaching a certain field from the perspective of synergistic synthesis,
we are in fact making use of logic, mode and working tools of Transdisciplinarity by
which we can undertake the desired task.2 What needs to be avoided at any cost – an
aspect which is valid for any field approached from the trandscisciplinary point of view –

1
We are talking about a misunderstood objectivity, in its positivistic acceptation which cannot be upheld in
the present context.
2
For a description of the methodology and Transdisciplinary approach to education, see Basarab Nicolescu,
Noi, particula şi lumea, Junimea, Iaşi 2007, pp. 314-342, and Charter of Transdisciplinarity, translated
from French by Karen-Claire Voss, http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/charten.htm.

1
is the drawing of far-fetched parallels between the respective field and the
transdisciplinary thought. Usually such parallels occur relying on some apparent and
formal similarities.3 The mistake consists in a comparison of a certain methodology with
a specific domain regarding the knowledge or the spirituality. We cannot compare
Transdisciplinarity to any cultural-spiritual domain of mankind because, when it is
properly understood, Transdisciplinarity implies a way of knowing that needs to
penetrate and to be integrated in any other domain. “Human knowledge as entity is
transdisciplinary, intelligence being transdisciplinary as well, as one of the essential
conditions of existence”.4
The attempt to avoid the trap of formal parallels between Transdisciplinarity and
Christian thought entails by itself necessarily a selection of the terms and concepts
employed when we study the text of the Scriptures from this perspective. What we mean
when we refer to the procedure of selecting is the fact that not all the aspects that
Transdisciplinarity imply can be equally applied to Christian thought. However, Christian
thought manages to keep the general frame and the logic of Transdisciplinarity. The
interpretative proposition consists in a general view of the way in which Christianity
manifests itself from a transdisciplinary perspective but in a specific or applied way, i.e.
starting from dogmas and biblical texts. This first section will be then followed by a brief
case study which aims at restricting the general frame of the problems brought forward in
John’s Gospel, particularly the first twelve chapters. In other words, we will try to
observe even more specific the way in which the logic of Transdisciplinarity may be
applied to the biblical text and how this logic can help to decode and interpret the text in
a debating transdisciplinary context given the interrogations of Transdisciplinarity.

3
For example, one could try to find such a similarity between transdiciplinary thought, based on the logic
of the included middle and Hegelian philosophy, and the three fundamental formal aspects: thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis. Likewise we can find similarities with some oriental religion trends. As a matter
of fact, formal correspondences can be found with a lot of fields.
4
Pop, I., The Semiophysical Communicational Model and Transdisciplinary Knowledge, ENEC
International Conference, Hyperion University, Bucharest, May 2008.

2
 Christian Thought and Transdisciplinarity

We daresay that Christian thought is pre-eminently transdisciplinary,

because it best succeeds in raising to the level of the ideals of Transdisciplinarity, a fact
which results even at a once-over of the “Charter of Transdisciplinarity”. Our position
and next proposition is not a reiteration of the approaching error mentioned before, i.e. a
formal comparison, based on skin-deep similarities between the Christian thought and the
transdisciplinary perspective. We need to mention from the beginning that our assertions
have their ground in the firm beliefs of the Christian believer, not only those of a one that
embraces Christianity as a theoretical alternative more viable than others.

Christianity as the totality of the human being

Christianity as a way of life is transdisciplinary because it implies the dealing of

human being as a whole, by way of integrating all the dimensions that define humanity:
the psychological, conative-volitional, intellectual and physical dimension, meaning
the assuming of subjectivity, because it implies a volitional and trusting act, of active and
responsible involvement. In Christianity each aspect of life and human knowledge is
filtered by its central perspective represented by faith in God, every aspect of existence
being determined and influenced by it. Christianity starts from the inside out, having as a
knowledge instrument the faith and it comprises all these aspects of the human existence,
being transdisciplinary because it searches the final unity of knowledge and human
existence. In Christianity the level of thought does not mean an exclusion of the level
of living, respectively objectivity doesn’t imply the rejection of subjectivity. On the
whole, as the French theologian and physicist, Thierry Magnin emphasizes the end of the
scientistic thinking in the XXth century has led to the formulation and development of a
new epistemology, in which the knowing subject holds a central role. In the knowledge
process, man becomes an integrating and integrative part. The Christian thinks
objectively by assuming subjectivity, therefore the subjective objectivity and objective
subjectivity of the contemporary science, about which Basarab Nicolescu5 speaks, echoes

5
Basarab Nicolescu, Noi, particula şi lumea, pp. 195-199.

3
in Christian thought. The Christian assumes the objective world from the perspective of
his transformed subjectivity.

In the present hyperspecialized academic and scientific world, Christianity is

transdisciplinary by means of its universal perspective. The theologian Johann Baptist
Metz argued that nothing seems today more suspiciously than the universal. From this
point of view, theologians are probably the last universalists from the academic circles.
They are forced to universality because “God is either a universal theme for the whole
mankind, or it is not a theme at all.”6 If we take over the description of the theologian, we
may argue that even by the nature of their faith itself, Christians have to be universalists,
which offers them an optimistic perspective regarding the problem of seclusion from
society, and wandering until isolated, by escaping from the communitarian community.
We can observe an increasingly fragmentation of the human being into multiple
personalities or, better said, into different roles, depending on the context in which the
individual finds himself at a certain moment. Thus we can speak of the family, social,
working or church-goer man. Each person has to play several roles. Beyond these there
is, however, a centre of being that only the individual has access to, his most intimate
place, what he is in reality and in solitude.
We can delineate the different roles in three perspectives: the personal one, of
what I truly am, the perspective of others’ perception of me (what others think that I am)
and – for the one accepting the existence of God – the divine perspective towards the
personal being. In Christianity the three have to overlap, coincide in order to be able to
talk about the human being as a whole and unity.

Christianity is transdisciplinary because it raises the human dignity above

everything,7 in virtue of the belief in the creation of man in God’s image. Therefore “(…)
from a historical point of view we cannot separate the making-up of the conscious person
and the free conscience from the sharing of the faith in the God of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. The interrogations of the social sciences of the modern era and the major ideals
6
Johan Baptist Metz, „The Last Universalists,” in The Future of Theology, Essays in Honour of Jürgen
Moltmann, ed. by Miroslav Volf, Carmen Krieg, Thomas Kucharz, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1996, p. 48.
7
See the 8th art. of „Charter of Transdisciplinarity.”

4
of the democratic societies have their source in this tradition,”8 a crucial historical aspect
that mustn’t be overlooked, which in the present context is increasingly obliterated.
Lastly, the transdisciplinary character of Christianity distinguishes itself in its
trans-historical, trans-cultural, trans-racial, trans-linguistic character. From the beginning
Christianity manifested itself as a religion that overcomes any human obstacle, in this
respect, the words of Jesus being most significant: “Go and make disciples of all
nations.”9

Levels of Reality and “illogical” logic

To think transdisciplinary means, as we know, to assume several levels of reality

that imply a logic and a different conceptual frame in the coming into interior being of
the self. While in what concerns the natural, physical world we talk about three levels of
reality, in the spiritual realm of Christian thought we can talk about two levels of reality:
the divine and the human. Because of the limited space of this paper we cannot study in
detail the topic but, even at the risk of simplifying too much the discussion, we have to
underline some basic aspects. What Christian theology does is to try to explain the way in
which the two levels of reality come into contact with each other, how they interact. In
fact, the way in which we interpret this problem is the one that gave birth to numerous
types of theological perspectives. Generally, we talk about two types of theologies – each
implying a multitude of aspects and particular approaches – the theology from above or
revelational and the theology from bellow or natural. One of them starts from the divine
level (the top-down perspective) and the other one from the human level (the bottom-up
perspective). The two approaches influence the way in which the person of Jesus Christ is
regarded or the relation between the divine Christ and the historical Jesus. At this point,
in the context of the present debates, it is essential to invoke the logic of the included
middle10 and the concept of complementarity, taken from quantum physics, which,
together with the notions of actualization and potentialization developed in
complementary method, provide a useful frame for Christian thought. Here is the way in

8
Andrei Marga, Diagnoze, articole şi eseuri, Eikon, Cluj-Napoca, 2008, p. 37.
9
The Gospel of Matthew 28:19.
10
See Basarab Nicolescu, Noi, particula şi lumea, chapter 9.

5
which Thierry Magnin describes this problem: “Thus, when he [the believer] is interested
in Christ’s humanity (the actualization of Christ-Man), he cannot fully do that only with
the condition of being conscious that the divine dimension of Christ is potentialized in his
search and discourse. Conversely, the same is true when Christ-God is actualized in the
believer’s discourse: Christ-Man is then potentialized. In other words, the believer
affirms that we can speak about the humanity of Christ only when we have in memory his
divinity. And conversely, we can speak about the divinity of Christ only having in
memory his humanity.”11
Any exclusivistic approach is wrong, the best one being to take into account both
levels of reality. But both the qualitative and the quantitative difference between the two
levels is so deep, that through an ordinary logic we can’t but fail into despair, or
skepticism, for which reason we need to open ourselves to another level, of a different
complexity.
Basically, this is what Christianity means: the raising from one level of reality, of
human existence, with its inherent limitations, to another level of reality, one of infinite
complexity. The major problem is the way in which this can be accomplished, at which
point Christianity manifests itself uniquely. The contact between man and divinity, of the
creature with the Creator, the raising from the level of human existence (bottom-up
movement) to the Divine Being itself, cannot occur except by means of A Third One,
Jesus Christ, in whom the historical person (Jesus) and the Divine Being (Christ) unify.
Through Him, Jesus Christ, who is both Jesus and Christ, not only Jesus or Christ,
eternity invades time, the transcendent meets the immanent (top-down movement). This
is why the human response to the Divine Being is both a historical event and one with
transcendental significance. The Christian lives simultaneously in two worlds –
something absurd, unacceptable and unexplainable according to the common logic –
being, according to the Scripture, a heavenly citizen and in the same time a temporary
inhabitant on earth (“But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior
from there, the Lord Jesus Christ”12). Moreover, though still subject to limitations,
weaknesses and shortcomings inherent to human nature, the Christian is already raised at
the level of eternal glorification (the “already but not yet” duality).
11
Thierry Magnin, Între ştiinţă şi religie, Junimea, 2007, p. 196.
12
The Epistle to the Philippians 2:16.

6
 Another “illogicality” worth being emphasized is the unification between the
human being and God that takes place in Christianity (“I no longer live, but Christ lives
in me”13) without the personality and individuality of each person being annulled, but
there is rather a fulfillment of the human personality through a relationship with The
Other. If with respect to the human level we are different as sex, race, nationality and
social status, in the divine level we are the same. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”14
In the realm the Christian entered he is also living led by another logic,
Christianity being considered as a religion of inversions, a religion in which everything
seems “upside down”, in which the enemy is blessed, not punished, and hatred is
rewarded with love. One of the best examples of “inversion” is found in the Savior’s
Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5:3-12, the so-called text of “The Beatitudes”: the
poor in spirit is lifted up, the one who mourns is comforted, the meek is powerful, those
who hunger and thirst are filled, the merciful is shown mercy and the persecuted is happy.
Everything seems to work different in this new dimension of a new reality which can be
known only by the act of faith. In the words of Thierry Magnin, “With God, who is
nothing but Love, everything is upside down.”15
In Christianity we are also dealing with a different logic of self knowing. From
the Christian point of view, the well-known statement “know your-self” is an absurdity if
we reduce it to a single level of reality. The Christian cannot know himself only by his
own powers. Christian knowledge is the knowledge through Another. Only then can the
man know himself better when he knows Him, The Other, the Divine Being, deeper and
deeper; this is the only way that one can know his neighbor, by opening himself to the
needs of the others, from the perspective of the three existential levels of this new reality,
love, forgiveness and service.16 The major problem is the way in which this knowing can
take place (the question “how” sends us in the action space, not only the ascertaining
one).
The communion is absolutely essential in the community of those who live in a
personal and communitarian relationship. The methodological concept of “knowledge
13
The Epistle to the Galatians 3:17.
14
The Epistle to Galatians 3:28.
15
Thierry Magnin, Între ştiinţă şi religie, p. 258.
16
Pop, I., The Semiophysical Communicational Model and Transdisciplinary Knowledge.

7
search window” allows us to understand the way of communication in communion at the
level of the community.17 (see fig.).

Transmitter Receiver
Top down
Top down
ΔNE ΔNR
centered

Bottom up
Bottom up

Top down

ΔNE
uncentered

Top down
Bottom up
ΔNR

Bottom up

In an educational paradigm the one who transmits the education (the teacher) and
the one who receives the message (the information) – the student, are found at different
levels of reality and, at the same time, at different ranks of authority. The teacher is acting
from the “above” perspective (top-down), while the student acts from “bellow” (bottom-
up). In order that the action of communication be efficient the two perspectives need to
be in a state of harmony, be it assumed or negotiated. When the difference between the
levels or reality, with the corresponding ranks of authority, tends to zero, when they tend
to be co-equal, the window is open and the communication and interaction are now
possible. The ranks of authority are alternatively in a symmetrical and complementary
interaction state, depending of the context to avoid potential conflicts by building bridges,
working together in an assumed / negotiated harmony, in the same time avoiding the

17
Pop, I., Considerations on Mechatronical Integrative Transdisciplinary Knowledge, ECT, International
Conference, George Bacovia University, Bacau, June 2008

8
possible disharmony states.18 From the contrary, when the difference is big, and the levels
of reality are different, the window is closed, and the communication is stopped, virtually
impossible. The knowing relation between man and God in the Christian perspective
shows Christ as our Teacher, and us his disciples. But the Teacher calls his disciples to
participation, and to relationship. He descends and they rise. The levels tend to unify and
the communication man-God is thus possible. The act of prayer in Christianity represents
the supreme example of encountering and interaction between the two levels. In prayer,
the “above” perspective and the “down” contemplation make the divine unify with the
human, the transcendent with the immanent and the divine providence with the human
freedom. This is how we can understand the communitarian aspect of Christianity.
Because of the fact that it is in a relationship with The Other, by whom he is able to know
himself, the Christian learns to live together with others in a community, in communion.
Henceforth a deeper knowing of God leads to a deeper knowing of the others and a
greater valuation of the human being in itself, therefore, the Christian “recognizes himself
in the person of the other, not only at an educational level, but also at a spiritual level.” 19
Reminding ourselves about the four pillars of transdisciplinary knowledge,20 the Christian
learns (the bottom-up perspective) and is being taught at the same time (the top-down
perspective), because he knows he cannot live separately, but only together with the
others, in a community (learning/teaching process) – with the learning and understanding
syntagma in the knowledge process: learning to learn to know by doing (creativity in
action) and learning to understand to be by living with the others (authenticity through
participation).21

John’s Gospel – the divine reality in relationship with the human reality

18
More about synergistic communication in Ioan G. Pop, Otniel L. Veres, Comunicarea sinergică aplicată,
(“Applied Synergistic Communication”), in press, Risoprint, 2009.
19
Basarab Nicolescu, Noi, particula şi lumea, p. 338.
20
Basarab Nicolescu, Noi, particula şi lumea, p.335.
21
Pop, I., Maties, V., A Transdisciplinary Approach of the Mechatronical Education in the Context of the
Knowledge Based Society, published in “Problems of Education in the 21st century” dec. 2008, vol.8, pp.
90-96 (an international, non-periodical, peer reviewed scientific collection, issued by the SMC “Scientia
Educologica”), Lithuania.

9
 If the Christian thought is pre-eminently transdisciplinary, it is obvious that its
holy book, the Bible has to be the same.22 We can even assert that the Scriptures, by the
very way of its composition, is a specific example of how the divine level meets the
human one. Moreover, for the Christian man, besides prayer, the most direct way by
which he can communicate with God, i.e. the divine realm, is the Holy Scripture. Seen
through the eyes of the Christian, the Scripture is not just a simple reading, but a real
hearing, a communion and also a description of the way by which we can have this
communion.
One of the books of the Scriptures that offer an extraordinary and profound image
of the encounter between God and man through Jesus Christ that shows the interaction
between the two levels, divine and human, is John’s Gospel. We will dwell upon a
particular aspect of this Gospel which we will seek to approach from the transdisciplinary
logic and from the levels of reality perspective, in the light of the facts presented above.
The particular aspect referred to above represents the “signs” that the Saviour
unfolds in this Gospel. John’s Gospel is quite different from the other three Gospels both
from the literary composition point of view, and from what concerns the theological
accents as well. One of the particular features of John is the selection of the miracles
performed by Christ that he makes, picking only seven miracles which he calls “signs”.
At the end of the book the biblical author specifies the prospect he had in mind:
“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). These words offer the
hermeneutic key to the whole book. According to the suggested approach of this paper,
we may observe two things: on one hand, by what has been written, the reader has to
reach the faith that the historical Jesus is the divine Christ, therefore, the two levels meet
in Him, and on the other hand, that through this faith one can have the real life in him, i.e.
the only full life is the life through Another. Everything that the writer presents in this
Gospel has that end in view, even the selection of the seven “signs”.
John differs from the other evangelists because of the language used to describe
the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. The word used by the writer is shmei`a,
translated as “signs”, unlike the word that appears in the other Gospels, dunamei~, a
22
It goes without saying that everything we assert starts from the personal conviction that the Bible has a
divine origin, and it is the revealed Word of God, not only a literary or mythological human work.

10
distinction which is made on purpose. If dunamei~ emphasizes the element of power
from Jesus’ actions, shmei`a means a lot more. The first word induces fear, while the
second one is intended to induce faith. Therefore, in view of the scope of the writer, the
“signs” lead to the fulfilling of that scope.
In order for the dunamei~ to transform in shmei`a, the linking element of
faith is needed, i.e. the passing from a level of reality to another, the raising of the level
of human existence to the One that presents himself as the full Life.23 This is an act of
trust, of accepting another reality that gives a meaning to the human life. By faith, the
human Jesus is the same with Christ, the Son of God. The problem of the writer’s
contemporaries was that they failed to see beyond miracles the reality they presented. 24
For these people the “signs” remained just miracles. Here lies the difficulty of the
problem because if one remains just at the level of miracles, he will be led to other
perplexities regarding the identity of the one that performs them. This is the reason why
those from Jesus’ time were bewildered and did not know what to think of him.
The signs therefore lead to something that lies beyond them, as they were not just
some miracles. In John’s Gospel the word shmei`on signifies an event by which the
glory of God is manifested, together with his presence amongst the people. In
shmei`on the accent falls not on the event itself, but on the essential truth that the
“sign” leads us to. Shmei`on offers an insight into the very nature of God.
All the seven signs selected by the evangelist appear in the first twelve chapters of
the book which describe the public ministry of Jesus Christ. In this ministry, through
signs and Word he reveals himself as the revelation of the Father. The first chapter of the
Gospel presents Christ in the fullness of his divinity (1.1-5). Moreover, John confronts us
with the real conflict that is taking place beyond our eyes, the conflict from the level of
spiritual reality between Good and Evil, light and darkness (vs. 5). Shortly after, the
perspective of the divine level is filled out by the presentation of the level of human
reality, and by the contact between the two worlds, through the incarnation of the
Saviour: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his
glory” (1.14). The whole book alternates the two levels of reality. We are exposed to

23
“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” John 10:10.
24
This failure is also present for all those that do not see in Christ any more than an extraordinary teacher or
an exemplary person.

11
these realities, expressed in many dualist elements such as light and darkness, for
instance (1.5) “from above” – “from bellow” (8.23), “spirit” – “flesh” (3.6), “life” –
“death” (3.36), “truth” – “lie” (8.44). We are swinging therefore between two levels:
divine-human, historical-theological.
The structuring tension of the book can be observed in the way in which the
reaction of Jesus’ disciples is presented when they see the “signs” performed by Jesus,
and the reaction of his enemies, as the narrative develops. The evolution of the narrative
from the first part of the Gospel takes place in a crescendo, culminating in chapter 11
with the extraordinary miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus. The first sign takes place in
an obscure place (2.1-11), while the last one is seen by a lot of people (11.19). On the
other hand the disciples’ reaction is manifested in the opposite direction from the one of
the enemies of Christ. If the disciples see in these signs a reflection of God’s glory, as
Jesus made more and more powerful signs, his enemies are increasingly hardened (2.13-
22; 9.1-41; 11.1-44). The very thing that means to obtain the saving faith, is in human
terms a failure: “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence,
they still would not believe in him.” (12.37).
John’s Gospel offers a proper model of approaching the biblical text from the
transdisciplinary thinking approach. Far from being only theological, this book is as real
as it can be, presenting both aspects of the human existence from the point of view of the
relation to its Creator: the failure, the stagnation at in a level of reality in which the
individual cannot see the “sign,” the reality beyond “reality” and the victory, i.e. the
passing at another level of reality, the level of full life in which the divine mixes with the
human, eternity with time, providence with freedom. “Then you will know the truth, and
the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32).

References

Charter of Transdisciplinarity, translated from French by Karen-Claire Voss,

http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/charten.htm.
Magnin, Thierry, Între ştiinţă şi religie, Junimea, 2007
Marga, Andrei, Diagnoze, articole şi eseuri, Eikon, Cluj-Napoca, 2008

12
 Metz, Johan Baptist, „The Last Universalists,” in The Future of Theology, Essays
in Honour of Jürgen Moltmann, ed. by Miroslav Volf, Carmen Krieg, Thomas Kucharz,
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996
Nicolescu, Basarab, Noi, particula şi lumea, Junimea, Iaşi 2007
Pop, Ioan, The Semiophysical Communicational Model and Transdisciplinary
Knowledge, ENEC International Conference, Hyperion University, Bucharest, May 2008
Pop, Ioan, Considerations on Mechatronical Integrative Transdisciplinary
Knowledge, ECT, International Conference, George Bacovia University, Bacau, June
2008
Pop, Ioan, Maties, V., A Transdisciplinary Approach of the Mechatronical
Education in the Context of the Knowledge Based Society, published in “Problems of
Education in the 21st century” dec. 2008, vol.8, pp. 90-96 (an international, non-
periodical, peer reviewed scientific collection, issued by the SMC “Scientia
Educologica”), Lithuania
Pop, Ioan, Veres, Otniel L., Comunicarea sinergică aplicată (“Applied Synergistic
Communication”), in press, Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca, 2009

13