Structural Analysis

Structural Analysis of Schoberth's "Theology today"

Citation

Schoberth, Wolfgang. "»Theology today« Von der Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit vernünftiger Gottesrede heute." Evangelische Theologie 85, no. 4 (2025): 244–258.

Edition Specification

The subject of this analysis is a revised and expanded version of a farewell lecture delivered at the Faculty of Theology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, on February 6, 2024. As a modern scholarly text, it does not rely on specific manuscripts or ancient versions. The stability of the argument depends on the consistency and clarity of the philosophical and theological concepts employed by the author.

Anchors: Main text (Schoberth 2025); Contemporary texts (Habermas 1981, Ricœur 1965).

Conceptual Terms and Interpretive Forks

As this text is not a biblical exegesis, there are no manuscript variations. However, the direction of the theological interpretation diverges decisively based on how the meaning of key philosophical terms is defined. Schoberth delicately adjusts the semantic field of specific concepts to build his argument, and these choices shape its entire structure.

The most significant conceptual fork occurs in the distinction between 'Religion' (Religion) and 'Faith' (Glaube). Schoberth criticizes the modern church for following market logic in its attempt to satisfy "religious needs" (religiöse Bedürfnisse), arguing that in doing so, it loses the uniqueness of faith and is reduced to a replaceable commodity. Here, 'religion' is depicted as a subjective phenomenon focused on human inner states or needs, whereas 'faith' signifies a relationship with an objective reality given within communicative practice and tradition. This distinction is made explicit in his critique of Schleiermacher's concept of 'religion' (p. 245) and sets the course for the entire paper.

Variation: Adopting the 'religion' fork leads to an emphasis on subjective/psychological functions; adopting the 'faith' fork leads to an emphasis on communicative/communal practices.

A second key fork appears in the concept of 'Reason' (Vernunft). Schoberth critiques the Kantian and Enlightenment concept of a "singular and abstract reason" and, following Habermas, adopts a "reason grounded in communicative practice" (p. 250). This implies that theological discourse is not to be unilaterally judged before the court of universal reason, but can instead become a subject participating in dialogue on equal footing with other rationalities in the public sphere of a pluralistic society. This choice is a core premise for his argument defending the public nature of theology.

Variation: Adopting 'abstract reason' highlights the supposed irrationality of faith; adopting 'communicative reason' allows for the assertion of faith's public rationality.

Language, Semantics, and Discourse

Schoberth's discourse unfolds in a clear three-part structure: Problem Statement → Proposal of an Alternative → Establishment of Methodology.

1. Problem Statement (I. Theologie heute – was ist das?): In the introduction, he diagnoses the phenomenon of "theology today" losing the essence of "theology" by focusing only on "today"—that is, the problem of its marginalization by pandering to "religious needs." The discourse flows from general observations to a deeper engagement with the core of the problem, critiquing specific scholars such as Schleiermacher and Thomas Luckmann. The language in this section is critical and analytical.

Anchor: "As one provider among many for the satisfaction of religious needs, the church and theology are dispensable..." (p. 245).

2. Proposal of an Alternative (II. Eine Theologie, die an der Zeit ist & III. Die Vernunft der Gottesrede): Following the diagnosis, he presents an alternative model of a "theology for our time." This is a theology that communicates its own essence (ihre Sache) to modern consciousness, rather than conforming to external standards of plausibility. It is here that the key concept of 'communicative reason' (kommunikative Vernunft) is introduced, and the task of theology is emphasized as participation in public discourse, moving beyond the private sphere. In this section, the discourse shifts from critique to construction.

Conceptual Frame: The task of theology = Defending private belief (Incorrect) → Fulfilling public responsibility (Correct).

3. Establishment of Methodology (IV. Theologie und kommunikative Vernunft ~ VI. Die Aufgabe...): Finally, he presents the specific methodology for his own theological project, an "evangelical doctrine of faith" (evangelische Glaubenslehre). This involves accepting but moving beyond Habermas's 'post-metaphysical thinking' (nachmetaphysisches Denken), referencing Lindbeck's cultural-linguistic approach, and ultimately, under the influence of Paul Ricœur, adopting a 'heuristic of trust' (Heuristik des Vertrauens) (p. 257) as the core method. This is an attempt to rediscover the true meaning of the faith tradition after it has passed through critical reflection (suspicion). The discourse concludes by presenting this concrete methodology.

Anchor: "Methodologically, one should therefore opt for a »heuristic of trust«..." (p. 257).

Intertextual Signals Note

Schoberth's argument relies heavily on explicit dialogue with major philosophers and theologians. The intertextuality is of very high intensity, shaping the very structure of the argument rather than merely being cited.

• Jürgen Habermas: The most powerful and explicit intertext. Key concepts such as 'communicative reason' and 'post-metaphysical thinking' are directly borrowed and critically extended. Schoberth's argument would be difficult to sustain without Habermas's philosophical framework.

Intertextual Type: Citation (vocabulary + theme) — Habermas's concepts are used as the backbone of the argument.

• Paul Ricœur: While direct citations are few, the core methodology of the 'heuristic of trust' is decisively influenced by Ricœur's concept of a 'hermeneutic of trust.' This is an implicit but powerful intertext that shapes the argument's conclusion.

Intertextual Type: Strong Allusion (theme + motif) — Adopts Ricœur's framework of 'trust' that has passed through 'suspicion.'

• George A. Lindbeck: Borrows the 'cultural-linguistic approach' to understand faith as a "semantic world" (semantische Welt). This provides a crucial basis for emphasizing the objectivity and communitarian nature of faith.

Intertextual Type: Citation (theme) — Lindbeck's theory is utilized to explain the communal character of faith.

Summary and Limitations

The structure of this paper demonstrates a clear logical flow, diagnosing the problem of 'marginalization' faced by modern theology and, by synthesizing Habermas's communicative theory and Ricœur's hermeneutics, proposing the alternative of a 'theology fulfilling public responsibility' along with its methodology. By strategically redefining the meaning of key concepts, the author enhances the persuasive power of his argument.

The limitation of this structural analysis is that it cannot demonstrate how the proposed 'heuristic of trust' might be concretely applied in actual theological work. Furthermore, the paper lacks explicit identification of which specific theologians or church movements constitute the 'theology centered on religious needs' that it critiques, making it difficult to fully verify the validity of the critique based on this text alone.

Conclusion Strength: Probable. The argument's structure is clear and consistent, but the conclusion remains tentative due to the lack of concrete application examples for its key methodology and the insufficient specificity of its critical targets.