Scholarly Argument Reconstruction

Scholarly Argument Reconstruction of Wolfgang Schoberth

Citation

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

Argument Map (Core Claims, Warrants, Evidence)

Claim 1: The crisis of modern theology stems from its market-driven pandering to "religious needs," a strategy that reduces the uniqueness of faith to a replaceable commodity and thus paradoxically marginalizes theology.

• Evidence: The author points to the tendency of the modern church and theology to satisfy the supposed religious needs of people in order to gain popular acceptance (p. 245). He argues that this strategy reduces faith to a private "province" (Provinz) of the individual and transforms it into a functional commodity that can be easily replaced by other "providers" offering better services (p. 245).
• Warrant (Enthymeme): "If something exists merely to perform a certain function, it becomes replaceable when that function can be performed more efficiently by something else."
• Provisional Conclusion Strength: Probable

Anchor: "As one provider among many for the satisfaction of religious needs, the church and theology are dispensable, if others offer the product better or, above all, cheaper." (p. 245) Defense: This claim sharply diagnoses the self-contradiction the modern church faces when it succumbs to secular logic of success. The insight that focusing on 'function' (Funktion) at the expense of faith's essential 'substance' (Sache) leads to the loss of its unique truth claim, ultimately placing it in endless competition with other secular functions, is highly persuasive. Critique: The critique of a theology/ministry centered on "religious needs" lacks specificity as to which theological trends or pastoral programs it targets, running the risk of being a 'straw man' argument. Furthermore, reducing all responses to 'needs' to market logic may overlook the positive aspect of the church's response to genuine human existential questions. Minority Opinion: From a pragmatic viewpoint, starting from "felt needs" can be an effective missional strategy for communicating with modern individuals, serving as an 'entry point' toward the deeper substance of faith. Conclusion Strength: Probable. The claim's logical consistency is high, but it does not reach the level of being certain because its target of critique is ambiguous and it defines the concept of 'need' somewhat one-sidedly.

Claim 2: The public responsibility of theology can be re-established through Habermas's concept of "communicative reason," which allows the truth claims of faith to be rationally communicated in the public sphere, beyond the private realm.

• Evidence: The author argues that the task of theology is not to conform to external criteria but to explain and take responsibility for the 'substance' of faith in a manner corresponding to modern consciousness (pp. 246-247). To this end, he discards the Kantian 'abstract reason' and actively adopts Habermas's concept of reason, which is based on 'communicative practice'—the exchange of mutual understanding and argumentation (p. 250).
• Warrant (Enthymeme): "If rationality is inherent in communicative acts aimed at mutual understanding, then faith discourse, with its own internal logic, can also possess public rationality."
• Provisional Conclusion Strength: Probable

Anchor: "Evidently, these reflections stand in proximity to the concept of communicative reason, as it has been developed primarily by Jürgen Habermas." (p. 250) Defense: This claim provides a sophisticated philosophical tool to overcome the Enlightenment dichotomy that dismisses faith as irrational. The redefinition of theology not as a defendant before the 'court of reason' but as an equal participant in the dialogue of the 'public sphere' offers a very powerful theoretical foundation for re-establishing theology's standing in a pluralistic society. Critique: Habermas's communicative theory operates within a fundamentally secular framework and may struggle to fully accommodate core theological claims like 'transcendence' or 'revelation.' In the process of theologically 'translating' his theory, there is a risk that the unique characteristics of faith could be diluted or reduced to the standards of secular rationality. Conclusion Strength: Probable. The application of Habermas's theory is highly creative and presents a strong alternative. However, the challenge of how to fully preserve unique theological concepts (like revelation) within the framework of communicative theory remains, making the conclusion less than certain.

Claim 3: The constructive methodology for modern theology should be a "heuristic of trust" (Heuristik des Vertrauens), which rediscovers the true meaning of the faith tradition after passing through critical reflection.

• Evidence: The author accepts Habermas's 'post-metaphysical thinking' but insists that it should not be a break with tradition, but rather a "renewed thinking-through" (neuerliches Durchdenken) of what has been thought within the tradition (p. 257). As a concrete methodology for this, he proposes a 'heuristic of trust'—an attitude that respectfully sifts through the theological tradition to discover new insights for the present.
• Warrant (Enthymeme): "If the faith tradition is a repository of truth accumulated over a long period, a deeper meaning can be discovered by approaching it with an attitude of 'trust' rather than mere suspicion or deconstruction."
• Provisional Conclusion Strength: Hypothesis

Anchor: "Methodologically, one should therefore opt for a »heuristic of trust,« which respectfully sifts through what has been developed in the theological tradition..." (p. 257) Defense: This proposal offers a timely alternative to the deconstructionist emptiness left by the modern 'hermeneutics of suspicion.' It presents a balanced hermeneutical stance that respects the historical wisdom of the faith community without abandoning critical reason. This opens a path for theology to produce constructive discourse rather than remaining in self-destructive critique. Critique: The concept of a 'heuristic of trust' is somewhat vague and abstract. It lacks a concrete methodological explanation of the criteria and procedures for distinguishing 'trustworthy' tradition from 'rejectable' tradition, and how this 'heuristic' can be differentiated from 'traditionalism,' which uncritically accepts ideological traditions. Counterexample: The numerous errors in church history that were justified in the name of 'trust' (e.g., the defense of slavery, discrimination against women) serve as powerful counterexamples showing that 'trust' can be dangerous without critical standards. Conclusion Strength: Hypothesis. The concept itself is very attractive and points in an important direction, but its concrete operational mechanics and critical safeguards are not clearly defined. For now, it remains a promising 'hypothesis' or 'project proposal.'

Hidden Premises

Underlying Schoberth's entire argument is a powerful hidden premise: "The truth of faith can be publicly verified through communicative practice and cannot be reduced to private experience or subjective need." This premise lends coherence to his argument but carries the risk of relatively diminishing the importance of personal spiritual experience and existential decision.

Actionable Improvements

To strengthen the argument, the following measures could be proposed:

1. Specify the Target of Critique: The argument should clarify which specific theologians, works, or movements are being referred to as 'theology centered on religious needs' to sharpen the focus of the discussion.
2. Proceduralize the 'Heuristic of Trust': The methodological rigor should be enhanced by providing specific questions, steps, or criteria for applying the 'heuristic of trust.'
3. Engage with the Concept of 'Revelation': The theological discussion needs to be reinforced by explaining how the core theological concept of 'revelation' can find its place within Habermas's communicative theory without losing its unique character.