Comparative Analysis

Comparative Analysis: Schoberth's Public Theology vs. a "Steelman Critic"

Citation

• Target A: Schoberth, Wolfgang. "»Theology today« Von der Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit vernünftiger Gottesrede heute." Evangelische Theologie 85, no. 4 (2025): 244–258.
• Target B: A "Steelman Critic" (Reconstructed based on critical implications from Habermas, Ricœur, Feuerbach in EvidencePack, and alternative perspectives from modern practical theology/missiology).

Targets and Scope

This analysis compares Wolfgang Schoberth's proposed 'public theology based on communicative reason' model (Target A) with a 'existential-missional theology' model (Target B), which presents the most persuasive counter-argument to Schoberth. The purpose of this comparison is to clarify the theoretical strengths and practical limitations of Schoberth's model and to gain a deeper understanding of how modern theology should navigate the tension between 'public rationality' and 'individual existential needs.' The axes of comparison are: 1) Core claims and evidence, 2) Frame conflicts regarding the 'task of theology,' 3) Convergence and divergence points, and 4) Explanatory power of hypotheses.

Bibliographic Balance: Target A (German critical theory) vs. Target B (synthesis of French hermeneutics, American practical theology, modern critiques of religion).

Claim-Evidence Concordance

• Target A (Schoberth):
  • Claim: The task of theology is not to satisfy individual 'religious needs,' but to demonstrate and account for the 'public rationality' of faith discourse through Habermas's 'communicative reason.'
  • Evidence: Relies on the logical conclusion that pandering to 'religious needs' degrades faith into a replaceable commodity, thereby exacerbating its marginalization (p. 245), and on the potential for dialogue in the public sphere provided by Habermas's philosophical model (p. 250).

Intertextual Type: Citation (Habermas) — Meets criteria for availability/thematic coherence/historicity/explanatory power; no phrase overlap.

• Target B (Steelman Critic):
  • Claim: The task of theology is not to secure abstract 'public rationality,' but to respond to fundamental human suffering and 'needs,' as insightfully demonstrated by Feuerbach and Freud. Faith begins with existential encounter and individual transformative experience, which is the starting point for a missional church.
  • Evidence: Relies on the insight that religion is inseparable from deep human needs, as shown by the modern 'masters of suspicion' (EvidencePack: Feuerbach, Freud), and on the practical success stories of churches providing concrete comfort and meaning in the fragmented existence of modern individuals.

Intertextual Type: Allusion (Feuerbach, Freud) — Meets criteria for thematic coherence/historicity/explanatory power; no phrase overlap.

Terminology and Frame Conflicts

The greatest conflict between the two positions arises from a difference in the frame regarding 'the starting point of theology.'

• Frame on 'Needs':

  • A (Schoberth): Defines 'needs' primarily through a 'market demand' frame. This is considered a negative aspect that theology should guard against.
  • B (Critic): Defines 'needs' through an 'existential lack' or 'fundamental longing' frame. This is considered a positive and essential starting point to which theology must respond.

• Frame on 'Rationality':

  • A (Schoberth): Defines 'rationality' through a procedural frame of 'public arguability.'
  • B (Critic): Defines 'rationality' through an existential-experiential frame of 'the power to meaningfully transform individual lives.'

Due to these frame conflicts, for Schoberth, 'successful theology' means gaining academic public persuasiveness, whereas for the critic, 'successful theology' means imbuing an individual's life with concrete hope and meaning.

Convergence and Divergence Points

• Convergence Points: Both positions agree on the necessity of moving beyond a naive Schleiermacherian theology of 'feeling' or 'experience.' Schoberth seeks to overcome this through 'communicative reason,' while the critic seeks to overcome it through a 'faith that has passed through critique,' akin to Ricœur's 'second naïveté.' Both guard against mere subjectivism.

• Divergence Points: The decisive divergence lies in the directionality of theology.

  • Schoberth (A): Aims for an 'outward-facing' theology. Theology's primary interlocutors are secular philosophy and the academic world; the goal is to secure 'public validity.'
  • Critic (B): Aims for an 'inward-outward' theology. Theology's starting point is the existential experience and faith confession within the faith community, with the goal of missional response to the 'needs' of the world.

Counterexamples: (Against A) The reality that numerous believers find deep existential comfort and answers in faith regardless of academic public discourse. (Against B) Historical examples where faith focused solely on individual needs could devolve into 'cheap grace' or collective egoism, becoming insensitive to social injustice.

Hypothesis Arena Summary

• Hypothesis A (Schoberth): The marginalization of theology can be overcome by restoring public rationality through 'communicative reason.'

  • Strengths: Theoretical sophistication, provides a powerful logic for establishing theology's standing in a pluralistic society.
  • Weaknesses: Risk of being somewhat detached from the concrete pastoral realities of the church and individual existential concerns, methodology is abstract.

• Hypothesis B (Steelman Critic): The marginalization of theology can be overcome through an existential-missional response to fundamental human 'needs.'

  • Strengths: Effectively explains the concrete impact on individual lives and missional dynamism.
  • Weaknesses: Theoretical basis for social/public responsibility may be weak, and carries the risk of succumbing to subjectivism or market logic.

• Verdict: Complementary Need.

• Basis for Verdict: Hypothesis A excels in strengthening theology's 'Head' (intellectual responsibility) but is weak in its 'Heart and Limbs,' while Hypothesis B possesses strong 'Heart and Limbs' dynamism but has a weak 'Head' that risks losing direction.

Summary and Recommendations

Schoberth's 'public theology based on communicative reason' provides the essential theoretical armor for modern theology not to be isolated within the intellectual sphere. His model offers a powerful blueprint for how theology can engage with secular philosophy as an equal partner.

However, as the 'Steelman Critic's' counter-argument shows, this model risks overlooking the existential dimension of faith—the issues of individual suffering, anxiety, and 'needs.' Even if theology articulates a highly rational voice in the public sphere, it could become an empty echo if it loses the power to concretely touch and transform an individual's life.

Therefore, the most productive path is to integrate the two positions. Schoberth's 'public rationality' should serve as theology's 'horizon,' but its content should be filled by 'missional responses to existential needs.' That is, a dialectical cycle is required where the rich content of faith tradition, rediscovered through the 'heuristic of trust,' profoundly responds to individual existential questions, and the results are then responsibly presented in the public sphere in a 'communicable' language.

Mini Arena: Hypothesis A (Theoretical sophistication ↑, Practical concreteness ↓) vs. Hypothesis B (Practical relevance ↑, Theoretical vulnerability ↓) → Verdict: Synthesis for mutual complementarity is optimal.