Reception Historical Analysis

Thematic Reception History: 'Faith-Reason' and the 'Public Role of Theology'

A Note on Method: As Schoberth's paper is not an exegesis of a specific biblical text, a traditional reception history is not applicable. Instead, this analysis examines the thematic reception history of the core themes his paper addresses: the relationship between 'faith and reason' and the 'public role of theology.'

Citation

This analysis situates the contemporary theological task, as articulated by Wolfgang Schoberth in "»Theology today«" (2025), within its broader historical-reception context.

Periodized Snapshots

The themes of the 'faith-reason' relationship and theology's 'public role,' with which Schoberth wrestles, have been central points of debate throughout Christian history.

• Patristic Era (2nd-5th Centuries): In this period, the public role of theology was to defend the 'reasonableness' of Christian faith against the philosophical and polytheistic culture of the Roman Empire. While some, like Tertullian, emphasized the particularity of faith by famously asking "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?", the mainstream followed figures like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. They argued that the Christian Logos fulfilled and surpassed the highest achievements of Hellenistic philosophy. Faith, in this context, was presented as the ultimate reason.

• Medieval Scholasticism (11th-14th Centuries): This was an era when theology reigned as the 'Queen of the Sciences,' fully embodying a public role. Anselm's dictum, "credo ut intelligam" (I believe in order to understand), demonstrated that faith was the starting point and foundation of rational inquiry. Thomas Aquinas, by appropriating Aristotelian philosophy, argued that faith (revelation) and reason (nature) explore truth in different domains but are ultimately in harmony. The public role of theology was to construct a grand metaphysical system that encompassed all knowledge.

Intertextual Resonance: Schoberth's "heuristic of trust" can be seen as a modern variation of Anselm's faith-first approach to inquiry (credo ut intelligam).

• Reformation and the Dawn of Modernity (16th-18th Centuries): The Reformation prioritized the inner certainty of faith based on "Sola Scriptura" over the authority of the church. Shortly thereafter, however, the Enlightenment established autonomous human 'reason' as the final arbiter, subjecting faith to critical scrutiny. Kant defined reason as the judge that sets the 'boundaries of faith,' which led to a dramatic contraction of theology's public role. Faith began its retreat from the public sphere into the private, personal realm.

• Modernity to Postmodernity (19th-21st Centuries): In the 19th century, Schleiermacher attempted to ground theology's public basis not in reason but in a universal 'feeling of absolute dependence.' In the 20th century, Karl Barth reasserted the absolute priority of revelation, rejecting any compromise with secular reason. Schoberth's argument begins precisely at this juncture. His project can be understood as an attempt to overcome both the limits of Kantian critique and the isolationism of Barthianism. He seeks to re-establish theology's public role in a 'post-Enlightenment' era by using the new tool of Habermas's 'communicative reason.'

Continuity and Discontinuity Nodes

• Continuity: Schoberth's project exhibits historical continuity with the apologists of the Patristic era and the scholastics of the Middle Ages. Like them, he employs the most advanced philosophical tools of his time (Habermas, Ricœur) to publicly account for the rationality of faith. He stands firmly in the long tradition that insists theology must not abandon its dialogue with the intellectual world.

• Discontinuity: The most significant rupture occurs with the abandonment of a metaphysical foundation. From the Patristic era through the Middle Ages, theology's public role was based on its ability to provide a comprehensive metaphysical explanation of reality. Schoberth, however, follows Habermas in adopting 'post-metaphysical thinking.' This signifies a fundamental shift: theology can no longer perform its public role by offering an explanatory system for the whole of reality. Instead, it must validate itself through 'communicative practice' within the public sphere of a pluralistic society.

Liturgical and Homiletic Functions

The way the 'faith-reason' relationship is configured directly impacts the church's worship and preaching.

• Reception of a Reason-Centric Model (Enlightenment): Preaching tends to focus on ethical instruction or the rational explanation of doctrine. Worship emphasizes its educational function over its mystical dimension.
• Reception of a Faith/Experience-Centric Model (Pietism, Schleiermacher): Preaching concentrates on stimulating personal emotional decisions and inner experiences. Worship prioritizes affective participation through passionate praise and testimony. The 'religious needs'-based ministry that Schoberth critiques can be seen as a contemporary variant of this stream.
• Implications of Schoberth's Model: If his model were applied to preaching, a sermon would move beyond mere doctrinal transmission or emotional appeal. It would take on the character of 'public-citizen education,' teaching believers how to give a 'rational account' for their faith in the world (cf. 1 Peter 3:15).

Regional and Global Variants

The 'faith-reason' tension has been received differently, particularly between Continental Europe and the Anglophone world.

• Continental Europe (esp. Germany): The tradition of post-Kantian critical reason is very strong, leading to a tendency to define theology's intellectual identity through intense engagement with philosophy. Schoberth's direct dialogue with Habermas, a giant of German philosophy, clearly reflects this regional characteristic.
• Anglophone World: While influenced by continental thought, there is a coexisting tendency, shaped by pragmatism and analytic philosophy, to emphasize the 'evidence' for or 'experience' of faith. This context also gave rise to the church growth movements based on 'religious needs.' Schoberth's critique can be read as a critical reflection from a Continental perspective on certain trends prominent in the Anglophone world.

Summary and Limits

Within the long reception history of the 'faith-reason' relationship, Schoberth's theological proposal is a unique attempt. It inherits the intellectual trajectory of German thought that has taken the challenge of the Enlightenment most seriously, yet it seeks a new path by abandoning traditional metaphysical foundations in favor of 'communicative theory.' He seeks to revive the 'apologetic' spirit of the Church Fathers, re-tooled for a post-metaphysical age.

The limitation of this reception historical analysis is that Schoberth's interlocutors are confined mainly to Western male philosophers and theologians (Habermas, Ricœur, etc.). It does not cover how 'reason' and 'publicness' have been discussed from the perspectives of feminist, liberation, or non-Western theologies. This leaves open the crucial question of whether Schoberth's model can claim universal applicability, a task for subsequent research.