Paradigm Deliberation

Paradigm Deliberation Report on the Task of Modern Theology

This report centers on the paradigm represented by Wolfgang Schoberth's article, Paradigm A ('Communicative-Public Theology'), and constructs two of the most powerful and persuasive alternative paradigms to engage it in deliberation.

• Paradigm B ('Radical Orthodox-Internal Theology'): A paradigm emphasizing the unique internal logic and practices of the faith community.
• Paradigm C ('Praxical-Liberative Theology'): A paradigm that places the liberation of the socially marginalized and the realization of justice as theology's foremost task.

---

Citation

This report comparatively deliberates on major paradigms concerning the future direction of modern theology, centering on the theological model proposed by Wolfgang Schoberth in "»Theology today«" (2025).

Paradigm Map

This deliberation compares three major paradigms for the path forward in modern theology. Each paradigm diagnoses the crisis of theology and prescribes a remedy, yet their fundamental presuppositions and objectives differ.

• Paradigm A: Communicative-Public Theology

  • Core Claim: The crisis of theology lies in its severed dialogue with the secular public sphere. Therefore, theology must, through Habermas's 'communicative reason,' demonstrate the 'public rationality' of faith and become an intellectual partner in a pluralistic society.
  • Basis: Schoberth's argument; its philosophical sophistication and the necessity of recovering public relevance.
  • Foundational Presupposition: Faith is communicable, and reason is not universal in the abstract but is immanent in communicative practice.

• Paradigm B: Radical Orthodox-Internal Theology

  • Core Claim: The crisis of theology lies in its 'compromise' of attempting to fit itself into the categories of secular philosophy. Therefore, theology must strengthen the internal logic of the church's unique narrative, liturgy, and praxis, and 'invite' the world into the church's story.
  • Basis: (Hypothetical) Based on the logic of thinkers like Lindbeck and Hauerwas in the EvidencePack.
  • Foundational Presupposition: The church is an 'alternative polis' with a unique language and grammar distinct from the world, and truth is properly perceived only within this community.

• Paradigm C: Praxical-Liberative Theology

  • Core Claim: The crisis of theology lies in its 'indifference' to social injustice and the suffering of the oppressed. Therefore, theology's primary task is to rediscover the liberative message of scripture, resist structural evil, and realize the justice of God's kingdom through 'praxis.'
  • Basis: (Hypothetical) Based on the logic of Latin American liberation theology (e.g., Gutiérrez) and feminist/Minjung theology.
  • Foundational Presupposition: Theological truth is not an objective proposition but is verified in liberative practice (Orthopraxy).

Conflict of Foundational Presuppositions

The three paradigms fundamentally collide on the question: "Who is theology's primary interlocutor?" For Paradigm A, the primary interlocutor is the 'secular intellectual society.' Theology must be able to speak its language (philosophy). For Paradigm B, the primary interlocutor is the 'church community itself.' Theology must be an internal language that strengthens the church's identity. Finally, for Paradigm C, the primary interlocutor is the 'oppressed people.' Theology must be a language that responds to their cry.

Intertextual Resonance: The focus of these three paradigms (academy, church, world) can be seen as a contemporary variation on the models of relationship depicted in H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture.

Explanatory Trade-offs and Costs

• Paradigm A (Communicative-Public):

  • Gain: Offers the most sophisticated path for theology to gain public relevance in a modern pluralistic society, preventing it from being confined to an 'intellectual ghetto.' It elevates theology's intellectual standing in dialogue with secular academia.
  • Loss/Cost: Risks becoming detached from the concrete faith practices of the church or the existential concerns of individuals. The mystical and transcendent dimensions of faith may be downplayed for the sake of 'communicability.'

• Paradigm B (Radical Orthodox-Internal):

  • Gain: Provides a strong theological foundation for the church to maintain its identity and clarity as an alternative community amidst the tide of secularism. It best explains the internal logic and richness of faith.
  • Loss/Cost: High risk of falling into 'sectarianism' by refusing communication with the world. It may lose public persuasiveness and become an insular 'club' by being trapped in its own internal language.

• Paradigm C (Praxical-Liberative):

  • Gain: Revives the prophetic tradition of scripture, most dynamically showing that theology is not mere abstract speculation but can be a concrete force against the world's injustices.
  • Loss/Cost: Risks the subordination of theology to a specific political ideology. It may reduce the multi-layered message of scripture to a binary framework of 'oppression' and 'liberation,' potentially losing doctrinal depth.

Ethical-Theological Risks

• Paradigm A:

  • Potential Harm: May fall into intellectual elitism, ignoring or devaluing the concrete life situations and faith experiences of laity. Risk of excluding minority voices or non-verbal forms of faith expression in the name of 'rationality.'
  • Mitigation Strategy: Must expand the public sphere beyond academia to include local communities and civil society, emphasizing a 'practical communication' that listens to diverse life-voices.

• Paradigm B:

  • Potential Harm: Can foster hostility toward the outside world and justify 'escapism,' evading the church's responsibility for social problems. Risk of reinforcing exclusivity toward the 'other' for the sake of internal cohesion.
  • Mitigation Strategy: Must emphasize that the church as an 'alternative polis' is a space of 'hospitality' toward the world and make the practice of 'redemptive love' that does not ignore the world's suffering a core part of its internal identity.

• Paradigm C:

  • Potential Harm: May justify violence for the sake of realizing justice or easily label opponents as 'oppressors' and demonize them. Risk of falling into a logic of 'friend vs. foe.'
  • Mitigation Strategy: Must not forget that the goal of liberation is reconciliation and 'shalom' for all, and must adhere to the core Christian ethic of 'loving one's enemies' even in the process of struggle. It must constantly examine its own practices through self-critical reflection.

Deliberation Summary

Each of the three paradigms represents a crucial dimension that modern theology has lost: intellectual publicness (A), faith-community identity (B), and the realization of social justice (C). No single paradigm can handle all of theology's tasks alone; they exist in a 'mutually corrective' relationship, where each complements and critiques the one-sidedness of the others. Communicative-Public Theology (A) provides intellectual depth but can lose practical momentum. Radical Orthodoxy (B) preserves identity but can become isolated. Liberation Theology (C) has practical power but can become ideological.

Therefore, the most ideal theology would be one that dialectically integrates the core insights of these three paradigms. What is needed is a theology that, with the passion of liberative practice (C), is deeply rooted in the unique narrative of the church community (B), yet responsibly testifies to that faith in a rationally communicable language (A) to the world. This report concludes not by asserting the superiority of any one paradigm, but by acknowledging the legitimacy of the questions each raises and exploring the possibility of their synthesis.