Critical Review

Critical Review (Omnibus): Wolfgang 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.

Three-Sentence Summary

In this article, Wolfgang Schoberth diagnoses the crisis of modern theology as a marginalization stemming from its pandering to the market logic of "religious needs," proposing in its place a "public theology" grounded in Jürgen Habermas's concept of 'communicative reason.' He argues that theology's task is to responsibly account for the rationality of faith in the public sphere of a pluralistic society, presenting a 'heuristic of trust'—a mode of inquiry that passes through critical reflection—as the methodology for this task. While the paper offers a sophisticated philosophical blueprint for restoring theology's intellectual publicness, it leaves unresolved the concreteness of its methodology and its connection to pastoral practice.

I. Introduction: Inquiring into Theology's Public Responsibility

Wolfgang Schoberth's "Theology today" begins with the sharp diagnosis that theology is losing its voice in post-secular society. He critiques the tendency of theology, in its quest for popular appeal, to rely on the vague notion of "religious needs," arguing that in doing so, it forfeits its unique truth claims and is reduced to a replaceable cultural commodity. Against this backdrop, Schoberth seeks a path for theology to once again "rationally" (vernünftig) explain and take responsibility for its own "substance" (Sache) in the public sphere of intellectual society. This critical review will analyze the structure and core claims of Schoberth's argument, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses from multiple perspectives, and offer a comprehensive assessment of the academic contribution and limitations of his proposal for the task of modern theology.

II. Argumentative Structure and Core Claims

Schoberth's argument is composed of three stages. First, he diagnoses the crisis of modern theology as an entrapment in 'market-driven functionalism' (Claim 1). When theology becomes preoccupied with the function of fulfilling individual 'needs,' its essential content, he contends, disappears. Second, as an alternative, he appropriates Jürgen Habermas's theory of 'communicative reason' to lay out a path for theology to attain 'public rationality' beyond the private sphere (Claim 2). Theology, in this view, must be a responsible dialogue and argumentation in the public square, not a unilateral proclamation. Finally, he proposes a specific hermeneutical methodology for such a public theology: a 'heuristic of trust' (Heuristik des Vertrauens), which rediscovers the wisdom of tradition after passing through critical suspicion (Claim 3).

Defense: Schoberth’s argument provides a powerful theoretical framework that rescues theology from its intellectual ghetto, using the most sophisticated tools of modern philosophy to defend its public character. Critique: His model of 'public rationality' risks detachment from the concrete pastoral realities of the church and the existential concerns of individuals. Furthermore, his core methodology, the 'heuristic of trust,' feels abstract due to its lack of specific procedural detail.

III. Critical Analysis and Assessment

Schoberth's greatest academic contribution lies in his creative application of Habermas's communicative theory to the problem of theology's publicness. Through this move, he moves beyond the old dichotomy of faith and reason to present a refined model for how faith can be an intelligible voice in a pluralistic society. This model, however, contains several fundamental tensions. The 'Communicative-Public Theology' paradigm, by positing secular intellectual society as theology's primary interlocutor, can relatively neglect the church's internal vitality or its prophetic mission to speak for the oppressed (see Paradigm Deliberation analysis). As the 'Steelman Critic' points out, fundamental human 'needs' are not identical to market-driven 'demands,' and theology loses its power when it ignores this existential dimension (see Comparative Analysis).

Conclusion: Probable. Schoberth's diagnosis and philosophical prescription are highly persuasive, but his emphasis on the 'intellectual responsibility' of theology is disproportionate, lacking balance with theology's other multi-faceted tasks (pastoral, prophetic). Counterexamples: The reality of countless believers overcoming existential crises through faith, irrespective of its public rationality (a pastoral counterexample), and the prophetic role of the church in confronting social injustice (a liberationist counterexample), are phenomena not fully accounted for by his model alone. Variant: The adoption of Habermas's 'communicative reason' for the concept of 'Vernunft' (reason) enables an interpretation that stresses theology's publicness. Had he adopted an 'existential reason,' the thesis would have shifted entirely toward an emphasis on individual decision and experience.

IV. Digital / Ecosystem Signals

The academic ecosystem of Schoberth's argument reveals a clear position within 'German-centric critical theory.' The overwhelming reliance on Habermas adds philosophical depth but also exposes a certain closure to a particular school of thought (see Ecosystem Analysis). A bibliographic imbalance is apparent due to the absence of dialogue with other theological traditions such as Evangelicalism, Catholicism, or liberation theology.

V. Overall Assessment and Scholarly Contribution

In conclusion, Wolfgang Schoberth's paper is a masterwork that showcases the high level of philosophical reflection achieved in contemporary German theology. Its significant academic contribution lies in its refusal to evade the timely task of theology's 'public responsibility,' confronting the most formidable challenges of secular philosophy head-on to forge a new path. The 'Communicative-Public Theology' model and the 'heuristic of trust' he proposes will undoubtedly become important topics in future theological discussions. However, for this model to move beyond theoretical sophistication and connect with the life of the actual church and the practice of social transformation, it is essential that it enters into serious dialogue with the insights of other paradigms raised in this review (e.g., Radical Orthodoxy, Liberation Theology) to supplement its own vision.

VI. Limitations and Reflections of the Review

This review has endeavored to illuminate Schoberth's argument from multiple analytical angles. However, this review also has its limitations. First, the 'Steelman Critic' and the alternative paradigms were constructed hypothetically and may not fully reflect the arguments of actual scholars representing those paradigms. Second, as noted in the ecosystem analysis, this review did not extend to examining Schoberth's argument from the perspectives of non-Western or minority theologies. This leaves open the important question of whether his 'public theology' can truly serve as a universal model.