Research Frontier Prospectus

New Research Horizons Stemming from Schoberth's Argument

Executive Summary

Wolfgang Schoberth's article "Theology today" offers an excellent theoretical framework for re-establishing the public responsibility of modern theology as a 'public theology' based on 'communicative reason.' However, his argument reveals certain limitations: the ambiguity of the concept of 'religious needs,' the abstract nature of the 'heuristic of trust' methodology, and a lack of dialogue with other traditions due to a German-centric academic ecosystem. This prospectus proposes three research frontiers to address these gaps: 1) An integrative approach to 'existential needs' in dialogue with Radical Orthodoxy and liberation theology, 2) A case study on the practical application of the 'heuristic of trust,' and 3) The promotion of dialogue beyond the German academic ecosystem with non-Western and other theological traditions.

I. Synthesis of Analysis: Strategic Research Gaps

The analyses performed thus far indicate that while Schoberth's argument provides a crucial direction for restoring the 'public role' of modern theology, it also reveals the following strategic research gaps:

• The Duality of 'Religious Needs': Schoberth targets 'religious needs' for critique but fails to sufficiently explore their positive dimension as 'existential needs.' This limits his model's capacity to deeply resonate with real-world problems such as an individual's inner life or the suffering of the socially vulnerable.
• The Abstraction of Methodology: The 'heuristic of trust' is a highly attractive proposal, but it lacks practical examples of how it operates and how the harmony between 'reason' and 'faith' is realized in actual textual analysis.
• Bias in the Academic Ecosystem: Schoberth's discussion relies heavily on German-centric critical theory, showing a lack of engagement with Anglophone practical theology, Latin American liberation theology, or non-Western theologies. This raises questions about whether his 'public theology' can claim universal persuasiveness.
• Limited Conclusion Strength: The analyses assessed Schoberth's claims at a 'probable' level, suggesting his model remains at a 'hypothetical' stage.

These gaps present an opportunity to explore a 'blue ocean' of new theological research.

II. Proposed "Blue Ocean" Research Frontiers (3)

1. Research Frontier 1: "Critical Trust and Solidarity: A Liberative Practical Theology Reinterpreting Schoberth's Public Theology"

   • Topic Title: "Reason and Solidarity: Beyond Habermas to Theology's Public Place with the Oppressed"
   • Research Question: When Schoberth's 'communicative reason' and 'heuristic of trust' are reinterpreted and critically synthesized through the lenses of 'praxis' and 'liberation' from Latin American liberation theology and feminist theology, what new public role can theology perform for the structurally disenfranchised and suffering members of modern society?
   • Rationale: Schoberth's pursuit of 'public rationality' is vital, but it can become hollow if the public sphere is not directly connected to the existential 'needs' of the oppressed. By combining it with the practical emphasis of liberation theology, Schoberth's model can be endowed with a 'heart and limbs' to complement its 'head.' This research would address one of the most urgent tasks facing 21st-century theology related to social justice.
   • Proposed Methodology:
     • Primary Approach: The 'see-judge-act' methodology of liberation theology (Ignatian Cycle); practical application of Schoberth's 'communicative reason' theory.
     • Secondary Approach: A critical reading through Charles Taylor's concepts of 'positive freedom' and 'strong evaluation.'
     • Point of Innovation: Attempts a successful dialectical integration of 'public rationality' and 'liberative praxis,' experimenting with the 'heuristic of trust' in the concrete context of realizing social justice.
   • Anticipated Contribution: Moves beyond a purely theoretical treatment of theology's public role to explore its potential in the actual context of social justice, proposing a new practical model.
   • Required Sources: Schoberth's article; major works of Habermas, Ricœur, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Willie James Jennings; case studies of marginalized communities in contemporary society.
   • Ethical/Social Considerations: The voices of the oppressed must be central, but with humility and a collaborative attitude to avoid 'instrumentalizing' or presuming to 'represent' their experiences. In discussing the 'reason-faith' relationship, ensure no voices are marginalized in the dialogue with various critical theories (feminism, queer theology, postcolonial theology).
   • Potential Challenges: The political sensitivity of the term 'liberation'; the gap between theory and practice; potential conflicts between different 'liberation' movements.
   • Feasibility: The theoretical foundation is well-established, and concrete case studies can be secured through collaboration with various praxis-oriented communities.

2. Research Frontier 2: "The Heuristic of Trust in Practice: A Methodological Verification Through Biblical Textual Analysis"

   • Topic Title: "From Suspicion to Trust: Unpacking Modern Theological Text Analysis with Ricœur's Methodology"
   • Research Question: How can Schoberth's proposed 'heuristic of trust' be concretely applied to the analysis of biblical texts (e.g., Pauline epistles, Gospels), and can this approach overcome the limitations of the 'hermeneutics of suspicion' to yield new hermeneutical insights?
   • Rationale: Schoberth's most original proposal, the 'heuristic of trust,' is a powerful methodological suggestion in its own right but lacks practical application cases. This research would test its methodological validity by applying it to concrete textual analysis, thereby opening up new interpretive possibilities.
   • Proposed Methodology:
     • Primary Approach: Textual analysis applying Paul Ricœur's 'hermeneutical arc,' contrasting the 'hermeneutics of suspicion' with the 'hermeneutics of trust.'
     • Secondary Approach: Using Schoberth's 'communicative reason' as a framework for presenting and arguing for the analytical results in a public forum.
     • Point of Innovation: Validates the efficacy of the relatively new methodology of the 'heuristic of trust' by applying it to actual biblical texts, thereby expanding the hermeneutical toolbox of modern theology.
   • Anticipated Contribution: Contributes to the development of theological methodology and provides fresh, in-depth interpretations of biblical texts.
   • Required Sources: Schoberth's article; major works of Paul Ricœur (cf. EvidencePack CC03); biblical texts (e.g., Romans 3) with various translations and commentaries.
   • Ethical/Social Considerations: To prevent the concept of 'trust' from leading to a dogmatic adherence to a single interpretation, the process of critical reflection must be clearly articulated and an attitude of respect for other interpretations maintained.
   • Potential Challenges: The criteria for 'trust' can be subjective or arbitrary; the boundary between 'suspicion' and 'trust' can become blurred.
   • Feasibility: High feasibility due to its text-centric nature; can be conducted on well-studied biblical passages already prominent in academic literature.

3. Research Frontier 3: "Theological Dialogue Across Multiple Traditions: An Encounter Between German Critical Theory and Non-Western Theologies"

   • Topic Title: "Toward a Cosmopolitan Theology: East Asian and African Voices for a 'Public Theology'"
   • Research Question: How can Schoberth's 'communicative-public theology' model, rooted in German-centric critical theory, move beyond its limitations to mutually enrich and be enriched by theological traditions from East Asia (e.g., Korea, China) or Africa?
   • Rationale: The serious bibliographic imbalance revealed in the ecosystem analysis of Schoberth's paper (lack of non-Germanophone/non-Anglophone sources) makes this research imperative. For 'public theology' to have truly universal significance, it must embrace voices from diverse cultural and theological contexts.
   • Proposed Methodology:
     • Primary Approach: Comparative theology and intercultural theology methodologies.
     • Secondary Approach: Using Schoberth's 'communicative reason' model as a basis, analyze the unique concepts of 'communicative practice' and 'reason' in each region to find points of contact for dialogue.
     • Point of Innovation: Reinterprets the 'post-metaphysical' characteristic of Schoberth's model at its point of contact with non-Western non-metaphysical or oral traditions, expanding the scope of 'public discourse' to regional contexts.
   • Anticipated Contribution: Expands the 'public theology' discussion to a global level, highlights the importance of non-Western theologies, and opens horizons for a truly 'pluralistic theology.'
   • Required Sources: Schoberth's article; German theological works; major works by East Asian (Korean, Chinese) and African theologians.
   • Ethical/Social Considerations: Treat non-Western theologies not as 'exotic' subjects but as equal intellectual partners, fostering a relationship of mutual learning. Guard against a colonial 'top-down' application of models, focusing instead on amplifying the unique voices of each region.
   • Potential Challenges: Language barriers; misunderstandings due to cultural context differences; the complexity of each regional theology.
   • Feasibility: Possible if a collaborative research team is formed; can be advanced through international academic exchange.

Data-Driven New Hypotheses

1. Hypothesis: When the 'praxis' concept from liberation theology is combined with Schoberth's 'communicative reason' model, theology can achieve greater 'explanatory power' and 'responsiveness' for the socially vulnerable.

   • Verification Path: A comparative analysis of the interpretation of 'righteousness' in Romans 3 from the perspectives of Schoberth's 'public rationality' and Gutiérrez's 'social justice.'

2. Hypothesis: The 'heuristic of trust' is most effective in biblical text analysis when it utilizes the 'practical experience of the faith community' as a new interpretive ground for difficult passages identified through the 'hermeneutics of suspicion.'

   • Verification Path: Analyze the 'Jerusalem Council' decision in Acts 15 as a 'contested text' using Schoberth's 'heuristic of trust' and 'communicative reason,' then compare it with Ricœur's concept of 'trust' and the 'practical solution' of the early church.

3. Hypothesis: 'Post-metaphysical thinking' can enrich the meaning of 'public theology' when connected with non-Western 'affective-existential experiences' such as the Korean concept of Han.

   • Verification Path: Connect Schoberth's 'post-metaphysical' concept with the Korean concept of Han to explore how the 'public' meaning of theology can be culturally reconstructed.