[29] functions, those which receive reality and those which transform it. This fundamental substance of language leads me now to start with a discussion of the relationship of religion to language. Whenever I use the term "religion^a," please don't forget the fundamental definition: a state of being ultimately concerned, and, on the other hand, the acceptance of concrete expressions of this concern. The one is the larger concept of religion, the other the traditional concept. We must deal with both of them but we cannot understand the relation of religion and culture without continuously referring to both of these concepts. I believe that many of the misunderstandings, some of which also came out in the questions I just read to you--Karl Barth^b, and other people--are based on the fact that the two meanings of religion are not clearly distinguished. When I gave these first four lectures and discussed the meaning of religion, I tried to avoid religious language, while pointing to the meaning of religion. This was not completely possible because the word "faith^c" IS a genuinely religious concept, but when using it I translated it into concepts which are taken from another language, which we may call philosophical language, or ordinary or simply descriptive language--however you want to call it. Many difficulties, especially those found in theology^d, are rooted in this situation. That is a little of my answer to the first question I read about philosophy and theology. When we SPEAK about the meaning of the religious symbols^e, then we cannot simply repeat them, but we must interpret them. And interpretive concepts are, in the larger sense of the word, philosophical concepts. According to the double meaning of "religion^f," we have to discuss two different questions, when speaking about the relation of religion and language^g. First, the presence of ultimate concern IN LANGUAGE AS LANGUAGE, the presence of an ultimate concern in language as language. This is the first question. The second is: the nature of the religious language^h in contrast to other forms of language. These are the two considerations, and they already indicate what we must do in all our lectures in considering any of the functions of human cultureⁱ. We must always ask the question of the hidden ultimate concern behind a cultural function, and we must also ask [about] the importance of religion^j to this function, in their mutual interdependence.