[404] LECTURE XXXII, March 6, 1956 Now here are two interesting questions. I will try to answer them: QN: If religion^a cannot be defended on the object-subject level of reality, can there be such a being as apologetics? PT: Now the word "apologetics^b" can have many meanings, and most Neo-Orthodox theologians^c are very suspicious of ANY kind of apologetics. I personally would say it depends on the APOLOGETICS.

The word in itself is the highest possible word in theology--a biblical word, and a church-historical word. It means: answering. And if a Christian is not able to answer, then he shouldn’t try to make a theology. That is the one answer to it. But now the next question is what KIND of apologetics? There the answer is: NOT an apologetic which tries to derive, out of the subject-object structure of reality, the existence of God^d, or immortality, or other things--this kind of apologetics is not only impossible but it is even an a priori negation of the idea of God, whatever the outcome of such arguments is. The analysis of reality can only lead to the QUESTION of God--which MEANS VERY MUCH because there is no question without a preceding answer; but it certainly does NOT mean a rational deduction of God out of the world of the finite in which subject-object structure prevails.

So the only kind of apologetics^e which is possible seems to me the development of the question and to point out that the answers involved in the Christian tradition are REAL ANSWERS to REAL QUESTIONS. And this apologetic is nothing else than systematic theology^f. Now this was the one [question]. The next question is a little bit too long, but I will try to do it: QN (P.H.John): In his recent book, Icon and Idea, Sir Herbert^g Read says that the history of art^h and the historyⁱ of ideas have hitherto been considered as independent aspects of human development, and priority was given to ideas. But he says that in reality the plastic image--or icon--always precedes