[422]

would fall under the same problem as the Roman church^a and the totalitarian^b movements. It would not allow IN ITSELF the protest AGAINST itself. But this is just what makes Protestantism^c Protestant, that it permits, by its very nature--and therefore ASKS for, by it's very nature, within itself--the PROTEST against itself.

How is this possible? This is possible only because Protestantism in its origin was in the tradition^d of the Roman church, it still has preserved a lot of the Catholic^e substance^f--in traditions, in doctrines, in cult, in ethics--but at the same time^g, it has exploded and disrupted the authoritarian and, spiritually speaking, totalitarian structure of the Roman church. It has produced churches^h which tried to continue the original Christian tradition, especially the biblical one, and the early one, but which did not subject [i.e. submit] to any infallibility, either of the Popeⁱ or of the Protestant theologians^j, in interpreting the Bible^k. Now this was decisive. And this made it possible for Protestantism^l to get a quite different relationship to culture^m. I once wrote the sentence-- and I quote it since that time, sometimes--that Protestantism has a pathos for the secularⁿ, a passion^o for the secular. Why? Because it belongs to the Protestant principle to see God^p related to the secular as much as to the sacred--we discussed that in the beginning of the lectures last semester when I spoke of the presence of the ultimate concern^q in every cultural^r action. This was a Protestantism statement, a consequence of the Protestant principle. Therefore Protestantism is able to subject itself to the criticism which comes from the secular culture--in science^s, the arts^t, ethics^u, and all other forms of man's spiritual creativity^v. At the same time,