[476] LECTURE XXXVII, March 15, 1956 QN: During the last lecture you mentioned that we have both "traditional" and "untraditional" symbols^a to introduce to people. What do you mean by "untraditional symbols"? PT: I really don't know--I certainly don't know in which context I said that, and what it could mean--since symbols always come from a collective and therefore ALWAYS are carried somehow by traditional powers, and I wouldn't say here the phrase "introducing a symbol to people"; I would say "introducing people to symbols," which means that the symbols are given. SAME QN: [Questions submitted earlier, written.–Ed.] Though a person cannot perhaps CREATE his own symbols^b, isn't our culture in fact 'post-Christian' enough so that other symbols than those which are strictly Christian-in-content can, and MUST be used in order to bring one's 'total being'

into awareness of the mysteries of life? PT: Now that's a question shwere [sic.] I feel very much in agreement with the tendency of the question. Certainly there are developments of symbols which had a tremendous influence for centuries and which are not Christian. And "post-Christian" would indicate that Christianity cannot take them in, and therefore something completely new in comparison with 'Christian' is developing. This is a question of the future. I cannot answer it with Yes and No. But as a Christian theologian, I believe that Christianity is able