[490] Democrats in Hamburg have asked themselves: Do we need a theological faculty in the context of the life of the university? I would say Yes. I would say: it shouldn't be TWO things, but it should be a THIRD thing. The theological faculty should not rule, in the university. The position of the queen is an impossible one, because from none of these three dimensions of truth can you rule the two others. This is the first and perhaps most important thing about it. Secondly, you should not dissolve the theological^a into a philosophical faculty---that means, teach^b in it history^c, psychology^d, sociology^e, but not THEOlogy^f! This is the OPPOSITE mistake to the "queen," because then the queen is the philosophical faculty, or humanities---however you call it---which is THEN decisive! But it cannot be decisive. But its dimension of truth is determined mostly by the second level. But now, which is the POSITIVE meaning of the theological faculty^g? First a very

simple one: it is like medicine^h and lawⁱ, a professional school to train ministers; and this side is never to be missed and is as justified and as necessary as the law school, where we ALSO have the positive law of THIS country, which is interpreted TO the law students, in their meaning and in their applicability so that they can become jurists. In the same way, the theological faculty trains ministers on the given professional situation---Protestants or Catholics---so that they are able, on the basis of their positive knowledge of these things, to be leaders in their respective congregations. But then the theological faculty^j has an educational^k function, as also the medical and the legal have, namely to represent the ULTIMATE concern in concrete symbols^l, and their discussion---