[497] And then, this is not a function of the theological faculty^a itself, this is done in all faculties. And I am very eager to emphasize this point because if you do not emphasize this point, you easily come into a situation of theological arrogance: "We, the theologians, represent the ULTIMATE^b; others don't have it." Now this is simply ecclesiastical or theological arrogance and shouldn't be allowed. We should know that the idea of the theological faculty being the "queen of the science" in former centuries, does NOT mean that the others do not have their ultimacy: the humanities had it certainly, because man was considered to be the image of God, which means: in him, infinity is present and he is aware of it. This means that in all of these functions, the element of ultimacy is present, even if hidden. And of course, here theology has nothing to do than to RELATE itself to all these different realms, and I think these lectures which I

give this year is the attempt to do this, with the relation to most realms for which we have time to discuss them. Then there is a third thing, the most difficult one. It is perhaps best expressed in the fact that there is the chapel service in the middle of the Yard. What does that mean? This means that the ultimate concern, which is present everywhere, needs concreteness. And if it is CONCRETELY EXPRESSED, it needs actual as well as imaginary symbols. And that is what happens in the services.

So from the point of view of the university, these services are the concretion of that which is present in all faculties. It is one concretion of course; there are others possible---the very fact that we have, on the one side, the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant churches (which are divided in themselves very much) and the Jews, as the main groups on this campus, makes it clear that the concrete symbols