Lecture XXXVIII (Nr. 0505)

[500] we find in the chapel Yard, STANDS, as far as the other faculties are concerned, stands in place of the [?] reality [?] to the theological faculty itself a symbol of one thing, and another to the other? [???] PT: No, that is not what I meant, because then we come to the "Queen" situation, and that is exactly what I don't want. But I said that if for some people, the abstract hidden form in which ultimate

concern is expressed---in art, literature, law, science (you can name all these things which are going on here---[e.g.] business---I am especially pleased that I was twice asked to speak in the Business School, because they wanted to find, and worked HARD for that, the meaning of business in human existene [sic.] existence today). And I think that is ultimate concern. But they feel that ALONE, the symbols of perhaps doing decent [?] business, or increasing the commodities of life for as many people as possible, that all this is not enough, that life implies other levels, and they wanted to hear about these levels generally, and then perhaps---but that was very [much] behind their questions, and could come out only in moments---more concrete symbols in which these ultimate problems of life were expressed. So you have here what I mean. Now . . . why do they ask me? Because I am a member of the theological faculty, OPEN for their forms and experiences of ultimate concern. That's the whole thing. And that is, I think, what the theologian should do. They should be open for

THEIR ultimate concern, IF THEY DEAL WITH THEM. QN: [PHJ] --- . . . PT: Now I would be in principle---that is my European background---AGAINST ALL SEMINARIES, although I lived 22 years in Union Theological Seminary. But I could do so ONLY because, from the very beginning, there was the interrelation between Columbia University---not as intensive as it is here