Notes

  1. . Of the “Chicago” School, I have in mind the well‐known writings of Bernard Meland, Daniel Day Williams, John Cobb, and Schubert Ogden.
  2. . The chief work of Juergen Moltmann is Theologie der Hoffnung (Munich: Chr.Kaiser, 1964); see also his “Das ‘Prinzip Hoffnung' und die christliche Zuversicht,” Evangelische Theologie, XXIII (1963). 537–57, and “Die Kategorie Novum in der Christlichen Theologie,” in Siegfried Unseld (ed.), Ernst Bloch zu Ehren (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1965). For Wolfhart Pannenberg's thought, see Grundzuege der Christologie (Guetersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1964), pp. 79–85; also “Der Gott der Hoffnung,” in Unseld (ed.), op. cit. Also pertinent are Harvey Cox, “Afterword,” in Daniel Callahan (ed.), The Secular City Debate (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966), and Carl E. Braaten, “Toward a Theology of Hope” (to appear in Theology Today, July, 1967).
  3. . Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962), chap. iv.
  4. . Weston La Barre, The Human Animal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 3–4; my italics.
  5. . Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Man's Place in Nature (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 23 ff.
  6. . Dobzhansky, op. cit. (n. 3). chap. iii, esp. pp. 58–59.
  7. . La Barre, op. cit.(n. 4). p. 237. Note also La Barre's social theory of psychosis, chap. xiii, which in effect underscores the role of sociality.
  8. . RenéA Dubos, Man Adapting (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 8; my italics. John Greene points out how important sociality was in Darwin's theorizing, in his The Death of Adam (New York: New American Library, 1959), p. 288.
  9. . See Dobzhansky, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 18–22.
  10. . See the insightful discussion in Dubos, op. cit. (n. 8), pp. 5–7.
  11. . Ibid.
  12. . See ibid., pp. xvii‐xviii, and La Barre. op. cit. (n. 4). chap. xii.
  13. . La Barre, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 213.
  14. . See Joseph Haroutunian's essay on this theme, “Toward a Piety of Faith,” in Philip Hefner (ed.). The Scope of Grace (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964). pp. 165–82.
  15. . Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (New York: Harper & Row. 1964), p. 157.
  16. . Dubos, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 13. See also La Barre, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 216 ff.
  17. . Dubos, op. cit. (n. 8), p. xxi; Dobzhansky, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 303–12.
  18. . Dubos, op. cit. (n. 8). p. 233.
  19. . Ibid., pp. xix–xx.
  20. . Aarne Siirala, The Voice of Illness (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964).
  21. . Dobzhansky, op. cit. (n. 3). chap. xi. See also Lucy Eisenberg, “Genetics and the Survival of the Unfit,” Harper's (February, 1966), pp. 53–58.
  22. . Greene, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 15.
  23. . Ibid., p. 283.
  24. . Ibid., pp. 249 ff.
  25. . Ibid., pp. 250 ff., 283.
  26. . Ibid., pp. 257 ff. See also Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1961). Also Andrew G. van Melsen, Evolution and Philosophy (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965). p. 11.
  27. . See La Barre's discussion of non‐adaptive cultural trends, and the possibilities of producing a psychotic culture, op. cit. (n. 4). pp. 240–45, and chap. xiii. Paul Goodman's Growing Up Absurd (New York: Vintage Books, 1960) is also pertinent here.
  28. . See Dubos, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 249.
  29. . See n. 5.
  30. . Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963). Vol. III.
  31. . In Herman Preus and Edmund Smits (eds.), The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962). p. 49. See also the classical Lutheran theologians, Baier and Hollaz, quoted in Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), pp. 626, 628. There is some indication that the mainline Reformation understanding of faith and works also participates in this unfortunate dualism, although one might argue that the dualism is not essential to the sola fide. The sixteenth‐century discussions tended toward this dualism when they argued that (1) when justification is under discussion, works are extraneous; (2) without faith, works are hostile to God, whereas with faith they are part of his will; (3) faith precedes good works temporally. For pertinent sources, see Theodore Tappert (ed.), The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), Formula of Concord, Art. III, pars. 29, 36; Art. II, par. 20; Art. III pars. 27, 32, 40–41, and passim. Contemporary restatements of Reformation faith tend to maintain this dichotomy.
  32. . See Werner Kuemmel, Man in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), pp. 61 ff.
  33. . R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), pp. 111–12.
  34. . Reinhold Niebuhr. The Nature and Destiny of Man (New York: Scribner's, 1949), pp. 245–46.
  35. . Even so sensitive a treatment as that of Karl Heim's discussion of Leiblichkeit carries with it unmistakably the presupposition that spirit and self‐identity are dualistically opposed to nature and body. See his Glaube und Denken (1st ed.; Berlin: Furche‐Verlag, 1931). The current school of the “New Hermeneutic” proceeds under this same assumption, as it insists that some primordial being (Geist?) is unveiled in language. This dichotomy is clearly seen, e.g., in the interpretive essay by James Robinson in James Robinson and John Cobb (eds.), The New Hermeneutic (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), pp. 1–77.
  36. . This “double vision” is worthy of much more attention. Hans Jonas throws some light on it in his concepts of “physical‐outward” and “vitalistic‐inward” approaches to man, in The Phenomenon of Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 17–18.
  37. . Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1959), p. 252; my italics.
  38. . Van Melsen, op. cit. (n. 26), chap. i.
  39. . Quoted in Eiseley, op. cit. (n. 26), p. 334.
  40. . Teilhard de Chardin, op. cit. (n. 15), pp. 120–23.
  41. . Teilhard de Chardin. Man's Place in Nature (n. 5), pp. 107–8. Leslie Dewart, in his The Future of Belief (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966), chap. iii, makes an interesting effort to deal with change, but omits almost entirely any consideration of what Van Melsen calls the objective aspect of change. Dewart confines his attention to the interior, subjective self, as it changes.
  42. . Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1963), p. 106. See also the work of Erik Erikson.
  43. . Van Melsen, op. cit. (n. 26), pp. 18–23, 51–53. See Dewart, op. cit. (n. 41), chap. iii.
  44. . Van Melsen, op. cit. (n. 26). p. 22.
  45. . Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 33), pp. 9–13.
  46. . Juergen Moltmann, “Hope without Faith: An Eschatological Humanism without God,” in Johannes B. Metz (ed.), Is God Dead? (Concilium Theology in the Age of Renewal: Fundamental Theology, Vol. XVI [New York: Paulist Press, 1966]), p. 39. See the materials listed in n. 2, above.
  47. . Van Melsen, op. cit. (n. 26), pp. 17 ff.
  48. . See Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 33), pp. 158–74. Also the basic thesis of Karl Menninger in The Vital Balance (New York: Viking Press, 1963).
  49. . Wolfhart Pannenberg offers insights along this line in his emphasis upon man's “openness” to the world and God. See his Grundzuege der Christologie (n. 2), pp. 196 ff. and his Was ist der Menscht? (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1964).
  50. . ÉAmile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Collier Books), and W. Lloyd Warner, The American Life: Dream and Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), chap. ii.
  51. . See Dubos, op. cit. (n. 8), p. xviii.
  52. . Ibid.
  53. . See Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (n. 15), chaps. x and xiii.
  54. . Ibid., chaps. i, vi, xxii, xxiii.
  55. . Teilhard de Chardin, Man's Place in Nature  (n. 5), pp. 85–88.
  56. . I first heard this term from Joseph Sittler, although I am not sure that he would want to put it to the use I have here.
  57. . See n. 31 above.