^{page 201 note 1} See, e.g., Needham, Rodney, Belief, Language, and Experience (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972), p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics III/2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), pp. 346 and 75.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} See Barth's concessions, ibid., p. I2f.

^{page 203 note 1} Prenter, Regin, ‘Anthropologie IV. Dogmatisch’, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1957), 421Google Scholar. (The quotation is my summary of Prenter's views.)

^{page 203 note 2} See Altner, Günter and Sauter, Gerhard, ‘Anthropologie im interdisziplinären Gespräch’, Verkündigung und Forschung 2 (1972), pp. 3–36.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 3} Cf. Needham, op. cit., pp. 243–6.

^{page 203 note 4} For discussions of the language of perspective see, e.g., Wisdom, John, ‘Gods’, PAS 45 (1944–1945), pp. 185–206Google Scholar; Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), esp. Part II, xiGoogle Scholar; Richmond, James, Theology and Metaphysics (London: SCM, 1970)Google Scholar; and Jeffners, Anders, The Study of Religious Language (London: SCM, 1972).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 5} See Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967, 1971)Google Scholar; this work has been taken as representing their joint methodological position.

^{page 204 note 1} ibid., p. 79; further references to this work will be given in the text.

^{page 204 note 2} ‘Ein Ausdruck hat nur im Strome des Lebens Bedeutung’; cited in Malcolm, Norman, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, rev. ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 93Google Scholar; for a gloss on this sentence, see Needham, op. cit., pp. 244–6.

^{page 204 note 3} An important exception would be Kaufman's, GordonSystematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective (New York: Scribner's, 1968) where man's defining characteristic is his ‘historicity’ in the sense that he is both made by his history and himself makes history (Chap. 23).Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 4} Needham, op. cit., p. 245.

^{page 205 note 1} The word ‘model’ is used here in the sense of a symbolic construct which by means of an analogy interprets and orders a certain area of experience. See, e.g., Barbour, Ian G., Myths, Models and Paradigms: The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language (London: SCM, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} Schutz, Alfred, The Problem of Social Reality. Collected Papers I (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 1} This usage is based on the insights of the psychologist, George Kelly; see Part III below.

^{page 208 note 2} Hamilton, Peter, Knowledge and Social Structure: An Introduction to the classical Argument in the Sociology of Knowledge (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} Prenter, art. cit.

^{page 210 note 1} Calvin, John, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. McNeill, J. T. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), I. ii. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} For a masterly survey of the issues raised in this paragraph, see Pannenberg, W., Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie (Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp, 1973), pp. 11–18, 226–348Google Scholar; also Sauter, G., ‘Der Wissenschaftsbegriff der Theologie’, Evangelische Theologie (1975), pp. 283–309Google Scholar; Daecke, S., ‘Soil die Theologie an der Universität bleiben?’ in Pannenberg, , Sauter, , Daecke, and Janowski, , Grundlagen der Theologie—ein Diskurs (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974), pp. 7–28.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} Kelly, George, The Psychology of Personal Constructs (New York: Norton, 1955, 1963)Google Scholar. See also Bannister, D., ‘A New Theory of Personality’ in New Horizons in Psychology, ed. Foss, B. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966)Google Scholar and Bannister, and Fransella, Fay, Inquiring Man: The Theory of Personal Constructs (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Kelly, op. cit., p. 46.

^{page 212 note 2} Bannister and Fransella, p. 16; see also Kelly, pp. 38–9.

^{page 212 note 3} Kelly, p. 50.

^{page 213 note 1} Schutz, op. cit., pp. 20–1.

^{page 213 note 2} Bannister and Fransella, p. 21; their italics.

^{page 213 note 3} See the survey in Pervin, L. A., Personality: Theory, Assessment and Research (New York: Wiley, 1970), pp. 367–381Google Scholar; also Bannister and Fransella, passim.

^{page 213 note 4} Wittgenstein, op. cit., §§ 19, 23 and 241.

^{page 214 note 1} Kelly, , ‘Personal construct theory and the psychotherapeutic interview’ (1969)Google Scholar; cited in Bannister and Fransella, p. 82; my italics.

^{page 215 note 1} For the view that theology turns the language of faith (e.g. the union of God and man in Jesus) into that of problems (the various Christologies would be examples of proposed formulations and solutions), see Sauter, Gerhard and Stock, Alex, Arbeitsweisen systematischer Theologie (Munich: Kaiser, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} Attempts to sketch these forms have been made by Berger himself in his A Rumour of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967)Google Scholar and by authors such as van Buren, Paul, The Edges of Language: An Essay in the Logic of a Religion (London: SCM, 1972)Google Scholar and Hazelton, Roger, ‘Homo Capax Dei: Thoughts on Man and Transcendence’, Theological Studies, 33 (1972), pp. 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar