^{page 217 note 1} Berlin, 1850.

^{page 217 note 2} op. cit., p. 27f.

^{page 218 note 1} Practical Theology, A Manual for Theological Students, translated by Evans, M. J. (London, 1878).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Preface to Pastoral Theology (New York, 1958), p. 48.

^{page 218 note 3} op. cit., p. 3.

^{page 219 note 1} Van Oosterzee, ibid., p. 2.

^{page 219 note 2} This observation is based solely on a study of works published in English.

^{page 220 note 1} A Theology of Pastoral Care, p. 53.

^{page 220 note 2} ibid., p. 15.

^{page 221 note 1} op. cit., p. 20.

^{page 221 note 2} This is most clearly seen in an extended footnote (Preface, p. 222) in which Hiltner distinguishes his position from that of Tillich's method of correlation. Hiltner argues that Tillich is mistaken in supposing that the answers must always come from the side of theology. In his view a ‘two-way street’ is possible: ‘… it becomes necessary to say that culture may find answers to questions raised by faith as well as to assert that faith has answers to questions raised by culture’.

^{page 221 note 3} Matt. 25.31ff; Luke 10.25–37; Luke 4.18.

^{page 222 note 1} It is significant that Hiltner's division of theological subjects has never been seriously discussed since he proposed it in 1958. Indeed even his close associates, contributing to a recently published festschrift (The New Shape of Pastoral Theology, edited by W. B. Oglesby, Jr.), make merely passing reference to it.

^{page 222 note 2} Oden, Thomas C., Contemporary Theology and Psychotherapy (Westminster Press, 1967), P. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Letters and Papers from Prison (Collins [Fontana], 1959), p. 93.

^{page 224 note 1} We must distinguish this question of practical theology from the questions more appropriate to philosophical theology of the relationship between ‘Christian knowledge’ and ‘worldly knowledge’ (faith and culture). The practical theological question is related specifically to action and interaction.

^{page 224 note 2} The Church for Others, Final Report of the Western European Working Group, Department on Studies in Evangelism (W.C.C., Geneva, 1967), p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} See Hoekendijk, J. C., The Church Inside Out (S.C.M. Press, London, 1964), p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} The conceptual models for the type of relationship proposed are to be found in Liam Hudson's converger/diverger categories (vide Contrary Imaginations [Methuen, 1966] and Frames of Mind [Methuen, 1968]), in Johnson, M. L. Abercrombie's description of the influence of schemata on the perception of new situations (The Anatomy of Judgement [Hutchinson, 1960])Google Scholar, in the distinctions between ‘lineal’ and ‘non-lineal’ communication drawn by Marshall McLuhan and others (Carpenter, E. and McLuhan, M., Explorations in Communication [Beacon Press, Boston, 1960])Google Scholar, and in di Bono's, Edward descriptions of lateral thinking (Lateral Thinking: a textbook of Creativity [Ward Lock, 1970]).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} The appendix of the North American Working Party's Report, The Church for the World (W.C.C., 1967), contains examples of such proposals.