Review of This is the message by Franz Hildebrandt 1945

This is the message by Franz Hildebrandt, Ph.D. (Lutterworth Press,4s.6d)

This book which takes the form of ten letters written Prof. C. E. Raven of Cambridge, is by way of a reply to and a criticism of, the latter's book, Good News of God, which purported to be an exposition of the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans.

The author has also chosen to state his case and formulate his criticism of Dr. Raven's teaching in terms of an exposition of the leading ideas of the first Epistle of John. The titles of the chapters are accordingly - This is the Message, This is the Promise, This is His Commandment, etc.

The book is avowedly polemical in character, and the author does not hesitate to strike hard blows. At the same time his deep personal regard for Dr. Raven and his sense of gratitude to him are constantly in evidence.

To some there may seem to be too much lightness of touch, not to say facetiousness, in the style - but this is perhaps largely a matter of taste.

As a reply for Dr. Raven, and as an exposure of the gulf that separates him from orthodoxy, and of the increasing subjectivity that characterises his writings, the book is entirely successful. It shows also by clever and frequent quotations from his own book how inconsistent his position is, not only as regards his attitude towards others holding different views but also as regards his own views in different places.

The utter antithesis between philosophy and revelation as the final authority in matters of belief stands out on almost every page. It is interesting, as the author points out, indeed pathetic that an Englishman should still try to proclaim and to defend a teaching originating in Germany that has long since been discarded by most teachers in that country.

The main purpose of the book is thus amply fulfilled.

A subsidiary function which it subserves is that it underlines certain fundamental differences that characterize the Continental and English outlook and approach to Truth. One is constantly face to face with the question - to what extent does rationality enter these matters? This is a most important question which we must constantly bear in mind as we proceed after the war to renew our contacts with our friends on the Continent. By birth and upbringing, and especially as the result of their experiences under Nazism during the past eleven years, and the agonies they have had to endure during the war, the Continentals are more realistic and vital in their approach and outlook.

One other matter calls for comment. While Dr. Hildebrandt is definitely anti-modernist and liberalist, he displays the fact that all who agree thus do not agree elsewhere. He clearly differs at many points from the Barthian, and as for those of us associated with the I.V.F., he says definitely and specifically on page 42: "I would rather err with Charles Raven than be saved with X, Y, Z, who are boring in their soundness and unattractive in their hypocrisy." How the author reconciles such a statement with his position, I cannot conceive or imagine. It seems quite indefensible, and it leaves us with the uncomfortable question - What is it about us that can so antagonize and embitter one who theologically is so close to us? Is he entirely to be blamed and to be dismissed as a German? Or is the fault ours?  Let every man examine himself.

D. M. L1.-J.

From Inter-Varsity, spring 1945