Outlines of Romantic Theology

by Charles Williams, Alice Mary Hadfield (Editor)

Romantic theology is the working out of ways in which an ordinary relationship between two people can become one that is extraordinary, one that grants us glimpses, visions of perfection.

In experiencing romantic love, we experience God; He has been in the experience from the beginning, and the more we learn about it, the more we learn also about Him. —adapted from the Introduction and the Sequel

Charles Williams was one of the finest—not to mention one of the most unusual—theologians of the twentieth century. His mysticism is palpable—the unseen world interpenetrates ours at every point, and spiritual exchange occurs all the time, unseen and largely unlooked for. His novels are legend, and as a member of the Inklings, he contributed to the mythopoetic revival in contemporary culture.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Spirituality, Christianity, Nonfiction, Christian, Philosophy

122 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1990

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Please see: Charles Williams


Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website

Reviews

[Timothy Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Love is Holiness and Divine Indignation; the placidity of an ordinary married life is the veil of a spiritual passage into profound things. Nor is this all; the lover knows himself also to be the cross upon which the Beloved is to be stretched, and so she also of her lover. A suggestion of this — probably no more — is to be found merely in the fact of her existence the sense of being for ever intimately bound to another which when it is not repose is agony, the state of suspension upon a substance alien and unavoidable for which, though from a more dreadful distance, crucifixion is the only comparison. There is no middle state into which this issues — either it is continued into an anguish of entire repulsion and hate, or, by the grace of that Crucifixion which includes it but is so much more than it alone, it becomes itself a purgation and a redemption. This is — in its degree, and who shall say how terrific that degree may become? — the annihilation of the selfhood which the saints have sought, and the end of it is union."

There are significant chunks of Outlines of Romantic Theology, mainly its middle sections, that I simply didn't understand (this is Williams, after all), and thus didn't find especially illuminating. However, it opens and closes with passages of such surpassing beauty, like the one above, that I already hope to reread it in the near future. I've read Dante's Paradiso at least three times, but I still don't understand it well enough to track with it, and thus usually appreciate it from a distance. Williams' discussion of the role of Beatrice closed that distance; I was more moved reading his explication of the poem's heavenly ending than I ever have been reading the poem itself. (This, obviously, speaks to a fault of mine, not Dante's.) It is, of course, early to say, but I would not be surprised if this became a very formative text for me, one whose influence stretches out far into the future years of my life – even, if Williams is right, all the way into eternity.

"Dante has to become the thing he has seen. He has to become, by his own will, the caritas which was, by God's will, awakened in him at the smile of Beatrice; he has to be faithful to that great communication in the days when Beatrice does not smile."

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It is a theology as exact as any other kind, but having for cause and subject those experiences of man which, anyhow in discussions of art, are generally termed 'Romantic'. The chief of these is romantic love; that is, sexual love between a man and a woman, freely given, freely accepted, and appearing to its partakers one of the most important experiences in life-a love which demands the attention of the intellect and the spirit for its understanding and its service . . . this book is concerned almost entirely to make some attempt to formulate, for the help of students, the principles of Romantic Theology as applicable to romantic love."

Williams is hard to find, but always worth the trouble, and this little book is very brilliant, especially for those who like Williams or Dante. I'm sure I shall be reading it again soon.

[Dave Maddock · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading several fiction works of Charles Williams that are clearly informed by his Romantic Theology (I'm thinking particularly of Shadows of Ecstasy and The Greater Trumps, but it can be detected in the love interest subplots of The Place Of The Lion and Many Dimensions and probably others), I determined to get this one under my belt for insight into exactly what he means by the mystical trappings of the romantic relationships portrayed in his novels. It is tough and tedious reading, but has the benefit of being a relatively straight-forward explanation of the idea (for Williams standards at least). His summation reads:

The principles of Romantic Theology can be reduced to a single formula: which is, the identification of love with Jesus Christ, and of marriage with His life. This again may be reduced to a single word — Immanuel. Everything else is modification and illustration of this.

Oh! It is so clear now! :-D Let me unpack this... Immanuel means "God with us" in Hebrew, which Christians associate with Jesus, thanks to Matthew 1:23. So Williams is saying here that romantic love manifests Christ in some literal way and that the progression and development of that love mirrors his life. The Oddest Inkling blog does a great job explaining this further. Go there for the quick summary. I'll discuss below my thoughts on the Theology.

If you are familiar with Christian theology (what are you doing here if you are not?!), then you notice he is alluding to the Incarnation above. He goes on:

To students who do not accept the doctrine of the Incarnation, the suggestions made will probably appear fanciful; it is at any rate certain, as a compensation, that to no Christian can they appear as anything but natural and probable, even if in the end they should have to be, for one cause or another, rejected.

I can't speak for those who do accept the Incarnation (I do not), however I can confirm that it certainly appears fanciful to me. In fact, the whole theology appears like Christian post-hoc justification for non-Christian ideas on romantic love. Williams acknowledges that the Church has had an unsure relationship with romantic and sexual love since its inception.

In my opinion, this goes all the way back to Jesus himself. I am not implying that Jesus' teachings were sexually repressive and whatnot; rather, I believe he was an apocalyptic prophet who was not concerned with long-term, earthly things. The Pauline writings carry this torch as well--see 1 Corinthians 7 on this point. Now there is a man setting down a convenient heuristic for the short-term--sex in marriage for the purpose of otherwise maintaining self control for those who would fail at celibacy. That's a policy on sex that cares not at all for the long-term survival of the species. It was only after the disappointment of failed apocalypticism that the early Church began to look more kindly at marriage. Matrimony as a sacrament is a rather late development in Christianity. For that reason, Williams' assertion that Romantic Theology is "natural and probable" is unfounded.

Williams does mean Love=Christ quite literally. Here's some pull quotes about sexual intercourse to give you the flavor:

Intercourse between man and woman is, or at least is capable of being, in a remote but real sense, a symbol of the Crucifixion. There is no other human experience, except Death, which so enters into the life of the body; there is no other human experience which so binds the body to another being. [...]

In that intercourse which is usually referred to as the consummation of marriage the presence of Love, that is, of Christ, is sacramentally imparted by each to the other. If this act is not capable of being a sacrament, then it is difficult to see in what way marriage itself is more sacramental than any other occupation; and its inclusion in that group of rites which have the Eucharist as their crown is undeserved.

Putting the creepiness of a ménage à trois with Jesus aside, he does have a fair point about Christianity here. Whether sexual repression is a flaw of Christianity (my view) or an unfortunate theological misunderstanding (Williams' view), Williams is right to point out the importance of sex to the human experience and its power to create intimacy between individuals. But then, his theology does not strike me as particularly useful for cultivating intimacy and shared spiritual fulfillment with your partner. On the contrary, it seems to me more useful for extracting meaning from an otherwise dissatisfying relationship.

...which brings me to my feminist problems with the Theology. In theory the principles are applied both ways, but when he shows them in practice they are not. The women in his novels are simultaneously idealized as symbols of Christ and used as objects of veneration or as means for spiritual fulfillment. What's more, these ideas are paired with his "submitted saint" trope wherein these women give themselves up to being used. It is a one-two punch that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Still, reverse the gender roles and I would reject this again. Self-immolation is not a virtue and all the mythologizing does not foster a healthy respect of your partner as an individual. If you are thinking about the Crucifixion while having sex with your spouse, I humbly submit to you that you are doing it wrong. Williams' ideas on romantic love may not be perverted, but they are perverse.

[Sean Meade · Rating 2 out of 5]

I got this book on sale a long time ago because it was Charles Williams. I read it sort of as a discipline (it's not that long), but didn't like it. I don't recommend it. The added reprint of 'Religion & Love in Dante: The Theology of Romantic Love' was the best part.

[Caleb · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Love can only see the next world by virtue of that eyesight which sees and is not afraid to see the flaws in this; all other vision is blindness, all other faith superstition."

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Actually, I have not seen this book. I am reviewing the title essay--Religion and Love in Dante, which is less than 10,000 words, and which I located separately. Finally, something by Charles Williams that I think I understand! From the descriptive blurb: "Charles Williams was one of the finest--not to mention one of the most unusual--theologians of the twentieth century. His mysticism is palpable--the unseen world interpenetrates ours at every point, and spiritual exchange occurs all the time, unseen and largely unlooked for." All true of him. He was a great influence on T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, C.S. Lewis, and Dorothy L. Sayers, who gave up Lord Peter Wimsey and devoted the last years of her life to Dante largely because of him. When he died suddenly in 1945, Lewis said of him that when the idea of Williams and the idea of death came together, it was the idea of death that had to change. Auden supposedly read his Descent of the Dove every year. I have been, on several tries, unable to penetrate it, but I will try again. This is a much more accessible essay. The gist: the young Dante sees the young Beatrice on the streets of Florence and falls in love at first sight. Williams says that for Dante: Perfection in some strange sense exists, and walks down the street of Florence to meet him. She is "the youngest of the Angels"; her image in his thought "is an exultation of Love to subdue him,"...she is "the destroyer of all evil and the queen of all good"; she is the equivalent of heaven itself. I will repeat again that it is for Dante's readers to determine whether they think this to be a normal state for a young man (or woman) in love or not. I do not say universal; I will not claim that it is true of everyone. But if it is true of a large number, as it seems on the evidence to be, then we had better determine what kind of attention we are going to give it. And he gives it a lot of attention, explaining how, wrongly followed, it leads to hell, the gradual loss of joy, intellect, and humanity as one becomes swamped in selfishness and anger. Properly followed, it leads to God.

[z]

- A collection of Williams' writings re Roman doctrine and liturgy, which includes some enlightening passages on the formative aspect of worship and how God's love is expressed through our love for each other
- "If a man will shape his life upon a basis of pride and anger, then he shall find a greater pride and anger in God; if he is covetous and robs others, God shall be covetous and rob him; if he is full of love, then God shall be full of love."
- "For the exactest statements of the birth of love and the beginning of marriage we have to go to the poets; it is they who have most truly expressed a general experience. It is in its earliest moments rather a delight of contemplation than a desire of union; being its own satisfaction and asking for nothing more. And though this desire is probably necessary, in order that contemplation may become ever more rich and full, the heart is often so shaken by the mere contemplation of the beloved that it is not conscious of anything beyond its own delight."

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ever since I read Harry Blamires' book "The Christian Mind" and read about how Charles Williams conceived of how our relationships will be like in Heaven I have been fascinated by Williams. Unfortunately Williams' own "romantic theology" is deeply wedded to his understanding of Dante's "The Divine Comedy," a book I have yet to read.

This book itself is divided up into two main sections with content written by Williams while a preface and interlude is written by the editor. A lot of the content in "Outlines of Romantic Theology" I did not quite understand but the last part on Beatrice and Dante was good, again, even if I haven't read "The Divine Comedy."

Maybe closer to a 2.5/5.

[Ashleigh Hebert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over my head. Loved what I understood, though.

[Byrun]

I read this around 20 years ago, definitely time to re- read it.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 4 out of 5]

A defying book, best understood after reading the sequel by the editor and the ending, from later, reprint. Makes one see one needs to read Dante.

[Ben McFarland · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are two rules for reading Charles Williams: 1.) The later the better and 2.) The more about Dante the better. This book proves them both. The first half is an earlier set of several chapters where he outlines his ideas about "romantic theology." It's fine, but not vintage -- he's still working out his ideas and his Biblical analysis is a distinct angle but seems too constricted. The second half is a later essay that is a distilled version of The Figure of Beatrice and it boils down his insights to a 180-proof version. Probably the most accessible and best combo of pages vs. content that you'll find for this author.