Read The Descent of the Dove by Charles Williams Online

the-descent-of-the-dove

"The Descent of the Dove" is an unconventional study of the Church as governed by the activity of the Holy Spirit in history. It the most significant of Williams' theological writings. (Christian)...

Title : The Descent of the Dove
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9781573832076
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 256 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Descent of the Dove Reviews

  • Margaret Norwood
    2019-04-23 00:46

    Reading "Descent of the Dove" is like being in a very deep conversation with someone you love, but who knows considerably more than you do and is assuming knowledge that you don't yet have. The more I knew of the historical period of which he spoke, the more I understood, appreciated and was enriched by William's work. When I did not know that of which he was writing, I felt an enormous desire to educate myself on the topic and then come back to join him in the conversation. It is a wonderful work. Next time through, I'll read it in tandem with "Ye are the Body" and see if I can learn enough to be worthy of it.

  • Brian
    2019-05-14 01:30

    I have rarely wanted so badly to give a book five stars and not been able to. Williams was far and away one of Lewis' great influences and he clearly knew and thought more about the Church and theology than Lewis, and I think he was the reason Lewis took certain views of the Reformation and perhaps was the source for the social Trinitarianism in Beyond Personality. Williams' book is glorious and soars over all the sources and facts and dates to get to what really makes interesting history: judging the sentiments, attitudes, affections, and movements of men.And yet the writing. In Lewis' defense, he did try to go after it, and I want to forgive Williams just because he's doing what so few (to my knowledge) seem to do. So imagine the soaring syntheses of C.S. Lewis, the ways he can capture different times and cultures and mindsets at his most poetic--and then take out the deceptively clear prose, the hard earthy analogies, and the welcoming uncle. Reading Williams is fun at first because it's all good, but the reader feels the strain, as if he were not taking a breath and never really comes down or meets the reader where he is. To make matters worse, Williams is obscure.Theologoumena: a idiosyncratic theological belief not accepted by most Christians, but really cool in its own way.I knew something of co-inherence and the doctrine of exchange (or thought I did) from Lewis and Lewis biographies, yet somehow Williams seems to mean everything by it and then tries to explain it in two disappointing pages at the end of the book. He has the analogies, but somehow not the touch. Oh, you so want to enter, but I'm afraid the only explanation is Williams didn't try hard enough. It's an important lesson: try ever so little to write for people who don't understand you.Still, four stars because of such gems as:"To call [Paul] a poet would be perhaps improper (besides ignoring the minor but important fact that he wrote in prose). But he used words as poets do; he regenerated them. And by St. Paul's regeneration of words he gave theology first to the Christian Church.""It was the veil of the Jewish Temple that had been rent in twain, and was the holier for the rending.""'I think I am about to become a god,' said the dying Vespasian; it was embarrassing to everyone when the Christians solemnly and formally anathematized what no one had ever dreamt of believing." That is so true having looked ever so briefly at the attitudes behind the oft demonized Imperial Cult."[Christendom] got the style of Augustine instead, and that style never seemed quite to apprehend that a man could grow, sweetly and naturally--and no less naturally and sweetly in spite of all the stages of repentance necessarily involved--from man into new man." That sums up so much of what good FV is."Formally Augustine did not err; but informally? ... He has always been a danger to the devout, for without his genius they lose his scope. Move some of his sayings but a little from the centre of his passion and they point to damnation. The anthropos that is Christ becomes half-hidden by the anthropos that was Adam. In Augustine this did not happen, for his eyes were fixed on Christ. But he almost succeeded, in fact though not in intention, in dangerously directing the eyes of Christendom to Adam." Really nicely nailed."The jewelled crosses hid one thing only--they hid the indecency. But original curcifixion was precisely indecent. The images we still retain conceal--perhaps necessarily--the same thing; they preserve pain but they lack obscenity." I might add that we continue to hide from the original barbarity and scandal or better yet embarrassment of the cross. We do it by making sure our Jesus images have exactly the same hair and bodily build (surely the "winebibber" was fatter), and perhaps there is something wrong with not knowing that He was probably naked and it is distinctly possible that his bodily fluids probably attracted flies. I don't think we should over do it, but does the above scandalize a little?"Only the most subtle theologians can adequately discuss the Nature of that Presence. The taunts flung at the Church concerning her preoccupation with doctrine seem more justified here than in most places ... The answers are lofty and sublime, but we yet await the genius who can make those high speculations vivid.""Poetry, like faith, can look at the back as well as the front of reason; it can survey reason all round. But the towering castles of the Scholastics would not deign to suppose: it is why the Inferno is readable, while the chapters on Hell in the Summa are unbearable and unbelievable. Once one has read them, the logical glare of that fire casts a terrible light over the whole Summa.""Dante had written for, as it were, all the world, and all the world has neglected seriously to study him.""Unfortunately whoever thought of [the idea of Indulgences] dropped a lighted match into the unknown cellar of man's mind, which contains the heavily dynamic emotions known as 'faith' and 'works.'"Williams' chapter on the Reformation also merits comment: it's actually quite scandalous, much as Lewis' words at the end of Christian Morality and his first chapter in OHEL are scandalous, yet uncommented upon (unlike Reflections on the Psalms which are just ignored). His essay in Christian Reunion is apocryphal, but he definitely wrote that kind of thing. Anyway, I hope people start talking about what he said here, because though Lewis agreed with the Reformers about Paul, but he didn't necessarily think that the charges they laid at the foot of Catholics or the statements they deduced were right.This is, I think, why NPP is so popular. We know that nothing we can do can save us and certainly Pelagius is wrong and to systematize some way in which we help God save us is quite wrong. And yet, this can be overemphasized. After all, Jesus did say take up your cross. At some point, we must DO. Obviously the hope must be that Jesus is the one that works in you, but we expend moral effort. I wonder whether Protestantism, or some forms of it have pushed so hard against works that any moral effort is sinful, often by saying you aren't relying on God or the Spirit enough and hence the over-introspection. The closest sort of Protestant mysticism is a sort of renunciation of all moral attempts (can you say Keswick method?) Anyway, we need to go back to Romans 7 a few more hundreds of years to figure things out."The news of the protest spread; it reached the Lord Leo, who was good-natured, tolerant, amused: 'A drunken German monk! he will think differently when he is sober!' Alas, the inebriation was deep; Luther had drunk of intoxicating Blood.""In that great age of Homo, with its magnificences of scholarship, architecture, art, exploration, war, its transient graces and terrene glories, it pleased our Lord the Spirit violently to convulse these souls with himself. Note I think Williams' section on Calvin is quite inconsistent. Of course, he admits better:"Of all the incomprehensibilities of that difficult time perhaps the most incomprehensible to us is the passion of the Reformed for sermons. That men and women should wish to sit and listen, to do nothing but sit and listen, for hours together, is unbelievable to us [well, not if you're an uber-intellectual reformed geek :)], and we explain it by thinking that they were listening for heresies, listening in fear of the power of the ministers, or listening in terrible delight to hear their enemies denounced to hell, and no doubt all these things sooner or later came in, but not one was the main thing; no, the main thing was simply the spoken word, the energy and accuracy of the spoken word, the salvation communicated in the sacrament of the spoken word. Those congregations returned almost to the "speaking with tongues" of an earlier day, though this speaking did not need interpretation, for the interpretation and the speaking were one. They returned to Pentecost and the Spirit manifesting by tongues[Some reformed guy please write a book with this as the heading so people quote it as much as Lewis' too glad to be true!!!]. And besides the sermons there were other tongues--tongues of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, but especially of psalms. Initiative of God, breath of the Spirit of God, words moulded by the fiery Spirit from the burning hearts of his elect. "Praise him upon the loud cymbals; praise him upon the well-tuned cymbals." The cymbals were the voices; their sound went over the earth, and as the wars grew darker the noise grew fiercer. "Let God arise and let his enemies be scattered.""Augustine's predestination was safe with him, comprehensible in Calvin, tiresome in the English Puritans, and quite horrible in the Scottish presbyteries.""The history of Christendom itself would have been far happier could we all have remembered that rule of intelligence--not to believe a thing more strongly at the end of a bitter argument than at the beginning, not to believe it with the energy of the opposition rather than with one's own.""'Probabilism' had come in: the doctrine that if you were in doubt about the moral propriety of an act, and if you found a reasonable weight of opinion in favour of it among the casuists, that was good enough; even if an equal--some said, even if a greater--weight of opinion were against it. It does not seem a very perilous doctrine, except that it allowed for two opinions upon the details of right and wrong--a thing abhorrent to devout "Puritan" minds. The Dutchman Jansen and his followers saw and trembled; they invoked the truth; they invoked sanctity; they invoked--inevitable and fatal error!--Augustine.""Soren Kierkegaard had to wait for his [world-wide repute] through some seventy years. It has taken Christendom that long to catch him up; it took it fifty to catch up St. Thomas, and it has not caught up Dante yet." Amen, preach it brother.Thanks to Chris Miller for lending me this book and marking this quote that I otherwise would have skipped: "The great scientific discoveries of that age (or what then purported to be scientific discoveries) threw both Christendom and non-Christendom very much out of control. The pious feared that they might, and the impious thought they undoubtedly had, upset Christendom. This was excusable in the impious, but inexcusable in the pious." Doesn't that totally get to the heart of so much wrong with the "challenges of science" to the faith. Come on, God's in control, even though if there is no resurrection, we of all men are to be most pitied. A scientific paradigm shift isn't that big a deal.Williams says enough to upset people on both sides of the property debate. He attributes the entire theological tradition to a pro-property side, and says that capitalism is much kinder and less managerial than socialism: "The Pope, no doubt, meant nothing but good. But the Pope was not a factory worker." But he also says that the Bible doesn't encourage wealth beyond that: "[the middle class'] retention of their possessions under the patronage of the Cross made the Cross too much a sign of their possessions. 'Having nothing,' wrote St. Paul, 'and yet possessing all things.' The second clause was obvious; the first was hidden with God. A few priests, a few laymen, surrendered their lives to the needs of the destitute; the rest consoled themselves with ritual prayers." Jeepers, that should get under our skin, if only for a moment.Anyway, this book feels like T.S. Eliot, smarter than you, but not as much as some people think, very profound and sometimes troubling and sometimes challenging, but full of hope.

  • Nick
    2019-04-26 02:53

    Too intellectual, in the worst way -- presumptuous, abstracted, logically unsound. But it's one of those few books about which I can definitively say: this has changed the way I think about things. Williams is, here as always, comfortably poised at the convergence of orthodoxy, heresy, and and insanity.

  • Jack
    2019-04-26 23:31

    How I made it through church history classes in seminary without having this book assigned is a mystery to me. Most historical surveys of any kind are dry accounts, only a slight improvement from reading chronicles. For Williams, church history is a drama wherein events and characters bear witness of coinherence--the presence of heaven in the matters of earth. Anything I've ever read by Williams is challenging to follow, but the view he gives his readers makes it worthwhile to persevere through obscure passages. One might say that he's just a gifted writer to make church history this exciting, but I believe he saw the drama that everyone else had been missing, even when it was right in front of their eyes. Dorothy Sayers saw the same thrill in church history, claiming that "the dogma is the drama." In Descent of the Dove, one encounters the drama that is Christian dogma.

  • Kyle
    2019-05-03 20:27

    Williams presents in this book a brief history of the church. It is poignant, informed, and surprisingly comprehensive for its comparatively short length. Williams also pierces to the heart of conflict within the Church throughout history, giving helpful insight into the struggles of various eras. He also provides interesting reflections, such as his lament that Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola should have so much in common as contemporaries and yet oppose one another (173). As a friend of Lewis and a fellow Inkling, I was surprised at just how different Williams writes. Unlike the clear and compelling style of Lewis, Williams is dense, less direct, and less understandable. Part of this is personal taste, however, as Williams is able to communicate his points. Consequently, the content is great, but fans of Lewis thinking Williams might be a good next step will find him quite different and perhaps less enjoyable.

  • Rachel
    2019-05-11 21:51

    I'd say it's influential to me, but I think I was influenced by it before I read it! I recognize Williams's approach to church history as one with which I've already been inculcated: he influenced the people who influenced me, I think. And those people did a good job of making Williams comprehensible for me. Some of the leaps of his writing style, and his assumed vocabulary are too much for me still, but I could read this far better now than I could have even 5 years ago. I so appreciate how personal this perspective is. I felt like I was privileged to be around the table hearing Williams express himself - share himself - with friends.

  • Andrew Stout
    2019-05-15 21:47

    Remarkable. More than anything, this history is an attempt to ground Williams' unique theories of co-inherence, exchange, and substitution in the life and heritage of the Church. Surveying Church history through the lens of these themes (as well as the themes of the complementary Ways of Affirmation and Negation) is very effective, shedding fresh light on many of the major events in the life of the Church.

  • Ryan
    2019-05-15 22:49

    A fairly good poetic history of the church from the perspective of a member of that prestigious Inkling group, and friend of the more famous of the bunch, C.S. Lewis and J.R. Tolkien.

  • Douglas Wilson
    2019-05-05 00:49

    Good.

  • Patrick\
    2019-05-11 03:42

    Another para-psychological thriller from the master.

  • Gretchen
    2019-04-21 20:31

    I am giving this three stars based on my expectations in contrast with the actual content; I was expecting the content to be dealing more with the Holy Spirit and His role within the Church, but Williams really lays out a history of the Church, focusing around the conflicts and idea shifts it has undergone. Because I had a hard time getting my mind around this difference, I had a hard time absorbing a lot of this dense content. However, I am incredibly impressed that the Holy Spirit has accomplished all that He has with at Church such as it is--Williams' implied foundational claim. I will definitely revisit this book, and I highly recommend to anyone interested in the overall history of theology or the gospel.That said, though, the historical overview was BRILLIANT, informative, subtly humorous, and insightful. Focusing around the question of the content of the Gospel, Williams traces different groups and trends until the Church reached the point of his day, 1939. His observations included discussions about major thinking contributors, from Athanasius, to Luther, to Kierkegaard. While he presents them in a largely unbiased manner, it is possible to determine Williams' take on some people/times, since he and his tone are so transparent. However, his emphasis is not critique, but presentation--showing how we got where we are from where the Church began in Jerusalem.Significant ideas that emerge throughout include those of the Way of Negation, the Way of Affirmation (of images), and Co-inherence. I have encountered the Ways before, in Williams' The Figure of Beatrice, so that was a familiar encounter. Co-inherence I have seen in some of his fiction, but I am still wrapping my mind around the idea itself. Williams (and I) felt most at home in the Medieval portion of the history, and his connections with circumstances of that time with Dante and all that followed are lovely.

  • Kenneth
    2019-05-07 01:52

    A fascinating read. By one of the Inklings, an associate & friend of C. S. Lewis & J. R. R. Tolkien.

  • Steven Tryon
    2019-05-08 01:30

    Fascinating, as expected. I am going to have to read it again before having much to say.

  • Stephen Case
    2019-04-24 00:47

    A good friend of mine once called Chesterton’s Everlasting Man “bullshit history.” He meant it in the best way possible. A similar label could be applied to this volume by the famously-forgotten lost Inkling, Charles Williams. I’ve written about Williams’ wonderful yet at-times-exasperating fiction here before. He’s difficult to classify. Like Chesterton, he sort of slips through the cracks by his works’ tendency to resolutely resist any pat classification. His fiction is not fantasy. Neither is it realism. I’ve heard it classified before as “theological thriller,” but if that makes you think of Frank Peretti then you’re still in children’s church. When I heard that Williams had written a history “of the Holy Spirit in the Church,” I tracked it down in Olivet’s library. (Note to Nazarenes: according to the old library card still stuck in it, this copy was checked out by “Dr. Parrott” in 1975. I wonder what he thought of it. And why he felt he needed to sign his name “Dr. Parrott.”)The Descent of the Dove is not a history of the Holy Spirit. It’s a history of the Holy Spirit in the church. Big difference. I thought I might get a study of how the church has understood the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, throughout its history. Which would have been fascinating. How did the early church come to understand the vague admonitions of the post-Resurrection Christ and the strange happenings of Pentecost? Whence the Filioque? Stuff like that.I’m sure there’s a study like that out there somewhere, but this is not that book. This is much more along the lines of Chesterton’s Everlasting Man. Because for Williams, of course, the history of the church itself is the history of the Holy Spirit active in the church. So what we have instead is a much more straightforward and less surprising work: an intellectual history of Christianity, unencumbered by detailed analysis of doctrine or careful study of primary texts. Which is fine. Williams wasn’t a historian. He was a literary scholar and a writer and a Christian, and this book-- again, like Chesterton’s Everlasting Man-- is a very intelligent, very erudite man’s apology for the church.Apology as in explanation. How did the church get to where it is today? What forces and ideas shaped it throughout its history? This is something like modern “worldview” talk; reducing history to broad strokes and generalizations. Not necessarily a bad thing. The big picture. The sweep of history. Williams is understandably Western-centric without being exclusive. He has a grasp of the implications of ideas, even if he plays fast and loose with their origins or evolution. The motivating factor, the explanatory agent, throughout all of this is of course the vague and subtle and undeniable direction of the Holy Spirit.If Williams has one theme he wants to sell, it’s his idea of co-inherence. This comes into play in his novels as well, and for all the enjoyable ink he’s spilled on it, I’m still not sure what it means. It revolves around the idea that humans and the Divine can share and experience the qualities of one another. Christ took on our pain and our shame through his crucifixion. His divinity co-inheres with the Father. His divinity somehow also co-inheres with us. When we take on the pain and burdens of others (through empathy or prayer or something more mystical, I’m not sure), we co-inhere with each other. It’s a suitably slippery theme that Williams can trace it throughout the history of the church. I’m not saying he’s wrong. I’m just saying its a vague and slippery idea.If I sound like I’m faulting Williams for trying to nail jello to a wall, I’m really not. This was a very enjoyable and well-crafted book, if you simply enjoy it for what it is: intellectual history by a guy who wrote very well, thought very well, and could hold his own with the likes of Tolkien and Lewis. But historians like to work with concrete dates and events and texts. Scientists like concrete concepts and evidence. Intellectual history sort of floats over both of these, much more the literary creation of a literary mind (an interpretation of history and the evolution of the church) than pure scholarship. More art than history.Which is, again, okay. In the end, all we really have are our own interpretations of history. Our own ideas of how we got to where we are. Read this book to get Charles Williams’, which are probably worth more than most.

  • Seymour
    2019-04-30 02:51

    Charles Williams' take on Church History: I found it much harder to understand than his book "Witchcraft", which feels rather like a companion to this work. Nevertheless, I glimpsed much through the shifting clouds of his prose, and what I saw, I liked. Williams does this in his fiction as in his non-fiction: he sees the whole of reality in a different way and hardly bothers to spell it out for his readers. You sort of go along for the ride and the stuff he says about the passing vistas makes you see them as he does for a few breathless moments that seem to invoke a Jungian sense of 'oneness'.On discovering huge gaps in my understanding of classical thought, literature and history, I have only been provoked to read more and explore further. Centrally, though, I'm broadly comforted by Williams' essential recasting of the bloody, shameful and dark moments in Christian history. His vision enables him to discern God at work in diverse and contradictory movements, frequently pitted against each other. Central to this is his unique theological formulation of 'co-inherence' - that process by which humankind incubates the Kingdom of God.There is a lot of assumed knowledge he expects in his readers, which makes some parts of the text almost inaccessible to those outside the orbit of his intellect (including me). However, a bit of background in Williams' theology, namely the formulations of co-inherence and the 'Way of Affirmation' versus the 'Negative Way', will open up much of this to a new reader, as will a prior reading of Dante's 'The Divine Comedy'. I will strive to be equal to a second reading of this book when I come to it, and in the meantime I have copied out a good few of Williams' perfectly turned phrases to chew on and extended my reading list for the coming year.

  • Christopher
    2019-05-19 04:30

    A unique and worthwhile (if somewhat problematic) book. It's quite a conceit to try to tell a history of the church in a scant 275 pages, and if Williams doesn't succeed masterfully, he succeeds well enough to make it worthwhile. To get the problems out of the way, William's writing is as turgid and confusing as usual. It's also only understandable if you already know what he's talking about, sometimes on a very deep level, which means that while some chapters are silver others you basically just have to get through. In short, as usual, Williams doesn't take proper care of his readers.That said, this is still a good history for several reasons. First, Williams' poetic angle (i.e. not disciplined historian) sheds real light on the past, and seems to make the present and past come together in a beautiful union. Secondly, although it sometimes feels like going through a rummage sale, the work is scattered throughout with real pieces of interpretive gold, for example, his creative and lovely history of the church during the time of Acts.Finally, and most importantly, Williams is the right kind of ecumenist. As Leithart might say it, Williams clearly believes that, "The church is the church." He honors his Mother Kirk, and never pits her members against each other. He clearly sees that different times, philosophies, and ways are all a result of the Holy Spirit's work in the church. So while he is able to recognize error, he recognizes it in such a way as to redeem it, and place it within the Spirit's dispensation. Recommended, but only if needlessly difficult/confusing writing doesn't drive you batty.

  • James
    2019-04-22 01:45

    This is the absinthe-binge of reading in Church history: you don't recommend it, you just buckle in and go for it and hope you don't regret it too much in the morning.I hope that doesn't sound patronizing: I certainly don't "know better" than Charles Williams. It's more whistling in the dark, because you don't read Charles Williams to set your feet on the firm rock of fact. You do it because, after amassing all the facts, you're anxious to feel the rocks shift dramatically, to unleash the kinetic energy of all of that fact. Once you let Williams get going, you have little choice but to hang on tight.Because he rarely cites sources, you're going to come across all kinds of weird and often mind-blowing assertions here. A good bit of the time, after living with some strange fact for a decade or so, you'll realize that Williams was right, or wrong, or (more often) romancing his sources. But if you don't feel a tingle reading him, you might want to look into your soul to make sure it's functioning rightly.

  • Jay
    2019-05-08 01:48

    Surely the most underrated author of the 20th Century, Charles Williams was a member of the illustrious "Inklings" of Oxford. While J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are far more famous, they both admired the virtuosity and beautiful writing skill in their beloved friend Charles Williams.Among his greatest works, The Descent of the Dove is the glorious story of the Holy Spirit's work in the visible Church and how He, through her, begat astonishing change in the World as well.Williams narrative is well-paced and artfully written. In fact, it is said that the great poet W.H. Auden very much admired Williams and re-read this book every year.Some might find it a bit challenging if they are largely ignorant of early Church history. But for those who love God and great writing, this is a real treasure.Five Stars, easily.

  • Scott Barber
    2019-05-05 04:47

    Charles William's gives us a very different Church History, one than moves like a rush of wind through the developments of Christendom, never stopping anywhere very long, but weaving a thread through it all, the thread of "co-inherence" and of "my Eros is crucified." This is essential historical reading, mainly because it is so perspectival. There is no pretence; this is William's spirited and helpful view of it all, and he tells it that way. Watch him ignore and disdain giants you love, and respect him all the more for it. Watch him all the time maintain a balance in perspective an narrative that only comes through deep orthodoxy.

  • Tim
    2019-04-29 03:37

    The Descent of the Dove mixes great commentary, poetic language, and sentences that jump out at you with a strong opinion that you should disagree with at some time in the narrative, narrow focus, and a seventy+ year old understanding of the history of the life of the church that rarely felt prophetic. Please do not make this your first or only entry into the topic of church history (if you do much of it will probably be incomprehensible anyway), read it responsibly after having a few opinions of your own.

  • Sherry Thompson
    2019-04-28 22:27

    I was reading this and hope to get back to it eventually.It's a bit involved, but I'm sure it will be worth it in the long run--I love Charles Williams.I stopped reading this almost as soon as I made the original note. Still hope to get back to it! I love CW's spiritual thriller novels, and I really want to get into his nonfiction!Just as with "The Problem of Pain", I ended up putting this reading on hold. I'm now "lying" and saying I finished it. After all this time, I would need to begin over again, something that isn't likely to happen any time soon.

  • David
    2019-04-25 21:30

    If you know nothing about the history of Christianity, then read another book and then come back to this one. Not an event-by-event account of the church in time, it instead follows movements and developments of thought. Williams' language is almost poetic, at times dense, but definitely unique. Learned, theological, and chiefly concerned with the co-inherence of God and man, Williams presents the story of Christianity like no one else.

  • Faith
    2019-05-21 00:31

    Clearly, the Holy Spirit is leading the world into the Anglican Communion. Other than that, an interesting book, and worth reading whatever your denominational background. It's an overview of church history, but theologically motivated, so more interested in orthodoxy than quite a few more historyish histories.

  • Leandro Guimarães
    2019-04-27 20:44

    Intriguing, will have to go back to it later.

  • Erik Graff
    2019-05-20 01:41

    I enjoyed this rather idiosyncratic church history more than the novels written by Williams and probably would have appreciated the latter more if I'd read this first.

  • Justin Wiggins
    2019-04-24 20:26

    An epic theological read by one of the members of the Inklings.

  • Diane
    2019-05-08 02:35

    Charles Williams' history of the Church brings his unique voice to non-fiction. He has great insight into how philosophical questions shaped the Church's development and continue to do so.

  • Ruth
    2019-05-14 04:26

    mega goed boek. zoiets heb ik nog nooit gelezen. je moet wel al vrij veel van kerkgeschiedenis afweten om er iets van te begrijpen , en ik begrijp zeker niet alles, maar ik vond het heel erg mooi

  • Chris Schutte
    2019-04-25 23:24

    A brilliantly written exploration of church history as the history of the descent of the Holy Spirit.

  • Noonie
    2019-05-16 23:28

    A short review of Christendom by a poet, with an emphasis on those times in history when the Holy Spirit adjusted the rudder of complacency both in the Church and in her people.