Topic: Rowan Williams talks about Christianity in a thousand years

[samkim]

I heard a quote some where from Rowan Williams saying that he thought that in a thousand years, the only Christian confessions remaining would be Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Charismatic Christianity.

Does anyone know where it's from?? Has anyone else heard this quote?

[Asteriktos]

I hadn't heard the quote before, and unfortunately didn't see anything with an internet search either. Sorry!

[SoleRedemption]

Honestly, even if he didn't say that, it doesn't seem like an unlikely prediction. Heck, I give the mainline Protestant denominations about 200 years more.

[Sakeneko]

Dr. Rowan Williams has not been a particularly effective Archbishop of Canterbury, and his theology is quite liberal, but he's a brilliant and perceptive thinker.  I would absolutely love to have dinner with him sometime.

He might well be right with this prediction.

[Shlomlokh]

Honestly, even if he didn't say that, it doesn't seem like an unlikely prediction. Heck, I give the mainline Protestant denominations about 200 years more.

That's awfully generous!

In Christ,
Andrew

[deusveritasest]

I don't see the OO disappearing. But by then they may very well be one with the EO.

[jnorm888]

I heard a quote some where from Rowan Williams saying that he thought that in a thousand years, the only Christian confessions remaining would be Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Charismatic Christianity.

Does anyone know where it's from?? Has anyone else heard this quote?

If he truely said that then he's probably right.










ICXC NIKA

[scamandrius]

Protestant denominations will die out within the next 100 years.  I'm sure that Dr. Williams said this to create necessary fear that the constant obliteration of the tenets of basic Christianity within worldwide Anglicanism, especially in the states and also in England, as well as within the other mainline Protestant denomiations will leave Christianity without a Protestant factor, which I won't complain about.  However I doubt he'll do anything within his own church to stop this decay.

[Asteriktos]

Poor Rowan Williams. He's handed the captaincy at a time when the ship had already began sinking, and then people complain that he is a bad captain. Not that he helped the cause any, but still, I'm not sure what he could have done...

Also, I don't think Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. will die out in a few centuries. It is true that many early Christian groups died out in the first millenium, but that was in a very different situation, compared to what we have going on these days.

[Tzimis]

 My feeling is that as time progresses more and more people will be weaved off of Christianity in favor of a much quicker fix. "Pharmaceuticals" being the more likely candidate but not limited to custom genetic enhancement at conception. You see, Medicine just doesn't believe in a soul and people put a lot of trust in doctors today. Selling drugs is a very profitably business today.

[Vlad]

My feeling is that as time progresses more and more people will be weaved off of Christianity in favor of a much quicker fix. "Pharmaceuticals" being the more likely candidate but not limited to custom genetic enhancement at conception. You see, Medicine just doesn't believe in a soul and people put a lot of trust in doctors today. Selling drugs is a very profitably business today.

I think people will always be looking for "religion" and "Mysticism" I dont think drugs will ever completely fulfill that need.

[Tzimis]

My feeling is that as time progresses more and more people will be weaved off of Christianity in favor of a much quicker fix. "Pharmaceuticals" being the more likely candidate but not limited to custom genetic enhancement at conception. You see, Medicine just doesn't believe in a soul and people put a lot of trust in doctors today. Selling drugs is a very profitably business today.

I think people will always be looking for "religion" and "Mysticism" I dont think drugs will ever completely fulfill that need.

Everybody is different I guess. I went into religion for various other reasons and found mysticism. Go figure.

[Ebor]

I think that Cantuar++ is trying to do what is right to hold the Anglican Communion together, some how.  He is not using his office to further personal preferences. 

That being said, unless there can be some verifiable citation found that he really said what is mentioned in the OP and what the context is of said quote, I would submit that we don't know if this is true, false or something that has not been transmitted clearly and properly.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable or a pedant, but I am interested in the truth.

Ebor

[Liz]

I think that Cantuar++ is trying to do what is right to hold the Anglican Communion together, some how.  He is not using his office to further personal preferences. 

That being said, unless there can be some verifiable citation found that he really said what is mentioned in the OP and what the context is of said quote, I would submit that we don't know if this is true, false or something that has not been transmitted clearly and properly.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable or a pedant, but I am interested in the truth.

Ebor

Sorry, Ebor, I didn't mean any disrespect. I wouldn't want to imply that Williams is using his office for personal preferences. But I do think his skills in academic theology aren't quite matched by the way he acts as head of the Anglican Communion.

For what it's worth, I have just spent about 1 hour searching on the net (ok, I may have been sidetracked into comments Williams did make, as well as this one), and I'm not finding anything of this. Perhaps the OP could tell us where/when he heard it? It's quite hard to narrow a search on these terms.

[samkim]

So, no one knows where the quote is from, huh?

[stashko]

Question ? Why doesn't the Queen Of England Step in and create changes, in the anglican church for the better ....Does she have that authority being Head of the Church, or was that taken  away from her and she's just a figure head....

[John of the North]

The Queen has that authority but chooses to bend to the will of her people.

[GabrieltheCelt]

The Queen has that authority but chooses to bend to the will of her people.

Because they would revolt against the changes.  People always do.  So then the real answer is: she's just a figure head.  She has no real authority because if you're afraid of what will happen, you've lost power. 

[Tallitot]

That's assuming Betty Windsor disagrees with the current changes in the C of E. Theoretically Mrs. Windsor could dismiss the current Archbishop of Canterbury, in fact all Cof E bishops. In practice she only appoints bishops "on advice of the prime minister" (in other words, she does as she's told.) She does have the right to confidential, unminuted meetings with the PM, and other officials, including the AB of C. She could be making her views known to them, but no one knows what those views might be.  Given that she is constitutionally required to remain politically neutral, and that some Anglican bishops still sit in Lords, dismissing them on her own would open quite a kettle of fish for her.

[John of the North]

HM Elizabeth DOES disagree with the path that the C of E is on. As does the Crown Prince.

[stashko]

The Queen has that authority but chooses to bend to the will of her people.

Because they would revolt against the changes.  People always do.  So then the real answer is: she's just a figure head.  She has no real authority because if you're afraid of what will happen, you've lost power. 

I guess that old saying is true then as it is now, if you don't use it you lose it.... The church really need reforms badly for the better even if it means loosing it's rebelious liberal members...

Just to sit back and watch her church disintergrate, before her eyes when she could of done something to prevent it but didn't......hummm

[genesisone]

Question ? Why doesn't the Queen Of England Step in and create changes, in the anglican church for the better ....Does she have that authority being Head of the Church, or was that taken  away from her and she's just a figure head....

I believe that the Queen's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England is an administrative one - appointment of bishops, etc., rather than doctrinal. It also has to be noted that her role applies ONLY to England (and I believe Wales), not to the entire Anglican Communion.

(I'd like to go on a bit of a rant and point out that there hasn't been Queen of England since Queen Anne three hundred years ago, but is correctly Queen of the United Kingdom etc. etc. - but that takes us outside this forum's purpose  )

[genesisone]

That's assuming Betty Windsor disagrees with the current changes in the C of E. Theoretically Mrs. Windsor could dismiss the current Archbishop of Canterbury, in fact all Cof E bishops. In practice she only appoints bishops "on advice of the prime minister" (in other words, she does as she's told.) She does have the right to confidential, unminuted meetings with the PM, and other officials, including the AB of C. She could be making her views known to them, but no one knows what those views might be.  Given that she is constitutionally required to remain politically neutral, and that some Anglican bishops still sit in Lords, dismissing them on her own would open quite a kettle of fish for her.

I find the terms by which you refer to Her Majesty the Queen to be insulting and offensive. Please be respectful.

[GabrieltheCelt]

as people who approve of gay unions women Priests and other forms of heterodoxy

*sigh*

So you would consider these things Orthodox?

I think they're mostly neither here nor there. I personally approve of monogamous homosexual unions and see no reason women should not be priests. I know that the Church has no likewise official position;

Which 'Church'?  And who is and isn't 'Orthodox'?  What does that even mean?

[Tallitot]

HM Elizabeth DOES disagree with the path that the C of E is on. As does the Crown Prince.

Since the Paramount Chief of Fiji scrupulously keeps her opinions to herself, no one really knows that for sure. Since her job (and civil list) depend on her keeping her trap shut, she'll do just that.

[John of the North]

There is nothing in her job description that requires her to be silent.

Her position on the C of E is quite apparent, as indicated in the article I posted a few weeks ago.

Just because she is not taking a heavyhanded approach, and just because she does not make such discussions public, does not mean she is not pushing her bishops to make changes.

[Tallitot]

There is nothing in her job description that requires her to be silent.

Her position on the C of E is quite apparent, as indicated in the article I posted a few weeks ago.

Just because she is not taking a heavyhanded approach, and just because she does not make such discussions public, does not mean she is not pushing her bishops to make changes.

English constitutional convention requires her to remain publically neutral and act only on advice of her ministers.

[samkim]

 

No one knows...

[genesisone]

HM Elizabeth DOES disagree with the path that the C of E is on. As does the Crown Prince.

Since the Paramount Chief of Fiji scrupulously keeps her opinions to herself, no one really knows that for sure. Since her job (and civil list) depend on her keeping her trap shut, she'll do just that.

Please explain why you believe anyone here should pay attention to any of your statements when you resort to offensive terms.

[Tallitot]

HM Elizabeth DOES disagree with the path that the C of E is on. As does the Crown Prince.

Since the Paramount Chief of Fiji scrupulously keeps her opinions to herself, no one really knows that for sure. Since her job (and civil list) depend on her keeping her trap shut, she'll do just that.

Please explain why you believe anyone here should pay attention to any of your statements when you resort to offensive terms.

What offensive term? You asked me to refer to her by proper title and "Paramount Chief of Fiji" is one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Chief_of_Fiji
 My statements about the British monarch's constitutional role are factually correct.

[Asteriktos]

No one knows...

It appears that way. I even flipped through the small book that I have by Rowan Williams (Ponder These Things), on the off chance that the quote would be in there, but I came up with nothin'.

[Ortho_cat]

I heard a quote some where from Rowan Williams saying that he thought that in a thousand years, the only Christian confessions remaining would be Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Charismatic Christianity.

This is definitely the wildcard here. Does anyone else think Charismaticism will stick around, and if so, why?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Orthodox like beards and don't like pews...pretty cut and dry.

About as cut and dry as headcoverings in North America.  Out with the old, in with the new!

As far as "Charismatic" Christianity, I would say that some superficially link it with the ancient traditions because of its emphasis on the sensory experience of God.  Many incorrectly assume that Orthodoxy is about mystical experiences or something like that, when in reality it is about ascetic struggle toward theosis.  Any visions or experiences in Orthodoxy are always suspect, and seldom celebrated.  The demons can work wonders just as well as the angels.

[Asteriktos]

This is definitely the wildcard here. Does anyone else see Charismaticism sticking around, and if so, why?

Fr. Seraphim Rose did, though I'm not sure why other than theorizing that it would be part of a one world religion or ran by antichrist or something along those lines (it's been years since I read his books). I think the charismatic movement will stick around, but I don't think it'll be considered one of the larger groups a few hundred years from now. It'll probably still have millions of adherents, though, like it has now.  I see it as a niche religious grouping, and there will probably always be people who are attracted to that niche. I don't think that the 77 million Anglican/Episcopalians are going anywhere either, though obviously the number will dwindle if that Church fractures more than it already has. But I could very well be wrong about all of this, who knows?

[Alveus Lacuna]

But I could very well be wrong about all of this, who knows?

Just gaze into your crystal ball... 

[Asteriktos]

Just gaze into your crystal ball... 

I can't, I threw it into the waterfall to the south of town!

Sorry, that reference is probably way too obscure, unless you've played a certain Japanese RPG.

In any event, I can pontificate without a crystal ball, but a disclaimer at the end is always nice

[Entscheidungsproblem]

^^  Wow, is that a Dragon Quest 8 reference? 

Edit:

Personally, I see most of the groups mentioned dying out or turning into very isolated, fringe groups.  In terms of religion/spirituality, I see more of a shift toward pantheistic or animistic beliefs.

And to address the OP, I cannot recall reading anything by the current Archbishop of Canterbury along those lines.

[Asteriktos]

Wow, is that a Dragon Quest 8 reference? 

You got it 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Call me old fashioned, but I'm going to predict the immanent return of the Christ and the coming of a new heaven and a new earth.  I'll also predict all sufferings, falsehoods and sorrows ending for those who love God.

[deusveritasest]

If it happens, it should be the result of a sense of being called by God,

This is a trend within Anglicanism that I find slightly disturbing. It seems that Anglicans perceive an individuals call to the Priesthood as something that they discern for themselves, rather than something that is discerned by the Church. Even if the Church is required to consent to the call, it is either done as simply a consent or non-consent to the call, or as a second source of discernment that may be in conflict with the individuals. The notion that the individual should discern the call themselves in conjunction with the Church never seems to cross their minds.

[deusveritasest]

I see. Well, like it or not they are both condemned by our Church, and therefore are heretical.

The idea that the Church (EOC or OOC [you confusingly said "our Church" when I identify as OO and you as EO])has ecumenically condemned either ordination of women or same-sex unions has never been supported with evidence sufficient to convince me. And many have tried.

[deusveritasest]

Question ? Why doesn't the Queen Of England Step in and create changes, in the anglican church for the better ....Does she have that authority being Head of the Church, or was that taken  away from her and she's just a figure head....

Another thing to remember is that the only authority the Queen could possibly exercise would only extend to the Church of England; she has no authority over any of the other 37 provinces of the Anglican Communion.

[deusveritasest]

HM Elizabeth DOES disagree with the path that the C of E is on. As does the Crown Prince.

What do you mean by that?

[genesisone]

HM Elizabeth DOES disagree with the path that the C of E is on. As does the Crown Prince.

Since the Paramount Chief of Fiji scrupulously keeps her opinions to herself, no one really knows that for sure. Since her job (and civil list) depend on her keeping her trap shut, she'll do just that.

Please explain why you believe anyone here should pay attention to any of your statements when you resort to offensive terms.

What offensive term? You asked me to refer to her by proper title and "Paramount Chief of Fiji" is one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Chief_of_Fiji
 My statements about the British monarch's constitutional role are factually correct.

The Paramount Chief of Fiji has no role in the CofE so why use it? It is clear that you have taken to mocking all of HM's titles and styles. I do object to "keeping her trap shut". I would not allow my children to speak to each other that way.

[Tallitot]

Perhaps it's time for the C of E to be disestablished, freeing it from any government entanglement.