There appears to be only one Reformed Confession of the16th and 17th centuries that specifically addresses the Office of Pastor and Doctor and that is The Confession of Tarcal (1562)and Torda (1653) which you can find in Dennison’s 4-volume work “Reformed Confessions of the16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation” (vol.2 p 731). This quite clearly locates the Offices in the Church and for the Church and there is no suggestion that a Doctor can be in any way not involved in the everyday life of the Church. He is not parachuted in but rather grows out of his calling and endorsed by the congregation and elders. That’s why Calvin was a pastor and doctor and we should aim to follow the highest and best examples rather than think they are “too good for the likes of us.”
A second problem is the idea of “patronage”. Patronage has had an unfortunate history and has caused much disruption and bloodshed in the Church in the UK over hundreds of years. The very idea that such a name should ever be used will cause many to look askance at the proposal.
There is also the problem that the distinction between Church and State (in its widest sense) is blurred or done away with.
I hope you don’t mind my comment. I came across your article in a new Calvinist website - Challies.com - and thought the idea odd.
One final thought which I hope will establish that I am genuine.
The Rev David Robertson, a minister and former Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, set up his blog, TheWeeFlea.com, after a well-publicised debate between himself and Richard Dawkins.
He also set up solas-cps.org which is currently run by the Rev Andy Bannister.
Mr Robertson moved to Australia a few years ago to take up a position with Third Space.org.au and is currently working with the evangelical Anglican Church there.
It might be worthwhile inviting them to participate with you.
A fascinating article that raises many questions. I'm struggling to think of the kind of evangelical public intellectual you have in mind. You mention there are a few current ones; can you name some of them in order to illustrate the type of contribution you envisage nurturing?
I have no doubt as you say that there are tons of public intellectuals on the Catholic side, because from the get go they built their own educational infrastructure in contradistinction to the "mainstream" schools and universities which started broadly Protestant/Christian (reflecting the then demand) but now, at least in America, are mostly anything but. In the US, Robert George and Daniel Mahoney are names from off the top of my head on the Catholic side. Again, can you name a few Catholic modern-day "doctors of the church" along with a general evaluation of their impact (if any) on contemporary life?
To what extent are the recent "old" books and "old" thinkers adequate (Stott, Packer et al)? Do they even count as public intellectuals or are they the "pastors working overtime" you describe? Is it possible that if there is to be a revival of evangelical scholarship there needs first to be vital spiritual renewal within the evangelical church?
I think one example of our few standalone intellectuals would be John Wyatt (disclaimer, he's a friend) - hugely successful career as a neonatologist, alongside which he developed his work as a writer and ethicist, and he now gives himself over to that kind of work full time. John is perhaps a rare example of an evangelical figure who is always an actual public intellectual among the general public (although I'm sure he'd be the first to say he's not a household name). But he gets invited onto the BBC, serves as a professional witness in court etc.
In terms of Catholic modern day public intellectuals outside the US (which I think is what you're asking?), you might consider Sebastian Morello at The European Conservative or Tim Stanley (both of whom spoke at NatCon).
In terms of the old books - I think the works of Stott etc are far past their sell-by date sadly, although there is doubtless some wisdom to be had there. I also think that our current wave of theological retrival is highlighting what were always some significant shortcomings in the likes of Stott too.
Stott's status (as in, what exactly was he?) is a curious one - people forget that he was only actually Rector of All Souls until 1975. For most of the work for which he's known, he was Rector Emeritus and devoted to his wider teaching and writing ministry. So he wasn't fitting it in alongside the general work of parish life. It's to All Souls' eternal credit that he was afforded such a role. The vast majority of his work was however pitched at a very popular level however; I think what I have in mind is work done in a higher register.
In terms of spiritual renewal preceding scholarly renewal - I don't know that I'd presume it has to be one way round or the other. Erasmus' scholarly work on the Greek NT surely preceded the spiritual renewal of the Reformation, right?
There appears to be only one Reformed Confession of the16th and 17th centuries that specifically addresses the Office of Pastor and Doctor and that is The Confession of Tarcal (1562)and Torda (1653) which you can find in Dennison’s 4-volume work “Reformed Confessions of the16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation” (vol.2 p 731). This quite clearly locates the Offices in the Church and for the Church and there is no suggestion that a Doctor can be in any way not involved in the everyday life of the Church. He is not parachuted in but rather grows out of his calling and endorsed by the congregation and elders. That’s why Calvin was a pastor and doctor and we should aim to follow the highest and best examples rather than think they are “too good for the likes of us.”
A second problem is the idea of “patronage”. Patronage has had an unfortunate history and has caused much disruption and bloodshed in the Church in the UK over hundreds of years. The very idea that such a name should ever be used will cause many to look askance at the proposal.
There is also the problem that the distinction between Church and State (in its widest sense) is blurred or done away with.
I hope you don’t mind my comment. I came across your article in a new Calvinist website - Challies.com - and thought the idea odd.
Best wishes
A Covenanter
One final thought which I hope will establish that I am genuine.
The Rev David Robertson, a minister and former Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, set up his blog, TheWeeFlea.com, after a well-publicised debate between himself and Richard Dawkins.
He also set up solas-cps.org which is currently run by the Rev Andy Bannister.
Mr Robertson moved to Australia a few years ago to take up a position with Third Space.org.au and is currently working with the evangelical Anglican Church there.
It might be worthwhile inviting them to participate with you.
Best wishes
A Covenanter
1553 not 1653. Apologies
A fascinating article that raises many questions. I'm struggling to think of the kind of evangelical public intellectual you have in mind. You mention there are a few current ones; can you name some of them in order to illustrate the type of contribution you envisage nurturing?
I have no doubt as you say that there are tons of public intellectuals on the Catholic side, because from the get go they built their own educational infrastructure in contradistinction to the "mainstream" schools and universities which started broadly Protestant/Christian (reflecting the then demand) but now, at least in America, are mostly anything but. In the US, Robert George and Daniel Mahoney are names from off the top of my head on the Catholic side. Again, can you name a few Catholic modern-day "doctors of the church" along with a general evaluation of their impact (if any) on contemporary life?
To what extent are the recent "old" books and "old" thinkers adequate (Stott, Packer et al)? Do they even count as public intellectuals or are they the "pastors working overtime" you describe? Is it possible that if there is to be a revival of evangelical scholarship there needs first to be vital spiritual renewal within the evangelical church?
Great questions!
I think one example of our few standalone intellectuals would be John Wyatt (disclaimer, he's a friend) - hugely successful career as a neonatologist, alongside which he developed his work as a writer and ethicist, and he now gives himself over to that kind of work full time. John is perhaps a rare example of an evangelical figure who is always an actual public intellectual among the general public (although I'm sure he'd be the first to say he's not a household name). But he gets invited onto the BBC, serves as a professional witness in court etc.
In terms of Catholic modern day public intellectuals outside the US (which I think is what you're asking?), you might consider Sebastian Morello at The European Conservative or Tim Stanley (both of whom spoke at NatCon).
In terms of the old books - I think the works of Stott etc are far past their sell-by date sadly, although there is doubtless some wisdom to be had there. I also think that our current wave of theological retrival is highlighting what were always some significant shortcomings in the likes of Stott too.
Stott's status (as in, what exactly was he?) is a curious one - people forget that he was only actually Rector of All Souls until 1975. For most of the work for which he's known, he was Rector Emeritus and devoted to his wider teaching and writing ministry. So he wasn't fitting it in alongside the general work of parish life. It's to All Souls' eternal credit that he was afforded such a role. The vast majority of his work was however pitched at a very popular level however; I think what I have in mind is work done in a higher register.
In terms of spiritual renewal preceding scholarly renewal - I don't know that I'd presume it has to be one way round or the other. Erasmus' scholarly work on the Greek NT surely preceded the spiritual renewal of the Reformation, right?