Adventists in Montenegro—From the Atheistic Psychosis of Socialism to the Post-socialist Individuation of Adventism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, this second version is an improvement over the first version. The paragraphs dealing with the methodology remain rather limited in detail, as well as little substantiated by current methodological literature. This last critical remark need not prevent publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is fine, and an interesting overlooked area of religious life. There is a mismatch of a large Adventist history, up against a post-socialist country, and then expanded on by a rather small sample of 17 people. There is a lot you can do with 17, and the author does a fine job. But considering how vast the historical context is (170 years) and how broad-ranging (from upstate New York to eastern Europe), the alighting on a small group of informants still seems unbalanced. The author does a good job of resisting too many overarching claims about the study, and is clear that there is more to do. This still needs strong editing of the English, as well as formatting (e.g., problems with block quotes),Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper contains a very interesting pilot study of Adventism in post-socialist Montenegro. It begins with a concise description of the historical context in which religious revitalization occurred, followed by a succinct presentation of the narratives of religious experiences set forth by 17 interviewees. A running theme is the dissatisfaction with Orthodox teachings on the Bible, which constitutes the shared concern of most interviewees and accounts for their eventual conversion to Adventism.
As the author(s) rightly point out, the existing studies on Adventism in Montenegro are relatively thin. With a pilot study, the paper can contribute to the sociology of religious conversion with reference to the peculiar cultural context and political environment of post-socialist countries. Here the role of political and religious socialization is the key factor, as the experience of socialist atheist education together with a growing doubt over Orthodox teaching in the families paved the ground for individual conversion to a small, alternative religion as Adventism.
Granted its scientific value, the paper has to make some minor revisions before getting published. First, section 4 "Research Questions" confuses research questions with interview questions. Properly construed, research questions aim to spell out the broad themes and general relationships that the study purports to tackle. For example, the author(s) can ask whether experience of hardship and anxiety in post-socialist transition was a chief motivating factor behind religious conversion. Instead, the 4 "research questions" on p.5 state the sample questions that were addressed to the interviewees. Accordingly, I would suggest the author(s) rewrite this short section.
The second problem is more substantive. As the author(s) argue, one of the main reasons for post-socialist conversion lies in the quest for meaning amidst the moral void left by socialist rule. I agree with this view, but I cannot find much support from the qualitative findings. The narratives by the interviewees center on their dissatisfaction with Orthodox teaching over the proper interpretation of Bible. To me this is primarily religious motive rather than a frustration with social and economic life. While such religious quest is undoubtedly a reaction against the secular Marxian doctrine of the former socialist regime, it said nothing about the hardship and confusion as experienced by the individuals and propelling them to a path of religious quest. I may miss out something here, but I suggest the author(s) can add more qualitative evidences to strengthen this sociological dimension in telling the stories of the interviewees.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments:
(minor) line 104: Shouldn't the year be 1848 instead of 1948? (major): lines 115 to 134: There is an abrupt transition between the purpose of the investigation and research questions (item 3) and the introduction (item 1) and the history of the Seventh-day Adventists (item 3). Finally, it is only in the middle of the methodological part (item 4) that we get an insight into the reason behind the research (lines 178 to 180). This has to be introduced earlier in the text in order to get a more logical and consistent whole. (major) item 4: research methodology: The whole is sloppily constructed, with disturbing elaborations that are not to the point (lines 170-176 about the theorists: added value? (major) research subjects: How do the 17 respondents relate to the population of believers ? Is the age distribution characteristic or coincidental? What has been the non-response, as well as the reason for it? How did the author arrive at the thematic list as a basis for his semi-structured interviews? What limitations has the author encountered (completely missing from the article), both in terms of literature and empirical research? (minor) Does the author understand the same under semi-structured interviews (line 184) and in-depth interviews (line 445)?Conclusion:
Methdologically, the author still needs to clarify a few things before this article can be published, whereby the finality of the research will certainly be sharpened.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper exposes two most significant problems. First, its main claims are weak and the empirical part is mostly descriptive and does not provide any new insights in sociological knowledge. Second, the development of argumentation is inconsistent throughout the paper, especially in the introductory part. I hereby address these points further.
The authors aimed at giving a historical and somewhat theological background to their study, but in its current form an introduction fails to do so. The introduction of the Montenegro SDA community is way too sketchy while the unnecessary detailed history of global SDA movement (which, however, abruptly ends with 1846) could be reduced to a general overview with respective references. I suggest shifting focus to introducing the Montenegro SDA community properly.
The research objectives and questions lack sufficient explanation which, I believe, could be derived from an introduction of the community. I don't think that "to obtain a real scientific insight" is a good research objective. An objective should ask a question, address a puzzle or a problem, or a social issue, or suggest a hypothesis. Consequently, such a broad objective leaves a reader puzzled about the reasons behind the suggested research questions. I'm not saying the questions are irrelevant or invalid, because I could never know this unless the authors provide them with a justification.
I don't think mixing research and interview questions is a good idea either. It leads to a confusion, and it should be clear to authors, who position themselves as sociologists of religion, that these are two different kinds of questions.
Reacting to the claim in the methodology section ("The sociology of religion is utterly dominated by the studies based on what religion does in society, not what religion means to the individual - the content of internal religious experience."), I would suggest referring to a large corpus of literature on the anthropology of Christianity, dealing precisely with that. I would start with the classical volume "The Anthropology of Christianity" edited by Fenella Cannell (that also contains a chapter on SDA by Eva Keller) and more recent work of Joel Robbins, Simon Coleman, Matthew Engelke, and others. The anthropology of conversion could be of a particular interest to the authors. I would refer to
Buckser, Andrew, and Stephen D. Glazier, eds. 2003. The Anthropology of Religious Conversion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hefner, Robert W. 1993. Conversion to Christianity: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
A volume on post-Socialist conversions — Pelkmans, Mathijs, ed. 2009. Conversion after Socialism: Disruptions, Modernisms, and Technologies of Faith in the Former Soviet Union. New York: Berghahn Books.
The paragraph within the lines 177-217 is too long and detailed. I'd suggest reconsidering the importance of all the details, and in any case, splitting the paragraph into two or three.
230-232 "the respondents, especially females, go a step further in perceiving God. They describe God as someone who is much more than an earthly parent and much more than belief, they call it trust."
Why is it "especially females"? It calls for elaboration.
The biggest problem with the empirical part is that it is absolutely unclear how are the informants' perceptions of God and faith similar or different from other Christian communities or other SDA worldwide? The interview quotations that the authors provide can resonate with any evangelical narrative in any part of the world. Unless there is a comparison, there is nothing one can make of the empirical part of the paper.
The empirical section is rather descriptive, without any thorough analysis, hence the conclusion that follows offers substantially weak arguments, such as "our research shows that there is a strong attachment to God among believers of the Adventist Church. The analysis confirmed that the description of God following the true value aspects was dominant among the respondents." I believe that there is much more specificity of the SDA community in Montenegro, rather than strong articulated believe in God.
Again, since there is no comparison provided, I cannot see anything shared or specific with any other evangelical community, especially with apocalyptic tendencies and post-socialist context. There are numerous studies of those, it would be of a great use for authors to familiarize themselves with them. (See, for instance, Wanner, Catherine. 2007. Communities of the Converted: Ukrainians and Global Evangelism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.)
I suggest significant improvements and rewriting of a big part of the article with a specific emphasis on the flow of argumentation, proper introduction of the community, and deeper analysis of the research materials.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is mostly fine for a journal like Religions. It is a fairly basic, straightforward study that provides descriptions of religiosity in Montenegro among a handful of Adventists.
It's not fully clear what the topic of "secularization" discussed in the first two paragraphs has to contribute. One reads this and then expects the essay to say something more about the topic, but it never does. I'm wondering how all this discussion of Adventism plays out--as it would if the secularization theme were extended--in a socio-political realm. Why is secularization discussed in the opening? What purpose does it serve the rest of the essay? If this cannot be answered, then the opening 2 pars need to be deleted, or rewritten.
Related, for better or worse, the essay sets out a larger socio-political context--discussing secularization and communism, etc--but then the actual data is all about individuals and their relationship with "God." There's a little discussion of the post-Communist setting, and this could be a very interesting element to focus on for a while. So, somehow, links need to be made more explicit between the individual ideas of god and prayer, with the socio-political context.
The final "concluding" paragraph tells the reader nothing. It is so vague as to contribute nothing. Either delete it or, better, rewrite with actual conclusions. The preceding paragraphs (pp. 11-12) are fine for a recap of what was just presented, but some actual "conclusions" would be very welcome. Actually, some actual conclusions, in the form of interpretation of the data, would be vital to this as a critical contribution to scholarly literature.
Good information on the interview process (mostly p. 5). However, I'm not sure that 17 subjects is a fair representation. And it is not clear what "theoretical saturation" is, or how it applies here.
pp. 6-11 contains a lot of data in the form of interview responses. But there is almost no interpretation of the data. And I'm not sure then what is the point of it all.
I'm not sure about the use of the phrase "true religiosity" at a couple points. This is a problematic idea.
Author Response
Please, see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author's adaptations are sufficient for publication.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for positiv rewiev.
With respect
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version of the paper contains lots of revisions, additions, and amendments. However, they leave the impression of being made in a hurry, for the structure of the text suffers from the insertions blurring the logic of the unfolding narrative. Certain parts are directed exclusively to address the reviewers' comments, but are not integrated into the logic of the text itself. However, my main problem with the draft remains the same—it is too descriptive.
The authors tried to improve their research objective (though, in the abstract it remains unchanged), yet the very research question they formulate calls for a mere description:
"...the objective of our research is to find out: In what way do the believers of the Adventist Church in Montenegro perceive God, prayer, and baptism, and what was their religious socialization before the baptism?" (135-137)
This sounds like a practical, rather than a research question. How does this contribute to the current research on Adventism, Christianity, religion, or the region? Which research problems does it address? Is there a paradox, a puzzle, or a peculiarity that could be demonstrated and analyzed with the case of Adventists in Montenegro?
Further on, the authors position their research objective conceptually as the study of religiosity. With this, the authors also justify their interest to the faith in God among their informants as one of the main indicators of religiosity. This is fair enough, yet it cannot be the end goal for an independent study of a given case. The belief in God as an indicator of religiosity works perfectly as an instrument of a measurement on a global scale, for instance, in large-scale statistical surveys. However, in a narrowly focused research projects, such as this one, this should serve as a starting point for a deeper inquiry into the nature of religiosity of this community. Having little knowledge of SDA in Montenegro, I can think of several directions for the analysis:
How do people come to choose the SDA interpretation of Christianity over the multitude of Christian denominations? (these include not only Orthodox or Catholic, but also other Protestant messages) Given that a belief in God is one of the essential criteria, how does this belief differ in SDA and Orthodox narratives? What is the evangelizing narrative and mechanism and why it worked for the converts?
Adventists as Evangelicals. The authors mention the difference in interpretation of the Bible between SDA and Orthodox Christians. This could, and probably should, be elaborated further: Do they read the Bible literally? If yes, how do they interpret it and implement in their lives?
The post-socialist context. What is the specificity of SDA in Montenegro, in the terms of conversion mechanisms and narratives, interpretations of the Bible and theology, lifestyle, gender and family, and self-identification? I have referred to the works on post-socialist conversion, which could be used as a comparative material in this case.
These are just the most obvious directions where the analysis could go, and I believe, there could be more themes or a combination of themes suggested with the knowledge of the region and community that the authors have. At its present state, the paper describes the religiosity of SDA in Montenegro, but does not attempt to attend to "Why?" or "How does it work?" kind of questions. It is unclear, whether there is anything special about the SDA community besides the lack of scholarly attention.
There are some less significant, yet important flaws:
The introduction also leaves the impression of being written in a rush. For instance, it contains such an anachronism as "Adventism has been talked about in Montenegro since 1909. This was the period when the first missionaries of the Adventist Church came to the territories of the former Yugoslav republics..."
The significantly enlarged introduction of the religious context in Montenegro now needs proper structuring.
"Since there have not been papers with similar themes, the comparative analysis is omitted."
This is a bit surprising to read, given that the authors have not still formulated a proper research objective or question. There are myriads of studies on Christian, Protestant, Evangelical, and even Adventist groups, but to recommend anything specific as a comparative material, I would like to see an actual research problem or question that would go beyond a mere description of the Adventist beliefs.
The paragraph on the difference between attitudes to God of men and women basically states that the authors have no answer to the question. They claim that it would be "anachronistic" to suggest that women are more sensitive towards God because of their "psychological traits and abilities," yet they do not offer any other possible explanation.
The paper majorly lacks proper analytical research question, hence its flaws in structure and logical argumentation. I see the best way to address this for the authors is to familiarize themselves with the studies of marginal religious communities, especially the Christian ones, and pay the most attention to the way the research addresses such issues as identity-construction, namely juxtaposition with the dominant religious narrative and a reference to a global community. After that, the authors should come up with a research question or hypothesis, which could be addressed with their field materials. I do not believe, this could be done by adding and omitting certain parts of the text, but rather by rewriting it. At its current state, the paper does not add anything to the well-developed (and hence available for comparison) corpus of research on marginal Christian communities, post-socialist Christianity, and Christian religiosity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been slightly modified, mostly in the form of additional clarification points. I, however, have suggested in the second round of reviews to rewrite the paper completely. The reason I suggested that rather than just rejecting it is the substantial amount of empirical work conducted by the authors.
However, in the present state of the paper I see no perspective or will for substantial improvement of its scholarly quality and I unfortunately have to suggest rejecting the paper for publication. The main reasons for that are as follows:
—The research objectives and analytical argument are insufficient for a quality research publication in the field of sociology of religion
—The presentation of research material, though it lives an impression of a solid amount of data, is superficial and descriptive.
—The response to my previous criticism shows no willingness to get the paper to the high scholarly standards of a research publication.
Just to list the most illuminating examples of the superficiality of the argument:
—The very title of the paper suggests "Some aspects..." as an object of —study
—This part: "Regarding belief in God, Adventists are not different from other confessions in Montenegro. Namely, using the quantitative studies for the sake of comparison, we have concluded that 90% of the Orthodox and 93% of Roman Catholics agree that they should believe in God."
This can be also used as a comparison to Muslims or Jews, and it would bear the same low degree of validity
—Lastly, the abstract of the article still claims that "[t]he paper aims to obtain a real scientific insight...", which is not a good idea for a research article
