Video Gaming Faith: Playing Out Theologies of Religions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I want to compliment the author for his/her excellent article on the theology of religions in combination with the discussion of several video games featuring the different positions one could take within this dicourse.
It is perfectly fine for an article to confine itself to a Christian theological framework (instead of the suggested religion scholarly one) as long as the article makes this clear. And indeed, the author could make this more clearer, but that can be done in two sentences.
It is also perfectly fine for an article on games to use a game-immanent approach ignoring questions surrounding the experiences of individual players. Again, the author coitus make this clearer, but a "text-immanent" approach does not disqualify it by any means. I have published extensively on this methodological matter.
Author Response
Point 1: I want to compliment the author for his/her excellent article on the theology of religions in combination with the discussion of several video games featuring the different positions one could take within this dicourse.
Response 1: I deeply appreciate the kind and encouraging compliment.
Point 2: It is perfectly fine for an article to confine itself to a Christian theological framework (instead of the suggested religion scholarly one) as long as the article makes this clear. And indeed, the author could make this more clearer, but that can be done in two sentences.
Response 2: In light of this point, I added a new "Methods" section to address these concerns and justify taking a Christian viewpoint. I argue that Christianity is the religion that has the greatest need to cultivate interreligious relationality, due to the shift in its geographic center, which situates the majority of Christians in cultures where interreligiosity is the ingrained cultural experience.
Point 3: It is also perfectly fine for an article on games to use a game-immanent approach ignoring questions surrounding the experiences of individual players. Again, the author coitus make this clearer, but a "text-immanent" approach does not disqualify it by any means. I have published extensively on this methodological matter.
Response 3: The "Methods" section briefly explains how this article takes a player-focused approach that is mostly an autoethnographic account of my own experiences playing the games mentioned in the article. Other insights are included, but I did not collect data on other video game players. Since this is mainly an account of my views, I point out that the conclusions of the article should not be generalized to represent all Christians or all gamers. Instead, I choose to emphasize how the article illustrates how play experience – particularly video gaming – contributes a fresh vantage point for any Christian or non-Christian approach to interreligious relationality.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the abstract, the authors disclose that they adopt a Christian perspective, but they do not say that at all in the paper itself, nor do they explain why they make that choice. It is very clear that this is a paper written by, about, and for Christians only. The theology and religious philosophy references are also only to Christians. So, this paper is irrelevant for non-Christians, and that is a major limitation that needs to be both explained and justified.
There is also no explanation of methods in this paper. How did the authors gather the data on video game players and/or the experience of gaming to make the claims they are making here? Is this an autoethnographic account of the authors' own experiences playing video games? If so, what implications does that have for how generalizable their conclusions are? Did they collect data on other video game players? If so, how? And, how do the research design choices they made impact the way readers should interpret the conclusions? It's very difficult to determine academic rigor when there is no explanation of how or why they are making the claims they are making.
Related to both points above, the authors make some generalizations in their conclusions that do not distinguish between Christians and non-Christians. Are they claiming that their conclusions apply to all video game players? What kind of research have they done to instill confidence in the reader that what they present here based on more than their own experiences playing video games?
Author Response
Point 1: In the abstract, the authors disclose that they adopt a Christian perspective, but they do not say that at all in the paper itself, nor do they explain why they make that choice. It is very clear that this is a paper written by, about, and for Christians only. The theology and religious philosophy references are also only to Christians. So, this paper is irrelevant for non-Christians, and that is a major limitation that needs to be both explained and justified.
Response 1: In light of this point, I added a new "Methods" section to address these concerns and justify taking a Christian viewpoint. I argue that Christianity is the religion that has the greatest need to cultivate interreligious relationality, due to the shift in its geographic center, which situates the majority of Christians in cultures where interreligiosity is the ingrained cultural experience.
Point 2: There is also no explanation of methods in this paper. How did the authors gather the data on video game players and/or the experience of gaming to make the claims they are making here? Is this an autoethnographic account of the authors' own experiences playing video games? If so, what implications does that have for how generalizable their conclusions are? Did they collect data on other video game players? If so, how? And, how do the research design choices they made impact the way readers should interpret the conclusions? It's very difficult to determine academic rigor when there is no explanation of how or why they are making the claims they are making.
Response 2: The "Methods" section briefly explains how this article takes a player-focused approach that is mostly an autoethnographic account of my own experiences playing the games mentioned in the article. Other insights are included, but I did not collect data on other video game players. Since this is mainly an account of my views, I point out that the conclusions of the article should not be generalized to represent all Christians or all gamers. Instead, I choose to emphasize how the article illustrates how play experience – particularly video gaming – contributes a fresh vantage point for any Christian or non-Christian approach to interreligious relationality.
Point 3: Related to both points above, the authors make some generalizations in their conclusions that do not distinguish between Christians and non-Christians. Are they claiming that their conclusions apply to all video game players? What kind of research have they done to instill confidence in the reader that what they present here based on more than their own experiences playing video games?
Response 3: In light of this valid point, I emphasize in the newly-added "Methods" section that these conclusions are my own, and should not be generalized to to represent all Christians or all gamers. As such, I point out that the video game experiencing of interreligious relationality is not confined to the major Christian theologies of religion, nor is it limited to the video game examples covered in this article. I offer the article as a launchpad for other Christian and non-Christian explorations of the video game experiences of interreligious relationality.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to commend you on your article as it is well constructed and thoughtful in its approach to religiosity and video-gaming. I especially liked your breaking down the experiences through the lenses of: exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, and Trinitarianism.
Just a couple of comments for you to consider:
Abstract: in the first sentence you state "...pluarlity requires" - can you qualify t he requirement? I think it perhaps would be better to state that it "challenges" us to or invites as requirement tends to state that this is an absolute demand - consider wordsmithing this.
For the Trinitarianism: I just wanted to point out that Katherine Smidt has written some on presence and absence/virtual communion - in her work: Virtual Communion - that I think would be a good expansion of the work that you have done here. So although I would not change this section as it is now, I just wanted to note that there is some work taking place in this niche academic study that I think you could expand upon here and perhaps flesh out more.
Author Response
Point 1: I would like to commend you on your article as it is well constructed and thoughtful in its approach to religiosity and video-gaming. I especially liked your breaking down the experiences through the lenses of: exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, and Trinitarianism.
Response 1: I deeply appreciate the kind and encouraging commendation.
Point 2:
Just a couple of comments for you to consider:
Abstract: in the first sentence you state "...pluarlity requires" - can you qualify t he requirement? I think it perhaps would be better to state that it "challenges" us to or invites as requirement tends to state that this is an absolute demand - consider wordsmithing this.
Response 2: I decided to change the phrase "...plurality requires" to "...plurality invites..." to avoid implying an absolute demand, and to subtly foreshadow the playful opportunities which the article describes.
Point 3: For the Trinitarianism: I just wanted to point out that Katherine Smidt has written some on presence and absence/virtual communion - in her work: Virtual Communion - that I think would be a good expansion of the work that you have done here. So although I would not change this section as it is now, I just wanted to note that there is some work taking place in this niche academic study that I think you could expand upon here and perhaps flesh out more.
Response 3: The suggestion to read Katherine G. Schmidt is deeply appreciated. I will follow your suggestion to not change the section, but keep her work in mind for future explorations of Trinitarianism.
Point 4: Please address especially some of the poignant concerns of First Reviewer. It is very important to highlight that this article is especially targeted to Christian readers.
Response 4: I created a new "Methods" section that explains the reason for taking the Christian viewpoint, a warning to not generalize the conclusions to represent all Christians or gamers or to confine video game experiences of interreligious relationality to the major Christian theologies of religion or the games included in the article, and an opportunity for this article to be a launchpad for future Christian and non-Christian considerations of video game experiences of interreligious relationality.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have accepted the article in the previous version. I maintain my verdict.
Author Response
Point 1: I have accepted the article in the previous version. I maintain my verdict.
Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on my article.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the two new paragraphs added, the author now explains the research design as autoethnographic, but does not engage any qualitative research literature to explain what that is or to even demonstrate that they themselves know what autoethnography is. Autoethnography isn't just label you can just apply to something to indicate that you're writing something based on your own opinions and experiences; it's a serious method of inquiry that requires thought and intention. What scholarly literature are you using to guide your process for conducting this autoethnography? What data did you use? Did you keep a journal? Did you make voice notes? Are there other artifacts you analyzed? None of this is explained, even in the new methods section, so it is still very unclear what research was actually done here.
I appreciate the new acknowledgement that the study applies only a Christian perspective, but in that acknowledgement, the author's explanations are not supported by citations. For instance, the author says that it is their opinion that Christianity is the religion that needs this the most... but why? I don't disagree on this point, but this statement still needs to be further explained and supported by data. Is your personal opinion about Christianity reflective of larger trends that religion scholars have documented? Another example of a point that needs to be cited is the statement that the geographical center of Christianity has shifted. Is this just what you think, or can you point to some empirical data that shows this? Overall, this new methods section lacks any engagement with scholarly literature. There is not a single citation in the two new paragraphs.
Lastly, while the author claims in their note not to be suggesting that this research is generalizable to non-Christians, they have not revised the parts of the paper that do imply they are suggesting this is generalizable to non-Christians. So, this concern of mine has not been addressed.
Author Response
Point 1: In the two new paragraphs added, the author now explains the research design as autoethnographic, but does not engage any qualitative research literature to explain what that is or to even demonstrate that they themselves know what autoethnography is. Autoethnography isn't just label you can just apply to something to indicate that you're writing something based on your own opinions and experiences; it's a serious method of inquiry that requires thought and intention. What scholarly literature are you using to guide your process for conducting this autoethnography? What data did you use? Did you keep a journal? Did you make voice notes? Are there other artifacts you analyzed? None of this is explained, even in the new methods section, so it is still very unclear what research was actually done here.
Response 1: In light of this point, I expanded the "Methods" section even further to 1) establish the line of scholars who influenced my move to situate my own video gaming experience within a larger theological framework, 2) explain how I use the term autoethnography in a way that acknowledges its history and is consistent with definitions and insights from the scholarly literature of autoethnographers such as Christopher Poulous, Laurel Richardson, Leon Anderson and others, and 3) identify the particular autoethnographic approach that I undertake, being more of an "analytic autoethnography" and less of an "evocative/emotional autoethnography." I also briefly identify the data used and artifacts examined.
Point 2: I appreciate the new acknowledgement that the study applies only a Christian perspective, but in that acknowledgement, the author's explanations are not supported by citations. For instance, the author says that it is their opinion that Christianity is the religion that needs this the most... but why? I don't disagree on this point, but this statement still needs to be further explained and supported by data. Is your personal opinion about Christianity reflective of larger trends that religion scholars have documented? Another example of a point that needs to be cited is the statement that the geographical center of Christianity has shifted. Is this just what you think, or can you point to some empirical data that shows this? Overall, this new methods section lacks any engagement with scholarly literature. There is not a single citation in the two new paragraphs.
Response 2: In light of this point, I expanded the sentence that made this claim into a comprehensively cited paragraph in multilayered conversation with historical, geographical, and theological scholarly literature that clearly shows the shift of Christianity's "center of gravity" from North America and Europe to Asian, African, and South American contexts, to comprehensively show that this is more than just my personal opinion.
Point 3: Lastly, while the author claims in their note not to be suggesting that this research is generalizable to non-Christians, they have not revised the parts of the paper that do imply they are suggesting this is generalizable to non-Christians. So, this concern of mine has not been addressed.
Response 3: In light of this point, I did my best to identify and restructure parts of the paper that imply generalizations to non-Christians, by changing the general references to gamers into phrases which indicate that this is my viewpoint which could be shared by similarly-minded gamers. This is a recurring pattern of editing from pages 9 and onward. For example, on page 13, instead of using the phrase "Gamers engage in risky activity..." I use the new phrase "I can envision how gamers who share my vantage point engage in risky activity..." to drive home the point that while my conclusions should not be generalized to represent all Christians or gamers, the possibility exists that someone out there will have experiences that resonate with my own.
