The Drama of the World, the Drama of Theology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Choose "we" if multiple authors, "I" if single author. Not both.

This essay offers exactly what the abstract states: consideration. The argument of the essay is not clearly stated, nor is it discernable. There are many good ideas in the essay, and the writer's scholarship appears to be fairly thorough, but the purpose of the essay does not come across, other than to show a whole bunch of interesting, and often quite significant, thoughts about the writer's research. 

Part of the problem is inherent to the topic: interdisciplinary scholarship is problematic because the language and styles of the disparate disciplines is difficult to manage and make meaningful. 

For example, to make Balthasar's claim of ways theology should recognize the drama of God's being and action clear, the author should offer more of a literary review of Balthasar's extensive five-volume discussion of the subject, as well as more of a review of the scholars who have advanced and also challenged the seminal work. The writer of this article does some of this work, but he tends to throw it in parenthetically or jump around from one idea to another or stick such evidence in at a later section of the paper. 

The paragraph that begins on line 462 is especially problematic. The writer uses examples from King Lear and A Winter's Tale to illustrate Shakespeare's controversial religious background. It's fallacious to conflate Shakespeare's knowledge of both "'pagan' despair" and "imitations of grace and spiritual generation" as evidence of his "religious background and affiliation." Shakespeare's presentation of characters who share a variety of beliefs demonstrates that Shakespeare was aware of those beliefs, not that his personal faith or religious affiliation is on display. Lear's pagan despair and Hermione's resurrection are part of the stories told, not valid evidence of Shakespeare's theology. 

This essay has little to no conclusion. It simply stops with a couple exploratory ideas that do not offer a satisfying end to the argument or the explorations. 

I would say that this essay reads like a strong conference paper that is beginning to explore some fascinating ideas, many of which have the potential to become scholarly articles. 

As presented in this article, the structure, clarity, coherence, unity, and overall purpose are lacking. 

If I were the editor of this journal, I would suggest the writer select one of the sections of the paper to expand into a balanced, fleshed out, controlled argument. Or, I might suggest that the writer work on all the different sections to complete them with more depth and clarity and see if there's not enough material for a book-length study.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript; I am very grateful for your attention, and I am only sorry that the revised version has not incorporated all that many changes. This is due to time constraint but also illness, so I have had only limited opportunity to work on this. I have not tracked the changes. The principal changes (a) I hope there is now a clearer, more defined structure (you will see I have included new material at the suggestion of the other reviewers); this includes a revised abstract. (b) I have responded to the point about Shakespeare and the danger of biographical criticism. I hope it is now clear that that is not what I am doing (though Balthasar and Girard do not hold back in their own readings of Shakespeare). I am aware that the article perhaps needs more work in the light of your comments, and regret once again that this was not possible given constraints.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have affirmed your grasp of the key issues and players in my dot point responses and my comments to the editors. My use of the category 'average'  simply refers to the fact that while you are exploring positions, reflecting astutely and making valuable connections, you are not making a ground-breaking proposal.

One thing you might consider is saying a little more about the intriguing connection you flag between Rahner and Schwager. After all, they lie together in the crypt of the Jesuitenkirche in Innsbruck, and I'm intrigued by the thought that the latter may have been influenced by the former.

I also like the way you make Wells' 'overaccepting' central to what theodrama can mean, though you do not take it up with reference to Girard. You might like to get hold of Scott Cowdell, Rene Girard and the Nonviolent God (University of Notre Dame, 2018), for a major theodramatic interpretation of Girard, following Schwager and the others you list, as well as Ben Quash, who is very good on this. The proposed theodrama and use of overaccepting is significantly extended beyond Schwager and Wells, however.

Author Response

Thank you for the careful attention you have given to my manuscript. This is very much appreciated. I am sorry that time constraints and also poor health have limited my chance to re-work this; also, I have not tracked the changes. I hope the revised version is clearer and more focussed: I have not been able to follow up on the Rahner-Schwager conversation, as it would have taken the article ina different direction. I am most grateful for the suggested inclusion of Cowdell and Quash, however (especially as Cowdell has taken up the notion of overacceptance). Both Scott and (now) myself try and draw out the Girardian implications. Thank you again for your help; I am sorry once again that further refinement of this paper is not possible given the various constraints.

Reviewer 3 Report

I tried to submit this as a PDF but the file was not accepted. 

Comments on “The Drama of the World, the Drama of Theology.”

The author intends to give an overview of dramatic theology by looking at the reference to the metaphor of theatre in theology, the theodrama of Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the Dramatic Theology project of the Innsbruck school.  The author also wants to consider specific topics in light of this context:  dramatic theory and the significance of tragedy for theology using the example of Shakespeare as read by von Balthasar and Girard.  Questions on each section:

1.      Drama of the Modern World:  The point argued is well made; however, the introduction of the category of apocalypse at this point in the essay is not well founded.  I am not convinced that these two paragraphs add to the argument or that this would be the appropriate place to discuss Girard’s views on this subject.

2        and 3:  The Drama of Modern Theology and The Innsbruck Dramatic Theology project:  Well stated and described.  Given that we are at p. 8 out of 11 as we conclude Part 3, the discussion of Schwager’s theology could be edited into a shorter form in order to leave more room for the constructive section of the article.

4. Further Dramatizing the Theodrama:  The author arrives at the constructive portion of their essay where they will no longer be summarizing extant work in dramatic theology and setting context but actually establishing an argument.  The author’s first foray is to suggest that the Innsbruck school’s theo-dramatic theology would benefit from greater engagement with classical or modern dramatic theory or with actual examples of drama.  “There are connections to be made,” says the author, promising to use Girard’s thought to make them.  The author proceeds to problematize a sacrificial reading of tragedy which already is a question in Aristotle, appealing to Girard for a theory of “near misses” rather than to a requirement that a victim be sacrificed in tragedy.  The author says that a dramatic theory of “near misses” might provide “fresh resources for the dialogue between theology and the dramatic imagination.”  Unfortunately, the author drops the topic at this point.  No sketches of a dialogue or guidance about the most fruitful openings for that dialogue are offered.

The second trajectory suggested by the author is to read Shakespeare as a theologian, a negative theologian at that, for whom “hints of the divine seem to bubble up through the floorboards.”  To my disappointment, the author also raises this topic only to drop it absent any supportive examples, argumentation, or sketch of a case.

The last five paragraphs do not connect to the rest of the paper, on my reading.

Suggestions:  The author writes extremely well and the ideas of the paper hold much promise. I am excited by the two trajectories the author considers. They promise to be original contributions and valued ones for Girardian thought and the dramatic theology of the Innsbruck school.  That said, I am struck by how much like a dissertation or book proposal this essay reads.  It promises an argument that is to come, but offers none of it.  Indeed, the numbered sections of the essay read like chapter synopses.  In my estimation, dissertation and book proposals do not work as journal articles. 

To revise this into a journal article I suggest the following:

1)      Shorten sections 1-3.  The reader needs just what is required to launch the constructive section of the essay during which the author will contribute to the literature with original thought rather than summarize others’ thought. Rather than launch of p. 8, the launch should be no further than the ½ way point in the essay.  Therefore, I recommend fine-tuning the discussion to reduce it to 5 pages.  I have made a few suggestions on cuts above; in addition, some of the text that can be cut amounts to “announcements” of what the author intends to do. The abstract constitutes the only announcement needed.  Were this essay a book or dissertation proposal, these announcements would be appropriate because the author would be signaling developments that will take place over a number of chapters.  In 11 pages, no forecasting of moves to come is needed. The subsection headings are sufficient. 

2)      Choose one of the trajectories for the other five pages of the essay.  The author should elect the trajectory that is most manageable to set out and to support with examples.  The abstract and introduction will be modified accordingly to drop the trajectory not chosen altogether from the essay.  On my reading, the first trajectory holds the most promise for meaningful development in 5-6 pages.  Shakespeare as a negative theologian is a fascinating idea but there is risk that that trajectory would actually leave the paper as it has been set up to this point and become a tangent rather than a trajectory.  The author will need to decide what they can offer by way of an argument and supporting examples in 5-6 pages. If there is not a page limit and the author has 10 pages, the argument could be even more nicely developed.

3)      The structure of a compelling essay for an article is:  1) Abstract and Intro: Tell the reader what you are going to tell them.  These paragraphs inform the reader of what the topics will be and why they should interest or concern the reader.  In a paper of this length, the introduction should not be longer than 1 ½ pages.   2) Body of the essay:  Tell them.   3) Conclusion:  Tell them that you told them.  This section explains why the reader has not wasted their time reading the essay.  It establishes the “take away” significance of the paper.  In a paper of this length, the conclusion is 2/3 to 1 page in length.

4)      Conventions on God language:  In academic writing on religion in English-language journals with a larger readership/focus than confessional theology, pronouns for God are not capitalized (“he or him” not “He or Him.”).  Quotations from other sources maintain the original capitalization format.  In the last ten years or so, there have been further changes in God language.  The use of male pronouns for God has become increasingly rare in English-language publications in religion.  Biblical imagery for God is much more inclusive than is captured by exclusively masculine pronouns, after all, and non-binary language about human gender in the English language has led to the use of “they/their/them as a singular pronoun rather than he/she etc. when writing about humans.  In the case of God language, male pronouns in the English language are considered by a number of readers to insert unwarranted androcentrism into a text.  The growing convention among scholars of religion is to not use pronouns at all for God when not referencing an historical context and/or using quoted text.  The word “God” is used at all times and no pronouns are used at all.  Occasionally, one sees “God’s self” if required by the grammar.

Author Response

Thank you for the careful attention you have given to my manuscript. This is very much appreciated. I am sorry that time constraints and also poor health have limited my chance to re-work this; also, I have not tracked the changes. You have made detailed suggestions about re-shaping the article; I have gone some way toward this, but there is probably still room for improvement. You advise following through on one specific trajectory. I agree with this strategy, but again, this would have required more work than I am able to give this. So I have stayed with the existing trajectories, but hopefully tightened up the links between them. And of course I have addressed the question of appropriate God-language. Thank you again for your very thoughtful help. I am sorry once again that further refinement of this paper is not possible, given the various constraints;

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has done an excellent job of responding to my suggestions.  The essay now reads as a coherent argument with the author successfully explaining to the reader how to understand and account for the three points the author makes.  The author’s note suggests that they have not been able to do very much by way of changes; I disagree.  I think that author has been extremely successful in comprehending the concerns I raised and revising in response to these. The author has augmented the essay with a supportive structure, visible particularly in section changes and the conclusion, which guide the reader in very effective ways through the argument.  I have only one suggestion:  on my reading, lines 259-272 are distracting. Part of this is due to the opening line, “Venturing into biographical speculation is unwise.”  That stopped me in my tracks:  If so, why venture?   But… I also find it an interruption to all that follows.  Perhaps the author can claim the paragraph still by deleting the first sentence and offering a thesis statement that enables the reader to see the connection between this paragraph and the ones that precede it a well as how it facilitates entrée to the paragraph that follows.  In an essay with text endnotes, this paragraph, as it stands, would have a place there.  However, absent that format, I suggest deleting the paragraph or revising it per the suggestions above.  In sum, this is an effective contribution to the journal issue; the author is to be congratulated on their successful revision.