“Cross Is Fix”: Christianity and Christian Community as Vehicles for Overcoming Settlement Crises of Chinese Immigrant Families
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A very interesting research and a good article in general.
Please, delete , after . at line 81.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and nice comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents data from 7 Chinese women who migrated to Australia, and once there, converted to Christianity. Elaborating on statements made by her informants, the author shows how they had no – or little – knowledge of Christianity prior to migration and that conversion occurred as a response to settlement traumas.
While this paper is designed to primarily document what these women (7 women out of 41 parents who 1/ spontaneously claimed their religious identity and 2/ were willing to be interviewed) have been through – or more specifically, what they say about it – its theoretical aspect could be sharpen. Let me summarize its core argument as I understand it: by contrast to a body of literature stressing the importance of pre-migration crises to explain religious conversion (L. 617-627), the narrative provided by informants, whether this narrative is designed by individuals themselves or by the religious trend they belong to, suggest that post-migration crises are more important in their faith journey. This is very interesting and this needs to appear more clearly at the beginning of the paper.
Now, I would like to make a few additional suggestions:
- Is this study reflecting the theo-political priorities of a peculiar Australian-Christian stream (Australian Evangelical churches – L.258 – L. 387) which targets Chinese migrants – without demonizing China? If this is the case, it may first help to specify the kind of Christianity that this paper is engaging with (for instance, instead of “pious Christian” – the author could mention “evangelical Christian”). Also, it could help to acknowledge further its geopolitical positioning (China-friendly) (positive aspect is mentioned in L.639)
- While the article is rich in quotations, a lot of the analysis sounds like a rewording of the informants’ statements. In other words, space could be saved. For instance, L. 375-379 is a rewording of what those women said – without questioning it much or providing deeper analysis. Then the question is: what is the role of the sociologist here? It is interesting that certain themes are coming forward (marriage, financial stress, going to heaven, conversion as rupture) while others are not (ghosts, social injustice, liturgical practices, etc.). Which kind of transformation are those women actively operating? In other words, the linguistic analysis of those quotations needs to provide us with a deeper understanding of their situation.
- Additional questions for thought:
- To what extend those narratives are pre-made Christian (evangelical) model that migrants have internalized? If the conversion is a response to settlement crisis and difficulties, why Christianity? Why not other religions that are well established in Australia (Buddhism)?
- While the question of “Why did they become Christian” is important, one may wonder “Why and how do they remain Christian?”
- A paradox is that this paper mention “immigrant families” but the provided data is mostly about individual women. We don’t really see them as members of a family – and how their turn to Christianity impacts this membership. It might be interesting to investigate further on questions related to divorce and education.
Further details:
L.32 – L.85: some wording could be adjusted. For instance, “endoctrinated” a more neutral term is required. It should be “taught”
- 34; L.82-84: This conclusion needs nuances, especially when state policies is evolving (in the 1980s, 1990s, 200s, and today, the state had different approaches). Overall, religion is also presented through a Durkheimian way: a social tool to help social cohesion. And it seems that this Durkheimian is also the underlying approach of this paper: religion as a tool to ease social difficulties (L.475-477).
L.103-104: What about the question of ‘Cultural Christians’ who were supposedly so numerous among Chinese scholars in the late 2000s?
L.178 “intellectuals”, I think you meant “educated immigrants”.
L.200 I assume they are pseudonyms, correct?
L.269 L.587 Why is conversion “ultimate” – this is an evangelical assumption, not a sociological one.
L.509: priest or pastor. Catholic-Anglican or Protestant?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
