Where/How/For What Purpose Is Christ Being Proclaimed Today: Rethinking Proclamation in the World of Peripheries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper examines power dynamics and marginalization associated with the proclamation of the Christian gospel, Christ, etc. There are a number of ways the paper can be improved.

1. The study has a single paragraph introduction. The burden of demonstrating the significance of a study (a compelling rationale for its publication) is the author's. A second paragraph should be added that explicitly specifies the study's significance, thereby answering questions such as "So what?" or "Who cares?"

2. Previous literature on the colonialist and oppressive history of Christianity should be reviewed before launching into the body of the study. 

3. Some attention to methodology is important in academic work. How were the cases utilized in this study selected from the larger universe of possibilities? Was there a threshold of importance or prominence that guided which cases to include and which to exclude? Were their geographical and historical period considerations? Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be identified. One or two paragraphs on this issue are needed.

4. Christianity is a complex, large, and diffuse set of traditions. There are plenty of counter-examples of marginalization that emphasize inclusion and the overcoming of boundaries in Christian history. Some attention is given to social justice pursued in the name of Christianity, but a bit more focus on this consideration, especially in the introduction and the conclusion, seems warranted. The author is correct to adopt a critical posture, but additional focus on the justice vs. injustice tension within Christianity would improve the paper.

5. The writing is rather difficult to follow at points. Every effort should be made to write in a fashion that will attract a broad set of readers, including scholars from the humanities and the social sciences. Proofreading is needed, but some paragraphs are unduly long (e.g., page 3). Revision with clearer prose in mind is recommended. 

6. The conclusion is short. Please highlight some directions for future research based on the core findings offered in this study.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the detailed comments given that have led me to make some significant changes to the manuscript. I did the following based on your comments:

1. I added over 3000 words to help tighten my arguments
2. I expanded the introductiona nd the conclusion as well
3. I engaged more authors that are relevant to the argument I am making
4. I gave a more anthropological engament as I addressed the issue of ministry of women in the Catholic Church
5. I reduced the usage of the first person as much as possible in the work, except where I intend to make a relevant point that backs the fous of the work
6. I gave further nuance to the meaning of the politics of hermeneutics by introucing and explaining what I call hermeneutic compromise
7. I did editorial corrections to allow for shorter paragraphs and cleaning up of the typos and grammatical errors in the initial manuscript.
8. I oculd not have done all these without your helpful recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is not a research paper. It does not have a clear research question and the methodology is missing.

Sources are not presented and the argument used personal experience. The paper appears to be a newspaper article rather than research. It is a testimony rather than a critical analysis.

The author confuses soteriology with Christian anthropology when arguing about the priesthood of women. 

The argument for supporting the sexual minority community is weak. It lacks sufficient theological basis. For an outside reader it is not enough to see "Christ's mission as an instrument of abundant life for all (Lk. 4:18-19)" as an argument for the issue. I recommend you delve deeper into Christian anthropology! Otherwise, the discourse will remain at the level of an ideological discourse that is merely trying to replace an old ideological discourse. 

Author Response

Thanks very much for the detailed comments given that have led me to make some significant changes to the manuscript. I did the following based on your comments:

1. I added over 3000 words to help tighten my arguments
2. I expanded the introductiona nd the conclusion as well
3. I engaged more authors that are relevant to the argument I am making
4. I gave a more anthropological engament as I addressed the issue of ministry of women in the Catholic Church
5. I reduced the usage of the first person as much as possible in the work, except where I intend to make a relevant point that backs the fous of the work
6. I gave further nuance to the meaning of the politics of hermeneutics by introucing and explaining what I call hermeneutic compromise
7. I did editorial corrections to allow for shorter paragraphs and cleaning up of the typos and grammatical errors in the initial manuscript.
8. I oculd not have done all these without your helpful recommendations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I commend the author on a comprehensive and careful revision. One more proofreading for maximum clarity and correctness is recommended, but substance is sound.

Reviewer 2 Report

It was an exciting read!