Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Recommended to provide an analytical conclusion of the section 'defining digital media'. Now the author presents different definitions, but a summarizing, integrating position of the author is lacking. 

The selection of homiletical sources 2 PhD and 2 DMin between 2013-2018 raises the issue about other sources on preaching and digitality. Especially since the method is explorative and less analytic. It would have been helpful to use the approach to 'digital media' from the previous section as a framework for analysing the homiletic contributions. Now the two sections are unconnected. The literature is almost entirely US. Has there not been reflections on digitality and preaching in other parts of the world?  

How do inclusion/exclusion criteria work for the selection of essays on digital preaching (line 326)? The article's argumentation would benefit from a transparant methodological reflection. Otherwise the selection seems arbitrary. 

The concept 'best practice' is not defined yet use as a criteria to select literature. This needs to be repaired.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments about this essay.  I have carefully considered them and offer the following responses:

1. I have composed a paragraph that seeks to address your concern about the lack of analysis at the end of the "Defining Digital Media" section.  I hope it answers your concern.
2. In regards to the dissertation material, yes, this does seem to be what there is.  This point is raised later in a citation from Yang who laments the "paucity" of material on preaching and digital media, noting that the church was grossly unprepared for the need to move online.
3. While I do not directly quantify the "best practices" of digital homiletics in its section, I think that I clearly do so in the final section, especially in the final two paragraphs.

Again, thank you for your comments.  I hope this response both respectfully and completely answers your concern.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author touches on one of the most painful topics of the Christian church. Questions of the activity of priests in social networks affect many scientists, theologians, especially after the pandemic. The author cites as arguments the analysis of publications of articles, the analysis of dissertation research. Shows a wide range of opinions and proposed methods, concepts. In my opinion, the article is polymistic. This gives it special value.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and supportive words regarding my essay.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The author does a nice job framing the discussion of online sermons in terms of digital media. The paper flows nicely and the author's conclusions are sound in light of the data provided.

Several suggestions are recommended. First, while looking to dissertations is a nice way of noting recent scholarly contributions, there are other, more recent, contributions that should be considered. In particular, the recent dissertation of Haemin Na and the work of Melva Sampson ought to be included in the proposals for a "digital homiletic." Second, in terms of best practices, the author would contribute more to the field by considering the burgeoning use of AI in sermon development. Third, while ethos is an important rhetorical device for all preachers, I believe the author sets up a false dichotomy between the preacher's authentic self and her persona. None of us is exactly the same behind the pulpit as we are among our friends.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind and supportive words regarding the essay.  I also appreciated the feedback that you provided.  Here are my responses to your recommendations:

1. I was unaware of Hyemin Na's research and was unable to locate a copy of her dissertation. I did contact her via email but did not hear back from in the time allotted to return this essay.  I did, however, include comments on the work of both Melva Sampson and Dominique Robinson.  Thank you for pointing this out to me.
2. As one who also writes about plagiarism and technology, I am morally and ethically opposed to the use of AI in preaching (and research in general).  Therefore, I cannot include a recommendation of using AI in this essay.
3. The discussion of ethos is a core value of mine.  I do not believe it to be a false dichotomy, especially in terms of the rise of persona in digital culture.  In gaming culture, persona is used as permission to act contrary to one's true nature "because it is just a game."  I think this perspective is spiritually and ethically dangerous and mandates even greater demonstration of authenticity.

Again, I do thank you for your review and hope that this response is offered respectfully and answers the concerns that you have raised.