Transformative Diaconia in China: The Amity Foundation as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent and important paper.  The practice of social change and capacity building is becoming widely researched and practised.  NGOs in Africa for example have been working on how to achieve social change.  So a contribution from China is very significant.  It describes the growth in a diaconal ministry in Amity, and show how this is contributing to Chinese society. 

Author Response

The comments are much appreciated and encouraging. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This case study provides relevant information for people working in, and scholars of, sustainable development. It describes the work of the Amity Foundation within both the Chinese political and global contexts and how they have transformed from a service to a more advocacy- and social change-driven organization. Information gleaned from this case can be applied in multiple NGO contexts, particularly among faith-based organizations. Although this is an interesting article with a lot of rich information, its breadth and organization makes it unfocused and difficult to follow. The study design is not described; is the uncited information about Amity based on the author's experience, observations, or some other method?

Adding background information about Amity Foundation in terms of size, scope, etc. as well as the SDGs before the discussion about how sustainable development goals are embedded in the organization's practice would help readers – particularly those who are not familiar with this organization and the SDGs – situate and interpret this discussion. 

It would also be helpful to draw more explicit connections between specific SDG targets and the work of Amity. For example, much of the discussion seems to exemplify target 16.7 (Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels); however, this is not explicitly named. It would also help readers to more explicitly draw out the connections between Diakonia and the SDGs that were briefly mentioned on page 7 and 8.

Please also define Diakonia for those who are not familiar with this New Testament term.

This sentence on page 10 seems to be misplaced: The third is the lag in internal capacity building among most Chinese FBOs which are seen as having inadequate resources, suffering from poor management and lacking in professionalism. According to scholars:  

There are some punctuation errors in the document.

Author Response

The overall comments are very much appreciated and helpful. I have added more information on the research design and given more information about Amity in terms of its growth in size, the range of project involvement, partnership with the ecumenical movement and growth in income. More effort has been used to link the sustainable development elements in Amity's work with specific SDGs and the term diaconia has been defined. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This article presents and discuss the social engagement of the Amity Foundation, a Christian-based social organization operating within the boundaries of the People’s Republic of China. The article provides a broad overview of the history, religious inspiration, and scope of organization. It highlights its contribution to Chinese Christianity and society and how it departs from other Christian views on social engagement like those of Evangelical Churches. It insists on how the notion of diakonia (service) is at the core of Amity’s vision and how this is rooted in biblical principles.

Although I appreciate the effort of the paper to de-politicize the conversation, I have two main concerns about this paper, one about its theoretical contribution and the other about its historical approach.

First, the article is mostly descriptive, presenting the good intentions and efforts of the Amity Foundation. Thus, it stands more like a broad presentation of the Foundation than a critical scholarly contribution to conversations like NGO in China, social welfare and Christianity, religious policies in China, inculturation of Christianity, social theology, etc. It is not really clear to me what the body of literature and broader conversation the article seeks to engage with.  What is the contribution here?

The second aspect is about the narrative deployed to present the scope and evolution of Amity overtime. It seems that more sources and factual description refers to the early 2000s and the reader has hard time to grasp the evolution of the foundation, as well as its social and political environment overtime. In other words, this article is not enough diachronic. It fails at showing how the Chinese socio-economic realities of the 1980s had little in common with the ones of the 1990s, and each of the following decades. Since the creation of the foundation, the Chinese society and economy, as well as its political environment, have constantly change. Almost every decade was a specific dynamic bringing new challenges and specific constraints to Christian NGO like the Amity Foundation. Without politicizing the conversation, the author needs to demonstrate this more in depth.  

I also note that major and relevant literatures are not mentioned: “Christian Values in Communist China” (Gerda Wielander), “Negotiations and Diversifications of China’s Christianities” (Carsten Vala) “Making Christ Present in China” (Michel Chambon) “Multiple Sinicizations of Multiples Christianities” (Richard Madsen) “Religion and Charity: The Social Life of Goodness in Chinese Societies” (Weller and Huang).

In “Making Christ Present in China”, Chambon presents the evolution of a Protestant home for the elderly how unfolds the variety of state actors and religious support involved in the factual development of the home and its viability. In “Religion and Charity”, Weller and Huang show how the state always plays a vital role in the functioning of religious philanthropy - whether in authoritarian or more liberal regimes.

If the author can revise these two core issues, I believe this paper can stand as a precious contribution to the theological or sociological study of Christian charity in China.

Author Response

The critical comments of the reviewer are very much appreciated. Essentially, the paper seeks to demonstrate that despite the political constraints, because of how the Chinese generally approach change (in an evolutionary manner) in contemporary China, FBOs like Amity can still creatively undertake the construction of model projects with the ability to influence and change the mindsets of local officials toward participative democracy and sustainable development. The approach of the paper is not so much historical as identifying good examples of successful projects in changing socio-political settings. Describing the changing environment in depth would be beyond the scope of this paper. Admittedly, the paper is weak in its theoretical implications and this will be taken into consideration in future work. The additional references proposed and an effort to undertake more comparative studies is well taken. I have tried to make adjustments in the structure of the paper to make it more coherent and to link some of the cited projects to specific SDGs. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your careful attention to providing additional information and clarification to contextualize the study and articulate the research methods. These significant improvements greatly improve the article and will create more opportunities for scholars and practitioners to digest, apply, and build on the findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

much improved