The Theology of the Ethnocultural Empathic Turn: Towards the Balkan Theology of Political Liberation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This exceptionally written manuscript has a simple approach of stating the problem and then proposing a solution.  The problem is ethnoreligiosity in its specifically Balkan incarnation which perverts both ethnicity and religiosity by a diabolical fusion masquerading as sacred. The author selects one of the virulent variants, the numerically largest, confronting the Roman Catholicism of the Croatians inspired by the ustasha ideology encountering in hatred and violence the Serbian Orthodoxy of the chetnik ideology both fused in powerful political movements poisoning the relationship of these two neighboring peoples.

               The author proposes an at least to me novel antidote which she or he names “the ethnocultural emphatic turn.”  The author points to two sources influencing her/him, namely German political theology confronting Nazi crimes and Latin American liberation theology. The author cites many authors pioneering in ethnocultural empathy.  But the central inspiration is a story of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman (Mt 15:21-28) of a fundamental broadening of the understanding of God’s concern found in Judaism but now turning to envelop all of humanity.

               In the last segment of the manuscript the author turns from theoretical exploration to concrete application of two instances of concrete ethnocultural emphatic turn by the Roman Catholic Bishop Srećko Badurina and the layman Franjo Starčević, who, at considerable personal risk, opposed the powerful forces of ethnoreligiosity of the wars of the 1990s to promote the genuine task of reconciliation central to the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth.

               The author is not only well versed in the literature but is advancing a path that could be actually well understood and put into practice by “the masses.”  This manuscript is not “for the masses” but one academic scholar writing to other well-educated readers. However, it would not take much to put in common vernacular and promoted widely on both sides of a divide, and I mean not only the Croat-Serb divide, but other similar ethnoreligious enmities for which the Balkan is but a well-known example.

               I see no need for any revisions, except perhaps to mention the applicability of the model to specific other confrontations such as  Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the author knows some Serbian Orthodox person who behaved similarly to Bishop Badurina and Mr. Starcevic, that would be even better.

              

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My comment on the quality of English language is contained in the above comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for reviewing my work and providing feedback. Your comments mean a lot to me, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing my work. 

I agree with you that it should not take much effort to use common vernacular and promote widely on both sides of a division. There are some indications of change, but they are highly localized, and I'm not sure how much we will need for a more extensive intervention. Especially considering that the leading religious structures are unwilling to participate, it simply isn't profitable for them.

As for the last comment about mentioning the model's applicability to specific other confrontations such as Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, I need to state two things: 

(1) As an Orthodox citizen of Croatia, I am primarily concerned with the issues between the Croatian Catholic and Serbian Orthodox communities. Unfortunately, in that regard, I must state that there are no individuals comparable to Badurina and Starčević. I genuinely made an effort to find someone, especially a Serbian Orthodox bishop, who could serve as a counterbalance to Bishop Badurina, but I couldn't find anyone, for there is none in this regard. My bishop, a Serbian Orthodox one, agrees too, and he's not the only one from this community.

(2) I sincerely hope that there are individuals in Kosovo and Macedonia similar to Badurina and Starčević, and with my work, I aim to stimulate such discussions. I have some information about similar individuals, but it's quite contradictory, making it problematic to take a stance. On the other hand, regarding Badurina and Starčević, there is no controversy. In general, they are unconditionally respected by both Croatian Catholics and Serbian Orthodox Christians. The only ones who don't like them are Croatian ethnototalitarians and ethnoclerics.

As for the additional English language editing, it is underway by our official translator.

Best regards.

 

P.S.

I'll make an effort to incorporate the suggested changes, and I plan to upload the revised version of the text within the next few days.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done! Excellent breadth and depth. I look forward to see next steps for this work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for reviewing my work as an “excellent breadth and depth.” Your comments mean a lot to me, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing my work. Accordingly, I want to inform you that this text is actually a summary of a book that will be published by Lexington Books next year.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This is an interesting article, with a clear thesis, in that it proposes overcoming an ethnoreligious paradigm through an Empatic turn, in the relationship between religiously supported ethnicities or ethnically supported religiosity.

The first part clearly develops the concept of ethnoreligiosity. There should be explicit references to support some ideas and even bibliographical indications of some authors (such as Hans Küng, 54). There are some repetitions of ideas.

The second part advances the proposal to overcoming the strict paradigm of ethnoreligiosity. The empathic alternative to the ethnoreligious paradigm appears to be little scientifically developed. Only generic references to political theology are made. Its psychosocial basis could be deepened, which seems to be the most promising, from the point of view of the scientific development of the proposal.

Somewhat generic statements about political theology (with a total absence of references, particularly regarding the German version). There are only references from Latin American Liberation Theology, but without delving into a true relationship. In this sense, some questions may arise, such as: To what extent does the new German political theology relate to post-Nazism? What can Marxist analysis mean for the situation of liberation theology in the Balkans, taking into account the problem it raised in Latin America?

The presentation of the figures of the two bishops is done in a very descriptive and almost journalistic way, without an in-depth reflection on their respective political and theological position.

The speech is sometimes more exhortatif than scientific.

Regardless of these weaknesses, which could be mitigated, the article deserves to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my work and for providing feedback. Your comments are significant to me, and I’m taking them seriously.

For instance, “when you are saying that there should be explicit references to support some ideas and even bibliographical indications of some authors (such as Hans Küng, 54)”, I agree with your perspective. However, the entire concept I presented is derived from my book, as indicated in the footnote (For the comments in this chapter, see Sekulić 2022). I was advised to minimize using multiple references via this footnote, and I followed that recommendation.

As for the “comment that the empathic alternative to the ethnoreligious paradigm appears to be little scientifically developed,” as well as the comments about the lack of explanation of German political theology and Latin American theology of liberation in the context of my text, I also agree with you to a certain extent. Still, I drew clear parallels to those theological concepts in this text. However, I understand that not everyone may be equally familiar with the topics of German political theology and liberation theology in Latin America. Regrettably, there isn't sufficient space in this text to provide further explanations. But I would like to note here that this text is a sort of summary of the book that will be published next year by Lexington Books, in which all of your doubts are adequately resolved.

As for “the presentation of the figures of the two bishops is done in a very descriptive and almost journalistic way,” I must state that Franjo Starčević was a layperson, not a bishop and that you also, to some extent, have the right. While journalistic and bibliographic styles have their merits, they may sometimes seem identical. However, I suggest that the tone of this particular text is certainly closer to the latter. The emphasis here is undoubtedly on using a biographical approach to uncover the theological potential for political liberation in these two individuals. However, I'd like to note that these bibliographical insights condense the information from 140 pages, which is the amount of space dedicated to these two individuals in the book.  

I hope this helps address some of the issues you raised in the feedback, and I sincerely appreciate your positive response regarding the article's publication.

Thank you and best regards.

 

P.S.

I'll make an effort to incorporate the suggested changes, and I plan to upload the revised version of the text within the next few days.