Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's analogy of modern scams doesn't directly parallel the conditions of the early church. The comparison between contemporary scams (such as email scams promising large sums of money) and the challenges faced by the early church is more metaphorical than literal.

The term "post-Christianity" refers to a cultural context or era that emerges after the widespread influence and dominance of Christianity in society has significantly waned. It describes societies where Christianity is no longer the central or defining cultural norm, secular or pluralistic values have taken precedence, and knowledge of and adherence to Christian beliefs and practices have declined substantially. When the author discusses 'post-Christianity' about the early church, it's essential to understand that this is an anachronistic use of the term to draw parallels or make thematic comparisons rather than a literal historical analysis. The early church, by definition, could not be "post-Christian" since it existed at the very beginning of Christianity, working to establish the faith's fundamental doctrines and spread its teachings.

Improving the article "Dealing with the Trustworthy Gospel In A Post-Christian Australia", bearing in mind that there is no direct connection between the post-Christian period and the early church, can be achieved by addressing the following aspects:

Clarification of terms:

Clearly define "post-Christianity" and explain its context in the modern world, distinguishing between the post-Christian era and the context of the early church.

Include a section detailing the characteristics of a post-Christian society, with specific examples to help readers better understand this concept.

Contextualise post-Christianity in Australia:

Add a section exploring the details of post-Christianity in Australia, including demographic trends, cultural shifts, and their impact on the church and religious practices.

Analyse how the Australian church adapts or responds to these changes, providing case studies or concrete examples.

Revise the title:

The title should be simplified and focused to more accurately reflect the main topic of the article. For example, "Navigating the Gospel in Australia's Post-Christian Landscape."

Focus on a more specific research topic:

Focus on a specific topic or issue related to the church's experience in Australia's post-Christian context, such as "Evangelisation strategies in Australia's post-Christian context" or "Christian identity in Australia's pluralistic society".

Use this focused theme to structure the entire article, ensuring that each section contributes to exploring and understanding this central theme.

Comparative analysis:

If you mention the early church to draw parallels or provide perspective, clearly distinguish between historical contexts and how these comparisons inform understanding of the current situation. Include a critical analysis of the validity and limitations of these comparisons.

Methodology and theoretical framework:

Describe the methodology used for the research, including qualitative or quantitative approaches, to give the reader an understanding of how the data was obtained and interpreted.

Clarify the theoretical framework or theological perspectives guiding the analysis to ensure a solid foundation for the arguments presented.

Recommendations and practical applications:

Based on the article's findings and analysis, provide specific recommendations for the Australian church on how to navigate and respond to the challenges of post-Christianity. Include examples of successful initiatives or best practices in addressing these challenges.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity of being able to rectify and edit the article.  These are the changes I have made to hopefully meet the advice recommended – with thanks:

• I have reviews the “preachy language” and the “scams” that were used to compare the gospel with the truth;
• I have defined the “gospel” as well a the “cultural context” I am referring too – namely, “post-Christianity”. I have been ble to give academic support in this regard;
• I have defined what “the truth of the gospel” is as this is important for the context I am referring to in this article;
• What I really wanted to emphasise is that philosophy is not bad, it is more “secular philosophy” as opposed to “Christian philosophy” – again, in the broader context of this article;
• I have Changed the title to what was recommended: "Navigating the Gospel in Australia's Post-Christian Landscape.";
• I have added many more supporting quotes and books.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author examines the circumstances that they believe are affecting the contemporary person's ability to engage the gospels and the messages therein, authentically. The author cites several examples and images that they draw on to identify the spirit of such interpretation that leads toward authentic engagement with the gospel, and they extensively draw on scripture and some relatively old documents from a set of 20th-century authorities as well as some documents from Vatican 2 and later Catholic documents. They understand the central concern of the contemporary person as being some type of post-post-modernism some type of post-Christian postmodernism that attempts to contend with the plurality of interpretations, the plurality of truth claims, that ask for attention, and they attempt to outline how a contemporary person could navigate these issues and remain in some manner connected to the gospel message. One of the ways they do this, in addition to the other approaches, is to classify various philosophies and theologies and articulate how those various approaches engage with theology in general and the types of effects that they produce or could produce before the author settles on one interpretation that they find stronger than some of the others. The main strength the author contends is an authentic engagement with the texts of the gospels and the works of the apostles. To that extent, the author is attempting to draw out their foundational Christian approach to the faith, which is that scripture and the stories and theology embedded therein provide the foundation of all Christian life and that spending time within the scriptures will provide some form of lens for the contemporary Christian to navigate the various messages that compete for their attention. I do know that the author does not explicitly examine or at least not examine in an extended way claims on attention by social media and other sources, nor does the author engage extensively with technology all issues related to technology; they do, however engage with philosophy potentially as some form of technology of thinking, as a source for identifying truth or falsity in various approaches that may come to contemporary Christian.

Unfortunately, I can't recommend this text for inclusion in the journal for several reasons. The main one being thank the author consistently fails to articulate the primary terms concepts movements or approaches that they wish to engage with, moreover they do not spend extensive time unpacking the problem they are intending to examine and explicating the various aspects of that issue so that a reader can get a sense of the authors mastery over the issues that they are concerned with. Again the author draws on a limited number of sources primarily scripture but with some uses of secondary literature but very few sources of secondary literature and all very old in comparison to our present day some sources being well over 30 years old but without the authoritative Sense of say a Vatican document or texts by an acknowledged theologian. Again the author does jump around quite extensively as they're making their argument making it very difficult for me as a reader to follow the flow of their thought. I will also say that although the author does not mention conspiracy theories I will note that there is extensive work done by Australians that has contributed considerably to thought around conspiracy theories and religion and conspiracy theories as a form of truth claim. Strangely enough Australians are very well placed to help someone navigate through these various approaches and experiences. I would recommend the author examine the work of Tyson Yonkaporta and David Coady both of whom make extremely sound claims about how conspiracies work as distinct from other forms of discourse.

 

As someone with some expertise in the church in Australia and Australian theology I can also state unequivocally that the author has not demonstrated sufficient engagement with the variety of Australian theological voices that have contributed sometimes even to the problem of technology and plurality of voices that the author identifies. I'm thinking of the recently deceased Tony Kelly but there is also the work of David Tacey, a sociologist of religion but an important voice in relationship to these issues. Neil Ormerod also comes to mind. Many very good Australian scriptural scholars may or may not have good contributions to the various scriptural passages or interpretations considering the Australian context. Short of a dramatic revision, I do not see how the paper could be published in its current form. I believe that the author is a very good writer and quite entertaining and lively, but I do not believe there has been a significant demonstration of the grasp of the various scholarly issues and literature connected to the topics described in the paper to allow the paper to be published. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author's English is very good, but and the paper's arguments and structure would need improvement, as mentioned in the previous comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity of being able to rectify and edit the article.  These are the changes I have made to hopefully meet the advice recommended – with thanks:

• I have reviews the “preachy language” and the “scams” that were used to compare the gospel with the truth;
• I have defined the “gospel” as well a the “cultural context” I am referring too – namely, “post-Christianity”. I have been ble to give academic support in this regard;
• I have defined what “the truth of the gospel” is as this is important for the context I am referring to in this article;
• What I really wanted to emphasise is that philosophy is not bad, it is more “secular philosophy” as opposed to “Christian philosophy” – again, in the broader context of this article;
• I have Changed the title to what was recommended: "Navigating the Gospel in Australia's Post-Christian Landscape.";
• I have added many more supporting quotes and books.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am afraid that I cannot recommend for publication the manuscript in its present form. Though the manuscript does include certain potentially interesting points (more on that further below), it overall makes very little contribution to the existing scholarship.

My main objections can be summorized as follows:

1.) The Introduction, with the possible exception of the last paragraph (and, really, most of the manuscript) largely reads like a sermon, rather than an academic article. The introduction should address the issues of what the author is trying to do in the article. What is her/his: research question?, aim?, method? The former should then provide the framework that the article would follow.

2.) The author needs to show how "postmodern" relates to "post-Christian." The link (not to say the logical/chronological sequence) is not to be taken for granted. Also, a sound scholarly definition of the two terms should be provided at the outset.

3.) One certainly cannot simply write off philosophy when dealing with Christian faith as the author seems to be doing. If not for (contemporary Hellenistic) philosophy we would have neither the trinitarian nor christological teachings. Similarly, what is often presented as "legalistic religious attitudes" (line 105) is largely simply a failure to understand the intricacies of Second Temple Judaism.

4.) The author should clarify what her/his view of the Gospel (and/or the Bible) is. It seems that s/he views it as completely untouched by the context/culture/historical circumstances in which the biblical books were written. Ironically, this ahistorical view brings the author close to the Gnosticism that s/he critiques.

5.) The view of a "postmodern person" as presented in the article is generalized, stereotypical, and based on the discussion by the critics of postmodernism, rather than on sociological research.

6.) What seems to be the author´s main argument, i.e., to underline the dichotomy between Scripture and philosophy, is a false dichotomy. If such an argument is to be maintained, nevertheless, a more nuanced discussion is needed. 

 

As I wrote above, there are some interesting points and passages that could potentially establish the basis for a relevant academic article, provided that the author agreed to rewrite it completely. In such case, I recommend the author to focus on elaborating the following parts: a) the last paragraph in section 5, b) subsection 6.1, c) the last passage in subsection 6.3. 

I advise that the author focuses on elaborating the main points from these passages, such as the quest for the transcendent in postmodernity, the significance of relationship, the question of identity, the importance of belonging, etc. These themes should be discussed in the context of current scholarship in various fields (theology, mission studies, sociology, philosophy). 

Also, I recommend the author pays much more attention to the context of contemporary Australia. The failure to consider this context is quite surprising, giving the title of the manuscript. Contextualization would make the article richer and much more relevant.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity of being able to rectify and edit the article.  These are the changes I have made to hopefully meet the advice recommended – with thanks:

• I have reviews the “preachy language” and the “scams” that were used to compare the gospel with the truth;
• I have defined the “gospel” as well a the “cultural context” I am referring too – namely, “post-Christianity”. I have been ble to give academic support in this regard;
• I have defined what “the truth of the gospel” is as this is important for the context I am referring to in this article;
• What I really wanted to emphasise is that philosophy is not bad, it is more “secular philosophy” as opposed to “Christian philosophy” – again, in the broader context of this article;
• I have Changed the title to what was recommended: "Navigating the Gospel in Australia's Post-Christian Landscape.";
• I have added many more supporting quotes and books.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text addresses a very timely and relevant issue, namely the communication of the Gospel in a postmodern and even post-Christian society. In my assessment, the main insights provided by the author(s) to best communicate the Gospel in a postmodern context, namely, proposing Christianity as a relationship, is quite accurate. However, the text, as a whole, lacks rigorous academic methodology. Even though modernism is criticized in the text, academic texts still follow modern methodologies and standards, as well as a line of argument based on evidence and plausibility.

Bearing this in mind, the first problematic issue is the very title. It suggests that the analysis addresses the Australian context. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, not a single sentence describes the specificity of the Australian context as compared to the European, African, etc. The whole text is based on generic assumptions, descriptions, and definitions that could be applied to any context and to no one at the same time, as the text lacks both an empirical, particular basis and a conceptual framework.

In the same vein, the temporal context is to broad for such a short text. The author(s) describes(s) without sufficient conceptual accuracy and in short paragraphs the biblical time, antiquity (Augustine, etc.), modern as well as postmodern times. In addition, the text contains several generic and unfounded sentences such as: “The postmodern person is hungry for what is at the heart of the Christian message (line 495)”; “The Scriptures have an established all-incorporating worldview, established for all ages – past, present and future (lines 644-45).” Both statements may be correct, but they cannot be merely stated, they need a foundation/ argumentation.

Furthermore, it seems unusual that a work attempting to address issues specific to the twenty-first century cites only one reference that is more recent than 2001.

Finally, three more concrete observations: The table on p. 5 needs elucidation. Otherwise, it can be removed, as it adds nothing particularly relevant to the text. Second, the citation in line 164 must be corrected to a more precise form. Third, the “Emergent Church” is mentioned twice in the text, but out of nothing. A common reader knows neither what church this is nor why this church is taken as an example in the argumentation instead of other churches.

Considering this observations, I cannot recommend the publication of this text in this present form.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity of being able to rectify and edit the article.  These are the changes I have made to hopefully meet the advice recommended – with thanks:

• I have reviews the “preachy language” and the “scams” that were used to compare the gospel with the truth;
• I have defined the “gospel” as well a the “cultural context” I am referring too – namely, “post-Christianity”. I have been ble to give academic support in this regard;
• I have defined what “the truth of the gospel” is as this is important for the context I am referring to in this article;
• What I really wanted to emphasise is that philosophy is not bad, it is more “secular philosophy” as opposed to “Christian philosophy” – again, in the broader context of this article;
• I have Changed the title to what was recommended: "Navigating the Gospel in Australia's Post-Christian Landscape.";
• I have added many more supporting quotes and books.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revised the paper according to the recommendations from the initial evaluation.

Author Response

Greetings, many thanks for the feedback and your patience.. It was recommended I look at some recent scholarly material (contemporary authorities) on the history and understanding of Post-Christianity, theology and faith. I have added 4.1.3. to this article and read much about the views of Habermas, Derrida, Zizek as well as Dalferth.

I hope this meets the expected standard.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 101: The reference is from the early 1990's: too early, too old to be of use in defining the central issue which is of 'Post-CHristianity' a relatively recent term.

 

Your paper, as it is being submitted to an academic journal, requires you to provide clarity on the issues raised by academics. Specifically, post-Christianity, secularisation, and any other contemporary issue, these terms and concepts have been written about across many different disciplines (sociology of religion, theology, religious studies, philosophy). Much work work has been done by many important authors, including Habermas, Derrida, Zizek, Charles Taylor, and even the Vatican, on secularisation and post-Christianitry and you have not provided any substantive references or touch-points from the literature that describes the issues you are seeking to discuss. I am sorry to be blunt, but this approach is not acceptable; you must demonstrate that you understanding the core issues at hand, and to do so, traditionally, you need to cite contemporary authorities who have sought to define said issues so that you may either agree with them, critique them, or demonstrate why they are not relevant to your issue. None of these options can be undertaken without reading the sources.

The Veith Jr Reference I found to the text you cite from 1994, but I found Veith's book was published in 2020. Which one is it? As I mentioned before, for me to accept this for publication you must demonstrate some mastery of the contemporary literature that talks to the issues. Please revise. I have offered a few texts below. Take a bit of time away from the bible and read some contemporary scholarship, then cite them in your essay; after that, I'll be willing to reread it. 

 

FYI, a leading figure in these discussions is a colleague I forgot to mention: David Newheiser, also based in Australia, which returns us to other comments I made. Draw on Australian sources, too, especially when they speak to the topics.

 

 

The death of God: The culture of our post-Christian era

G Vahania  

Post-secular Society: Christianity and the Dialectics of the Secular 

Get access  Ingolf U. Dalferth Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume 78, Issue 2, June 2010, Pages 317–345, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfp053  

[BOOK] Hope in a secular age: Deconstruction, negative theology and the future of faith

D Newheiser    Comments on the Quality of English Language

Your English is fine, but you need to read!

Author Response

Greetings, many thanks for the feedback and your patience.. It was recommended I look at some recent scholarly material (contemporary authorities) on the history and understanding of Post-Christianity, theology and faith. I have added 4.1.3. to this article and read much about the views of Habermas, Derrida, Zizek as well as Dalferth.

I hope this meets the expected standard.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision of the text did not change it significantly, neither were my points of criticism really addressed, especially the methodological flaws. However, the solutions put forward are, in my view, appropriate, so that the article, as a whole, makes a valuable contribution to the current debate on such issues. 

Author Response

Greetings, many thanks for the feedback and your patience.. It was recommended I look at some recent scholarly material (contemporary authorities) on the history and understanding of Post-Christianity, theology and faith. I have added 4.1.3. to this article and read much about the views of Habermas, Derrida, Zizek as well as Dalferth.

I hope this meets the expected standard.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been greatly improved by the use of the resources I mentioned. (One thing: The author does not need to praise the new sources, so much as identify the concepts/ content that the sources cite that are relevant to this paper (take out the praises!). Remember, you are setting yourself up as a peer to the authors you reference, so engage with them as you would a colleague and simply lay out what you think they are saying, and why their perspectives are relevant to your work, and then proceed to adopt/ adapt their comments as you see fit.) I noted the need to improve the areas above, what I mean by this is that the author appears to have added the references and clarified the concepts I asked them to. However, I would suggest that the author make summaries, and put signposts in their introduction, to inform the reader that they 1) have examined several contemporary authorities on the various concepts etc. 2) describe, referring to those authors and to their own opinions, how they are defining the key concepts discussed in the paper. If the author can place mentions of these later redactions into their introduction, this change will go an enourmous way in ensuring that the paper is coherent, easy to follow, and has solid engagement with key sources. My recommendation is to rework the introduction of the paper in the ways above (demonstrate to the reader that you get it) after this, I think it will be ready.

 

Author Response

I have addressed the suggestions made (for which I am very grateful) and have made the appropriate suggested changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx