Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract of the article sounds compelling as it promises to offer both, empirical research with a substantial theoretical grounding as well as a framework for future missionary practice. However, it does not meet all these promises as thoroughly as I might wish. At least, I see the following needs of improvements:

Situatedness of the autor: One of the most basic insights de-/ resp. postcolonial critiques have offered is the need of positioning oneself as author: From which points of view, from which perspective does the author speak? More specificially, what is the author's academic / disciplinary background in light of which his or her research questions become relevant to him or her? Does he or she write from a western perspective (as is evident here) and what impact does this have on the choice of theories, methods and sources (primary and scondary literature - here: dominant white scholarship, almost exclusively male authors - and how does that fit with the overall thesis of the argument which emphazies dialogical learning through mutual transformation)? What about denominational allegiances (here: post-Vatican II theology which e.g. a Religious Studies Scholar might have refered to not as foundation for empirical research but much rather as discourse which might become in itself a topic of study).
Theory: The article promises to mobilize at least three intellectual resources: a) post-Vatican II theology, which is not theory but 'tradition'. In itself this is not a problem as far as it is clear that the author conductss his or her research from a specific denominational perspective. So: More explanation is needed here, : Why particularly Post-Vaticanum II theology, as it is not in itself a self-evident choice e.g. for non-religious readers or readers with other denominational backgrounds within Mission Studies / Intercultural Theology. Readers would need to be offered plausible arguments why post-Vatican II theology recommends istself, more specificially in the context of mission studies, where denominational and non-denominational allegiances are multiple. b) Comparative Theology which is engaged at large by a variety of pertinent sources. However, it would be helpful here as well to learn more about this intellectual strand of theology: In reaction to which developments did it emerge? (i.e. contextualization) and c) postcolonial critique: Section 2.2 is especially vague in this respect as the works cited refer to Comparative Theologians, which, in turn, might have dealt with post- and decolonial theories. However, the lack of thorough engagement with relevant primary texts is evident not only in the references. (Among the scholarship referenced not one of the classic authors is listed nor the classic handbooks on the topic.) The lack of deeper acquaintance of (the different strands of) postcolonial critique is especially evident in the analysis itself which brings me to
analysis: The empirical part of the article refers to research conducted with protagonists of an exemplary missionary society (Steyler Missionare) which is still active. Other than in research on missionary organisations which have ceased to exist actual missionaries still can be interviewed. On first sight this is a great adavantage. However, classic expert interviews - as they are conducted here - have the problematic implication of reproducing asymmetries which might exist in the actual pracitce researched Asking experts triggers narratives and performances of expertise. On all accounts, such narratives have to be read critically (for example discourse critically), if the research wants to offer more than what practitioners in the fields know and tend to believe of themselves already. In short: More ideology critique is needed, more particularly as there are no research partners from the global south / countries in which the mission society is still active. What about their views? And their voices? We only have one, but a rather impressive example of an African-American person challenging the usual self-representations of the professional missionary (line 370f.). This, at least, should have taken as a hint to change the research design in order to put the views of research partners to the fore which might have a different perception and opinion of the Mission's activities. Data from expert interviews, if not critically engaged with (i.e. also via theoretical sampling!), tends to mute indigenous perspectives on the same missionary endeavour and continues to marginalize their view and interests. This, in turn brings me to the
style of argument: Empirical research and data analysis (which in itself is a black box - as references to programmes such as MaxQDA or Atlas-ti donot in themself explain anything of the hermeneutic procedures. It would therefore be helpful to learn more of the coding process as there are many different approaches of coding and / or of the selection of passages which, as it is told, have been interpreted in a more sequential procedure [which exactly?] seem not to have been conducted in order to find out something new or surprising about the practice at question but to prove a specific normative idea about what mission has to be (according to the author and / or post-Vaticanum II theology and / or Comparative Theology). However, affirmation is not what qualitative-empirical research is meant to do. It aims at least to develop theory further by questioning and modifying it. Even more so, if the 'theory' that is engaged is a specific theology which claims to engage itself with lived religion (i.e. what actual people actual feel, think and do religiously). The style of argumentation here is not analytical but assertoric, which, in consequence makes it rather redundant. The basic ideas, stated in the abstract, are repeated in most of the sections.

The tasks / problems stated in 1. and 4. are easily solved. The insufficiencies stated in 2 are no insuffiences any more if the author retreats from claming to engage postcolonial critique or specifies further eminent sources / authors. Taken together, 1., 2. and 4. call for minor revisions.

However, the problem stated in 3. suggests a deeper methodological engagement and revision of the research design. How can marginalized perspectives / voices / views and, more specificially, also critique of what the experts here have to tell, be in included to make this a relly interesting, for nuanced research? This calls the author also to more self-reflection and transparency: Which story do I want to tell? What is my agenda? Theologically and otherwise? And why. The endeavour however, in my opinion, is worth the effort. For research with research partners which might be uncomfortable and difficult to reach does not only tell more about the practice(s) in question. It also offers precious insights about the researching person herself and promises rather invaluable moments of self-knowledge - of one's personal self as well as one's theological identity. So, in this light, don't shy away from the trouble!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Please note that all revised sections in response to Reviewer 1’s comments have been highlighted in purple in the revised manuscript to facilitate easy identification of the changes made.

Comment 1:
*“The abstract of the article sounds compelling as it promises to offer both, empirical research with a substantial theoretical grounding as well as a framework for future missionary practice. However, it does not meet all these promises as thoroughly as I might wish. At least, I see the following needs of improvements:

Situatedness of the author: One of the most basic insights of de-/ postcolonial critiques have offered is the need of positioning oneself as author: From which points of view, from which perspective does the author speak? More specifically, what is the author's academic / disciplinary background in light of which his or her research questions become relevant to him or her? Does he or she write from a western perspective (as is evident here) and what impact does this have on the choice of theories, methods and sources (primary and secondary literature - here: dominant white scholarship, almost exclusively male authors - and how does that fit with the overall thesis of the argument which emphasizes dialogical learning through mutual transformation)? What about denominational allegiances (here: post-Vatican II theology which e.g. a Religious Studies Scholar might have referred to not as a foundation for empirical research but much rather as a discourse which might become in itself a topic of study).”

Response:
Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion. To clarify my positionality and disciplinary grounding, I have now explicitly indicated that I approach the research agenda from a systematic theology and religious education perspective, rooted in a post–Vatican II Catholic framework. The revised manuscript includes a short paragraph outlining my academic formation and how my denominational background shapes the study’s theoretical orientation. I also acknowledge more clearly that the sources and literature cited are still largely Western and male-dominated. This limitation is now addressed in the discussion section.

Importantly, I am preparing a follow-up study that will engage theologians and educators from the global South and marginalized communities. This future research will adopt participatory and theoretically sampled methodologies to actively include these voices, ensuring a broadened dialogical and decolonial engagement. The planned research design will emphasize collaboration and reflexivity to critically address positionality and power asymmetries (see, eg, manuscript lines 54–68).

Comment 2:
“Theory: The article promises to mobilize at least three intellectual resources: a) post-Vatican II theology, which is not theory but 'tradition'. In itself this is not a problem as far as it is clear that the author conducts his or her research from a specific denominational perspective. So: More explanation is needed here, : Why particularly post-Vatican II theology, as it is not in itself a self-evident choice e.g. for non-religious readers or readers with other denominational backgrounds within Mission Studies / Intercultural Theology. Readers would need to be offered plausible arguments why post-Vatican II theology recommends itself, more specifically, in the context of mission studies, where denominational and non-denominational allegiances are multiple.”

Response:

Thank you for this insightful comment. I have clarified that my engagement with post–Vatican II theology stems from its strong emphasis on dialogue, inculturation, and the shift from proselytism toward genuine intercultural encounter. These aspects closely align with my concern for mutual transformation within mission praxis. In the revised version, I added a paragraph that situates Vatican II’s renewed understanding of mission within contemporary intercultural and interreligious settings, highlighting how its theological impulses continue to shape conversations on mission beyond the Catholic context (see eg, manuscript lines 97–110).

Comment 3:
“b) Comparative Theology which is engaged at large by a variety of pertinent sources. However, it would be helpful here as well to learn more about this intellectual strand of theology: In reaction to which developments did it emerge? (i.e., contextualization) and c) postcolonial critique: Section 2.2 is especially vague in this respect as the works cited refer to Comparative Theologians, which, in turn, might have dealt with post- and decolonial theories. However, the lack of thorough engagement with relevant primary texts is evident not only in the references.”

Response:
Thank you for this helpful observation. I have expanded sections 2.2 and 2.3 to provide a more explicit discussion of how Comparative Theology emerged in response to global religious pluralism and continues to evolve within processes of religious and intercultural contextualization. The revised text now engages key contributions by Catherine Cornille and Craig S. Prentiss and examines more closely how Comparative Theology interacts with postcolonial critique, drawing on several foundational works in the field. While the range of references remains necessarily selective, I now note the importance of future research engaging more deeply with classical sources and primary interreligious encounters (see eg, manuscript lines 97–110 and 137–142).

Comment 4:
“The empirical part of the article refers to research conducted with protagonists of an exemplary missionary society (Steyler Missionaries) which is still active. Other than in research on missionary organisations which have ceased to exist, actual missionaries still can be interviewed. On first sight, this is a great advantage. However, classic expert interviews - as they are conducted here - have the problematic implication of reproducing asymmetries which might exist in the actual practice researched asking experts triggers narratives and performances of expertise. Such narratives have to be read critically (for example discourse critically), if the research wants to offer more than what practitioners in the fields know and tend to believe of themselves already. In short: More ideology critique is needed, more particularly as there are no research partners from the global south / countries in which the mission society is still active. What about their views? And their voices? We only have one, but a rather impressive example of an African-American person challenging the usual self-representations of the professional missionary (line 370f.). This, at least, should have taken as a hint to change the research design in order to put the views of research partners to the fore which might have a different perception and opinion of the Mission's activities. Data from expert interviews, if not critically engaged with (i.e., also via theoretical sampling!), tends to mute indigenous perspectives on the same missionary endeavour and continues to marginalize their view and interests. This, in turn, brings me to the style of argument: Empirical research and data analysis (which in itself is a black box - as references to programmes such as MaxQDA or Atlas-ti donot in themself explain anything of the hermeneutic procedures. It would therefore be helpful to learn more of the coding process as there are many different approaches of coding and/or of the selection of passages which, as it is told, have been interpreted in a more sequential procedure [which exactly?] seem not to have been conducted in order to find out something new or surprising about the practice at question but to prove a specific normative idea about what mission has to be (according to the author and/or post-Vatican II theology and/or Comparative Theology). However, affirmation is not what qualitative-empirical research is meant to do. It aims at least to develop theory further by questioning and modifying it. The style of argumentation here is not analytical but assertoric, which, in consequence, makes it rather redundant. The basic ideas, stated in the abstract, are repeated in most of the sections.”

Response:
Thank you for this comprehensive and constructive critique. I acknowledge that the current research design – based on expert interviews with members of an active missionary society – reflects certain asymmetries and does not sufficiently include voices from the Global South or marginalized communities. As noted earlier, I have already outlined plans for follow-up research that will employ participatory methods and theoretical sampling to incorporate indigenous perspectives and critical engagement with expert narratives.

With regard to the hermeneutic procedures, I have expanded the methodological section to explain the coding process in more detail, specifying the use of thematic analysis and hermeneutical rounds, and citing relevant qualitative research literature. I clarify that the analysis was not intended to affirm existing frameworks but to critically examine the normative assumptions underlying missionary practice. In revising the manuscript, I also reduced redundancy and improved the argumentative flow, emphasizing that the overall aim is theoretical refinement and a more nuanced understanding of the data (see eg, manuscript lines 268–305).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a high-quality, well-thought-out, relevant academic article. It is very well structured. It logically progresses from the historical context of the mission before and after the Second Vatican Council, through the presentation of the comparative theology framework, to the empirical part of the analysis of interviews, and concludes with a synthesis. The argument is clear from the outset, and the author systematically develops it.
Despite the methodological limitations common to small-scale qualitative research, which the author transparently acknowledges, this article is a valuable contribution to discussions on missiology, interreligious dialogue, and postcolonial theology. Its value lies not in its quantitative representativeness but in the depth of its analysis and the inspiring model it offers.

I have only formal comments:
- In line 225, "Roedlach" is written with "oe," but subsequently with "ö." This needs to be standardized.
- In section 3.1, respondents Bevans and Schroeder are introduced in notes 3 and 4, respectively, but there are no such notes for the others until the next section (notes 5–8). A note should probably be added where they are first mentioned.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Please note that all revised sections in response to Reviewer 1’s comments have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript to facilitate easy identification of the changes made.

Comment:
This is a high-quality, well-thought-out, relevant academic article. It is very well structured. It logically progresses from the historical context of the mission before and after the Second Vatican Council, through the presentation of the comparative theology framework, to the empirical part of the analysis of interviews, and concludes with a synthesis. The argument is clear from the outset, and the author systematically develops it. Despite the methodological limitations common to small-scale qualitative research, which the author transparently acknowledges, this article is a valuable contribution to discussions on missiology, interreligious dialogue, and postcolonial theology. Its value lies not in its quantitative representativeness but in the depth of its analysis and the inspiring model it offers.

I have only formal comments:

In line 225, “Roedlach“ is written with “oe, “ but subsequently with “ö.“ This needs to be standardized.
In section 3.1, respondents Bevans and Schroeder are introduced in notes 3 and 4, respectively, but there are no such notes for the others until the next section (notes 5–8). A note should probably be added where they are first mentioned.

Response:
Thank you very much for the positive evaluation and valuable comments. Regarding the spelling of „Roedlach,“ I have standardized the name to use the umlaut “ö“ consistently throughout the manuscript (see line 225).

Concerning the footnotes, I have now added citation notes for Franz Helm, Alexander Rödlach, Christian Tauchner, and Martin Üffing at their first mention in section 3.1, in line with the existing notes for Bevans and Schroeder, improving clarity and consistency (see pages 6 and 7, section 3.1).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This excellent paper engages post-Vatican II theology, postcolonial critique, and Comparative Theology and demonstrates how mission can embody epistemic humility, contextual sensitivity, and theological hospitality.

Perhaps author could provide an opening or concluding paragraph summarizing main points in an accessible, non-scholarly way that avoids theological terms.

Might be best to also include SDV in title.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Please note that all revised sections in response to Reviewer 1’s comments have been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript to facilitate easy identification of the changes made.

Comment:
This excellent paper engages post-Vatican II theology, postcolonial critique, and Comparative Theology and demonstrates how mission can embody epistemic humility, contextual sensitivity, and theological hospitality. Perhaps author could provide an opening or concluding paragraph summarizing main points in an accessible, non-scholarly way that avoids theological terms.
Might be best to also include SDV in title.

Response:
Thank you very much for the positive and constructive feedback. Following your suggestion, I have added a concluding paragraph that summarizes the key insights of the article in accessible, non-technical language while retaining academic integrity (see lines 796–805, conclusion).

In addition, I have updated the article title to explicitly include “Steyler Missionaries (SDV)” to reflect better the study’s core focus (see title page). These changes improve the accessibility and contextual clarity of the manuscript.

Review Reports

Response to Reviewer 1

Please note that all revised sections in response to Reviewer 1’s comments have been highlighted in purple in the revised manuscript to facilitate easy identification of the changes made.

Response to Reviewer 2

Response to Reviewer 3