Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This study is a valuable paper that utilizes quantitative research methods to prove the hypotheses it sets out to test. It provides valuable insights into the attitudes of current American Protestant church members towards the Bible and religion. However, some aspects of the paper are unclear and require further explanation. First, on page 8, the participant description states that over 60% of the respondents are Catholic.  Given this, can this study truly analyze the correlation between denominational awareness and faith within Protestant theology? Second, traditionally, the term "marginalized group" has referred to racial groups. However, this paper selects this group based on sexuality. A more specific explanation is needed regarding the rationale for defining and studying this group in this way. This is because marginalized groups from a racial perspective often hold very conservative beliefs and adhere to literal interpretations of the Bible, while marginalized groups based on sexuality tend to hold more progressive views on biblical interpretation. Adding an explanation of this point to the paper would help readers better understand the research.

Author Response

RE: Reviewer 1 comments

Manuscript ID: religions-4104104
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Rejecting, Welcoming, Accepting, or Affirming? Theological
Orientation, Marginalized Identity, and Attitudes Toward Religion

This study is a valuable paper that utilizes quantitative research methods to prove the hypothesis it sets out to test. It provides valuable insights into the attitudes of current American Protestant church members towards the Bible and religion. However, some aspects of the paper are unclear and require further explanation.

 

AUTHORS: Thank for taking the time to help us strengthen our manuscript. Your comments were specific and insightful. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to our manuscript. We addressed all of your points in this line-by-line letter. We implemented most of the suggested changes. We also took the time to streamline our writing.

 

First, on page 8, the participant description states that over 60% of the respondents are Catholic. Given this, can this study truly analyze the correlation between denominational awareness and faith within Protestant theology?

 

AUTHORS: Thank you for this important clarification. We agree that the high proportion of Catholic respondents warrants explicit justification. Although the Protestant Theology Scale (PTS) was developed to capture orientations central to Protestant theology—particularly biblical literalism versus theological openness—the construct of scriptural authority and interpretation is not exclusive to Protestants. Catholic respondents regularly engage with the Bible and vary substantially in their views of biblical authority, interpretation, and doctrinal certainty. Our focus was not denominational identity per se, but rather how individuals evaluate Christian denominations and religion based on their theological orientation toward scripture and authority.

 

To address this concern, we have added clarifications in the Introduction (section 1.1; pp. 2–3, lines 77–90), Methods (section 4.1; p. 11, lines 404–406), and Discussion (section 3.6; p. 10, lines 376-382), explaining why Catholic participants were retained and how their inclusion informs attitudes toward Protestant denominations and broader Christian theology. We hope these revisions clarify the intent of our work and demonstrate how including Catholic respondents provides valuable insight into theological orientation.

 

Second, traditionally, the term “marginalized group” has referred to racial groups. However, this paper selects this group based on sexuality. A more specific explanation is needed regarding the rationale for defining and studying this group in this way. This is because marginalized groups from a racial perspective often hold very conservative beliefs and adhere to literal interpretations of the Bible, while marginalized groups based on sexuality tend to hold more progressive views on biblical interpretation. Adding an explanation of this point to the paper would help readers better understand the research.

 

AUTHORS: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify our use of the term “marginalized.” In the revised manuscript, we explicitly define marginalization as exclusion within Christian theological and institutional contexts rather than societal marginalization more broadly. We also clarify why sexuality-based marginalization is theoretically distinct from racial marginalization, particularly in relation to biblical interpretation and doctrinal conflict. These revisions appear in the Introduction section 1.2 (see page 3, lines 110-121), and Discussion section 3.6 (see pp. 9-10, lines 364-375).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research whose results provide important arguments in the discussion on the social role of religion, as well as for ecumenical dialogues on moral discernment in Churches. It is a cognitively valuable study and should therefore be published. 
I have a few specific comments regarding the structure and content of the article.
First of all, in my opinion, Chapter 4 ('Materials and Methods') should be placed after the Introduction. This would help the reader to better assimilate the content (especially readers less familiar with sociological and statistical categories).
In Chapter 4, the authors report that 61,3 %  of respondents declared themselves to be Catholic. However, it is not clear what the relationship of this group to the Protestant Theological Orientation is. Could the authors better justify it, given that Catholic theology differs from Protestant theology, for example, in its approach to the relationship between the tradition of Church teaching and the Bible? 
In chapter 1.1, the author writes about the Protestant theological principle of ‘Christ alone as the mediator’. However, the Latin translation of this principle is ‘Solus Christus’ (not 'Sola Christo',). Likewise, the principle of ‘Solo Verbo’, which is the fifth integral principle of Protestant theology, should be mentioned. 

Author Response

RE: Reviewer 2 comments

Manuscript ID: religions-4104104
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Rejecting, Welcoming, Accepting, or Affirming? Theological
Orientation, Marginalized Identity, and Attitudes Toward Religion

 

 

The article presents research whose results provide important arguments in the discussion on the social role of religion, as well as for ecumenical dialogues on moral discernment in Churches. It is a cognitively valuable study and should therefore be published.

I have a few specific comments regarding the structure and content of the article.

 

 

AUTHORS: Thank you for taking the time to help us strengthen our manuscript. Your comments were specific and insightful. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to our manuscript. We addressed all of your points in this line-by-line letter. We implemented most of the suggested changes. We also took the time to streamline our writing.

 

First of all, in my opinion, Chapter 4 (Materials and Methods) should be placed after the Introduction. This would help the reader to better assimilate the content (especially readers less familiar with sociological and statistical categories).

 

AUTHORS:

 

In Chapter 4, the authors report that 61.3% of respondents declared themselves to be Catholic. However, it is not clear what the relationship of this group to the Protestant Theological Orientation is. Could the authors better justify it, given that Catholic theology differs from Protestant theology, for example, in its approach to the relationship between the tradition of Church teaching and the Bible?

 

AUTHORS: Thank you for this important clarification. We agree that the high proportion of Catholic respondents warrants explicit justification. Although the Protestant Theology Scale (PTS) was developed to capture orientations central to Protestant theology—particularly biblical literalism versus theological openness—the construct of scriptural authority and interpretation is not exclusive to Protestants. Catholic respondents regularly engage with the Bible and vary substantially in their views of biblical authority, interpretation, and doctrinal certainty. Our focus was not denominational identity per se, but rather how individuals evaluate Christian denominations and religion based on their theological orientation toward scripture and authority.

 

To address this concern, we have added clarifications in the Introduction (section 1.1; pp. 2–3, lines 77–90), Methods (section 4.1; p. 11, lines 404–406), and Discussion (section 3.6; p. 10, lines 376–382), explaining why Catholic participants were retained and how their inclusion informs attitudes toward Protestant denominations and broader Christian theology. We hope these revisions clarify the intent of our work and demonstrate how including Catholic respondents provides valuable insight into theological orientation.

 

 

In chapter 1.1, the author writes about the Protestant theological principle of “Christ alone as the mediator.” However, the Latin translation of this principle is “Solus Christus” (not “Sola Christo”). Likewise, the principle of “Solo Verbo,” which is the fifth integral principle of Protestant theology, should be mentioned.

 

AUTHORS: Thank you for noting these important theological clarifications. We have corrected ‘Sola Christo’ to ‘Solus Christus’ (see page 2, lines 56-57).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revision thoroughly addresses the suggestion I proposed earlier. Therefore, I believe that this article is publishable now.