Congregational Discernment and LGBTQ+ Inclusion: Process Lessons from 21 Congregations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Up-to-date data including those of 2020 are highly appreciated.
2. Revise the article's title. Readers would have no idea about the article's content by reading the title only (as I did as a reviewer). Mention LGBTQ+ or any indication of it in the title.
3. A typo in line 148 is found.
4. An empty space in line 263 is found.
The denominational-historical survey looks very good. The overall research results are less than satisfactory. Those results sound a bit tedious--already known to researchers interested in this topic or already appearing in relevant literature.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your careful review and recommendations. I am outlining the changes made with page numbers. I have had trouble with the line numbers changing when I communicate with my co-authors. if the line numbers aren't exact, that is the result of the numbers changing perhaps in response to different versions of word. Here are your recommendations with our responses:
- Up-to-date data including those of 2020 are highly appreciated.
- Revise the article's title. Readers would have no idea about the article's content by reading the title only (as I did as a reviewer). Mention LGBTQ+ or any indication of it in the title. Line 2, included LBGTQ+ Inclusion in the title
- A typo in line 148 is found.
HH: Line 148, added t to he for “the hierarchy”
- An empty space in line 263 is found.
HH: Template formatting issue. The copy editor will need to make that adjustment.
The denominational-historical survey looks very good. The overall research results are less than satisfactory. Those results sound a bit tedious--already known to researchers interested in this topic or already appearing in relevant literature.
HH: There are a number of additional findings in this study which will be reported in other articles. This article is focused specifically on findings related to process. In our review of the literature, we found some discussion of processes used in discernment conversations specific to LGBTQ+ inclusion but none that identified what worked and didn’t work in the processes and none with the scope of this study across three denominations and 21 congregations, and 97 interviews including ministers, lay leaders, and congregants. Several findings that were specific to this research study included: 1.) many congregations had multiple processes as opposed to our pre-conceived assumption and that of participants that one process would take care of the conversation and the discussion would not have to be revisited periodically. As the culture experienced additional changes, additional processes were needed. Lines 184-192
2.) We anticipated based on the literature that denominational history around this discussion and others would have provided established process guidelines and formats. Instead, the LGBTQ+ discussion required distinctly different responses which then led in several cases for ministerial staff to write books recommending processes for other congregations. Lines 310-315.
3.) We were struck by the experience of fear and anxiety. While we anticipated that in the LGBTQ+ population based on previous research we had done and read, we did not anticipate fear and anxiety around potential losses in response to the process and/or in response to the decision. Lines 382-384. The differences in process leadership by pastor or by study group of congregants was not specific to denomination or congregation size. That conversation and change was driven by national policy change was not a surprise but seemed important to report. Lines 427-430
4). We found it important that participants acknowledged the pain of the process while still recommending that other churches engage the conversation. See lines 557-561.
Thank you for the helpful feedback to state clearly the overarching process finding that there has not been a model established. Lines 227-229; 344-345. We added several other observations to strengthen the participants’ observations of the importance and timing of process elements. Line 357; Lines 384-386; Lines 433-436. We added several statements about importance of phases of process; preprocess line 357; and post decision impact as participants sometimes left the congregation to live true to their own decision/convictions (lines 554-555).
This article was specifically about findings related to processes used by congregations and the perceptions and experiences of participants to/with the processes. We found several other themes, not specifically about processes, that will be reported in other articles.
Reviewer 2 Report
I very much enjoyed reading this article. It addresses an important and interesting topic for today’s congregations. The research is well-designed and the article is well-written. My comments are generally related to the structure of the article and some detail areas.
Coming from a sociology perspective, the methods section should follow the literature review and come just before the results. I think this is the case for social sciences in general. Even for the general audience, having the methods come before the results helps provide more context for the results. If I know how you collected the data, I have a better context for reviewing the results. I strongly recommend this re-ordering. The current location of the methods section between the discussion and conclusion is also problematic because it breaks up the flow between the discussion and conclusion. In other words, if you don’t choose to move the methods section to before the results, it at least has to come after the conclusion.
Another reason the methods should come before the results is that at the end of the literature review I was looking for a research question of some kind. The first paragraph helps provide that to some degree. While you do not identify a specific research question, this paragraph does describe what the goal of the research is.
The paragraph including lines 182-191 belongs after the literature review – and is really a brief methods description, so is should be incorporated into the methods section.
Section 1.5 – models in the literature needs to at least include a paragraph providing some type of overview or summary. As a reviewer of this article I do not have access to the other author article discussing these models in detail. And, even as a reader of the published article, I may not want to seek out the other article first. More importantly, these models are directly related to what you should be looking for in the current research, or provide a framework for approaching the current research. In other words, the prior “research” described by these models in the literature should directly influence your “research question” for the current research. This aspect of the literature review is much more relevant that the prior elements of the literature review.
I recommend deleting the first paragraph of the results section, lines 207-218, or moving it to the discussion/conclusion section. I did not find it to be a helpful overview because I did not have the context of having read the actual results yet. In other words, it would be more helpful as a concluding summary rather than an introductory one.
The results section was well-organized and did a good job of incorporating quotes from the interviews.
I recommend deleting the first paragraph of the Discussion section, lines 435-440. I did not know what the point of the paragraph was. If it was intended to be an introductory paragraph to the discussion, I don’t think it is necessary. The goal of the discussion is to discuss the results, which you begin to do quite clearly with line 441.
In section 3.1 Strengths and limitations, lines 475-first half of 477 are adequate to describe the limitation. The second half of line 477-481 would be better as part of the methods section.
Again, the Discussion and Conclusion sections should either be combined or the conclusion should immediately follow the discussion.
In the conclusion, I don’t think the first two paragraphs, lines 536-549 are necessary. This seems to be a recap of the paper rather than coming to conclusions based on the research.
A few minor details:
I think you need some citations for the early part of the lit review, lines 41-62.
The block quotes from interviews often have a “ at the end of the block – which is not needed – plus there is no opening “.
Author Response
Thank you for your careful review and helpful recommendations. We believe we have addressed each one in track changes and have listed them here with page numbers. I experienced some challenge with the line numbers changing in communication with my other authors. If the line numbers are not an exact match, that is the problem.
I very much enjoyed reading this article. It addresses an important and interesting topic for today’s congregations. The research is well-designed and the article is well-written. My comments are generally related to the structure of the article and some detail areas.
Coming from a sociology perspective, the methods section should follow the literature review and come just before the results. I think this is the case for social sciences in general. Even for the general audience, having the methods come before the results helps provide more context for the results. If I know how you collected the data, I have a better context for reviewing the results. I strongly recommend this re-ordering. The current location of the methods section between the discussion and conclusion is also problematic because it breaks up the flow between the discussion and conclusion. In other words, if you don’t choose to move the methods section to before the results, it at least has to come after the conclusion.
We structured the article according to the editorial template provided. We appreciate your view about the flow of the article so consulted with the associate editor and got permission to restructure the article. We moved the materials and methods section to appear after the literature review and before the findings. See the track changes. Section 2 is now Materials and Methods (lines 231-292). Section 3 is now Results, beginning with Line 294.
Another reason the methods should come before the results is that at the end of the literature review I was looking for a research question of some kind. The first paragraph helps provide that to some degree. While you do not identify a specific research question, this paragraph does describe what the goal of the research is.
Great point. We added the research question addressed by this article in the methods section. Lines 237-239.
The paragraph including lines 182-191 belongs after the literature review – and is really a brief methods description, so is should be incorporated into the methods section.
Based on your feedback, we took out the subheading Discernment and Conversation, moved the first paragraph to the section above, and moved the paragraph you indicated to the discussion (Lines 578-592).
Section 1.5 – models in the literature needs to at least include a paragraph providing some type of overview or summary. As a reviewer of this article I do not have access to the other author article discussing these models in detail. And, even as a reader of the published article, I may not want to seek out the other article first. More importantly, these models are directly related to what you should be looking for in the current research, or provide a framework for approaching the current research. In other words, the prior “research” described by these models in the literature should directly influence your “research question” for the current research. This aspect of the literature review is much more relevant that the prior elements of the literature review. I added an introductory paragraph including a reference to our article with the comprehensive models review (Lines 184-192).
I recommend deleting the first paragraph of the results section, lines 207-218, or moving it to the discussion/conclusion section. I did not find it to be a helpful overview because I did not have the context of having read the actual results yet. In other words, it would be more helpful as a concluding summary rather than an introductory one.
I moved lines 207-218 to the discussion/conclusion section and provided a shorter, more succinct introduction to the results (Lines 578-592).
The results section was well-organized and did a good job of incorporating quotes from the interviews.
I recommend deleting the first paragraph of the Discussion section, lines 435-440. I did not know what the point of the paragraph was. If it was intended to be an introductory paragraph to the discussion, I don’t think it is necessary. The goal of the discussion is to discuss the results, which you begin to do quite clearly with line 441.
We moved the first paragraph of the discussion section to the conclusions (Lines 653-660).
In section 3.1 Strengths and limitations, lines 475-first half of 477 are adequate to describe the limitation. The second half of line 477-481 would be better as part of the methods section.
HH: We respectfully decided to leave the second half of this discussion where it is located.
Again, the Discussion and Conclusion sections should either be combined or the conclusion should immediately follow the discussion.
HH: Conclusions immediately follow the Discussion…which is also consistent with the journal template.
In the conclusion, I don’t think the first two paragraphs, lines 536-549 are necessary. This seems to be a recap of the paper rather than coming to conclusions based on the research.
We added context and connection to bridge the discussion to these conclusions (Lines 653-660).
A few minor details:
I think you need some citations for the early part of the lit review, lines 41-62.
HH: Citations added: Line 43; line 45; line 50; line 52; line 58; and line 64. References for these citations were added to the reference list: Lines 831-832; 836-837; 866-868; 873.
The block quotes from interviews often have a “ at the end of the block – which is not needed – plus there is no opening “.
HH: We reviewed the quotes. Quotations under 40 words now have quotation marks at beginning and end and block quotes, which are 40 words+ do not.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written, clearly presented, and deals with important questions.
I wonder about the necessity of the broad introduction situating the research in the history of Christian division back to the book of Acts. As currently written, it sounds more like throat clearing, rather than a substantive addition to the article. If it is to be kept, I would add at least the biblical references for the Gentiles controversy, and potentially some literature references for the other aspects. But my preference would be to cut this section heavily, as its point seems to be: Christians have fought about who belongs and why since the beginning, and that could be said much more briefly.
On page 3 there is a reference to Methodist responses to "gentiles." I am unfamiliar with the refeference and am wondering if it is a typo.
On an ecclesiological note, I think that there's a further question to be asked in the conclusion section (p 10). Participants talk about the strengthening of the parish in the metaphor of "refinement by fire." One, likely unintentional, aspect of this metaphor, particularly in the context of those who disagree leaving, is that the splitting of the church (even if it is the leaving of a few members) becomes understood as the driving out of "dross" leaving a stronger parish behind. In a Christian context, specifically with the creedal call to "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" there might be more work to be done around what these processes accomplishes beyond the parish. And what effect the "driving out of dross" has on the parish itself. This is re-emphasized on page 13 where regardless of the outcome, the congregation is described as becoming stronger -- perhaps because the "strong congregation" is the one who agrees? Which would imply that the strength of the broader church might require division?
Author Response
Thank you for your careful review and helpful recommendations. We have addressed them in the paper and provided a summary here with line numbers. I experienced some challenge with the line numbers changing in communication with co-authors so if the line numbers do not match exactly, that is the problem..but the changes are there as requested.
The paper is well written, clearly presented, and deals with important questions.
I wonder about the necessity of the broad introduction situating the research in the history of Christian division back to the book of Acts. As currently written, it sounds more like throat clearing, rather than a substantive addition to the article. If it is to be kept, I would add at least the biblical references for the Gentiles controversy, and potentially some literature references for the other aspects. But my preference would be to cut this section heavily, as its point seems to be: Christians have fought about who belongs and why since the beginning, and that could be said much more briefly.
HH: Added biblical references. Citations added to Line 43; line 45; line 50; line 52; line 58; and line 64. References for these citations were added to the reference list: Lines 831-832; 836-837; 866-868; 873.
On page 3 there is a reference to Methodist responses to "gentiles." I am unfamiliar with the reference and am wondering if it is a typo.
HH: This was not specific to the Methodist church but to the early Christian church. See line 47.
On an ecclesiological note, I think that there's a further question to be asked in the conclusion section (p 10). Participants talk about the strengthening of the parish in the metaphor of "refinement by fire." One, likely unintentional, aspect of this metaphor, particularly in the context of those who disagree leaving, is that the splitting of the church (even if it is the leaving of a few members) becomes understood as the driving out of "dross" leaving a stronger parish behind. In a Christian context, specifically with the creedal call to "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" there might be more work to be done around what these processes accomplishes beyond the parish. And what effect the "driving out of dross" has on the parish itself. This is re-emphasized on page 13 where regardless of the outcome, the congregation is described as becoming stronger -- perhaps because the "strong congregation" is the one who agrees? Which would imply that the strength of the broader church might require division?
HH: Point well taken. See the additional paragraph in the conclusion. Lines 798-805.
