Transformational Dialogue and Christian Identity in a Multi-Religious Context: Nigeria in Focus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article looks promising, but needs to be improved. The writing style also needs to be improved to make it more reader-friendly. As it is, the argument is all over the place. I personally would like to see this article published. I hope the author can take time to make changes and pay attention to details. On a general level, the article can still use some editing to refine and eliminating typos.
On a substantive level, here are my comments:
1. The abstract is clearly stated. But reading the article one finds that what is stated in the abstract is not exactly what the paper is doing. The first part of the paper is almost like a comprehensive summary of Elochukwu Uzukwu’s work. But in the middle section, Uzukwu suddenly disappears and the author begins to throw out names of different African scholars the author knows. The name-dropping is a distraction and makes the article to be all over the place.
2. Then there is the matter of confusion of terms. Many concepts are randomly thrown out, and for the most part, hardly fit the context and do not advance the argument at hand. For example, in section 6, “theological element of pneumatology” “strategy,” and other terms are bounced around and I’m left wondering what the author means to say with these technical terms. The paragraph ends with a jargon borrowed from elsewhere: “Factors such as experience, clarity in judgment, structured planning and well-developed communication mechanisms determine the strategic operationality of corporate entities.” The sentence beginning the next paragraph is also unclear: “Dialogue also emerges as a form of in the corporate world, with the three pillars of actions.” Form of what?
3. To return to Uzukwu, the author writes (line 43), Elochukwu’s “scholarship is underlined by a particular ecclesiology,” What is this particular ecclesiology? The author does not name it. The (lines 49-52), the author makes the claim that Elochukwu’ s work “is in some sense one of the foremost works in African ecclesiology that follows in the tradition of theologians like Jean-Marc Ela, Laurenti Magesa, Jesse Mugambi, Benezet Bujo, Kwame Bediako, Vincent Mulago, Charles Nyamiti, Eboussi Bou laga and Hubert Kamgang.” Is the suggestion here that all these people the author names are doing exactly the same kind of theology or ecclesiology? If the author thinks so, that is not true. While there are overlaps in the respective works of these people, there are significant differences. For example, some are ethicists, some are inculturation theologians, and some are political theorists. Together they show the rich variety of theological thinking among African theologians.
4. The author seems to blame the Pentecostals for the failure of interreligious dialogue in Nigeria. While it is true, as the author suggests, that the Catholic Church is leading the effort to dialogue, it is misleading to lump all the Pentecostal churches in the waste basket of those holding back the dialogue. Perhaps the author needs to clarify what s/he means by “Pentecostals” (since there are varieties within the rank) and add some caveats so it doesn’t seem like all Pentecostals are vilified.
5. It is not clear to me how the author understands “Personalism.” Personalism is a philosophical construct that emphasizes the importance of human persons and their relations in society. As a philosophical construct, Personalism exists in multiple forms. Personalism in psychology is different from Personalism in Critical Race study, and Personalism in Critical Race study is different from Personalism in theology, for example. Pope John Paul II, for example, branded his own philosophy a Personalist philosophy. The author introduces the term “personalism” in the middle of the author’s argument and it is not clear how the author understands or uses the term. My guess is that the author seems to mistake Personalism for individual or human agency of persons the author considers “theological experts” in the field of dialogue. For example, the author cites Theresa Okure and Konrad Raiser as personalists. There are several other examples from lines 415 onwards. I think the author needs to clarify/correct these misuses/confusions of terms.
With respect to the issue of kidnappings in Nigeria, the author writes (line 328) “the unprovoked kidnappings and mass murders of Christians by Islamic terrorists even in southern Nigeria have further deepened islamophobia among Christians, this time, not limited to the Pentecostals.” Are Muslims the only ones doing kidnapping in Nigeria? The author is lumping terrorism with kidnapping, which though related, are different. Kidnappings in Nigeria are motivated by money, not terrorism as we understand the term. The phenomenon of kidnapping in Nigeria is as bad in the Christian south, as it is in the Muslim north. Some would argue that kidnappings in Nigeria started in the oil rich south before it caught on in the Muslim north. The author does not have to agree with this view if the author disagrees. But the author needs to add some nuances. Otherwise, it looks one-sided.
Again, I repeat that this will be a fine paper, if the author can take time to eliminate some of these oversights/mistakes. I think writing in simple terms and avoiding big and technical terms that in the end become ambivalent will help.
Author Response
Comment 1. The abstract is clearly stated. But reading the article one finds that what is stated in the abstract is not exactly what the paper is doing. The first part of the paper is almost like a comprehensive summary of Elochukwu Uzukwu’s work. But in the middle section, Uzukwu suddenly disappears and the author begins to throw out names of different African scholars the author knows. The name-dropping is a distraction and makes the article to be all over the place.
Response 1: I addressed this issue by now stating in the introduction the purposes of deploying the ideas of Uzukwu, namely to aid my analysis of the African worldview of the interrelatedness of reality. I have also found a way to make the text more coherent by using Uzukwu’s idea of African interrelatedness of reality through the text.
Comment 2. Then there is the matter of confusion of terms. Many concepts are randomly thrown out, and for the most part, hardly fit the context and do not advance the argument at hand. For example, in section 6, “theological element of pneumatology” “strategy,” and other terms are bounced around and I’m left wondering what the author means to say with these technical terms. The paragraph ends with a jargon borrowed from elsewhere: “Factors such as experience, clarity in judgment, structured planning and well-developed communication mechanisms determine the strategic operationality of corporate entities.” The sentence beginning the next paragraph is also unclear: “Dialogue also emerges as a form of in the corporate world, with the three pillars of actions.” Form of what?
Response 2. The issues raised here have been corrected. There was clearly an omission that occurred in the course of editing the initial manuscript. The technical nature of this section of the article was also toned down to offer readers a better understanding of the ideas that are being explored there and the connection to the personalist approach that is integrated into interreligious dialogue.
Comment 3. To return to Uzukwu, the author writes (line 43), Elochukwu’s “scholarship is underlined by a particular ecclesiology,” What is this particular ecclesiology? The author does not name it. The (lines 49-52), the author makes the claim that Elochukwu’ s work “is in some sense one of the foremost works in African ecclesiology that follows in the tradition of theologians like Jean-Marc Ela, Laurenti Magesa, Jesse Mugambi, Benezet Bujo, Kwame Bediako, Vincent Mulago, Charles Nyamiti, Eboussi Bou laga and Hubert Kamgang.” Is the suggestion here that all these people the author names are doing exactly the same kind of theology or ecclesiology? If the author thinks so, that is not true. While there are overlaps in the respective works of these people, there are significant differences. For example, some are ethicists, some are inculturation theologians, and some are political theorists. Together they show the rich variety of theological thinking among African theologians.
Response 3. In relation to the first part of the comment, I reworked the test to indicate that Uzukwu’s ecclesiology focuses on African particularity.
For the rest of the comment, I agree totally with the reviewer, and have provided a very simple fix by changing the ‘African ecclesiology’ to ‘African theology’. My initial use of ‘African ecclesiology’ was informed by Stephanie Lowery’s Identity and Ecclesiology: Their Relationship among Select African Theologians (2017), which sought to extract the ecclesiological elements in these diverse theologians. In the paragraph that follows, I indicated the diversity and intersections in the works of these theologians.
Comment 4. The author seems to blame the Pentecostals for the failure of interreligious dialogue in Nigeria. While it is true, as the author suggests, that the Catholic Church is leading the effort to dialogue, it is misleading to lump all the Pentecostal churches in the waste basket of those holding back the dialogue. Perhaps the author needs to clarify what s/he means by “Pentecostals” (since there are varieties within the rank) and add some caveats so it doesn’t seem like all Pentecostals are vilified.
Response 4. The problem raised by the reviewer in this point (no.4) has been addressed by the author with nuances that recognize the complicity of other Christians in what could be considered a form of Christian fundamentalism rather than making Pentecostals the scapegoat as suggested by the sources that informed the analysis. I also deployed some nuance in referring to Pentecostal with the use of ‘some’ or ‘many’ instead of going into any definition of which Pentecostal I mean. I also use ‘Pentecostalism’ in some instances, since the term also includes others like the Charismatics.
Comment 5. It is not clear to me how the author understands “Personalism.” Personalism is a philosophical construct that emphasizes the importance of human persons and their relations in society. As a philosophical construct, Personalism exists in multiple forms. Personalism in psychology is different from Personalism in Critical Race study, and Personalism in Critical Race study is different from Personalism in theology, for example. Pope John Paul II, for example, branded his own philosophy a Personalist philosophy. The author introduces the term “personalism” in the middle of the author’s argument and it is not clear how the author understands or uses the term. My guess is that the author seems to mistake Personalism for individual or human agency of persons the author considers “theological experts” in the field of dialogue. For example, the author cites Theresa Okure and Konrad Raiser as personalists. There are several other examples from lines 415 onwards. I think the author needs to clarify/correct these misuses/confusions of terms.
Response 5. I have made clarifications in this respect with regard to the notion of personalism that I am pursuing here, with the awareness of the many notions of personalism that is out there: “Of course, there are many understandings of the idea of personalism/personalist approach in the fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and theology. I use the concept here to refer to the individual awareness of interrelatedness on the basis of personal experience within dialogical settings that are defined by institutional representation.”
Comment 5.2. With respect to the issue of kidnappings in Nigeria, the author writes (line 328) “the unprovoked kidnappings and mass murders of Christians by Islamic terrorists even in southern Nigeria have further deepened islamophobia among Christians, this time, not limited to the Pentecostals.” Are Muslims the only ones doing kidnapping in Nigeria? The author is lumping terrorism with kidnapping, which though related, are different. Kidnappings in Nigeria are motivated by money, not terrorism as we understand the term. The phenomenon of kidnapping in Nigeria is as bad in the Christian south, as it is in the Muslim north. Some would argue that kidnappings in Nigeria started in the oil rich south before it caught on in the Muslim north. The author does not have to agree with this view if the author disagrees. But the author needs to add some nuances. Otherwise, it looks one-sided.
Response 5.2. I have also reworked this section to provide a more balanced and nuanced account of what I believe is happening in Nigeria today with respect to Islamic terrorism which is often motivated by criminal intentions. An analysis of the situation does not show that it is either this or that but a question of both/and. I had to remove the idea of kidnapping which is mainly motivated by criminality and is spread across Nigeria in terms of the identity of the actors.
Comment 6. Again, I repeat that this will be a fine paper, if the author can take time to eliminate some of these oversights/mistakes. I think writing in simple terms and avoiding big and technical terms that in the end become ambivalent will help.
Response 6. The article was thoroughly re-read to remove ambiguities and some mistakes in spelling and construction so as to make it an easy read.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an important contribution to the Interfaith dialogue. The author offers a realistic image of the inculturation of the Gospel in the African context. The relationship between pentecostal spirituality and African cosmology is very interesting.
At the same time, the rethinking of Christian engagement in the inter-religious dialogue taking into consideration the personalist approach offers a positive and optimistic view on interfaith encounters.
Author Response
I wish to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. I have however reworked and thoroughly proofread the text again in order to improve its quality.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for writing such an interesting and well-thought piece of work. I enjoyed reading it. I recommend that it be published as it is.
Author Response
I wish to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. I have however reworked and thoroughly proofread the text again in order to improve its quality.
