To Build the New Jerusalem: The Ministry and Citizenship of Protestant Women in Twentieth Century Scotland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is of highly interest, because it focuses on the history of Women's ordination in the Presbyterian Church during the 20th centrury, which is not so often written in this form. The argumentation is very clear, reasonable and stringent. The facts are worked out meticulous. I don't have no request to add or rework in the article. Thank you very much for the paper

Author Response

Thanks for your positive assessment of the article. Some revisions have been made to incorporate suggestion from the other reviewers.

Reviewer 2 Report

There is much to commend in this article. The history recounted is an important story, and it is well analyzed, providing strong detail about specific moments but also providing a broader analysis of how the movement toward women’s ordination reflects larger societal changes, particularly around suffrage. There is a solid use of sources, and claims are well supported by the evidence.

 

Nonetheless, the article is in need of revision before publication. I note two areas of primary concern.

 

1. The balance of the article is not adequate. Treating the time frame from 1910 (roughly) to 1968, most of the article deals with the first two decades of the period. Only the last two pages cover the period between 1931 and 1968. While it is clear that this period was one in which not much progress was made, some additional discussion of and space for the developments (the various commissions and committees, including the WCC consulation in 1959), would provide some needed balance here. Otherwise, the 1968 decision appears as something of a surprise, or almost an anticlimax. I suggest giving more space to this part of the story. It may be a place to return to the image of the story of the city versus the story of the church. How are the changes in the broader society shaping the response of the church? You treat that theme very briefly using the work of MacLeod and Brown, but some additional elaboration would strengthen it. I suggest more attention as well to Mary Lusk. How did she become a chaplain at the University of Edinburgh? Are there other women who, despite barriers to ordination, have come to significant positions of service? You describe several women earlier in the century whose stories demonstrate that sense of calling despite lack of ordination. Would one way of developing the period 1931-1968 be to feature another such story?

 

2. The overall arrangement of the article is clearly chronological, but the thread of the argument gets lost in the details at times. The material needs more careful framing. More section headers with chronological markers that set out the chronological tradjectory more clearly would help. In addition, clearer and stronger transitions between these sections would keep the lines of the argument more clearly before the reader. A reverse outline might be a helpful tool to identify the sections and the placement of material within each section.

 

Here are some specific suggestions to that end.

 

3. On page 2, the opening narrative about the WCA sets up the lines of the argument, but it is then followed on page 3 by a discussion of the work of Sue Innes. That’s an important debt to honor, but the key image of the story of the city and the story of the church gets buried at the end of the long paragraph on page 3. Can you revise this material to pull that image forward, perhaps to frame this section and thus put it in the foreground as a way to frame the entire narrative? You return to the image later in the article, but I think you could make more of it. Returning to it might be a way into developing the discussion of the 1931-1968 period as well.

 

3. The move into section 3 on page 3 needs some additional framing. Here is one place where adding some chronological markers to the heading might be helpful, as well as making the role of women’s suffrage more explicit (e.g. 3. The Women Suffrage Movement and a new gospel for humanity, 1910-1920).

 

1. The new section at the top of page 5 should have a stronger transition. As this material is focused less on the pre-war years and more on broader analysis and a more expansive time frame, I would put this material before the earlier material in section 3 that starts on page 3, thus preserving a more chronological thread through the flow of the article. Otherwise, the shift from pre-WW I period to the 19^th century seems confusing and interrupts the discussion of the declaration, to which you then return on page 6 at the last paragraph (line 304).

 

1. On page 6, the paragraph from line 270-303 is confusing, especially the first sentence.

 

1. On page 7 line 334, it was not clear to me who Dr. Kelman was.

 

1. I would suggest a new section that starts with line 355 on page 7 as you transition here from the UFC to the Church of Scotland.

 

1. On page 8, the opening paragraph, lines 366 to 396, is dense, yet here the image of the city returns in a powerful way. I think some revision could strengthen the paragraph and therefore the article’s focus on the earthly City of God as a space that shows more progress than the church.

 

1. Also on page 8, the paragraph that begins with line 398 moves to a discussion of the SEC. My sense is that the WCA/SEC contrast needs more development. You also note the two kinds of feminist discourse—pull that forward and use to frame the discussion, perhaps, especially if you sense WCA focuses on one kind and SEC on the other. Also note that this discussion of the SEC moves you into the post war period.

 

1. Page 9, section 4, perhaps add a chronological marker to the section title (Equal justice in the Church? 1920-1938)

 

1. The primary focus of this first section of section 4 is the 1926 debate and the example of Elizabeth Hewat. Then on the bottom of page 10 line 520, you move to a new discussion of the Congregational Union and the work of Vera Findlay. I suggest creating a new section here that will work to create more structure. You can set off this material in a separate section to stress the more progressive stance of the Congregational Union in contrast to the Church of Scotland.

 

1. Page 12, lines 590 to 605, feature a very short paragraph on the UFC dissenters and James and Elizabeth Barr. I would more closely tie that example to the Congregational Union as a second instance of forward progress. Also, the balance is off, as the other denominations receive more lengthy treatment. I would develop this section more, or perhaps eliminate it.

 

1. Page 12, line 606 marks a return to the Church of Scotland. I would create a new section here.

 

3. Finally, there are some bibliographic entries that seem to be missing (the material from James Barr and Elizabeth Barr on page 12). The bibliography needs some copy editing as well, and there are also occasional issues with spacing that need attention during the copy edit.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

In discussing the late 19th and early 20th century contexts, the article explores material that has generally been overlooked in discussions surrounding the decision of the Church of Scotland to ordain women in 1968. This exposure of the wider context is valuable, particularly as so much interest has been preoccupied with the role of Mary Levison in the 1960s. I have no hesitation in recommending publication. 

I have only two reservations. First, the volume of material has resulted in a rather cramped discussion. There is sufficient content here for something much longer which suggests that this is an attempt to compress a longer study into something much shorter. Secondly, the conclusion seems to me to be too brief with the result that it offers a series of unargued assertions about what happened after 1968. These are reasonable judgements but lack sufficient evidencing and expansion in this setting. The overall analysis thus remains undercooked.  Some comparative judgements might have been useful here. For example, the Church of England ordained women to the priesthood much later than the Church of Scotland, yet women's ministry has in some ways become more deeply embedded in Anglicanism than in Scottish Presbyterianism.

My recommendation would be to extend the conclusion to enable deeper reflection and analysis of the material that has been so usefully excavated.

Author Response

Thanks for the helpful comments. The article does indeed attempt to compress research which addressed not only the ordination issue, but also wider matters concerning gender relations and regimes in  20th century Presbyterianism, extending beyond 1968. I agree that this makes it rather unbalanced chronologically, but I thought for the article requested I would focus more particularly on the path to women's ordination.

I have made some changes to ordering and structure of the paper in response to comments from another reviewer. Section 9 (dealing with the period 1931 - 68) has been expanded to incorporate a bit more details about developments and significance of the post-war WCC focus on the Life and Work of Women in the Church. I have as advised also extended the conclusion a little, and added a short paragraph about the Church of England, to allow a measure of comparison, though the changes may not answer your concern about assertions not being fully evidenced. I could certainly have developed the concluding discussion further, but for length of article, and the need to take account of revisions called for by another reviewer, so the essay is still not entirely to my satisfaction. But I hope it suffices as a useful overview.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author superbly addressed concerns raised in the initial review. The balance of the essay is now more even, and the structural changes with headers make the essay easier to follow.