A Narrowing Place: Responsive Spirituality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper ‘A Narrowing Place: Responsive Spirituality’ was not attempting to address a research question as such, rather it presented a personal, reflexive perspective on the experience of parenting a child with cancer. The paper reflects on the emotional and intellectual impact of that experience.

It is the insider, phenomenological perspective of the whole paper that is original. It explores lived experience and how that engages with and may be at odds with the ‘official’ theological party line.

The phenomenology of theological development adds to the subject area compared with other published material through its focus on how theological development evolves in lived experience.

This is a brilliant piece of writing. As a hospice/palliative care chaplain, I recognise the integrity in your experience of accompanying your son and in your theological reflection. I appreciate the way you foreground authentic humanity over prescriptive doctrine.

Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and comments that demonstrate a clear understanding of the reflexive process in spiritual development.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this wonderful article with a growing sense of emotion and respect. It is a witness and a deep reflection on the process of suffering of a father with regard to his son. It is moving and appropriate to do this. I have only 2 comments to make:

- I wonder whether the name of the author’s son is anonymized? If not I would recommend to do so.

- I believe that there is a need for adding a short paragraph explaining the method of the article proposed/submitted. It could be easily done by adding a brief paragraph at the beginning and at the end. It would frame the article better and do justice to the important message this article has in its biographical and narrative style. A minor revision on this point I believe is necessary.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful review of my paper. I agree on both points that you have made. Though I sought consent from my son to be named, in light of your review I think it is better to de-identify. I have also added a methodological introduction and conclusion to the paper. I had to take some time to do this and retain the reflective style of the writing. I hope I have achieved this.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an engaging case study that portrays well an existentially profound event. Much of it in clear language and in a lucid narrative in which the process is easy to follow. However, it is unclear to me what the essay ultimately intends. It lacks a reflection that gives context to the story. Or, putting it in another way, what audience is this narrative aimed at? At doctors and nurses? At parents? At chaplains? Or at...? And what message, so to speak, should this audience take home, or better perhaps, to their work? As a case study or as an N=1 study, it is a good story, but what broader meaning, and for whom then, does the case present? Is it about the loss of a particular (religious) worldview, and the laborious acquisition of a new worldview? Is it about spotting the illusions to which people surrender in this kind of complicated life events? Is it about seeking the contact of loved ones with a patient, in this case a child? Is it about becoming aware of the tragedy of existence and discovering that the world is not as just and fair as is often implicitly thought? The question is also what exactly this case study presents as something new or essential. Is it about the idea of life as homeostasis? Or about discovering interconnectedness beyond every word? I think the essay would gain strength if the above questions were clearly brought out in a concluding reflection. That would also help the reader retain what this might mean for their work with cancer patients, what a caregiver should look out for, how caregivers can encourage contact between loved ones and the patient.

Some other points:

·         The comparison with the story of Jonah does not seem to me to be well chosen. The fact that Jonah flees by ship and retreats to the hold on that ship means in the story that he wants to shirk the task God has put before him. Jonah is shirking his responsibility. I think this last point is not the author's intention.

·         It would be good to clarify that Hitchens was a cancer patient himself and reflected on many aspects of the care process.

·         It would be good to further explain the concept of homeostasis, in combination also with the concepts interoceptive and exteroceptive.

·         How can the author be sure that this concept of homeostasis is not also an illusion, as is the little-developed theology he is quick to recognize as an illusion?

·         Is it possible to isolate what happens between father and son from what other loved ones may have to signify? This relationship stands very much apart from all other relationships. It is precisely the relationships between parents and between parents and any other children that make such a profound event as described in this case study so complex. This is what I would like to read a little more about.

·         What is the character of this contribution? A case study, an essay, an empirical research? A personal reflection?

·         Literal citations of literature lack page numbers throughout. By the way, I really enjoyed coming across some older literature that is so important in the contribution.

·         Perhaps this literature is still worthwhile:

o   Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press.

o   Janoff-Bulman, R. (2006). Schema-change perspectives on posttraumatic growth. In L. G. Calhoun & R. G. Tedeschi (Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth. Research and practice (pp. 81-99). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English is fine.

Author Response

Thank you for your serious and insightful reading of my paper. I appreciate your application of the criterion of clarity. I agree on many of your points. With regards to your main comment on the intention of the paper, I think it would be helpful for you to know that this what is commonly called, in the field of pastoral theology, a theological reflection. It was originally sought by the editors of the special series as a contribution to a book of theological reflections on the experience of cancer. As such, it is not written in the style of a purely academic paper. Nevertheless, your points are valid for the paper to speak to the broader audience of the journal. 

I have included a methodological introduction and conclusion to the paper, hopefully in a style that remains consistent with the reflective intention of the paper. I hope this addition will address your primary concern. Your other concerns are addressed in minor revisions to the existing text. 

The choice of the story of Jonah was chosen precisely to address the author's experience of himself as having shirked his parental aspirations and values. The author felt a very powerful fear that he had not been paying attention and had thus come dangerously close to losing his child.

I think that the complexities of relationships other than the one described in this reflection, lie beyond the scope of the paper. 

Your other concerns i have sought to address with additions to the text.

Once again, thank you for your careful and interested review of my paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has given the essay a much clearer context with the help of the introduction and concluding reflection. The various smaller comments have also been handled well.