Mindset, Schism and the Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has forcefully argued that the phenomenon of Mindset has principally triggered the schism in the Anglican Communion (AC) in modern times, following a psychological and neurological perspective in the present analysis. One of the strengths of this article lies in the large number of references consulted for articulating the main arguments. Although sectarian tendencies are always present in any living religious tradition, the author is more concerned about Anglican Christianity, a tradition which is declining in the Global North due to the process of secularization while it is still flourishing in the countries in the Global South. The author makes the point that once the process of secularization sets in motion in the countries in the Global South, the decline of Anglican Christianity will be inevitable. However, this process is applicable to all major religions of the world. Moreover, the issues of homosexuality and gender equality has triggered schism in almost all the religious traditions. On the whole, the author's arguments about the schism in AC are quit convincing.
My major criticism relates to the style the author is following in this article. See for example the text from 700 to 705: "First, is to ignore it and claim that God will not let the church die. Second, is the call for a double down of effort and advocate for a return to 'biblical' Christianity. Their brand. Third, is to blame progressives who they claim have adopted sinful secular values and beliefs, and have 'sold out' the church. Progressives respond by claiming they have been made scapegoats for the poor mission record of conservatives." There are other numerous examples of this sort in the article. I would rather like to see the narrative crafted as follows: "The first point is to ignore and claim that God will not let the church die. The second point relates to the call for a double down of effort ...."
Most of the academics thoroughly proofread their works before submitting for review process. But in the present article, one can find numerous typos where a period (.) is missing at the end of a sentence, or the name of another author is given in parenthesis to make the sentence. To me, all these examples look awkward. I will request the author to clean up this article in the review process.
On the whole, I have enjoyed the reading of this article very much.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language needs to be improved.
Author Response
|
Review Issue |
Author Response
|
|
GENERAL
|
My thanks to the reviewers of my paper and their constructive suggestions for its improvement. I honour your effort by attempting to amend the paper in those areas. I thank the Guest Editors for summarising the main outcomes from the reviewers and will endeavour to revise the paper accordingly. The resubmission is much improved on the original.
|
|
1 Manuscript must conform to academic style
|
My understanding of this journal, Religions, allows for free format. See Free Format Submission at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/instructions
The text states the primary purpose of the paper, it describes its method, its findings and the contribution made by the author. These are now specifically indicated as separate headings in the Introductory section to assist with clarity. Both the Introduction and Commentary sections of the paper have been extensively revised.
|
|
2 Manuscript must have proper grammar and citation
|
The submitted paper was proofread dozens of times. It was put through the WORD grammar and spell checker before submission. I will repeat the process before resubmission and trust it will be free of typos.
|
|
3 Commentary outside of the commentary section and claims that lack citation
|
All ‘commentary’ outside the Commentary section will be identified and either excluded or placed in the Commentary section.
|
|
4 Revise the title
|
The author will revise the title and omit the words ‘Religion and Politics” given several reviewers are asking for this. It is undertaken reluctantly as I believe from a mindset perspective those who hold ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ religious beliefs and values also tend to hold similar political beliefs and values. The author sought to stress this relationship throughout the paper but obviously not as well as he should have. The new title allows the primary focus on the ‘Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion’ through the lens of Mindset. The revised title is: Mindset, Schism and the Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion
|
|
5 Research Contribution better articulated
|
As indicated above in point 1, the author will articulate the research contribution.
|
|
6 All concepts fully explained especially Mindset
|
The author has been vigilant to explain important concepts in the paper but will review and amend where necessary. Again, the author believes the phenomenon of mindset’ has been adequately explained and illustrated for purposes of this paper. The paper has analysed the body of the relevant scientific research and ‘applied’ this to a particular context, which has predictive value for both the religious and political domains. It is not a comprehensive discussion of the concepts and terms used by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists etc. The author believes their meaning is clear for purposes of the paper. On a related point his paper is not concerned with a critique of specific research undertaken, but rather what does the body of relevant research say about Mindset.
|
|
7 How is ‘culture wars’ use in the article
|
At first glance this paper, concerning the AC schism, describes what has been called ‘culture wars’. This is a term that is attributed to James Hunter in his work titled The Struggle to Define America in 1991. This is correct as far as it goes. The contribution of this paper is that it provides a deeper, fundamental understanding of the battles to define Anglicanism using Mindset It explains why people hold the beliefs and values they have in the first place, and how they view and interact with society It is not related only to Anglicanism; it has relevance to all domains of society eg religious and political. The AC is a context or case study. Some studies, cited in the paper, have applied empirical research findings to the domain of secular politics. Little has been undertaken for the religious domain. This paper is offered as a moderate contribution to fill that gap. It is anticipated the case study will confirm the received research on Mindset . |
|
REVIEWER 1
|
|
|
1 Change the style when listing alternatives
|
The style for listing “things” is a personal choice. I believe the current choice is effective communication. However, the author will amend the text to follow the style suggested.
|
|
2 Existence of typos suggesting poor proofreading
|
Please refer to points 1 and 2 from General. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is entitled to be published, but it must be improved according to the points I indicate below:
It does not suggest in the title which Anglican Communion refers to. It must be addressed;
In the fragment "This schism is like many other schisms in the Christian church since its foundation,” - it is worth noting that divisions and summits are part of the trajectory of the universe of Protestantism, and about the subject, see Carter Lindberg, in the book "Reforms in Europe", São Leopoldo, Sinodal, 2001.
In the text, "On these virtually all Anglicans would agree.” - Who would agree? It has to be detailed and described.
No "Conservatives reject their weighting of reason, and give greater weighting to tradition, formed from a similar worldview as the bible" - what conservative sector is that? You have to explain and quote from sources.
No "Disagreements similar to these are played out in other churches and secular politics and are part of the so-called culture wars.” In this case, more appropriate than to use the term "culture wars" is the term "war of the gods" because it links the religious debates in the state. Just the term "culture wars" has a broader aspect. Who takes this debate from Weber is Py, Fabio (2021), “Paulo Ricardo: the recent digital political trajectory of the ultra catholic agent of Brazilian Cristofascism”. Tempo e Argumento, v. 13, n. 34, p. 2-28, 2021;
It needs to explain more the meaning of "the phenomenon called Mindset". It is very reduced.
Thus, the article should be extensively rewritten completely, expanded, and submitted again for review.
Author Response
|
Review Issue |
Author Response
|
|
|
GENERAL
|
My thanks to the reviewers of my paper and their constructive suggestions for its improvement. I honour your effort by attempting to amend the paper in those areas. I thank the Guest Editors for summarising the main outcomes from the reviewers and will endeavour to revise the paper accordingly. The resubmission is much improved on the original.
|
|
|
1 Manuscript must conform to academic style
|
My understanding of this journal, Religions, allows for free format. See Free Format Submission at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/instructions
The text states the primary purpose of the paper, it describes its method, its findings and the contribution made by the author. These are now specifically indicated as separate headings in the Introductory section to assist with clarity. Both the Introduction and Commentary sections of the paper have been extensively revised.
|
|
|
2 Manuscript must have proper grammar and citation
|
The submitted paper was proofread dozens of times. It was put through the WORD grammar and spell checker before submission. I will repeat the process before resubmission and trust it will be free of typos.
|
|
|
3 Commentary outside of the commentary section and claims that lack citation
|
All ‘commentary’ outside the Commentary section will be identified and either excluded or placed in the Commentary section.
|
|
|
4 Revise the title
|
The author will revise the title and omit the words ‘Religion and Politics” given several reviewers are asking for this. It is undertaken reluctantly as I believe from a mindset perspective those who hold ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ religious beliefs and values also tend to hold similar political beliefs and values. The author sought to stress this relationship throughout the paper but obviously not as well as he should have. The new title allows the primary focus on the ‘Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion’ through the lens of Mindset. The revised title is: Mindset, Schism and the Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion
|
|
|
5 Research Contribution better articulated
|
As indicated above in point 1, the author will articulate the research contribution.
|
|
|
6 All concepts fully explained especially Mindset
|
The author has been vigilant to explain important concepts in the paper but will review and amend where necessary. Again, the author believes the phenomenon of mindset’ has been adequately explained and illustrated for purposes of this paper. The paper has analysed the body of the relevant scientific research and ‘applied’ this to a particular context, which has predictive value for both the religious and political domains. It is not a comprehensive discussion of the concepts and terms used by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists etc. The author believes their meaning is clear for purposes of the paper. On a related point his paper is not concerned with a critique of specific research undertaken, but rather what does the body of relevant research say about Mindset.
|
|
|
7 How is ‘culture wars’ use in the article
|
Some studies, cited in the paper, have applied empirical research findings to the domain of secular politics. Little has been undertaken for the religious domain. This paper is offered as a moderate contribution to fill that gap. It is anticipated the case study will confirm the received research on Mindset . |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
1 What Anglican Communion is discussed?
|
The author is not sure what the difficulty is here. The Anglican Communion was described extensively in sections 2.1 and 2.2.
|
|
2 What is meant by “virtually all Anglicans agree”?
|
I believe this refers to the point that as a Reformed Catholic Communion - Anglicans who may hold different beliefs and values, all hold that the supreme authority for the church is The Bible. This comes from the Protestant reformers. The main difference is the relative weightings of importance of reason and tradition in interpreting it. This was discussed in the paper, see especially lines 126-132 and 159-178.
|
|
|
3 What conservative sector is that? |
Given point 2 above - conservative Anglicans who are mainly Protestant in outlook generally adopt a simple literalist interpretation of the Bible and give less weight to the importance of scientific reason and the tradition of the church fathers. Again, refer to the relevant text of the paper, lines 126-132 and 159-178.
|
|
|
4 Culture wars and ‘war of the Gods’
|
Please refer to point 7 above from General. I have no comment about the term ‘War of the Gods. |
|
|
5 Expand discussion of the phenomenon of Mindset
|
See point 6 from General. |
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses, in an original way - namely through a psychological and neurological perspective - the problem of schism or confrontation between conservatives and progressives through an irreconcilable confrontation of perspectives. Applying the study to the case of Anglican Communion, the reading model can serve other fields, religious or not - especially in the intercession with the field of politics, where the method is most used.
Although the title leads to believe that the study is about the relationship between religion and politics, it is in fact the analysis of a case of confrontation between conservatives and progressives, applying a psychological and neuro-cognitivist reading, which can serve as a reading grid for these clashes, whether in religion as in politics. Only in this sense do these two fields relate, but this is not directly explored in the text. So the title is a little ambiguous.
The main thesis of the article is supported by a collection and synthesis of other studies, not in author's studies. This does not invalidate, however, that the reasoning of the argument is consistent enough and supported with research.
The development of the article, however, is more descriptive of the processes that led to the schism, than exploration of a psychological and neurological study. This makes that the text not completely coincides with the title. But the information is interesting and scientifically valuable.
Some expressions, especially at the end, are too “religious” or willingly, without scientific foundation: “God will certainly not let Christianity die” or “Over time the forces causing the decline of Christianity in the western world will impact the present-day developing countries as they achieve development. This may be decades in the future, but it is likely this will happen”. I suggest changing language in these passages.
Graphic review is needed (vg. the citation of Mendez, from line 362, will be italic?), But in general the text is correct.
Author Response
|
Review Issue |
Author Response
|
|
|
GENERAL
|
My thanks to the reviewers of my paper and their constructive suggestions for its improvement. I honour your effort by attempting to amend the paper in those areas. I thank the Guest Editors for summarising the main outcomes from the reviewers and will endeavour to revise the paper accordingly. The resubmission is much improved on the original.
|
|
|
1 Manuscript must conform to academic style
|
My understanding of this journal, Religions, allows for free format. See Free Format Submission at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/instructions
The text states the primary purpose of the paper, it describes its method, its findings and the contribution made by the author. These are now specifically indicated as separate headings in the Introductory section to assist with clarity. Both the Introduction and Commentary sections of the paper have been extensively revised.
|
|
|
2 Manuscript must have proper grammar and citation
|
The submitted paper was proofread dozens of times. It was put through the WORD grammar and spell checker before submission. I will repeat the process before resubmission and trust it will be free of typos.
|
|
|
3 Commentary outside of the commentary section and claims that lack citation
|
All ‘commentary’ outside the Commentary section will be identified and either excluded or placed in the Commentary section.
|
|
|
4 Revise the title
|
The author will revise the title and omit the words ‘Religion and Politics” given several reviewers are asking for this. It is undertaken reluctantly as I believe from a mindset perspective those who hold ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ religious beliefs and values also tend to hold similar political beliefs and values. The author sought to stress this relationship throughout the paper but obviously not as well as he should have. The new title allows the primary focus on the ‘Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion’ through the lens of Mindset. The revised title is: Mindset, Schism and the Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion
|
|
|
5 Research Contribution better articulated
|
As indicated above in point 1, the author will articulate the research contribution.
|
|
|
6 All concepts fully explained especially Mindset
|
The author has been vigilant to explain important concepts in the paper but will review and amend where necessary. Again, the author believes the phenomenon of mindset’ has been adequately explained and illustrated for purposes of this paper. The paper has analysed the body of the relevant scientific research and ‘applied’ this to a particular context, which has predictive value for both the religious and political domains. It is not a comprehensive discussion of the concepts and terms used by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists etc. The author believes their meaning is clear for purposes of the paper. On a related point his paper is not concerned with a critique of specific research undertaken, but rather what does the body of relevant research say about Mindset.
|
|
|
7 How is ‘culture wars’ use in the article
|
REVIEWER 3
|
|
|
1 Title is ambiguous -concerning relationship of religion and politics
|
See point 4 above from General |
|
|
2 Some expressions ’too religious’.
|
Yes, I agree that “God will certainly not let Christianity die “is a religious faith claim. Although a criticism of using it in a Journal called Religions Is perhaps a little incongruous. I will omit it.
|
|
|
3 Graphic Review eg citation of Mendez
|
I do not understand what this suggested amendment is.
The table is numbered and labelled correctly, and the citation of Mendez on which the table is based is correctly cited. |
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article begins with the intention to explicate the tensions between conservative and progressive factions in the AC by making use of the concept of "mindset." As a reader, I thought the author would provide a balanced analysis of the two sides. Yet, as the paper progressed, it became clear that the author is using "mindset" more as a critique of the rigidity of the conservatives. Just a simple glance at the chart and it becomes clear that this "scientific" view leans toward a positive view of the progressives. Indeed, a telling and confusing sentence (p. 3 sentence beginning with Historic Anglicanism: Conservatives schismatics claim they be the rightful heirs of historic Anglicanism, but as will be argued this cannot be supported.) appears to say the paper is going to argue against conservatives, which conflicts with the Introduction. While I am far from identifying with religious or political conservatives, I find the argument skewed and the use of "science" as a cover for the authority of the argument. I know religious progressives who are quite entrenched in their positions and also feel threatened. The author would be aided by noting biases in mindset theories. Finally, there is nothing predictive about the argument or findings. Indeed, my overall response is "so what." In other words, I am not sure I understand the relevance of the article or that it offers any new insights into the dynamics between these two groups.
Since the author relies on science, they may wish to indicate that this is not an empirical analysis and does not depend on empirical science.
Also, the author information in the Introduction could be better placed in a footnote.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are numerous sentences that are not grammatically correct. Also, the author, at times, begins a sentence with a parenthetical citation, which I have never seen before. For instance (Neill 1965. p.242)...(p.3).
Author Response
|
Review Issue |
Author Response
|
|
|
GENERAL
|
My thanks to the reviewers of my paper and their constructive suggestions for its improvement. I honour your effort by attempting to amend the paper in those areas. I thank the Guest Editors for summarising the main outcomes from the reviewers and will endeavour to revise the paper accordingly. The resubmission is much improved on the original.
|
|
|
1 Manuscript must conform to academic style
|
My understanding of this journal, Religions, allows for free format. See Free Format Submission at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/instructions
The text states the primary purpose of the paper, it describes its method, its findings and the contribution made by the author. These are now specifically indicated as separate headings in the Introductory section to assist with clarity. Both the Introduction and Commentary sections of the paper have been extensively revised.
|
|
|
2 Manuscript must have proper grammar and citation
|
The submitted paper was proofread dozens of times. It was put through the WORD grammar and spell checker before submission. I will repeat the process before resubmission and trust it will be free of typos.
|
|
|
3 Commentary outside of the commentary section and claims that lack citation
|
All ‘commentary’ outside the Commentary section will be identified and either excluded or placed in the Commentary section.
|
|
|
4 Revise the title
|
The author will revise the title and omit the words ‘Religion and Politics” given several reviewers are asking for this. It is undertaken reluctantly as I believe from a mindset perspective those who hold ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ religious beliefs and values also tend to hold similar political beliefs and values. The author sought to stress this relationship throughout the paper but obviously not as well as he should have. The new title allows the primary focus on the ‘Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion’ through the lens of Mindset. The revised title is: Mindset, Schism and the Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion
|
|
|
5 Research Contribution better articulated
|
As indicated above in point 1, the author will articulate the research contribution.
|
|
|
6 All concepts fully explained especially Mindset
|
The author has been vigilant to explain important concepts in the paper but will review and amend where necessary. Again, the author believes the phenomenon of mindset’ has been adequately explained and illustrated for purposes of this paper. The paper has analysed the body of the relevant scientific research and ‘applied’ this to a particular context, which has predictive value for both the religious and political domains. It is not a comprehensive discussion of the concepts and terms used by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists etc. The author believes their meaning is clear for purposes of the paper. On a related point his paper is not concerned with a critique of specific research undertaken, but rather what does the body of relevant research say about Mindset.
|
|
|
7 How is ‘culture wars’ use in the article
|
REVIEWER 4
|
|
|
1 The argument is unbalanced or skewed against the conservatives
|
The author admits he is a progressive Anglican and is a “birth Anglican”. And yes, he is personally saddened by what the conservative schismatics have done to his church. The author denies that his argument is unbalanced or skewed against those of a strong conservative mindset. The fact is that the body of scientific research from researchers of many disciplines, and from different parts of world, consistently indicate the attributes of a strong conservative and strong progressive mindset. I have reported on the literature and applied it to religion, using a particular religious context – the Transformation of the Anglican Communion. But I have also argued it applies in other religious contexts and in secular politics.
|
|
|
2 Author should note biases in mindset theories
|
The author is aware that biases exist in all research, often unintentionally, and in all disciplines. For purposes of this paper, I have used the research findings on Mindset from many studies to counter any particular researcher bias.
|
|
|
3 A need to indicate that the manuscript does not report on an empirical analysis conducted by 4 4 4 The author’s personal details about being an Anglican
|
The author believes that this was made clear in the paper. I shall attempt to make it clearer still. It is not an empirical study. See also points 1 and 2 Reviewer 4 above and point 6 General above. The authors Anglican credentials will be omitted.
|
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is much improved. That said, I am not quite clear about what brain affiliations actually are. Does brain and mind, for the author, mean the same thing? Brain refers to an organ and it seems odd to say an organ has affiliations. The "mind" is a concept that refers to phenomena such as consciousness, agency, will, etc. A small correction p.3 line 92. I think the author means "modest" contribution.
Author Response
Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
I accept the point about brain and mind. This is used in the research studies, for example Mendez. However the paper is not compromised if the term 'behavioural affliations is used only.
Yes it is a spelling error. I am claimimg a "modest contribution'
I note the old title is still evident on the system
I followed the request of editors and reviewers and changed it to: Mindset., Schism and the Contemporary Transformation of the Anglican Communion
Thanks again for your assistance
