Social Construction of the Sacrament of Orders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On the one hand, this is a good example of integrative scholarship, which is an important and often underappreciated kind of scholarship today. On the other hand, the exhaustive detail, I'm afraid, overwhelms any clear presentation of the thesis about the social construction of orders. The field on which the thesis is argued is so large (orders across all of Christian history, seen from a mostly Catholic and occasionally Anglican perspective) that it becomes impossible to judge whether the claim has been demonstrated or not.
The historical material covers so much time that diversity or tensions in the historical record receive no attention. Historians have raised questions about, for example, the identity and legitimacy of Hippolytus, the "hegemony" of scholastic theology in the early modern period, and other asserted points.
The theology is almost exclusively North Atlantic here. This is really about a Euro-American and Western European construction of orders.
I recommend taking a far smaller slice of the history in which to make this argument, which is a good and important one.
Author Response
I have revised the ms. so that it is more succinct and clear. I have removed unnecessary details. Likewise I have stated that it focuses on the Churches with highly developed liturgical and organizational structures of the West. I continue to portray the roles of Hippolytus and scholasticism in the pre-Vatican II church but have tried to present them in a more balanced manner. I wanted to keep the historical breadth of the article. I am targeting Div students who are often exposed to theological accounts of Holy Orders but not sociological discussions of the topic. I wanted to expose them to the social construction of orders from the beginning of the church. I hope this article might inspire some scholars to look at the social construction of ordination in Eastern and Protestant churches. Thank you for reading the article and for your feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is evident that this is a thoroughly researched article with clear passion for the topic at hand. It is well structured with nuanced socio-historical approach to the developments in the Sacrament of Orders.
The article reads as a socio-historical overview of the Sacrament of Orders and I suggest to present it as such. The title is somewhat misleading as there is no social constructionism debate in Theoretical Frame that could be drawn on later in the article. While there is some discussion on Durkheim and Weber in Theoretical Frame, it is sparsely referred to or applied later on.
I have two suggestions on how to proceed: one, the main strength of the article lies in its socio-historical analysis and I recommend to reframe the main argument to reflect that, take out Durkheim and Weber and focus on analysis of the sacrament through ages.
Other way to reframe the article is to expand theoretical frame by adding couple of paragraphs on social constructionism (perhaps including dramaturgical analysis by Erving Goffman as well) and draw on theoretical points throughout the article in a more consistent manner.
Author Response
I have integrated the theoretical perspectives into the relevant parts of the text. I have included Goffman. Thank you for that suggestion. Likewise, thank you for reading the article and for your feedback.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
These revisions make this a much better article. The scope of the argument is now clearly delineated at the beginning, and that scope is referred to through the piece. Especially in the first half, the historical survey, the principal claim about the social construction of ordination is continually referenced. It could be better referenced in the final sections. It is easier to lose the thread there, but the final conclusion helpfully makes all the connections.
