Inclusive and exclusive practices are part of innovation and changes in religious organisations like churches. This research offers unique insights into these processes. Two cases of change in leadership roles related to gender balance have been analysed and discussed. The empirical research was conducted in large evangelical churches in the Netherlands which have recently opened all church offices for female participation. By conducting interviews, individually as well as in focus groups, the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion are explored. These dynamics are interpreted through the lens of a social identity approach and related to the change in authority. Data shows that the shift in Bible interpretation on female leadership as well as the practice of including women in a previously male domain affected the perception of the church’s social and religious identity. This resulted in some leaders leaving the church due to the authority shift, which can be perceived as a form of apostasy, although this appears to be a complex and fluid concept.
The case study
The research was conducted in two selected churches, which are well-known in the Netherlands and can be seen as representative of the evangelical movement. The results of the empirical research show that to create a change in leadership a safe space is essential in which the current and the desirable situation in the church, as well as the authority of the Bible, can be discussed. The notions ‘biblical’ and ‘unbiblical’ proved to be sensitive in both settings. The churches experimented with the labels of the discussion, essential or non-essential, identity or creed, and with different hermeneutical approaches in interpreting the bible on the topic of female leadership.
Inclusion and exclusion
Feelings of inclusion and exclusion were experienced in a complicated way. Before the transition towards inclusive leadership, women were not only excluded from leadership positions but also from spiritual or sacramental acts. However, not all women felt excluded; according to the interviewees, some felt satisfied in supporting their husbands in their leadership roles. Conversely, after the transition, some elders felt excluded because of their experience of ‘not being heard’ during the process. A minor group left the church because of the change of view on female leadership. They referred to the so-called ‘slippery slope’, describing cultural compromises which lure the church away from biblical truths. However, whether people feel included or excluded is not an objective given but a personal and social evaluation relative to one’s degree of identification with the group and its many practices and activities.
Authority
This process is closely related to how people perceived the authority of the Bible and various identity figures. It is likely that those who did not feel heard and left, did not do so simply because of a difference of opinion, even if some people signalled that their conviction had such value to them that a policy change would result in their leaving. Rather, this change of policy represented to them a crossing of identity boundaries, with an illegitimate interpretation of the Bible and hence a violation of the authority of the Bible. Even the authority of an identity figure was not enough to persuade these people to join the rest across this boundary. Although no one used the term “apostasy” to describe or defend their leaving, implicitly their sense of what counted as apostasy prevented them from crossing this boundary.
Transition in leadership
These social identity processes can be interpreted as long-term leadership processes to create safe spaces that would enable the community to experiment with new insights and emotional attachments while maintaining the value of belonging to the community. These insights are generated by including narratives of personal experiences with female leadership and (new) emotions attached to it in the overall process of deliberation. New insights are also generated in attempts to renew one’s reading and understanding of Scripture by reinterpreting key texts, or by assigning different priorities to various texts on both sides of the debate.
Conclusion
The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion before, during, and after a process of change affect the perception of the church’s socio-religious identity within the leadership, and a (often implicit) sense of apostasy influences feelings and behaviours on both sides of the issue. We may conclude that these dynamics form a complex combination of personal, institutional, and convictional factors. Within this research, leaders and other identification figures play an important role in inclusion and exclusion processes at the institutional level. At the convictional level, leaders attempted to create safe spaces to allow individuals to experiment with new Bible reading strategies and new convictions. In some cases, they were able to use their granted authority to enable people to adapt or change their personal convictions. Positively, these identity figures were able to manoeuvre the group away from turning the debate away from the notion of apostasy. Negatively, a strong identification figure could also be experienced as so dominant that people opted for (self) exclusion. In the cases investigated, this was an exception and not the general response. Although all interviewees insisted on the importance of the Bible as the authority, we can conclude that a more narrative hermeneutical approach changed the way the Bible was experienced as authoritative. This does not mean that convictions changed automatically, but it was a way to move from a propositional approach, in which a bivalent true/false paradigm shaped the discussions and led to polarization, to a more narrative approach where differences could be explored, negotiated, and tolerated.
We discovered that the concept of apostasy in this process of transition is present but complex. It is fluid and can be applied to more than one group. The term ‘unbiblical’ is used by people who left the church, but also in the focus groups with the current leaders to describe the traditional view on female leadership.
Questions:
- Transformation processes are challenging for many people. Think about a recent process of transformation either small or big, in your personal, work or church context. Did you feel included in the process? And what was the impact on the group identity? Please share your findings.
- Did you notice certain identification figures or markers (like a policy document or a holy book) in the transformation process you described? What was their role, and was this role intentionally used in the transformation process?
- In the discussion on female leadership the authority of the Holy Scriptures was an important factor. However, the way that authority was understood changed during the discussion process depending on the interpretive principles used (for example, seeing the Bible as normative or as narrative). How do you see how these two perspectives might affect what you think of as the authority of the Bible?
- When group identity changed and boundaries shifted, some people felt excluded and left the church; these people did not see female leadership as the biblical way forward. However, there is no information on how many people did leave (or not even attend) the church in the years before this transition because of the fact that women were not allowed to serve in leadership positions. Discuss a matter in your own faith community which might prevent people from joining or cause people to leave if it was on the agenda for discussion. How is your faith community managing this matter? Think of a fruitful way forward in discussing or implementing this delicate topic.
- We framed leaving the faith community as a form of reversed apostasy (the remaining community is seen as ‘apostate’ by the ones who leave). How would you describe apostasy? Do people leave your community for reasons that would fit your description of apostasy? What is or could be a response to these people and to the remaining faith community?
About
This summary belongs to a more extensive article of Laura Dijkhuizen and Jack Barentsen, which can be found here: Gender Related Inclusionary and Exclusionary Practices within Evangelical Churches in the Netherlands.
Last year, we published the book Religious Exclusivism and Social Inclusion? A Religious Response, which is available Open Access (for free). People asked for an additional discussion guide to bring the outcomes of this research to a wider audience. We agreed to that, and are happy to present a discussion guide which offers you summaries of all contributions, accompanied by questions for discussion. We hope this stimulates people, in all different contexts, to discuss these matters thoroughly and make them actual and relevant for their own situations. Every week we publish another summary of a chapter of the book, and questions for discussion. If you want to use the whole conversation guide at once, it can be downloaded here: Conversation guide.