VU Blaise Pascal Instituut > Portal Civil society en religie > Online teksten

LOST IN SUBURBIA

Reformed Congregations and Local Civil Society

Paper for the conference of the International Society for the Study of Reformed Communities: "REFORMED CONGREGATIONS ENGAGE A CHANGING WORLD", 2003.

Churches in the Netherlands are becoming more and more marginalized. In the past they have been important players in the public domain. Nowadays their voice is weak. Whatever remains of church-religiosity is spiritualized and introverted, mainly directed to the members. The two largest Dutch Reformed Churches are mixed up in a long and difficult fusion process, which takes away the energy to fulfill tasks in broader society. However, there is some evidence that Reformed churches still are ‘concentrations of social capital’ (Ammerman). They play a vital role in different kinds of volunteer work and they participate in the public discourse. It is remarkable that nowadays, Dutch politicians call on the churches for contributions to civil society both at the national and local level.

In this paper we concentrate upon recent empirical [ethnographic] research regarding the participation of Reformed churches in a local, suburban setting. We hope to give a balanced insight into the role Reformed churches play in modern Dutch society.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, the Reformed Church played an important public role in Dutch society. During the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the Reformed Church was the ‘privileged church,’ not exactly a state church, but coming close to that position, because it was the only church with the right to perform public ceremonies. One had to be a member of the Reformed Church in order to get a job in national, provincial or local civil service. Churches functioned as the keepers of the public moral order. In times of peril and oppression the national government prescribed the churches to perform services of Humiliation and Prayer. Churches took care of the poor and the sick. Paintings from that period illustrate the fact that church buildings not only functioned as houses of worship and prayer, but also as public meeting places.

Censuses held in the nineteenth century show that the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) represented the majority of the Dutch population (1809: 56%; 1879: 55%). Its main public function was the education of the people to become loyal and virtuous patriots. Unease about the supposed lack of orthodoxy in the DRC led to two important separation movements, the more Pietist and introvert Afscheiding (1834) and the Neo-Calvinist Doleantie of Abraham Kuyper (1886), which claimed an active public role in Dutch society. In Kuyper’s view, there was a distinction between the Church as an institute: the ecclesiastical organization of believers, and the Church as an organism: Christians individually and collectively contributing to the good of society. It was their task to defend and propagate the Christian principles in every domain of society.

Kuyper’s famous statement at the opening of the Free University of Amsterdam in 1880 was: “There is not a single inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’“

The period between 1880 and 1965 can be described as the hey-days of Neo-Calvinist mass organizations (a political party, a broadcasting company, trade unions, schools, hospitals, youth organizations, sporting clubs, newspapers and publishing companies). As Roman Catholics and Social Democrats did the same, this period came to be known as the period of ‘pillarization’: Calvinist, Catholic, and Social Democratic pillars supporting the roof of Dutch politics.

The cultural revolution of the 1960’s led to a disturbance of the equilibrium between these pillars and to their erosion. Protestants and Catholics joined forces in the new Christian Democratic Party (CDA), Catholics and Social Democrats joined forces in the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV), many Protestant and Catholic organizations lost their distinct identity, and leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church and the Kuyperian Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, inspired by ecumenical ideals, started to seek a reunion. Meanwhile, the proportion and influence of these Reformed denominations in Dutch society was rapidly decreasing. The ensemble of Reformed denominations, including the more stable Orthodox and Pietist denominations, nowadays represent about 15% of the Dutch population. [Reformed churches have to redefine their role in society, both on a national and a local level.]

It seems that Reformed churches have become part of the privatization of religion in Dutch society. Privatization is “…the process by which certain institutional spheres become removed from effective roles in the public sphere (especially in the arena of economic production and power).” (McGuire, 1992:58) The role of institutionalized religion in the public domain has weakened. The public domain no longer needs a religious legitimization; religious organizations lack the power to exert substantial influence, let alone perform integrative functions in society. In the private domain, individuals behave more and more as consumers on a free spiritual market, picking and choosing whatever suits their personal needs and whatever fulfils their momentary personal desires.

Christian social organizations struggle with their identity. Often they have broadened their principles or have gone through an internal secularization process. Therefore, the question of public visibility and performance returns to the churches, which have to decide whether they want to play a role in society or want to put their full emphasis on fulfillment of the spiritual needs of their members. Surprisingly, recent survey findings show that a majority of the Dutch, whether church members or not, expect the churches to take a stand in certain public matters (poverty, discrimination, capital punishment). At the same time, the Dutch are not convinced that Christianity is necessary for the preservation of the moral order in society (See Table 1).

Other recent investigations show that Dutch church members are more involved in voluntary work and philanthropy than others (in fact, church attendance is the strongest predicting factor of volunteerism in the Netherlands, as it is in the United States), that frequent churchattenders are more involved than marginal church members, that Dutch Reformed church members are more involved than Catholic church members, and that members of the Kuyperian Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and other smaller Reformed denominations are most involved (Bekkers, 2003). Debates continue between social scientists about whether the primary explanation for this fact should be found in the moral values circulating among church members (you have to give time and money for those in need) or in the social networks they are engaged in (chances to be asked for time and money are bigger in strong and stable networks). From of old, churches are breeding places of civic skills and rich sources of social capital: ‘…features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions.’ (Putnam, 1993: 167).

2. Research project: Local Reformed churches and ‘civil society’ in Leidsche Rijn

The question remains as to whether Reformed churches want to play a role in contemporary society, operating from a minority position. In this paper, we concentrate upon the efforts of two local church initiatives in the context of a newly built suburban setting. The research question of our project is: Do local Reformed churches acknowledge that they have a mission in local society? If so, how do they formulate their mission and how do they operate to fulfill that mission? What do others – local authorities, other organizations, and local civilians – expect from the churches, and how do they respond to the activities undertaken?

We define civil society as the institutional domain of voluntary associations, located between the spheres of the state, the economic market, and intimate relationships (families, friendships) (P. Dekker, 2002:17). In the view of Paul Dekker, the effects of the civil society are twofold: stimulation of public discourse and the production of social capital (Dekker, 2002:19), or stated differently: a contribution to democracy, social cohesion and well-being. Congregations in the local society can focus upon diaconal and pastoral projects for people in need, but also upon all kinds of educational, cultural, social, and political activities. For this study, we have chosen a new setting, where social and ecclesiastical life had to be started (almost) ‘from scratch’.

One of us (Van der Meulen) did fieldwork research in the new suburban setting of Leidsche Rijn in 2002 and the first months of 2003. The suburb is named after the small river “Leidsche Rijn”, one of the branches of the river Rhine. The project is presented with optimism and enthusiasm:

“Leidsche Rijn is the largest urban project currently underway in Holland, with an anticipated 30,000 new housing units constructed by 2015, when 80,000 new residents are expected. Leidsche Rijn is being built with the principles of sustainable construction, and large investments have been made towards environmental protection and energy management – such as rain water collection systems, low-energy demand houses, and centralized heating systems. Within Leidsche Rijn, each neighborhood is being designed and constructed individually, allowing for distinct identity and flexible solutions to localized problems, needs, and circumstances.”[1]

There will also be large commercial zones with office buildings, and several city centers with cafes, shops, and places of entertainment. In Leidsche Rijn much attention is given to design. There are many different houses, villas, and apartments, with different architectural styles, different sizes, and shapes – but all with a distinctive ‘modern feel.’ Leidsche Rijn is generally built in a spacious way (by Dutch standards), with long, straight roads, but also with intimate courts. The community is built ‘eco-consciously’: there is an ingenious water system. Public buildings and objects such as bridges are constructed with durable materials, and several elements of the former agricultural landscape, notably the hedges and the fruit gardens, are preserved.

The building of Leidsche Rijn started in 1997. The suburb is located close to one of the major cities of the Netherlands, Utrecht, and is being built around two relatively large villages, called Vleuten and De Meern, both with 10,000 inhabitants. These villages traditionally consisted of Catholic horticulturalists, but the last thirty years have seen an influx of professional workers from Utrecht. Many of these ‘immigrants’ were quite well to do, and often had a Protestant background. Vleuten and De Meern both still have a widespread community life, with lots of associations for leisure, for voluntary work, for elderly people etc. There are also several schools, shops, parks, and sport accommodations. At present (2003), Leidsche Rijn already has almost 6,000 housing units with about 15,000 inhabitants.

The village churches, both Protestant and Catholic, play a relatively important role in the social life of Vleuten and De Meern. In the ‘pillarization’ period, these churches initiated the building of schools, homes for the elderly, and community centers. Protestants (members of the Dutch Reformed Church and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands) and Catholics have good relations with each other. There is an Ecumenical Council, which organizes ecumenical services especially for mixed couples and their children, and the pastors of the different churches have regular, convivial meetings. Church members describe church life as having an ‘ecumenical spirit’. The congregations are rather old-fashioned, with a traditional styled church life, but are not explicitly conservative or strictly orthodox in their theological views. These congregations are typical mainline churches.

The greenhouses, the pastures and the orchards are quickly being replaced by houses, offices and new roads. The original inhabitants of Vleuten and De Meern are not very pleased with this development. There has been fierce resistance in the villages against the building of the new suburb. Until recently, the two villages were independent municipalities, but in 2001 they were annexed by the municipality of Utrecht, which has made the inhabitants even less positive about the new suburb. Despite local feelings of animosity against the new suburb, the Reformed and Catholic churches of Vleuten and De Meern felt responsible for the new inhabitants. Together they started a project to give form to the “presence of the church in the suburban area”. Some conservative orthodox Reformed congregations, until then not present in Vleuten and De Meern, started a quite different project. We will describe both projects now.

3. Being Church in Leidsche Rijn

When the first plans for Leidsche Rijn became public in the mid nineties, several churches began to think about an adequate response. The mainline Reformed and Roman Catholic churches of the villages together started an ecumenical project for the new suburb. They thought that they had to be “present” for all the new inhabitants in the suburban area. From the onset, the project had two goals:

1. Contributing to the development of the social life of the new suburban community

2. Building a new community of believers in the suburb. The village churches presumed that new people would not easily join a settled village church, and wanted to give new inhabitants the opportunity to give form to their faith in their own way.

The project originally was led by a ‘project group’ with eight representatives of the Protestant and Catholic village churches and one person from the suburbs. All these men, except for the newcomer, can be considered as ‘influential locals’ from the villages of Vleuten and De Meern: men above 55 years of age, all having long careers in local politics, church-life and commerce. An example is the chairman of the project group, Karel Vermeer[2], who is an important and well-known figure in the villages’ social and church life. Vermeer has been the chairman of the local Christian Democrats – for a long time the largest political party in Vleuten and De Meern – and has participated in several committees and associations in the villages.

Being Church In Leidsche Rijn (Kerk Zijn In Leidsche Rijn), as the project came to be known, soon had access to two buildings in the suburban area, thanks to the excellent network capacities of the members of the project group: an adapted farm, which serves as a church building and as a community center, and a so-called ‘portacabin,’ a temporary building used as an office and ‘walk in’ during day time. Every Sunday, about forty persons, both from Catholic and Reformed backgrounds, visit the church ‘farm.’ At the moment, BCILR is also trying to obtain a third site, which will be a part of the Culture Campus building. We will take a closer look at this project, because it is illustrative of the difficulties church initiatives are facing in the setting at Leidsche Rijn. Surprisingly, the main problems do not seem to lie primarily in the outside world, but in the church communities themselves.

The official website of Leidsche Rijn places church initiatives under the heading of ‘Health and Religion’ (Health Care, Care for the Elderly, Care for the Handicapped, Religion): “In Leidsche Rijn there is room for religion.”

3.1. The case of the Culture Campus

At the moment that the plans for Leidsche Rijn grew more concrete, the then still existing municipality “Vleuten and De Meern” invited several social welfare organizations to consider how to build up the social welfare for the new suburban area. One of the ideas of the local authorities was that several organizations could be clustered in so-called ‘multifunctional’ buildings. The principal of the local music school, Bernard Sluis, thought this was a good idea. He contacted Karel Vermeer, the chairman of the project group, whom he knew from the local committee for social welfare. Vermeer immediately became enthusiastic about Sluis’ proposal, and together they initiated (translated) the “Initiative Culture Campus Vleuterweide3”, or shortly ICCV-project. In this initiative, the following organizations participate: the local music school, an organization for mentally handicapped people, the public library, the social welfare organization of Vleuten and De Meern, a secondary school, and Being Church In Leidsche Rijn. Although the ICCV became a joint effort of different organizations, Sluis and Vermeer remained the motors and inspirers of the project.

After numerous meetings, the ICCV participants, together with the local authorities, published a report, which was rather ambitious in its aims. To quote: “The Culture Campus will create conditions to make integration, spirituality and meeting of other people possible. It will be a mirror of the new community.” It had to become the “beating heart” of cultural Vleuterweide, where “in a time of ongoing individualization” new content will be given to concepts as “sense of community” and “team-work.”

The Culture Campus was planned to be built according to what the architect calls the ‘cloister model’: one building with different ‘domains.’ Each domain has different functions, but there still is unity. If needed, several rooms can be used multifunctionally. So, a full-size theater is planned, which can also be used by the secondary school for acting classes, for concerts by musical students, or for Sunday worship services. The Culture Campus will offer “synergy,” as Sluis likes to call it. The cooperation of different organizations will bring benefits to each organization, more than could be accomplished on a single basis. Or, to put it in a simple equation: “1+1 = 3”.

As co-initiators, the churches play a relatively important role in the ICCV-project. It is striking how much the word ‘spirituality’ is used in the report, often in conjunction with other words such as ‘integration’ (see quote above). The report is in large part written by Vermeer, who also is the chairman of the ICCV-project. It is interesting to see that Sluis first asked a representative of the churches to join him. On being asked why he wanted the churches to participate in a project like this, Sluis answered that organizations such as (musical) schools, churches and social welfare groups essentially want the same thing: “In principle we all do the same: meeting people is essential, celebration is essential, bringing people together is essential. That is a common ground we have with the churches.” Sluis, a Roman Catholic, envisioned a big church in the Culture Campus, where this common ground could further be explored; during weekdays, for example with students, but also on Sundays, with new forms of worship, in which music and art would play an important role.

It is no coincidence that Sluis asked Vermeer to join him in the initiative. Of course, he is the chairman of the ecumenical project group, and as such the first responsible person for church building projects in the suburban area. But probably even more important, Vermeer is also a central figure in the church life of Vleuten and De Meern, and has a lot of credits with churchgoers and church councils. If anyone could bring the churches into this project, it would be Vermeer. Furthermore, Vermeer and Sluis share the same vision on the place of the church in the social domain. Like Sluis, Vermeer primarily sees the church as a social organization, responsible for the welfare of all people. Vermeer has a “vision” of a society in Leidsche Rijn where “people are committed to each other, do things together; where it is great to live.” He thinks it is fantastic that the church can help people meet each other. It does not necessarily need a religious “stamp” on it. Vermeer expects that the people of the new housing area will want to have new forms of church. In his view, the traditional church life of the villages “with every Sunday one or two services of a static order” will not be attractive to the new suburbians. According to Vermeer and Sluis, the Culture Campus offers great opportunities for new forms of community and celebration.

Struggles over square meters

At first, the project of Sluis, Vermeer and the others sets off smoothly. In the first report, the local churches are assigned a prominent place, about 1000 square meters at the entrance of the campus. The churches are asked for a reaction on the proposal. Four of the five congregations react negatively, basically on the grounds that the participation of the churches is too large and therefore too expensive. The Catholic Church of Vleuten also remarks that a full-fledged church in the Culture Campus is not appreciated. It prefers a small chapel for ‘meditation and silence.’

The project group lowers its aims, and in a second report, published in the middle of 2001, the churches participate with 250 square meters. This report is first accepted in the ecumenical council, but later the Dutch Reformed Church of Vleuten reconsiders this decision and proposes a participation of 75 square meters. The other churches follow this proposal – to the great annoyance of the project group of Being Church In Leidsche Rijn and, of course, Karel Vermeer. Only the small congregation of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands proposes an alternative of 140 square meters; the project group tries to save the project and accepts the alternative 140 proposal. They also attempt to obtain support from the Roman Catholic diocese. But finally the churches stick to a participation of 75 square meters.

In June 2002 the definitive decision has to be made. All partners in the Culture Campus have to sign an ‘intention agreement,’ which specifies who participates and to what extent. As the date on which the agreement has to be signed draws near, the village churches again begin to raise objections to the project.

It starts with a meeting of the ecumenical council at the end of May, in which the churches’ final decision on the amount of participation is discussed. In principle, this should have been a formality, but great confusion arises in the meeting. First, a large part of the evening is taken by a discussion on present ecumenical cooperation during which it becomes obvious that there are large differences between the churches. After almost an hour, it is concluded that more discussion is needed and that the parameters of ecumenical cooperation possibly have to be re-examined. Then the subject of the Culture Campus is discussed. Several local church authorities state that the financial consequences and possibilities of using 75 square meters are still unclear. Vermeer, who is obviously annoyed by the ignorance of the governors, replies that all is clear and calculated. He furthermore makes a plea for ecumenical cooperation and the social-cultural and civil function of churches. But Vermeer’s plea is largely ignored and the discussion elaborates further on the amount of square meters. The meeting ends more or less in disarray at 10:30 p.m., when the chairman of the council ends the session.

A few weeks after the meeting, it becomes known that the Dutch Reformed Church of Vleuten, which would be officially (juridically) responsible for the churches’ share in the Culture Campus, wants to quit. The members of the Dutch Reformed church council think they have to carry the financial burden for the Culture Campus, because they sign the agreement as the legally responsible body. Only after the reassurance of the other churches that they together will be responsible for the financial burden, Dutch Reformed Vleuten reluctantly agrees.

A few days before the signing date, the pastors of the five churches suddenly want to cancel the project: at a pastors’ meeting they have heard that the Culture Campus will not be located in the center of Vleuterweide, one of the principal quarters of Leidsche Rijn. Only after several inquiries and the assurance of local authorities that the Culture Campus is the center of Vleuterweide, finally all churches agree, and the intention agreement is signed.

Analysis

The case above vividly shows the way churches use their capital. Vermeer and his project group could draw on a considerable amount of capital, certainly in the first instance. The BCILR-project is clearly a ‘concentration of capital’ (Ammerman, 1997), not only of social capital, but other forms of capital as well. First of all, the project group came into being as a consequence of the good relations and ‘ecumenical spirit’ between the churches. Years of investment in these relations had brought the necessary trust to engage in such a large and unsure project as trying to be present amidst 90,000 new people. From its start, the project group is based on the social capital that exists between the churches.

Furthermore, the churches invest quite a lot of money in the project, although the minimum participation of the churches seems to obscure this fact. Thirdly, social capital is set in with Vermeer as the man with contacts and relations necessary to participate in this project in the first place. The fact that the churches are asked to join is another example of social capital: the churches are seen as trustworthy enough to participate. Vermeer and the other people from the project group bring intellectual capital in the form of their organizational skills, but also their professional skills (for example, one member of the project group is a former building contractor). It is important to note that all project group members and church representatives do their work as volunteers, unlike the members of the other participants in the Culture Campus, who are ‘just’ doing their work. This willingness to volunteer is very important for the capacity of churches to be active in the social field. The churches and the project group feel a religiously inspired responsibility for the ‘world’ outside, and are willing to invest large amounts of time and money to give form to this responsibility.

But why, despite this large amount of capital, is the participation of the churches this meager? Of course, the simplest explanation is lack of money. The churches in Vleuten and De Meern are doing quite well, certainly when compared to other churches in the area, such as in Utrecht. But the churches are not that rich, and they are experiencing the effects of secularization: they secretly hope that new inhabitants will fill up their own empty pews, instead of filling new church buildings halfway. The conflict seems to be the normal clash between enthusiasts, seeking to maximize the church’s participation, and realistic church governors who keep their hands on their wallets, trying to lower the aims of the enthusiasts. Translated in terms of capital, this explanation goes as follows: the existence of large amounts of social capital just cannot compensate for the need of hard money.

This explanation goes a long way to explain what happened, but there are a few strange things that suggest more is occuring than just a lack of money. First of all, there are several reasons to support the building of new churches. Ninety thousand new inhabitants will put a serious strain (to put it mildly) on the churches’ capacity, even if only the estimated 2%(!) will go to church[3]. Furthermore, several of the churches in the area are not very empty. For example, the protestant church of De Meern is already completely filled every Sunday due to the influx of new inhabitants. The Culture Campus would have been a perfect opportunity for church building. It is relatively cheap and on a premiere location, near other social cultural organizations. And even more important: within a few years there will be no space left for a church in the whole of Leidsche Rijn! Furthermore, it is interesting to note that these arguments to support church building are not so much rejected in the decision-making process, but never even seem to be really discussed, at least not publicly during the ecumenical meetings.

Another strange fact is that during the conflict, most of the time the churches were united against the plans of the project group – despite the fact that great differences exist between the churches (particularly notably between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches) and that these differences were very relevant for the ICCV-project. To give one important example: the Protestants and the Roman Catholics in the villages have a very different conception of what church is. The Protestant churches view the church as a group of persons who together form an independent faith community. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, see the sacraments as the centre of the church. Currently in Leidsche Rijn, the Roman Catholics are seeking to combine the three now existing parishes into one big parish where there will be minimally one place were the Eucharist can be received. For the Catholic vision, other places (such as the Culture Campus) will develop into different forms of church life, but not necessarily a full fledged church with a priest, Eucharist and weekly attending public. According to this view, as long as somewhere in Leidsche Rijn the Eucharist is given, then a Roman Catholic Church exists.

Strikingly enough, these different ideas on the concept of church were recognized by the village churches. During some of the meetings of the ecumenical council, there had been discussions on this subject. And yet, strangely this has not become a source of conflict between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, but instead it has been a point of disagreement between all the village churches (Protestant and Roman Catholic alike) and the project group. The ideas held by the project group members regarding the Culture Campus were largely based on the Protestant concept of a church, as a full fledged church, with an independent and ecumenical (which is also problematic for the Roman Catholics) faith community. While the Protestants were in principle positive about this idea, they followed the Roman Catholic lead against the Culture Campus plans.

We think that the really major force in the decision making process was the drive to maintain the ecumenical status quo that exists between the churches of the village. As noted earlier, there seems to be no drive in the villages towards full ecumenical cooperation. Ecumenically speaking a status quo exists between the churches of the villages, with clear definitions of what is possible and what is definitively not possible. The Culture Campus as envisioned by the project group was definitively outside the village definition of ecumenical cooperation. As for discussion on the building of new churches, this seems also to be held within the boundaries of the status quo. Rationally speaking there were good reasons for some of the churches to build a new church together. Perhaps if the churches had tried harder, they could have had more financial resources to build a full sized church. But the village churches probably did not want to put the relations under pressure. The capacity problems are most acute with the churches in De Meern, notably the Protestant church. But the Culture Campus is to be built on the property of Vleuten. The churches of Vleuten have the largest financial problems and are the most empty during worship services. Although the project group was set up for the whole of the new suburb, and such geographical distinctions officially should not have to play a role, in practice it did. De Meern would not put their relation with Vleuten under pressure, but could not start to build a church on their own either.

Speaking in terms of capital, the BCILR project was meant to bundle the existing capital to enable the churches to accomplish something together that was not possible separately. But, as in normal economics, the shareholders finally decide what to do with their capital. And in this case, the application of the capital was limited by the symbolic boundaries of the church life of Vleuten and De Meern. When Karel Vermeer and his project group crossed these boundaries, they were called to a halt.

There are several examples in the case description that can further illustrate this argument. The prevalence of numbers within the description is remarkable; there has been an enormous discussion on the total amount of participation in square meters, with constantly shifting figures. The churches want to be in direct control of what is happening, but what exactly they want changes several times. This change is not inspired by new insights about what is needed for the presence of the church in Leidsche Rijn, but instead swirls around an evaluation of what is possible within the churches’ framework.

Another striking feature is the confusion about the details of the Culture Campus amongst the persons who are to make a decision on this subject, notably in the meeting of the Ecumenical Council of May 2002. The reason for this confusion is that the attendants of the meeting act primarily as representatives of the different churches. Whether they have real knowledge of the Culture Campus project and whether they have the capacity to judge what is needed for the suburban area is not seen as necessary or important. To be a representative of one’s own church is the really important thing.

A third feature is the relative lack of urgency. The largest part of the Ecumenical Meeting of May 2002 was occupied by a rather abstract discussion on ecumenism, which ended in the conclusion that Protestants and Catholics are quite different and that more discussion is needed on the parameters of ecumenical cooperation. Directly after this discussion the meeting had to decide on the Culture Campus, which was originally intended as (and still in a sense was) a full ecumenical project.

A last evidence of compromise was the lack of enthusiasm by all the parties which was apparent when the churches finally signed the agreement. Vermeer and Sluis both called the participation of the churches in the Culture Campus a ‘disaster.’ The Dutch Reformed church of Vleuten reluctantly signed, and the other churches did not seem to be particularly eager either.

These examples are rather strange when the decision making process is seen as a rational discussion on what to do to reach a certain end. But within the logic of status quo, the actions of the churches make perfectly sense.

The above painted picture clearly shows the static nature of the church life of the villages; static not in the sense that nothing happens, but in that there are clear boundaries and strong pressures to keep these boundaries intact. The Culture Campus project has threatened this status quo by proposing something that falls precisely outside these boundaries: one ecumenical church. The project group was set up as a tool to bundle the capital of the churches, but this cooperation was eventually confined within the framework of the village churches. The logic of the status quo, with its clear do’s and don’ts and with its tendency to compromise, was a more important factor in the decision-making process than the logic of what could be a contribution to the presence of the churches in Leidsche Rijn. The irony is that the project group has functioned perfectly in one aspect: as the means to keep the status quo. As a lightning conductor, it drew all the conflict energies away from where it otherwise would have hit.

3.2. Contrast: a Conservative Reformed project

During the time that Van der Meulen did research with the ecumenical group, he also followed another project, called Rijnwaarde. This project is a cooperation of three conservative Reformed Churches of the nearby city of Utrecht. The reason to bring this project up here is as a contrast to the ecumenical project. Rijnwaarde has a completely different way of doing things, which is interesting to show here. Furthermore, this project has worked as a contrast during Van der Meulen’s fieldwork. Seeing two projects dealing with the same situation in such a different way raised many interesting questions and guided the fieldwork to a large extent, greatly contributing to our understanding of the case of the Culture Campus.

The first striking difference is the quite different ideology. The ecumenical project primarily wants to serve the total community of Leidsche Rijn in contributing to the general well being. Rijnwaarde has a much more outspoken religious goal: evangelizing all people in Leidsche Rijn. Their slogan is “The Gospel for Leidsche Rijn,” which means that they are trying to present the gospel to everyone, in such a way that as many people as possible will come to know Christ. Being social and contributing to the whole community certainly is a noble thing to do, but, according to the Rijnwaarde people, the most noble thing to do is bringing people to Christ, because knowing Christ is the best possible contribution to social and personal well-being. Therefore, they organize Alpha Courses (evangelization) and monthly worship services for young parents and children in one of the Leidsche Rijn schools.

The mother churches of the Rijnwaarde project are, socially speaking, much more marginal than the village churches of BCILR. Conservative Reformed churches are quite marginal in Dutch society, notably in cities like Utrecht. The Rijnwaarde project therefore has much less capital to invest, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of contacts, volunteers, and trust of the governments and the people in general. Their image in the outside world, if the have one at all, tends to be negative. Despite this fact (or perhaps thanks to it?) they are strikingly positive about what they can achieve. When asked what Rijnwaarde would be within five years, the chairman envisions a large church with one thousand persons. He thinks it possible to really reach 10% of the population of Leidsche Rijn. This surely is well above the 2% of the inhabitants that the mainline village churches hope, at maximum, to reach. There is a clear difference of atmosphere between the two projects. In the Rijnwaarde project there is an atmosphere of excitement; a feeling of urgency, a need to change Leidsche Rijn, including the hope that, with the help of God, great things are going to happen in Leidsche Rijn. In the ecumenical project there often is an atmosphere of failure: many people feel that the churches should have a more important place in the social life of the suburb, but they are without hope that they can do much to accomplish this - and what they do is fraught with conflict.

Rijnwaarde generally has less capital than BCILR, but in one form they seem to have more: they have extensive professional capital. Most of the members of the project are relatively young, highly educated and have ‘modern’ jobs, such as manager or IT- professional. Several members work at universities and colleges, or in the media. Rijnwaarde uses this professional capital. For example, they have printed several glossy looking folders and posters, which are designed by friends of the powerful Dutch Evangelical Broadcasting Company (Evangelische Omroep). These folders are a part of Rijnwaarde’s well thought-out communication strategy, which is devised by people who work in the advertising business. Compared to BCILR, Rijnwaarde is much more professionally inspired.

As the strength of the ecumenical group is also its greatest weakness, conversely the weakness of the conservative reformed group seems to be its greatest strength: its relative detachment from local ties. Rijnwaarde is much more free to do its own thing. There is surprisingly little conflict, compared to the ecumenical group, despite the also large differences between the mother churches. Rijnwaarde has, like the ecumenical project group, a wish to develop new forms of worship that are relevant for the modern suburbian. Rijnwaarde started worship services on Sunday afternoons in January 2003, with a clear evangelical style of worship, quite different from their conservative Reformed background. Neither within their project group, nor within the mother churches, has this been a source of conflict. The Rijnwaarde project is a heavy burden for the mother churches: they not only have to pay a large part of the project, but people who otherwise would be active in the Utrecht churches are now investing their energy in building a new church in the suburbs.

The difference between the projects can be summarized with a ‘capitalist’ metaphor. The ecumenical project is like a joint-venture of settled businesses within a framework of established and recognized interests, tied firmly to a closed market – whereas the conservative group is like a young, ambitious and self assured company, constantly seeking new markets, with only the sky as its limit.

5. Conclusion

We have seen that the local Reformed and Catholic churches in Leidsche Rijn have at their disposal different forms of capital: social contacts and networks, money, volunteers, trust and legitimacy. The combination or concentration of various forms of capital gives power: in this case the power to initiate and to participate in a project such as the Culture Campus. Capital, however, is not per definition generously and altruistically ‘given’ to the community. The use of capital serves a specific purpose, and is not without self-interest. The preservation of the traditional village churches in Vleuten and de Meern seems to prevail above an uncertain experiment directed towards the total community of Leidsche Rijn.

Negative or positive evaluation of this strategy depends on what results one likes to see, and whether one is positive or negative about the interests of the village churches. If one wants to preserve the life of the churches as it is now, it may not be a good idea to follow the visions of the prophets. But, if one really wants to have new forms of religious presence in a new context together with other social organizations, then the Culture Campus would not have been a bad starting point.

What are we to make of this case in the light of the question about the impact that churches exert on a local civil society? On the one hand, our conclusion can only be that both the ecumenical Culture Campus project and the conservative Reformed Rijnwaarde project, up until now, fail to be of any significance for the local civil society, in spite of the amounts of capital the various churches have at their disposal. Perhaps this example of a new suburban situation shows us the future of Reformed presence in Dutch society: modest, obscure, and inwardly directed. If there is an effect upon civil society, this will be indirect, through the efforts of engaged individual Christians, and perhaps through the fact that congregations as social networks in themselves form a (small) part of the local civil society. On the other hand, this case also shows that if churches overcome their internal differences and find a way to unleash their powers outward, they still can make a great impact, whatever secularization there may have been.

Notes

[1]1 Information from the website of one of the Leidsche Rijn architects Marjetica Potrc: http://www.creativetime.org/consumingplaces/potrc/c_lr.html. See also: www.leidscherijn.nl.
[2]The names of all the persons in this article are pseudonyms
[3]Even for Dutch standards this is a very low figure. The average of (regular) church attendance is between 10 and 15% of the population, although suburbs generally are more secular.

References

Ammerman, N.T., and A.E. Farnsley (1997)

Congregation and Community. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press

Bekkers, R. (2003)

‘De bijdrage der kerckelijken’. In: Th.N.M. Schuyt, Geven in Nederland 2003. Giften, legaten, sponsoring en vrijwilligerswerk. Houten/Dieghem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum

Dekker, G., J. de Hart & J. Peters, (1997)

God in Nederland, 1966-1996. Amsterdam: Anthos

Dekker, P. (2002)

De oplossing van de civil society. Over vrijwillige associaties in tijden van vervagende grenzen. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau

McGuire, M.B., (1992)

Religion. The Social Context. Belmont: Wadsworth

Putnam, R.D. (with R. Leonardi and R.Y. Nanetti) (1993)

Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Marten van der Meulen is a PhD in the sociology of religion at the Faculty of Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He does ethnographic research in a new suburb (Leidsche Rijn) near a major Dutch town (Utrecht) on the participation of churches in a local civil society. (E-mail: m.van.der.meulen@mdw.vu.nl)

Hijme Stoffels is professor in the sociology of religion at the Faculty of Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He participates in a university project on Churches, Religion, and Civil Society. (E-mail: stoffels@tiscali.nl)