This issue of Bestuurswetenschappen is devoted to the theme of ‘religious heritage’, more specifically to what is called the ‘church problem’. Nobody will have missed the fact that quite a few churches have been withdrawn as places of worship in recent years. While there was still a shortage of churches a generation ago, today the problem is the other way around: there is a surplus. There is great agreement about the causes of this: secularization and church leaving have left deep marks. Churches have been demolished, used for multiple purposes and churches have become vacant. However, the majority of the empty churches have been given a new destination. Those who think that this solves the problem are mistaken. As a result, a new problem has arisen that raises the following questions: which designated purposes are ‘appropriate’, what is absolutely not possible and how does it work in practice if the religious function is combined with a cultural and/or commercial function? The versatility of the ‘church problem’ is evident from the contributions in this special issue. It opens with a column written by the King’s Commissioner in the province of North-Brabant, Wim van de Donk. In his column he emphasizes the value of religious heritage and the commitment of local communities to finding creative solutions.

While many new churches were built in the Netherlands sixty years ago to meet the demands of religious communities for space for their worship, the situation in 2020 is completely different. It is true that a church is sometimes built here and there in the Netherlands, but the general picture is that many churches have been withdrawn as places of worship in recent years, that a number have been demolished and that many have been given a new designated purpose. The fate of a church building often evokes many emotions in people. For example, we experienced this when we, together with the Parisians, watched in disbelief as fire destroyed parts of Notre Dame. This is related to the fact that for many people churches are more than just ‘beautifully stacked stones’. They are directly linked to the highs and lows of people’s individual and collective lives. People were baptized and married in that church, funeral services of loved ones were held there and the church is still a familiar part of the image of city or village. Rightly so that churches are also seen as ‘affective monuments’. The central question, however, is how to deal with religious heritage (policy related) now that churches are emptying? In this article the authors first give a brief outline of the background, nature and scope of what they call the ‘church problem’. Then they discuss the ‘battle for churches’ associated with this problem, which they subsequently try to interpret from a number of Public Administration theories. The role of certain individuals and organizations in the ‘battle for churches’, the so-called ‘entrepreneurs’, is further explored. They pay specific attention to the role of the municipality in this as a whole and call on all parties involved to deal (politically) with the ‘church problem’ rather than ‘spasmodically’.

The care for religious heritage is no recent phenomenon in the Netherlands. King Willem I (1813-1840) was the first king of the Netherlands personally committed to the preservation of churches. But striving for conservation does not mean that a building is frozen in time; on the contrary. Many a church is made smaller, rebuilt or expanded in the course of its existence. The use of churches for other than religious purposes is also nothing new in the Netherlands, as is the re-designation of churches. The ‘Grote Kerk’ of Veere has been re-designated many times since 1600. Of the current approximately 7,100 buildings in the Netherlands that were built for a religious function, some 1,700 have already been re-designated. It is said that around 1,000 church buildings have been closed since the 1960s, hundreds of which have been demolished. As far as religious buildings are concerned, change is not an exception, but a constant. So desperately wanting to keep everything as it is – or was – seems impossible. But all this does not alter the fact that church buildings are dear to Dutch society. For example, churches make up only 4% of the total stock of national monuments in the Netherlands, but together they receive about 40% of all maintenance funds. Church buildings apparantly offer something extra and lift us up as people. And from that perspective alone, the recommendation is to keep these buildings as much as possible for the future.

This article provides insight into the way in which various city churches that are national monuments fulfill their various, sometimes contradictory, functions. All of these are church buildings that determine the city view. These five church buildings are dependent on commercial rental by a foundation or manager for their maintenance, but they also explicitly fulfill a religious and cultural-historical function. How do ecclesiastical and management organizations deal with this area of tension, what administrative forms do we find and where and why do tensions arise? The author sketches the results of a comparative case study of five churches, supplemented with data collected through focus groups with administrators of 20 church communities associated with city churches that are national monuments. It appears that tensions between the various functions of the church building occur in all these churches, regardless of the chosen administrative model. These tensions seem to be concentrated mainly around the ‘iconic’ meaning of the church building. For the church community, the church building not only fulfills the function of ‘meeting place’; it is also the building through which the church community is visible and recognizable in the city. In addition, the church building also appears to represent certain values with which church communities identify themselves. It is therefore important for administrators and foundations to answer a ‘cardinal’ question: can the current ecclesiastical function of the building be part of the commercial and cultural-historical function of the building, or should it remain strictly separate from it?

The author of this contribution asks whether and, if so, in which specific cases, the principle of the separation of church and state applies to situations related to the emptying of churches. As a result of the closure, restoration and re-designation of church buildings, governments may be confronted with issues that touch on this principle. The principle of the separation between church and state prescribes that the government must be neutral. This contribution explains that this neutral attitude differs according to the social domain in which the issue arises. Using a contextual approach, he makes clear which interests (religious, general, private and the interests of others) should be decisive in government policy in this area in the various domains.

After a year’s delay, the new Dutch Environmental Act will enter into force on January 1, 2022. Within this new legal framework, municipalities are expected to develop an environmental vision through policy integration and citizen participation. This new working method raises some questions. This article focuses on the quality of policy considerations with regard to vulnerable spatial domains and in particular religious heritage. It answers the question about the quality of policy considerations in municipal environmental visions and then examines whether policy integration and participation have contributed to this. An analysis of 33 municipal environmental visions shows that the quality of policy considerations for religious heritage is low in almost all municipalities. Interviews with nine municipalities provide a more complete picture and make it clear that the real quality of the policy considerations is higher than what can ultimately be found in the visions. However, these findings raise doubts about the future protection of the religious heritage in the further elaboration of the environmental vision in the environmental plan. In connection with this, two calls are made: (a) as a municipality, ensure that the subject of cultural heritage is on the political-administrative agenda; (b) ensure that cultural heritage is not only part of history, but also of the future.

In this contribution, three entrepreneurs indicate how they are actively involved in the processes of re-designation of churches. Based on a number of tools, they try to offer prospects for the future of churches in close consultation with the parties involved. This is by no means easy and requires strategic, tactical and open action to bridge existing contradictions and guarantee a future for the religious heritage.

This essay discusses the book L’archipel français: naissance d’une nation multiple et divisée. In addition, the French author Jérôme Fourquet is discussed, what the central thesis of the book is, what research methods the author uses, how the book is structured and what conclusions he comes to. Subsequently, the second part of the essay raises the question of the extent to which (in the opinion of the author of the essay) there is also a metamorphosis of society in the Netherlands, as is seen in France. This enables him, among other things, to report on a longitudinal research project at Radboud University Nijmegen, which is known as ‘Socio-cultural Developments in the Netherlands’ (SOCON). The central proposition of the bestseller is that France was once a nation that could be seen as ‘one and indivisible’ (and was experienced as such), but that France has changed fundamentally over the past decades and is now a ‘multiform and divided’ country: an ‘archipelisation’ process has occurred. Fourquet derives the term ‘archipelago’ from geology and uses it as a metaphor for the sub-worlds that have emerged: largely autonomous ‘islands’ with a limited joint bond. The Dutch SOCON study and other evidence supports Fourquet’s notion that there is also a huge shift in society in the Netherlands and that here too (perhaps less than in France) there are indications for ‘archipelisation’.