1 Introduction

“The pastors, who aim to affect legislation and claim that the Bible justifies same-sex marriage, are misleading us,” stated Mika Niikko, a far-right politician, and a member of the Finnish Parliament at that time, during a discussion in Parliament concerning legalization of same-sex marriage (PTK120/2014, translated by the author). He was referring to a group of pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCF), who were campaigning in support of the legalization. The group named themselves rainbow pastors and launched their campaign at the end of 2014, when a citizens’ initiative on gender-neutral marriage was discussed in the Finnish Parliament. The group of pastors Niikko referred to, started the campaign to support the initiative and to improve the public image of the ELCF concerning attitudes toward sexual diversity. Although Niikko referred to the pastors’ campaign in a negative way, he similarly reinforced the authority of the activists by giving the impression that they were a force to be reckoned with. Authority of an actor can be supported by presenting them as powerful (Alasuutari 2018).

Both the political and religious climate were extremely polarized when same-sex marriage was discussed in the Finnish Parliament. The pastors of the ELCF have the right to officiate marriages with full civil law effects which made the church involved and an influential actor in the public discussion. Finally, the law allowing same-sex marriages came into force in Finland in March 2017. Previously, from 2002 to 2017, Finland had recognized only registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Today, around seven years later, the ELCF still does not officially allow church weddings for same-sex couples, and same-sex marriage remains controversial. Although the popularity of church weddings has been diminishing, around 40% of couples in Finland have a religious marriage ceremony, which shows the societal significance of the marriage issue (Kirkon tutkimus ja koulutus 2022).

The discussions concerning same-sex marriage and overall attitudes toward non-heteronormative people within the context of Finland and the ELCF are well-researched topics, for example, recognition and misrecognition of same-sex couples (Hellqvist and Vähäkangas 2018), attitudes of the clergy (Kallatsa 2021), changes in values and norms challenging the church (Ketola and Helander 2020), reactions within the ELCF and the Orthodox Church of Finland to same-sex marriage legislation (Metso and Kallatsa 2018), and the changing relation between sexual and gender minorities and religion (Nynäs et al. 2020). Among other things, international scholars are interested in the question of how legislative changes regarding same-sex unions have affected churches’ attitudes and policies (van den Berg 2017; Cadge 2002; Dabelsteen 2015). However, non-heteronormative actors have not been addressed as agents of change so far. Instead, people with non-heteronormative sexual identifications are often referred to as sexual minorities (Lahti et al. 2020). In this article the concept is only used when referring to other studies where sexual minorities are a central concept. This study aims to detach from minority rhetoric which contributes to marginalization of sexual diversity and refers to heterosexual people as majority and heterosexuality as a norm. Sexual orientation and gender identities are not clearcut and it is problematic to categorize people to certain groups and find an inclusive concept when these themes are discussed. Heteronormativity refers to practices, action, and discourses that contribute to maintaining the conception of heterosexuality as natural (Rossi 2006). Here, the concept of non-heteronormativity is used to refer to people with gay, lesbian, bi, pan, or other marginalized sexual identifications.

Compared to previous research, this study provides new insight into the role of the media in the process of legitimation of a group of rainbow activists within the ELCF. When same-sex marriage is debated at the legislative level as well as within churches and religious communities, both media and religious agents play their part in the process. Media representations are crucial in the construction of credible and powerful actors. Along with media professionals, social actors are engaged in the process and use the central role of mass media to achieve their goals. In this study, the important role of grass-roots activism is acknowledged in the process of social change. This article discusses how media presents a group of activists called rainbow pastors who aim to influence the official policies of the ELCF in terms of same-sex marriage and how media contributes to constructing the group’s legitimacy and authority as an influential and powerful actor within the religious framework.

Mass media can be said to set the agenda for political actors by offering visibility and publicity that can be utilized as resources but can also constrain them (Adut 2012). McCombs and Shaw (1972), who have theorized agenda-setting, hypothesize that the mass media define the course for political campaigns and influences the salience of people’s attitudes toward political issues. Setting the agenda refers to the power of the media when it determines from what is said to what is important enough to be published (McCombs and Shaw 1972). The role of the media in constructing a legitimate actor in the field of political activism must be considered. As Guha (2015) states, activism hence needs the support of the media to get more people involved, as it shapes the agenda for public discussion.

The data for this study consist of selected Finnish news articles from 2014 to 2020, in which the question of same-sex marriage and the ELCF were discussed. The articles included in the data were published online in both national and local, secular and church-oriented newspapers and news media to obtain a wide perspective on the discussion. Neo-institutionalist epistemic governance is employed as a theoretical framework and analytical tool for this study to understand how authority is constructed to affect others’ perceptions of reality and the situation at hand, what kind of social change is desired, and the ways in which it is pursued. The following questions guided this study: What kinds of discursive representations of the rainbow pastors are presented in the media and what type of justifications are used in the media that contribute to legitimization of the group of rainbow pastors as an influential and powerful actor? The aim of the rainbow pastors was to convince different audiences of the need for social change and updating official church policies, while the media were pushing their own agenda that could work either for or against the activists’ goals.

The article is structured as follows. First, the neo-institutionalist theory of epistemic governance is introduced to understand how the activists’ defiance to organizational rules is justified and how the need to change official church policies is presented in the media. Next, the problematic stance of the ELCF towards its members with non-heteronormative sexual orientation is sketched, followed by the discussion of the empirical methods and the results of the media analysis. The paper concludes with a discussion of the meaning of the findings for the church and Finnish society. The findings of this study show that the debate not only concerns equal rights for same-sex couples, but it is also about the question, who holds the power within the church. As the activists campaigned publicly, they challenged the ELCF’s official power structures and policies and showed that the church needs to take the changed societal script into account when discussing and making official decisions concerning the religious understanding of marriage.

2 Neo-institutionalist epistemic governance and social change

According to the neo-institutionalist approach, social actors are molded and guided by the institutional order of society, such as the rule of law, division of power, or individual rights to freedom in the political sphere (Meyer 2010). The ELCF has an established and influential position within Finnish society but is also affected by established secular institutions and institutionalized scripts, such as demands for human rights and equality. Institutions create the circumstances and meaning structures within which social actors make decisions and act (Meyer 2010). Institutions can be considered structures that limit, condition, and direct social agency. Globally institutionalized scripts are taken up by organizations and shape the construction of individual agency according to the guiding principles of institutions such as individual rights and self-determination (Meyer 2010). Neo-institutionalism has been criticized for neglecting the role of individual agency and discussing individual behavior primarily as a result of institutional scripts and pressure (Alasuutari and Qadir 2014). The epistemic governance approach, however, seeks to emphasize action and perceives social change as “a sum of all individuals leading their lives and pursuing their objectives” (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019, p. 5). This study aims to contribute to this perspective and understands actors as interpreters of institutional expectations and guiding ideas, and hence as agents of change and governance such as in the case of the rainbow pastors.

When social movements challenge the status quo, in this case the rainbow pastors, they involve themselves in epistemic governance (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). In this context, the concept of governance refers to efforts to change the given social system, as well as intentional efforts to change other people’s conduct. When epistemic governance is considered to aim to affect other people’s behavior, it is practiced by those who aim to challenge the status quo and those who wish to maintain it (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). Nynäs and Lassander (2015) refer to Castells’ (2015) theory on social movements and state that the success of the activists in terms of the citizens’ initiative on gender-neutral marriage is an example of how the values promoted by the activists can form new institutional principles of social life. The legalization of same-sex marriage was the first bill in Finland to become law as a result of a citizens’ initiative.

Governance can also be practiced by those who do not have formal authority over others, which is often the case with social movements (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). When trying to impact people’s behavior, social movements can appeal to individuals’ negative or positive emotions (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). Successful epistemic governance aims to speak to and evoke people’s deep-seated values and institutional beliefs (Alasuutari and Qadir 2014). One way to seek change is to construct an alternative picture of reality in which the institutional barriers of the current policies are pointed out as in the dominant legislation on marriage (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). In the case of same-sex marriage debate, both supporters and opponents aim to draw on commonly shared institutionalized scripts, norms, and values, such as religious dogma and marriage as an institution, and assume certain audience identifications to justify their opinion and action.

Actors who aim for social change (or maintaining the status quo) may justify their arguments by drawing on various sources of authority. According to Alasuutari (2018, p. 166), “presenting and describing an actor as powerful is part of the strategies by which authority is constructed.” When power is denoted as a hierarchical feature of a community, actors’ attempts and claims of dominance are easily overlooked. Actors can use discourses as a way of challenging authority and constructing alternative versions of reality and the current situation (Alasuutari 2018). Following Alasuutari (2018), in this study, the concept of authority refers to the means actors use to affect others and aim to convince them of something worth considering when deciding on their own conduct. Authority exists only when others recognize it, which makes it relational. Authority is also cumulative; those who accumulate epistemic capital have more influence on others’ conduct (Alasuutari 2018).

Kallatsa (2021) stated that her study on the attitudes of ELCF pastors toward sexual minorities raised the question of who holds power within the church. Traditionally, power within the church has been institutional and possessed by erudite men. In the question of same-sex church weddings, the power seems to be held by the General Synod (Kallatsa 2021). However, as the theory of epistemic governance suggests, power and authority can also be located and possessed elsewhere, outside the official leaders, decision-making organs, and hierarchies. This is to say that power can be practiced by those who usually do not have formal authority over others (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019), such as social movements—in this case the rainbow pastors. The question of who holds the power within the church is therefore not as simple as it may seem at first. The pastors of the church have a double role when it comes to weddings: they are civil servants who have a legal right to officiate same-sex marriages, but also religious agents who risk penalties when defying the official policy of the ELCF. This double role may cause confusion and personal dissonance, but it also provides the pastors a unique form of power when it comes to the same-sex marriage debate.

As stated in the introduction, religious marriage ceremonies are still quite popular in Finland, which can be seen as confirming the societal position of the ELCF. Although family forms have become increasingly pluralized in Western countries, monogamous couple relationships have not lost their cultural status (Barker and Langdridge 2010; Farvid and Braun 2013). The feminist movement has raised the question of why non-heterosexuals should organize their lives and relationships according to normative, marriage-like, and monogamous relationship ideals in the first place (Lahti 2019). Heteronormative and monogamous ideals continue to participate in organizing the intimate relationships of non-heterosexuals as well. This shows the institutionalized nature of marriage, the values it entails, and explains why it is so hard to challenge it: one of the features of institutions is that they usually aim to maintain the status quo. Laws and institutional structures regulate family relations as well as create and maintain ideals that exclude and marginalize intimate relationships that are positioned outside these institutional scripts.

Scholars have also asked why women or individuals with non-heteronormative sexual orientation want to be members of religious communities that oppress them. The question is more complicated than it might seem at first. It arises from the complex relations of religion, power, identity, and agency (Kejonen and Ratinen 2016; Yip 2010). According to O’Brien (2014), there is a general distrust of religion among LGBT groups. If religions were anti-gay, why would “good gays” be religious (O’Brien 2014, p. xii)? However, it is essential to recognize that for an individual, religion can be as significant and inalienable part of their identity as their sexuality. Feminist scholarship is often dominated by the so-called secularity assumption, which refers to seeing religiousness as the normal state in terms of subjectivity (Ahonen and Vuola 2015; Yip 2010). Secularity assumption fails to acknowledge the societal influence of religious institutions and the empowering features of religion and spirituality as well as religious agency and emancipation go unnoticed. The present study challenges the secularity assumption by recognizing the importance of religious dimension in the same-sex marriage discussion as well as religious feminist activism and its effect on furthering social change (see also van den Brandt 2019; Mahmood 2005). As discussed above, the problematics related to the marriage issue and the relation between non-heteronormative sexual orientation and religion are acknowledged, but the focus of this study is on the strategies of a group of activists who aim to further same-sex couples’ right to church weddings.

3 The problematic stance of the ELCF towards sexual diversity

In recent decades, several legislative changes and reforms that have led to increased acceptance of sexual diversity have been implemented in Finland. Same-sex couples were first given the right to register their partnership (Act 950/2001), then to get married (Act 98/2017), and same-sex couples have been given the right to be considered adoptive parents as well as access to assisted fertility treatment (Act 1237/2006; Act 98/2017). These legal changes have, for their part, contributed to greater openness and the normalization of sexual diversity in society. Globally, there has been a rapid increase in the promotion of equal rights of non-heteronormative people at the individual and institutional levels (Nynäs and Lassander 2015). However, in religious contexts, the question of the interpretation of religious texts and dogma in relation to sexual diversity adds an ethical and moral dimension to the discussion (Carlström 2022). When legalization changes, institutionalized societal scripts also shift. This creates pressure for religious institutions to change their central scripts and opens space for their renegotiation. Rainbow pastors aimed to use the momentum to push forward change in religious scripts concerning marriage and sexual diversity. This study provides insight into the ongoing process within the ELCF, where the differing religious understandings of marriage cause debate and conflict and the institutional script is yet to be changed. The theory of epistemic governance brings light into the process of how these institutional scripts could be shifted.

Cultural norms, religion in particular, have certainly played a role in the process of legalization of registered partnerships and same-sex marriages that had been accepted in almost 40 countries by 2018 (Ketola and Helander 2020). Although the Nordic countries are often perceived as liberal and accommodating regarding homosexuality and same-sex unions, the ELCF has yet to officially allow church weddings for same-sex couples. On this question, the ELCF differs from its Nordic counterparts that allow their pastors to bless same-sex civil unions and conduct same-sex church weddings (Ketola and Helander 2020).

According to the official statement of the ELCF, marriage is a union between a woman and a man (ELCF n.d.a). However, unofficially, same-sex couples are commonly welcome to be wed in most congregations. A list of pastors who have agreed to conduct same-sex weddings has been published on the internet and currently includes the names of 199 ELCF pastors (Sateenkaaripapit n.d.). On this website, which is administered by the unofficial group of rainbow pastors, a long list of church facilities that are available for same-sex weddings can be found. These unofficial but commonly (mostly) approved practices are the result of grassroots activism within the church.

The doctrinal issues of the ELCF that are considered important—such as the question of same-sex marriage—are resolved by the General Synod. It is one of the general administrative bodies and the highest decision-making organ of the ELCF. The General Synod includes 64 lay representatives, 32 representatives of the clergy, the bishops of the ELCF, a Sámi representative, and a representative of the Council of State (Ketola and Helander 2020). In doctrinal and juridical issues, three-quarters majority of the votes are required for a proposal to pass (ELCF n.d.a).

According to Ketola and Helander (2020), 55% of the Finnish population and 54% of ELCF members support same-sex couples’ right to marry. In addition, around half of ELCF pastors are in favor of conducting church weddings for same-sex couples (Kallatsa and Kiiski 2019). According to a survey conducted among church employees and elected officials, 56% of church employees and 40% of elected officials agreed that the position of sexual minorities in the church should be improved (Salminen 2020). However, 36% of the elected officials felt that the situation should not be changed, which indicates a strong division between elected officials and church employees concerning this question (Salminen 2020). Ketola and Helander (2020) state that ELCF decision-makers are older and more religious than the general membership, which causes a contradiction between popular opinion and official practices. According to Ketola and Helander, in line with Redman (2018), the polarized views on same-sex marriage will decrease over time as younger age groups who are religious have started to move in the same direction as the rest of the population.

The question of same-sex marriage has received considerable media attention. According to Kallatsa (2021), ELCF pastors perceive that providing the possibility of church weddings for same-sex couples would bring the church positive attention in the media, but the media would quite rapidly lose interest. Taira (2015) states that the media is mostly interested in conflicts when discussing religious topics, such as the much-debated question of same-sex church weddings (also Kallatsa 2021). Religious publicization, as Herbert (2011) puts it, refers to the public presence of religious discourses which makes them more available for contestation and criticism.

4 Data and methods

The data for this study consist of news media articles published online between the years 2014 and 2020 in which the issue of the ELCF and same-sex marriage is discussed. The articles were found through an internet search using three sets of keywords in Finnish that can be translated as “rainbow pastors”, “pastors for equal marriage law”, and “pastors for equal church weddings”. These keywords resulted in 215 hits, of which 51 were newspaper or news media articles. All the articles that were found in the search and where the same-sex marriage issue of the ELCF was discussed, were included in the data. Following the links attached to the articles, 16 additional articles were found in which these issues were discussed.

The data represent a vast selection of newspapersFootnote 1 from all over Finland to grasp how the case was reported in the media. The data include articles from so-called secular media and church-related media, local small newspapers, political newspapers, and newspapers aimed at the Swedish-speaking minority. Smaller local newspapers were included in the data because they reflect very different realities in terms of the same-sex marriage issue. Including these newspapers also shows that the debate has taken place in all corners of the country and has evoked interest throughout the media. The two church-related newspapers, Kotimaa and Kirkko ja kaupunki, were selected for the study because their distribution is the highest within church media when print and digital versions as well as readers of their website are included. It can be assumed that they reach also readers who are not active members of the church but represent the so-called general public.

It is acknowledged that internet searches provide a limited selection of information about what is available. The selection of articles found through the search is not exhaustive and it can only provide a glimpse of what has been going on throughout the years in terms of the same-sex marriage debate. However, the articles found and selected for the study covered the same-sex marriage debate quite extensively regarding the justifications used in public discussion to legitimate the actions of rainbow pastors. The majority of the articles were from secular media, which should be taken into consideration when the arguments used in the debate are analyzed. Had the focus been more on church media, the role of theological and dogmatic arguments would very likely be bigger. In this study, the interest has been more on how the general public could be convinced of the need for change and the role of mass media in the process.

None of the newspapers seemed to take an explicit stance for or against the activists, although the newspapers’ agendas for attracting readers might have affected either stance. Although the data used here show the sort of media representations that contribute to legitimization of rainbow pastors’ authority, it is by no means claimed that media would only support the goals of the activists. However, the focus of this study is to examine the discursive representations and justifications used in the same-sex marriage debate when the group was presented as a legitimate actor in the media. The oldest articles were published in 2014, when the initiative concerning gender-neutral marriage was discussed in the Finnish Parliament. The most recent were from 2020. All extracts presented in this paper were translated from Finnish to English by the author.

The neo-institutionalist approach of epistemic governance is used in this study as a theoretical framework, but it also provides a methodological tool (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). The theory of epistemic governance is concerned with discourse and the methodology is based on discourse analysis, which aims to scrutinize the process of change (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). Alasuutari and Qadir (2019) locate empirical research on epistemic governance within Foucault-inspired discourse analysis that is interested in the rules and assumptions by which knowledge is produced and authorized. The method is used in this study to identify the discursive representations and justifications that are employed to convince the public of rainbow pastors’ authority and credibility—and the need for change. Analysis of epistemic governance focuses on the ways in which the actors involved aim to challenge and change the status quo and how the assumed audience is persuaded to act according to the actors’ perception.

All the articles found in the search were read thoroughly multiple times. They were divided into ‘pieces of discourses’ according to which the view of the marriage case was discussed. The pieces of discourses were formed into themes. Once the articles were categorized according to these themes, another round of reading was conducted to identify what kinds of justifications were used when the rainbow pastors were presented in the media reports as an authority. Then, the justifications used were divided into themes with the help of epistemic governance theory, for example, to point out which authorities were referred to when the rainbow pastor group were constructed as a legitimate actor. In the following section, the findings are presented to introduce the four discursive representations identified in the data.

5 Results

5.1 The authority of the ELCF contested

Paradoxically, the ELCF provides both possibilities for and limitations on activism. On one hand, it may provide resources and visibility, as well as opportunities for influence (Nynäs and Lassander 2015). On the other hand, the church hierarchy, traditions, and leadership limit the forms and expressions of activism—when internalized, they may prevent venturing into activism in the first place. As neo-institutionalist theory suggests, institutions limit, condition, and direct social agency (Meyer 2010). However, the role of the church as an institutional authority has declined in contemporary societies in general, which makes it more open to different forms of contestation:

The pastors who support equal marriage law want to bring up that it has always been a task of the church to challenge society and those in power when society is unequal, or someone is oppressed. (Kirkko ja kaupunki 2014)

Obviously, the ELCF has authority that includes the ability to accept or expel members (Alasuutari 2018). In an ‘extreme’ case, the ELCF even has the authority to decide who is worthy of salvation. As the ELCF is an organization with employees, its authority includes the possibility of imposing a penalty and endangering an individual’s livelihood if they do not act according to the rules. In the case of the rainbow pastors, this form of the church’s authority is questioned to its very core. According to the extract above, the rainbow pastors were presented by the media to justify their views by referring to challenging those in power as “a task of the church.” References to organizational values and traditions were used to legitimize the rainbow pastors’ views, although they simultaneously resisted the official statements of the organization. In addition, the justification presented here can also be perceived as a theological argument, as it refers to the core nature and essence of the church.

It is clearly visible in the media discussions that how authority is perceived is crucial when individuals decide whether to venture into activism and if they are ready to defy the official rules and policies of the church. Even if the majority of ELCF pastors support same-sex couples’ right to have church weddings, most choose not to enact their beliefs and values due to the coercive power of the church and institutionalized scripts that guide individual action and decision-making (Meyer 2010). According to Iltalehti (Gråsten 2017a), “The possible consequences are a warning, losing one’s ministry for a fixed-period, or even losing one’s ministry permanently.” The media supported the authority of the church when they reported the penalties imposed on some pastors for conducting same-sex weddings. However, in many of the media reports, a counter-discourse was found, in which the authority of the church leaders and decision-makers was contested. The media’s interest often lies in contradictions and conflicts, especially regarding religious topics (Taira 2015). Savon Sanomat (Kilpeläinen 2017) reported: “A vicar is going to conduct gay couples’ weddings and is not afraid of the consequences”.

An active form of resistance was found when the media reported that the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) had decided that the ELCF had the right to impose penalties on its pastors if they conducted same-sex weddings (e.g., Demokraatti 2020). When the church aimed to find legal support for its authority, the result instead was a huge increase in the number of pastors who publicly announced that they were ready to conduct same-sex weddings. Within ten days after the SAC decision, the number of rainbow pastors nearly doubled (Demokraatti 2020). This example shows that the battle over power and dominance was certainly not settled. From a neo-institutionalist perspective, it would be simplifying to claim that a social hierarchy was settled for good in any institution (Alasuutari 2018). Although the power structures would be traditional with straightforward chains of command, as within the ELCF, power is under constant negotiation and continuously challenged. Although the activists were outside the church’s official power structures, they managed to challenge the existing institutional scripts and open them up for negotiation. This example also indicates the relational nature of authority. When the authority of the ELCF and those in the position of power was not recognized, the church’s influence diminished (Alasuutari 2018).

5.2 Heroic representations

Authority can also be based on charisma, in which case the media’s help can be considered essential. Charismatic authority often creates a deeply affective connection between the audience and the person who is perceived as a leader (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). The case of Kai Sadinmaa, who is probably the most well-known and public person among the rainbow pastors, provides an example of how the media participates in constructing a heroic, even somewhat sacred, representation. The narrative in the media presented Sadinmaa as the first pastor who publicly conducted same-sex church weddings and was punished for it, following his one-person demonstration to express his criticism of the decision and the decision-makers. “Kai Sadinmaa, the pastor who conducted same-sex weddings has received severe blame from the Helsinki diocesan chapter” (Jokinen 2017). “Sadinmaa will organize a demonstration on the issue before the meeting … He marched from Kallio church to Bulevardi to the front of the diocesan chapter carrying stocks. At the location, he locked himself into the stocks” (Iltalehti 2017). The stocks Sadinmaa carried refer to a historical custom in which the church used to punish those who had broken the rules or done something considered immoral. Sadinmaa’s performance posed criticism towards the church punishing those who question the prevalent norms and the ones in power. The media were interested in constructing Sadinmaa as a sort of hero who was brave enough to defy the church rules and leaders, and Sadinmaa himself seemed eager to contribute to that story. The stocks imagery was used and woven into a larger narrative of a rebellious actor who did what he felt was right—to convince the audience (see also Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). The media granted Sadinmaa opportunities to perform, which contributed to his authority. As Sadinmaa attacked the bishop and the Helsinki diocesan chapter, higher-status actors, he was offered a chance to morally upgrade himself and to signal courage to the audience (Adut 2012).

The other rainbow pastors, however, wanted to get through the message that Sadinmaa was not the only one acting for change. For the media, heroic representations and narratives seemed to be more interesting, as they intrigue the audience and sell papers (see also Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). The following move from the rainbow pastors seemed to acknowledge this and aimed to show through an image that more pastors were ready to conduct same-sex weddings and face possible penalties:

“You say, ‘I do,’ we conduct weddings,” the rainbow pastors say. The pastors want to show representations of more than one or two pastors who conduct same-sex or non-binary couples’ weddings. Their intention is also to let people know that the implementation of equal and lawful marriage moves forward on the grassroots level, despite the church state of will … Conducting rainbow couples’ weddings is against the official policy of the ELCF. The picture gallery challenges this. (Vesalainen 2017)

A picture gallery of more than 50 rainbow pastors was published to show that punishments could no longer prevent change from happening. Helsingin Sanomat, which has the largest circulation of Finnish newspapers, published the picture on the front page, helping the activists to get their message through. The media may have been interested in the conflict made visible through the image and the narrative behind it. Regardless, it contributed to the construction of the rainbow pastors as a powerful group of actors. As the pastors showed their faces publicly, they challenged the assumption that fear would keep them from acting for what they felt was right. The picture sent a strong message to the public: There are many of them, and things are changing at the grassroots level. At the same time, the rainbow pastors made the claim that they are a powerful block and trustworthy actors who are transparent in their actions. Image management and branding are an inherent part of constructing one’s authority and legitimation (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019).

5.3 Moral principles and hard facts

Bringing the debate over same-sex church weddings into the mass media may be considered a strategic move as such by the rainbow pastors. Actors who aim to be influential draw on others’ views of reality, which entail widely acknowledged values and principles (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). The activists were aware that they would mostly be supported by public opinion. This can be interpreted as epistemic work in which the activists base their actions on the shared view of what is right and ethical to convince others of the right actions (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019).

I just cannot help but serve people. I do feel that love is something that is even complemented in the Bible … At some point, we will look back at this moment from somewhere in the future, and it might even be that we are amused. Even though this is not amusing in the sense that it is about equality. Which is a very valuable thing, Kovacs states. (Nuutinen 2020)

One might expect that, in a debate concerning the church, the Bible would often be referred to. However, when the debate was brought into public space, the arguments were also aimed at appealing to a larger audience outside the church. The media holds power in this question, as it decides what is published. Axner (2015) has noted a similar phenomenon in the same-sex marriage debate in Swedish media and ponders whether the imagined audience of secular media is expected to lack theological knowledge. Instead of referring to the Bible as the highest authority, the activists’ justifications reported in the media were mostly related to commonly shared values and principles, and the authority of science. Although scientific arguments would not have been used as such, the commonly acknowledged authority of science can be seen in the ways in which the activists are reported to refer to statistics and so-called hard facts (Qadir and Syväterä 2021): “Four hundred pastors are now members of the Facebook group that advances church weddings for same-sex couples, says the network of rainbow pastors. The quantity equals around ten percent of the clergy of the ELCF” (Seppälä 2020). “According to the bulletin, according to recent research, a majority of the clergy support conducting same-sex weddings” (Demokraatti 2020).

At first, the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to have church weddings might seem trivial. However, the majority of the Finnish population (65%) are members of the ELCF, and the church still holds a somewhat prominent societal position in Finland (ELCF n.d.b). When the previously internal discussion of the ELCF was brought into the public sphere, the growing audience and its support put more pressure on church leaders and decision-makers. It was made visible that the church was divided in terms of the question of same-sex marriage and that the majority of the clergy were willing to accept it.

In modern societies, deferential compliance with institutional authorities has diminished and has been replaced by the increased value of personal liberty and rights (Yip and Keenan 2004). Commonly held values, such as equality, and universal moral principles, such as human rights, are often referred to as authorities when seeking legitimation (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). The discourses of equality and human rights have been ‘mainstreamed’ into political agendas, and in recent years have also made their way into religious communities (Yip 2010). Being a non-heterosexual person and simultaneously belonging to a religious community is no longer only a theological debate, but more about rights and equality (Yip 2010): “Sadinmaa perceives the equal marriage law as a question of human rights, where Finland has remained a backwater. In other Nordic Lutheran churches, the pastors can conduct same-sex weddings” (Gråsten 2017b).

Actors who seek legitimation often resort to the idea of modernization as a natural process and the right direction to take (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). In the question of same-sex weddings, the ELCF was framed as ‘outdated’ in the media. When modernization is something to pursue, there seem to be two options: staying behind or moving forward (Vähä-Savo 2020). In Kallatsa’s (2021) study, pastors who supported same-sex church weddings stated that the media may influence people’s perception of the church as a modern institution, which they saw as desirable:

The Parliament of Sweden accepted same-sex marriages in summer 2009, and in October the same year, the Church of Sweden allowed same-sex couples to have church weddings … Sweden is the most democratic country in the world, that follows the implementation of human rights. I am very happy in Sweden for being able to serve everyone and that the first and foremost task of the church is to bless people and wish them well. (svt nyheter 2017)

Yet again, the commonly shared values of modern society were referred to: human rights and democracy. As social movements are thoroughly transnational, activists commonly refer to other countries to legitimize their actions (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). By doing so, the activists appeal to certain norms and ideals and rely on people to see them as applicable in their own country and context (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). In Finland, political and public discussions often seek legitimation from neighboring Nordic countries, especially Sweden.

The Church of Sweden accepted church weddings for same-sex couples rapidly after the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2009. The normalization process concerning sexual minorities that took place in Swedish society and the Church of Sweden created countercultures in many free churches that are outside the majority church (Öjebrandt 2017). In Finland, the revivalist movement has mostly remained officially within the ELCF, which has resulted in some of the more conservative views and polarization. The revivalist movement holds a lot of power in the decision-making organs of the ELCF, especially in the General Synod which prevents—or at least delays the change in institutionalized religious scripts.

5.4 Normalization of same-sex marriage

Moving on from 2014 to 2017, when same-sex marriage was legalized, the focus of the campaign of the rainbow pastors shifted along with the change in institutionalized societal scripts. What started as showing their support for the legalization of same-sex marriage turned into aiming to put pressure on those in power in the ELCF to accept same-sex church weddings and to change institutionalized religious scripts:

Pastor Toni Fagerholm has founded the website called “Rainbow Pastors,” through which same-sex couples can ask a pastor to conduct their wedding or to bless their union. There are 20 pastors from different parts of Finland, with their contact information found on the list. (Kallonen 2017)

Savon sanomat (2017) reported: “We can organize church weddings for each and every couple anywhere in Finland, Mäntylä says.” A website was founded on which same-sex couples could find a pastor to officiate their wedding. The pastors’ acts that resisted the official policies of the ELCF were made very transparent and public, which can also be interpreted as a means of epistemic governance. Continuously informing people through the media that the work continues and is actually ‘business as usual’ contributed to the normalization of same-sex marriage:

It seems like parishes and parish councils in the capital region have decided that their churches can be booked for same-sex couples and that a pastor can come and conduct their weddings … The General Synod has not been able to make the decision, even though the climate within the church has changed tremendously... The church’s stance toward same-sex marriage has already changed in practice, even though it has not yet been able to make the principled decision, Kinnunen continued. (Aaltonen 2018)

As a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage, support for same-sex church weddings increased. More and more pastors wanted their names to be published on the rainbow pastors’ website. Gradually, local parishes, especially in the more liberal capital region, started to make independent decisions that their premises could be used for same-sex church weddings (see also Ketola and Helander 2020). “The bishop of Helsinki, Teemu Laajasalo, has announced that pastors who have conducted same-sex weddings will not be punished in the Helsinki diocese. Instead, in many other dioceses, pastors have received warnings” (Haikala 2020a). “The bishops recommend that the diocesan chapters abstain from punishing the pastors—according to the archbishop, ‘the disagreement concerning the perception of marriage is not resolved by giving warnings’” (Haikala 2020b).

The prevalent discourse to be more accepting of non-heteronormative sexual orientation gradually shifted not only in society but also in the church—as shown in the media reports. In addition to the continuously prolonging list of pastors’ names and the parishes that welcome same-sex couples to be wed, the media reported that pastors who conducted same-sex weddings were no longer punished. There were some regional variations in the policies, but the overall climate had changed drastically during the past few years which can be interpreted as a shift in the institutional scripts of the church as well. However, the process of official change in the religious understanding of marriage is still ongoing.

6 Discussion

If change is considered discursive, as it was for Foucault, then social change can be seen in changes in how people talk about things (Alasuutari and Qadir 2019). In this study, the mass media offered a site for public debate, where the church leaders, decision-makers, and activists of the ELCF tried to convince others either of maintaining the status quo or of the need for change. The focus of this study was on the discursive representations and the justifications of a group of activists called rainbow pastors as presented in the media. However, the media is not just a passive site of discussion and debate; it also contributes to the process of legitimation and the construction of the authority of the actors involved by setting the agenda.

Theoretical framework and methodological tool of neo-institutionalist epistemic governance was employed to understand how the need for change was justified in the representations of the rainbow pastors in the media. Theory of epistemic governance helped to understand the ways in which the activists were constructed as legitimate and powerful actors. Epistemic governance worked also as the methodological tool as Foucault-inspired discourse analysis was used to identify discursive representations of the rainbow pastors: 1) contesting the authority of the ELCF, 2) creating heroic narratives, 3) referring to universal moral principles and values, and 4) normalizing same-sex church weddings.

By identifying the discursive representations and examining the process of constructing the rainbow pastors as a legitimate actor, the institutionalized scripts behind them were also shown. From a neo-institutional perspective, this study provided information on the process as well as possibilities and limitations of change in the institutionalized scripts concerning religious understanding of marriage. This study contributed to the theory of neo-institutionalist epistemic governance by providing empirical research in a religious context on how individuals are molded and guided by institutional scripts but can also act as change agents and aim to convince their imagined audiences for the need for shifting these scripts.

Access to the public sphere, circulation of information, and the possibility of presenting criticism of those in power are vital for democracy (Adut 2012). As a result of successful citizen activism, the values promoted by the activists may, in fact, form new norms of social life (Nynäs and Lassander 2015). As the theory of epistemic governance suggests, authority can also be located outside the official hierarchical structures of an organization or an institution. Although there is an imbalance of power, there are ways to influence decision-making and policies. Even authoritarian regimes are increasingly subject to general public opinion (Alasuutari and Qadir 2014).

Epistemic governance was useful in this study because it provided information on the kinds of principles, values and authorities were appealed when same-sex marriage was discussed as a religious question in the public sphere. The data used in this study provided a perspective into what kinds of justifications people deem acceptable in this specific question and context. However, both the data and the theoretical framework have their limitations. When power is perceived as non-hierarchical and possessed also by those outside the official hierarchical structures, imbalance of power is left in the sidelines. In the case of same-sex marriage debate the rainbow pastors were able to change the unofficial grassroot-level practices, but the official institutional policies and scripts of the ELCF still remain untouched and continue to exclude and discriminate church members with non-heteronormative sexual orientation.

Although this study was about a religious debate, the focus was on what kinds of discursive representations were used to convince the general (secular) public. There were a few theological references presented in the data, but more of them would surely have been found in church-oriented papers. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that the methodological choices limit the representation of the overall discussion. However, it is interesting to notice that the secular media, and to some extent widely distributed church media as well, seem to be indifferent to reporting the more theological and dogmatic side of the same-sex marriage discussion. In the public (secular) discourse, religious arguments are often considered irrelevant, and the imagined audience is expected to lack theological knowledge (Axner 2015).

The marriage issue and the right to use church facilities for same-sex weddings have become symbolic in reflecting the ongoing tension between religion and LGBT identities (see also Nynäs and Lassander 2015). Therefore, the marriage debate has an even larger meaning than it might seem at first. The debates about the rights and recognition of rainbow people reported by the media have contributed to making religion a public issue (Nynäs et al. 2020). The findings of this study show that the debate has also turned into a battle over authority within the church. As the rainbow pastors continued to campaign and act publicly, they simultaneously challenged the ELCF’s official power structures and policies. As the rainbow pastors increased their authority and legitimation through media coverage and public support and grew into increasingly influential actors, the authority of the church leaders diminished.

In the recent news articles examined in this study, the bishops had already taken a different stance from that at the beginning of the rainbow pastors’ campaign: The pastors who defied the official policies and conducted same-sex church weddings would no longer be penalized. Religious publicization (Herbert 2011) via media has contributed to creating space for new forms of individual and collective agency outside the traditional forms of authority and hierarchical power relations (Nynäs et al. 2020). When the same-sex marriage debate was brought into the public sphere, it became obvious that the ELCF needs to take the changed societal scripts into account when discussing the religious understanding of marriage.