Future Congregational Leaders: How Do They Perceive Their Opportunities in This Field?

Abstract

The expectations, plans and goals of future pastors are developed and consolidated during theological studies. These plans and expectations, and the career strategies based on them can have a decisive influence on how gender-based differences with respect to opportunities in the churches develop. Since one of the particularities of the pastoral vocation is that work and private life are closely intertwined and difficult to separate, the personal choices of prospective pastors are crucial in shaping their professional careers. The results of our research based on focus group interviews conducted with female and male Protestant seminarians in Hungary suggest that female theology students are more reserved and cautious in their articulation of plans than their male counterparts. On the one hand, they assume that factors outside and above them may override them and that the conservative church environment may constrain their options. On the other hand, it was repeatedly expressed that, as women, they find it difficult to reconcile pastoral work and family life, and take it for granted that they will compromise more in the professional field. Only a few of the female participants plan to work as independent congregational leaders (senior pastors), whereas this ambition is very typical of male students.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, there has been an increasingly clear trend of growing female participation in church leadership around the world, with more and more congregations being led by women pastors. It is well known that the majority of Protestant churches now ordain women ministers without discrimination and with full equality of rights: 83% of Protestant believers belong to a church that ordains women (Zurlo 2024). This is a fairly recent development by historical standards: although the first female pastor was ordained in the United States as early as the mid-19th century, in most countries and in most churches, women’s equal ministry has only been in existence for roughly half a century (LWF 2016; Mantei and Bergmann 2017). However, as we have also seen in the secular professional sphere, equality has not automatically meant de facto equal professional participation and opportunities. Several studies support the fact that various forms of vertical and horizontal segregation are still present in churches today (cf., e.g., Finlay 1996; Charlton 1997; Chang 2005; Offenberger 2013; Schleifer and Miller 2017; Zurlo 2024), the “stained glass ceiling” (Purvis 1995; Sullins 2000) effectively prevents women from reaching higher church positions.

Nevertheless, the past decades have seen many changes, and in many Western Protestant churches, not only has the proportion of women pastors increased, but there has also been a growing presence of women as independent pastors leading congregations and in senior leadership positions in churches (Lee 2024). This is an important finding, even if some researchers warn that women in prominent leadership roles act as a kind of ‘token’ to deflect attention away from the difficulties of women’s professional advancement, portraying them as a consequence of individual choices and intentions (Nesbitt 2013). In Hungary, however, there is little evidence of this change. In the Reformed Church in Hungary, by far the largest church ordaining women in Hungary, there are no women in senior leadership positions: there are no women in the deanery, bishop, or deputy bishop positions. In the second largest, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hungary, women hold positions up to the level below bishop, but their proportion is lower than their presence in the pastoral ranks. No woman has ever reached the position of bishop in any of the Protestant churches in Hungary that ordain women.

The plans and expectations of current seminarians can have a decisive impact on how gender inequalities in the churches, and as part of this, the opportunities and leadership of women in the churches, will develop in the near future. Our research aims to contribute to an understanding of how this may change as younger generations of pastors enter the workplace, with an increasing number of women everywhere, including Hungary. We conducted focus group interviews with Protestant theology students who are preparing for a career as pastors. Our research questions relate, on the one hand, to what gender differences and similarities can be observed between theology students’ interpretations of their vocational plans and goals as well as their perceived work–life balance possibilities in the pastoral career, and on the other hand, to how theology students perceive the opportunities of women and men in the pastoral career, what main difficulties they identify, and how they see women in leadership roles in congregations and the church.

Although our research explores experiences and discourses in Hungary, we believe that our findings can also be useful elsewhere, as the disadvantages faced by women in churches follow a similar pattern in most countries (cf., e.g., Finlay 1996; Charlton 1997; Chang 2005; Offenberger 2013; Schleifer and Miller 2017; Chaves et al. 2021; Lee 2024; Zurlo 2024). Our research shows that even though women and men seem to be equal in pastoral ministry and there is a more balanced gender ratio in training, women still take on leadership or more complex roles much less frequently than men, and this shows in the plans of students who are preparing for pastoral ministry. Women are more likely to plan becoming assistant pastors or institutional pastors than senior pastors, and they are more likely than men to expect to make compromises in their pastoral work due to family commitments.

2. Theoretical Background

To outline the theoretical background of our research, we first describe the specificities that need to be taken into account when looking at women’s entry into leadership roles in Hungary. We then discuss the specificities of the church sector in terms of women’s career opportunities. Finally, we will discuss the general theoretical explanations for the persistence of women’s disadvantages in terms of power, leadership, and decision-making positions despite formal equality of rights.

2.1. Women in Leadership in Hungary

In all areas, women’s chances of getting into leadership positions in Hungary are definitely worse than in most Western European countries and are below the EU average. As in most European countries, women’s educational attainment has gradually caught up with and then surpassed men’s in recent decades. Around 60% of young people with tertiary education (25–34 year olds) are women, with a significantly higher proportion of women in this age group holding a degree than men, while there are more men among early school leavers (Eurostat 2023c). This increasing investment in human capital could lead to a rapidly increasing proportion of women in leadership positions in all sectors, but this is not the case. Although the share of women in managerial positions is a little above the EU average (around 37% of such positions are held by women), Hungary is one of the few European countries where this share has fallen slightly over the last ten years (Eurostat 2023a). According to the latest report of the European Institute for Gender Equality, although the labor market situation of Hungarian women is better than the EU average (higher employment rates and a slightly lower relative employment disadvantage compared to men), Hungary scores the lowest on the dimension of power of all the countries surveyed. This means that Hungarian women are at the greatest disadvantage in leadership and decision-making positions in political, economic, and social spheres (EIGE 2024). In all three areas, women are barely represented in senior management positions: their political representation is extremely low, and the proportion of women is one-third of the EU average, only 11% among the members of the board of directors, supervisory board, or management board of the largest listed companies (EIGE 2024). Horizontal segregation also exists: both at secondary and tertiary educational level, women are more represented in occupational choices in fields that are expected to offer lower prestige and income, while in STEM fields offering the best labor market prospects, women are still underrepresented (Lannert and Nagy 2019). The best summary indicator of gender-based disadvantage is the wage gap: on the one hand, it condenses the consequences of an individual’s education, skills, previous labor market experience and expected future participation, and on the other hand, it is a summary indicator of the socio-economic recognition of individuals. As a consequence of the above factors, the pay gap for women in Hungary is above the EU average (close to 18%) and has been slightly increasing in recent years (Eurostat 2023b).

One of the reasons for this gap may be that the perception of gender roles in Hungarian society became more conservative after the regime change. In the 2000s, attitudes shifted somewhat towards egalitarianism, but support for traditional gender roles is still relatively strong, especially with regard to the division of family tasks (Tóth 1995; Braun and Scott 2009; Gregor 2016; Spéder 2023). Although support for the caring role of the father has also increased in recent years (Drjenovszky and Sztáray Kézdy 2023a, 2023b), women are still expected to take on the role of primary caregiver in the home. There is also another factor that the public policies have clearly shifted towards familialism in the last decade and a half (Nagy et al. 2018), which have made care tasks the responsibility of families—and thus essentially of women (Leitner 2003). As a consequence, achieving a work–life balance is more challenging for women and is already taken into account by women in the career planning process (Rudnák et al. 2023), which can be an effective barrier to a higher share of women in leadership roles.

Despite improving trends, women are disadvantaged compared to men in all European countries in terms of their chances of achieving senior positions, but women in Hungary face relatively greater disadvantages compared to men. Their role in power and leadership is less accepted, and caring responsibilities effectively limit their leadership engagement in practical terms. This general situation should be borne in mind when considering women’s leadership in churches and congregations.

2.2. Women’s Careers in the Church

Although the processes in the churches are in many ways similar to those in the secular professions, in some respects the churches also represent a more difficult terrain for women to reach leadership positions than the secular professions. One of the main reasons for this is the link between traditional gender order and religiosity: a number of studies show that in religious communities the traditional gender order based on the complementary roles of the breadwinner and the caregiver is more accepted (Inglehart and Norris 2003; Seguino 2011). On the one hand, this makes the persistence of inequalities in the professional field generally more acceptable in the church context, and on the other hand, the gendered division of family tasks and the traditional family model also make it more difficult for women to advance in their careers from a practical point of view (Török and Biró 2023b).

While religiosity and church affiliation suggest a traditional understanding of gender roles, women pastors are also representatives of women’s equality, as they are working in a position that until a few decades ago was closed to women and in some respects clearly contradicts the traditional female role. This may even move them towards an egalitarian understanding of gender roles. When women, in any field, are working in professions or positions considered ‘masculine’, the demand for women’s equality and equal opportunities, for full participation in society, often comes into conflict, to a lesser or greater extent, with traditional expectations of gender roles (Wright 2014; Cha 2013; Powell and Sang 2015), and this may be particularly true in the church. This tension can also influence women pastors’ perceptions of expectations, difficulties and career opportunities, as well as the professional choices they make and the strategies they pursue in relation to their ministry careers.

These decisions can be significantly influenced by the experience of unequal opportunities in the churches. Several studies over the past decades have consistently shown that women pastors often find it harder to obtain jobs in congregations, or they obtain jobs of lower status, and that there is a growing lack of women leaders at higher levels of the church hierarchy, even in churches where there is formally full equality (Finlay 1996; Charlton 1997; Sullins 2000; Chang 2005; Hoegeman 2017). This is especially interesting in light of the fact that Christian women are clearly more religious compared to men: they attend church more often and pray more often, and they identify themselves as religious more often (Pew Research Center 2016; Klein et al. 2017). Although there is not much difference in church membership, women are more active members of congregations (Zurlo 2024). However, this more active involvement is not reflected at the leadership level. Not only are women less likely to lead congregations, but they are also more likely to serve in smaller congregations with poorer financial conditions and thus lower prestige (McDuff 2001; Chaves et al. 2021; Lee 2024). This may limit the opportunities for women pastors to influence and gain recognition in their communities (Konieczny and Chaves 2000).

Besides vertical segregation, horizontal segregation is also present in churches. Women pastors are less likely than men to be assigned to congregations, while they are more often found in specialized, institutional pastoral occupations such as a school chaplain or prison chaplain (Nesbitt 1997; Chang 2005; De Gasquet 2010). Angelika Wetterer (1999), looking at secular occupations, has described the process as ‘marginalizing integration’ whereby women have their barriers to entry in certain professions removed, but are directed towards what are considered less important, lower-ranking, perhaps ad hoc, ‘special’ tasks within the profession. According to Ursula Offenberger (2013), the same process can be observed in the pastoral field: institutional pastoral positions are considered lower-prestige jobs compared to those of the congregational pastor, and this division of labor contributes to the perpetuation of gender inequalities in churches.

All these phenomena can also be observed in the Protestant churches in Hungary. In examining this issue, it should be borne in mind that after the fall of communism, the Hungarian churches found themselves in a contradictory situation: they were trying to restore the pre-socialist conditions and to develop a way of functioning that would meet the challenges of the new era (Huszár 2011). As a result, in some areas of church functioning, more traditional ways of thinking and practices became prevalent compared to Western Protestant churches, and this also affected the role of women. In addition to this, as mentioned above, the attitude of Hungarian churches towards gender roles is part of a more conservative public thinking than that of Western European churches. Earlier Hungarian research (Orisek 1999; Fekete 2006; Huszár 2011) showed that expected difficulties also influenced women preparing for a pastoral career, with many of them either imagining and planning their future as members of a pastoral couple or orienting themselves towards institutional pastoral positions.

2.3. Theories Explaining Women’s Disadvantages

Historically, much of the gender gap in careers and earnings has been explained by differences in education and occupational choices. Today, however, the disadvantage of women can no longer be explained by differences in productivity or human capital skills. Several explanations have been put forward to explain why inequalities persist in the face of full formal equality, and with increasing labor market participation, and with higher educational attainment than men. While a full review of these is not possible in the present context, we highlight below some of the approaches that may help make sense of the processes within the Church.

Cecilia Ridgeway argues that cultural beliefs about gender that disadvantage women play an important role in the persistence of female disadvantage (Ridgeway and Bourg 2004; Ridgeway 2011). Expectation states theory emphasizes that gender is a diffuse status characteristic that underlies widely shared expectations about individuals’ performance in interactions, and that these expectations influence behavior and decisions (Correll and Ridgeway 2006). These expectations attribute women with less competence and lower performance in task-oriented situations, while they form high demands regarding caregiving and community roles (Carli and Eagly 2007). Expectations of motherhood are particularly strong (Ridgeway and Correll 2004), making it difficult for women to engage with their careers with the same intensity after having children as before (Nagy 2016). Preference theory emphasizes the importance of women’s own choices rather than external expectations (Hakim 2002, 2006). According to this theory, women in the Western world now have a genuine choice. Therefore, to understand their situation it is necessary to understand their preferences in relation to work and family: on this basis Hakim distinguished between home-centered, adaptive, and work-centered women (Hakim 2002). Claudia Goldin (2021) emphasizes the role of “greedy work” in the perpetuation of inequality. Goldin sees that today firms in most fields continue to disproportionately reward long hours, overtime, and continuous availability. This makes it difficult to reconcile career and caring responsibilities, regardless of gender, and typically puts women at a disadvantage. Thus, further closing the gender gap can only be achieved by changing the structure of work (Goldin 2021).

When looking at inequalities in the church, there are other specific aspects in addition to the above. Such special factors include certain traditional biblical and theological interpretations (Purser and O’Brien 2021; Zurlo 2024), which are present to varying degrees in different churches, and they can be effective barriers to women’s careers. These factors and the greater acceptance of traditional gender roles in religious communities may reinforce different expectations about the roles of men and women in church life (Zurlo 2024).

According to Barbara Finlay (1996), the differences in male and female church career paths are at least partly due to the different preferences of women pastors compared to men, for example, women prefer smaller congregations with more personal interaction and personal support. In connection with this, some studies suggest that women judge their work from different perspectives, in which the spiritual and subjective factors of their work may be more salient, compared to men, for whom material and objective factors may be more important (McDuff 2001).

It is also an important question from a leadership perspective whether women implement a different pastoral role concept and thus a different leadership style than men. As early as 1987, Martha Long Ice concluded in her book that women have a different approach, and prefer a more egalitarian, collaborative, personal and flexible pastoral role, with a focus on responsibility and care, as opposed to a more hierarchical and competitive approach, which is seen as masculine (Ice 1987). Verifying this hypothesis, Perl’s later study confirmed that women devote more time to pastoral care and pastoral work based on personhood (Perl 2002). This difference in leadership style may also reflect wider societal expectations of gender roles and the caring qualities often attributed to women. The different leadership style may also be a factor that makes it more difficult for women pastors to be accepted in leadership positions in church circles with more traditional views on gender roles.

Finally, it is important to note that the persistence of traditional male leadership structures in churches has created a positive feedback loop: the lack of female representation at the highest levels of leadership discourages women from participation and engagement at both symbolic and practical levels (Purser and O’Brien 2021).

Gina Zurlo summarizes that the barriers to women’s advancement in the churches stem from gendered social norms and power inequalities, as well as cultural expectations that place women at a distinct disadvantage compared to men (Zurlo 2024). In light of this, a key question seems to be the extent to which soon-to-be-career seminarians internalize the expectations that link the two genders to differential competences in terms of effectiveness, performance, decision-making skills, and thus suitability for leadership roles, and the extent to which these expectations influence the professional plans and decisions of theology students.

3. Methods

In our research, we conducted four focus group interviews with Protestant theology students who are preparing for a career in the ministry. We organized gender homogeneous groups, i.e., two female and two male groups, to observe the female and male discourses on opportunities in the pastoral career, the role of gender within the church, and perceptions of future pastors of the other gender without being influenced by the presence of the other gender.

The focus group method provides an opportunity both to learn about the personal experiences that shape the theological students’ goals and their perceived or planned possibilities, and to explore the discourses that prevail among students on these issues.

The two women’s groups and one of the men’s group consisted of ten participants, while the other men’s group had four participants. The groups were advertised on the basis of voluntary applications, with no selection criteria other than gender. The students studied at the theology department of a Protestant church in Budapest, Hungary. The group members were deeply interested in each other’s opinions and experiences, hoping to learn from them and benefit from them in their careers and well-being. Thus, after initial encouragement, conversations and verbal and non-verbal interactions in the groups unfolded spontaneously, and they were eager to respond to the topics and questions raised by the moderators. In the men’s groups, there was sometimes a cautiousness regarding their opinions expressed about the opportunities and perceptions of women pastors, and sometimes a tendency to conform their responses to perceived social expectations, or at least to express opinions that may conflict with these presumed norms in a softened way. In the women’s groups, the desire to support and reinforce each other was more strongly felt, despite the fact that they did not agree on every issue. Here, women’s group participants also supported each other in expressing minority opinions, but sometimes this required moderator reinforcement. The verbal and non-verbal interactions that emerged in the focus groups suggested that group members reacted and reflected on what each other had said, lively discussions unfolded, sometimes comparing different views, but participants were careful to avoid conflict and respected each other’s occasionally different experiences and opinions.

The focus groups were video-recorded for methodological recommendations and for the purpose of better observing the interactions within the group, providing thorough and appropriate information for the participants and obtaining their consent. The focus groups lasted over an hour and a half each. Written transcripts of the recordings were made, anonymized, and sensitive information deleted. The transcripts were processed using the inductive thematic analysis method (Braun and Clarke 2006). Focus group transcripts were coded and analyzed using ATLAS.ti 9.1.7 qualitative data analysis software. Although the coding was largely inductive, the themes of the focus group guide provided clues for structuring the analysis. In the following analysis, we support our conclusions with quotes from the transcripts. When quoting focus group discussions, we only indicate whether the quotes are from a male or female group. In the case of focus groups, the emphasis is not on individual experiences, but on the discourses and the different, possibly conflicting, arguments. Partly for this reason, and partly to better protect the anonymity of participants, we do not separately identify speakers within the group, and where we quote from a longer discussion, we separate individual speakers with hyphens. Where it is not clear from the context, the letters M and F are used to distinguish between quotes from male and female groups.

4. Results

In presenting the research results, we first describe the professional plans of female and male theological students for their pastoral careers, i.e., in which areas and in which positions within the profession they can best imagine themselves. Then we will present what goals they have set themselves, what they would like to achieve in their careers, and what they mean by “goals” in general. In the third part of the presentation of the results, the relationship between personal and professional plans, the perception of work–life balance opportunities will be discussed, and finally, the discussion in the men’s and women’s groups on the opportunities and difficulties for women in the church, and the opinions expressed on women’s ministry and leadership will be presented.

4.1. Gender-Specific Plans for the Ministry

As discussed in the theoretical section, the career disadvantages of women are clear in the Protestant churches in Hungary. Previous research on the strategies of women pastors has also shown that women pastors take these disadvantages into account in their professional decisions as external constraints (Török and Biró 2023b). However, through their pastoral and congregational leadership, the growing numbers of women pastors are also shaping the functioning of churches as well as the gender inequalities in the church. Therefore, it is important to investigate to what extent the impact of vertical and horizontal segregation is reflected in the professional plans of female and male theology students, i.e., to what extent they experience gender-specific expectations about the tasks and roles they will have in the church. The way the students respond to these expectations, whether their decisions and strategies conform to these expectations, whether they incorporate these expectations into their future professional plans or challenge them, will largely determine the future of churches in relation to gender inequality.

The analysis of the focus group interviews showed that there are clear gender-specific differences in the career plans of women and men who are now studying theology. In the groups of male theology students, there was essentially a consensus that they envisioned their career as a congregational pastor. This was seen as a kind of base (“I think the starting point is the most general, the congregational pastor”), alongside which some would like to pursue other activities: “I would definitely like to be a congregational pastor, but I definitely want something else alongside it.” The plans of female theology students are much more varied than those of male students; although they refer to the role of congregational pastor, many mention missionary work (“sharing the gospel with people who don’t yet know about God”), or working with marginalized groups and especially various forms of institutional pastoral care. In particular, the need to work with children, families, and young people, which fits in well with traditional expectations of women, was frequently raised in women’s groups. It is important to note that, although missionary work or teaching (as an additional activity) was also mentioned in some cases in the men’s groups, there was not a single male student in either group who had any plans to work in any kind of institutional pastoral position. “The reason I can’t see myself in these situations is because it runs on too much of a single plane,” explained one of them.

There was also a marked difference between the male and female groups in terms of their plans for the position of congregational pastor. In the men’s groups, it was almost natural for the congregational pastorate to be, after an initial transition period, the position of a senior pastor of the congregation: “associate pastor and then senior pastor”. Some even explicitly stated that they would only consider the position of associate pastor on a temporary basis: “I can’t imagine myself as an associate pastor. For two years at the most, until I really get into it and see exactly how it has to be done.” In the women’s groups, on the contrary, several stressed that they would prefer an associate pastor position. Although there were also some women who had a pastorate in charge of a congregation in their plans, they often added that “if I see myself as a congregational pastor, I might prefer to be in a smaller congregation.” The extent to which the strong aspiration to lead a congregation was taken for granted much less in the women’s groups is illustrated by the fact that when one of the women participants, in discussing her plans, simply stated “I would like to be a pastor leading a congregation”, the others spontaneously applauded.

Reluctance to engage in congregational leadership among women has been seen in two main contexts. One was the incompatibility with traditional family roles: “I don’t see it as compatible with motherhood”, said one of the women participants, later adding as a justification that “both motherhood and ministry require a whole heart”. The potential conflict between the role of the church pastor and that of the mother of a family, and possible solutions to it, emerged both as a perceived external expectation and as a personal preference in the women’s groups. This topic will be elaborated in the chapter on work–life balance.

The other context that emerged was disaffection with leadership. On the one hand, this was expressed in the form of different preferences: “I would gladly be in a subordinate pastoral position. I wouldn’t need a leadership role because I think I prefer to support others. And I believe that I would have more freedom in that role.” There are two distinct aspects in this statement: a preference for a support role, which fits in with traditional expectations of women, and a need for greater freedom of action, which does not. On the other hand, the aversion to leadership also appeared in the form of a mismatch between femininity and the role as church leader. This also appears as an external expectation and constraint for female seminarians. As one of them recalled: “I have often been told that it’s great that you will be a pastor, but you don’t want to be a senior pastor, do you, but some kind of associate pastor?” Moreover, this mismatch was also internalized by some of the female students. “I couldn’t lead a congregation by myself, so I couldn’t imagine in 10 years’ time driving the aunts and uncles in a 9-seater minibus (...). I would need someone to always have the last word, or to make decisions sometimes, if I had to.” But the leadership role associated with men appears also more profound at the level of belief. “I need him [the husband] to be able to lead me a little bit in my faith (...) so it would be best if he had more faith than I do, so that he could pull me, because I think it’s the man’s job to pull the woman, or well, to lead the woman.” These thoughts emerged in both of the quoted statements in the context of the female pastor’s consideration of spousal preference.

The plans of female and male students for their pastoral careers are certainly not independent of their image of the “ideal” or “good” pastor. While the image of the pastor that emerged in the discussions in the men’s and women’s groups was similar in many respects, there were some clear gender-specific shifts in emphasis. Authenticity and self-identity were central themes for both men and women. In the case of women, this discussion shifted to ‘honesty’, the ‘human’ nature of the pastor, the ability to “admit when you are tired” or, as one participant put it, not to be ideal pastors, but “good enough pastors”. The fact that these boundaries were so pronounced for women in contrast to men may again be an indication that the work–life balance is experienced differently. For men, at this point, the conversation tended to turn from ‘authenticity’ and ‘self-identity’ more towards the qualities needed for leadership, such as reliability, a strong character, and a ‘definite posture’. The qualities needed for pastoral leadership were often mentioned in connection with the image of the pulpit, in the same sentence, as in this case: “I think you need a strong character first. Because you have to stand in the pulpit and speak to people (...). And to be totally reliable.” In the light of this, it is not surprising that, as we have seen above, the congregational pastor as a career image is more strongly present in men’s plans than in women’s: for men, the pastor is the one who stands in the pulpit and preaches. This is less important in the women’s image of the pastor.

4.2. Goals: What Men and Women Want to Achieve in Ministry

In all focus groups there was a great caution about setting goals for their careers. This is understandable, since pastors are not led to the ministry by their own decision, but by God’s calling (Christopherson 1994; Niemelä 2011), and thus may feel that the goals belong to God rather than to themselves. Although this basic attitude was expressed in all groups, there was a noticeable difference: men were more reluctant to start speaking about their goals—they were more explicit in deflecting the question. One male participant explained: “so it’s not like there’s a ladder of ranks where you go up and up and up, because you can serve in a small village for 40 years.” This clearly shows that their reticence was at least partly due to the fact that they automatically interpreted the term ‘goal’ in the question (question: ‘What do you want to achieve in the ministry? What are your goals?’) as a career goal, a promotion in the hierarchy. Previous research has shown that men are more inclined than women to interpret a pastoral career in this way (Nesbitt 1997). In our case, this interpretation appeared to discourage theology students from declaring their goals. In the women’s groups, this was an easier question because the goal was not—or not only—interpreted as a career goal, and the importance of setting goals was also raised: “I think it is essential, not only in this vocation but in this one in particular, that we always have something in front of us, so that we know that we have to serve in this particular way and go in this particular direction, because otherwise this profession is so, so multifaceted that we can get lost.” Nevertheless, the women’s groups also stressed the subordination of their own goals and their own will to the will of God. There was also an exchange of views on the suggestion of other terms to replace ‘goal’, with the greatest consensus around the term ‘desire’. However, in response to this, a cautious counter-argument emerged in one of the women’s groups: “it [the discussion] is as if God has a great will over my life and I have to passively go along with it and therefore I can’t have active desires and active goals and really only directions to give. (...) But what about the visions in the Bible, what about when I actively offer my talents and not bury them? So I’m very much looking for what it means for me to actively engage with the will of God and make it my own, and not just drift with it.”

Once we managed to move the conversation away from the idea of a goal as a career goal, the male and female groups had quite similar goals. One of these was community building: “the congreations I will be in, I will be able to gather a very good church community and lead people to God.” (F). “A happy community is cohesive, helpful, and that if anyone is in trouble, they will help them out and it’s good to be in a community like that. And that if someone can achieve that by the grace of God I think there is no greater goal than that.” (M). Reaching out to young people was also mentioned several times in each group (“I want to get young people to see that believing in God is a cool thing to do.” M). Many of them also consider this important because they themselves have come close to faith in such youth communities (“to give back a little of what I have received, so that new young people can also get to know it” F).

Overall, it appeared that their career socialization made the theology students reluctant to explicitly formulate their goals for their own pastoral work, or at least they are averse to the notion of “goal” as a worldly one. It was particularly strongly felt in the men’s groups that the primary association of the word ‘goal’ is with career advancement, which they therefore avert.

4.3. Personal Plans and Work–Life Balance Options

Over the past decades, several studies have shown that religiosity is associated with a preference for traditional gender and family roles (Inglehart and Norris 2003; Seguino 2011), which is typically reflected in the higher number of children in pastoral families in Hungary. However, the traditional ideal of the pastoral family with many children was based more on the image of the male pastor and the pastor’s wife supporting him in his work and taking over all the family-care tasks. Consequently, it may be more difficult for female pastors, especially those who lead congregations independently, to implement this ideal; moreover, their position may even cause role conflicts (Charlton 1997; Hildenbrand 2013). It was also clear from the focus group discussions that, although both male and female students anticipate work–life tensions, the unreflected image of the traditional pastoral family emerged more frequently in the future plans of men than women. In the men’s groups, the “big family”, “3–4 children”, was often mentioned: “To have a family, which would include a wife and, I think, around 3–4 children, that would be appropriate.” Women were more likely to consider the compatibility of their work and private lives when formulating not only their professional but also their personal plans. “Because I can see that there are bigger families, and it’s harder to look after the children there, and I feel that with two children I could maybe—maybe? Well, I would certainly have time for the congregation.” It was also clear that women face stronger expectations from their environment when it comes to establishing a family. In one group of women in particular, there was a very emotional discussion about the reactions of their environment to this, which many experienced as external pressure. It seemed to be a common experience for many that “several people warned me that if I go into the ministry as a woman or I am here in the theology field, I should be willing to choose a pastor husband.” According to the female group members, only one thing seemed to be more important to those who formulated these expectations than having a pastor as a husband, and that was that you should be married.: “This goes on for a while, trying to push you towards choosing a pastor as a husband, and then there comes a point where they switch to [any] husband. And then it doesn’t matter anymore, just get married.” The phrase “point” obviously refers to the women’s age. Although during the conversation the participants treated these revelations with some irony (“- You must be married by the age of 25 and have three children by the age of 30.—No, four children!—Five! [Laughs]”), they aroused intense emotions. The sentence “There is every realistic chance that I might remain single” did not stand out in the male participants’ discussion, but such a statement would have been unthinkable in female groups. Interestingly, the male participant who made the statement quoted above would consider this option a good one precisely because of the reverse (life-to-work) spillover effects: “I am afraid that it would have a very big impact on my service, that family life would take it away.” A similar attitude did not emerge in the female groups.

Work–life balance issues and potential conflicts between work and family are of particular importance in this professional field. Work and private life, professional and private decisions, and public and private spaces and times are intertwined in a way that is not typical of secular professions (Török and Biró 2023a). Private life decisions, especially in the views of women, have a major influence on the role they can and want to take in the life of the congregation. Both female and male respondents agreed that work and family life in the congregational pastoral vocation can be difficult to separate, and that this can have rather negative work-to-family spillover effects. “For me, the protection of my home is very important, and I haven’t seen a good example of parochial life where the boundaries were clear and flexible, but the congregation didn’t intrude.” (F). “I believe that in pastor families, the parents’ work greatly influences the family. Especially if both are pastors, this would put even more of a stamp on it.” (M). Both female and male students are very aware of this problem and try to prepare themselves to deal with the problems of the boundaries between work and private life. “One must clearly separate the time dedicated specifically to personal life, and during that time, one must not allow the demands of the ministry to take away from family time. (...) Nonetheless, it is very important for the pastor to set aside specific time to be with their family, and nothing should disrupt that.” (M). “I think a good pastor is one who can say, ‘This is how much I can handle and no more.’ And I need an associate pastor, I need an assistant pastor, I need a religious educator. Someone who can admit this and is strong enough to say, ‘This is how much I can take on without burning out.’ In my life, I need to have time for my family, for myself, and for God.” (F).

While the problem itself was identified in basically similar terms in both male and female groups, gender-specific views were appearing on how to deal with the problem. Women and men see different ways of achieving and supporting work–life balance. For men, an important way to maintain work–life balance is to preserve the traditional pastoral family, with the man as the lead pastor and the wife in a supportive role. This was sometimes relatively explicit in the discussions, but mostly male group members were very cautious in articulating these views, as if they felt that this ran counter to some presumed normative expectation. “I am not very particular about housework, but I’m obviously not shy about having to grab something in the kitchen or basically at home, I’m helping out where I can at the moment, too. However, I would be happy to have a wife who is good at that sort of thing.” Expectations of a traditional supportive female role not only in the home, but also in the professional context, were also reflected in the men’s interviews: “I don’t think it’s a disadvantage if she can support me in my vocation. (...) I think it would be good if she could do a secular profession as well, and on Sundays, or even if not only on Sundays, but that she could support me in some way on weekdays too.”

Women’s groups preferred to approach the problem in terms of sharing tasks and responsibilities or, as discussed earlier, being honest about the limits of their workload. Two ways of sharing pastoral tasks were mentioned. On the one hand, the employment of associate pastors in congregations with multiple pastors was mentioned (“If I were to be a congregational pastor, I would choose a place that has multiple associate pastors, so the tasks are shared among them.”), and on the other hand, it was repeatedly mentioned that the solution “usually comes in the person of a pastor’s husband”. As we have seen earlier, this can appear as a relatively strong external pressure for female seminarians, but it also appeared as a wish of their own: “My dream would be to lead a rural congregation together with a husband.” Resolving potential tensions between caring and pastoral responsibilities by performing them in successive life stages also came up as a solution to the work–life problem for women: “My children will not come back. I can still be a pastor 15 years from now when the kids have left home. So I want to put my heart fully into it when it’s time, and I don’t think these are necessarily conflicting callings, but maybe God gives them in periods.”

All in all, we seemed to find rather traditional patterns in personal plans for both men and women. In the men’s groups, the discussion sometimes relied unreflectively on traditional patterns, but women also tended to prefer opportunities in personal and private life plans and work–life balance that were compatible with traditional expectations. In this respect, it is worth pointing out that the related discussions in the two groups of women had quite different dynamics: while in one group the participants tended to emphasize external pressures and expectations, in the other group they tended to emphasize their own preferences—which are of course inseparable from internalized expectations.

4.4. Views on Women’s Ministry and Opportunities and Difficulties for Women in the Church

In the final part of each of the four focus group discussions, we asked specifically what differences the students saw between male and female pastors in terms of functioning, fulfilling pastoral roles, and how they thought about women’s ministry, in general, and women’s presence in various leadership positions in particular. This is also important because, as already discussed in the theoretical part of our study, Protestant churches in Hungary are in some respects more conservative in their ways of functioning than the majority of the Western churches. This is also reflected in the opportunities and support for women in leadership roles. There are those who reject women pastors on Biblical grounds, and those who approve women as pastors but do not regard them as acceptable in leadership roles. At this point, it is worth noting that although the official position of the Protestant churches concerned is one of full equality, the relevant passages of the Bible are interpreted in different ways, and these interpretations shape the image of the pastoral vocation. Although these hermeneutical issues were not discussed in the groups, and it is not the task of a sociological study of religion to analyze them, it is important to note that these hermeneutical differences are partly behind the opinions shared in the groups. As will be seen, both types of the rejectionist position were present in the experiences of female students in the focus group discussions, and were present to some extent in the opinions of male students, too.

Previous research has also shown that there can be distinctive differences between women and men in the way they carry out their ministry, with women focusing more on support and relationship building, and men focusing more on liturgical tasks and decision-making (cf., e.g., Sammet 2013; Tervo-Niemelä 2016). Therefore, we approached the topic in the focus groups from the perspective of the perception of the difference between male and female pastors. The first typical reaction to this topic in the focus groups was repeatedly to reject the idea of essential difference, emphasizing that the differences are not between genders but between persons: “There are differences between any two pastors. And it is for each one individually to recognize and find their task (...) When you have a funeral, you don’t look at whether the pastor is a man or a woman.” (M). However, as the discussions continued, it became clear that, in different ways and to different degrees, differences between men and women in pastoral ministry were seen in all groups. Discussions took very different directions in each group, and the differences were not only along gender lines.

In one of the women’s groups, a relatively long discussion developed about the extent to which women pastors should or should not be like male pastors. Several women expressed the view that they were “often pushed into the male role”, which the women participants considered fundamentally harmful. It was preferred by the group members that they could remain women as pastors, but they felt that this was not yet taken for granted in the church and that women should stand up for this. One of them said that “if we don’t make the efforts, we lose ourselves”, and others agreed. The conversation then continued:

“- It is an identity struggle.

- For example, I really like short skirts and short trousers. It’s one of those things, it’s part of me. (...) I’ve been like that all my life. Not everyone was happy about it in the theology, but honestly face to face I never got it. I heard it from the back. But there were also teachers who said it was great that someone had finally dared to take it up.”

By embracing femininity, they meant not only a feminine appearance but also a different way of being a pastor: “The woman at the head of the congregation represents a completely different direction; the presence of a female pastor in a given community, as its spiritual leader, is completely different from that of a man.” It also appeared that this would change pastoral ministry in general, (re)focusing on personal connection: “I think that female pastors can bring back many female attitudes to the role of pastor. Because Jesus also cared for others. Jesus also saw the individual. And there is something in this approach that is closer to our femininity. (...) So, the distortion was that the pastor was present as the leader and builder of the congregation, as I don’t know what, and not as a pastor with personal connections.”

Although the above argument also emphasizes what are traditionally seen as feminine qualities (connection, caring), it has a clear emancipatory content and posits an equal image of the female pastor alongside the male pastor. This emancipatory trait is not present in the other group of women, but the traditional role expectations are. Basically, they contrasted female and male pastors along the lines of emotionality versus practicality. The focus on emotions was framed both as an asset (“they are more empathetic in this respect, too, they can identify with their congregation aunts more easily and listen to them”) and as a limitation (“some women, however smart, capable, so to speak, are more exposed to emotional instability at some point”). And men’s ‘practicality’ was primarily presented as a quality that made them suitable for leadership and higher positions.

The two groups of men also had very different discourses on the question of possible differences between male and female pastors. In the first group, it was formulated that men and women have some basic characteristics that make them suitable for different tasks within the pastoral profession: “male and female characters are basically two groups that have completely different characteristics. So, for example, I wouldn’t want to take on the task of leading a baby-mama circle.” However, the conversation then moved away from stereotypes considerably, emphasizing, for example, women’s abilities in tasks traditionally considered masculine, such as preaching. “I would have them [those who criticize women’s preaching] listen to either some of my fellow students or graduate women pastors preach. Because I think they are unrivalled in that.”

A different dynamic emerged in the second group of men: there were relatively strong views that women were different from men in ways that made them less suited to the ministry. Emotions also played an important role in this argument: “Women are extremely sentimental, and I don’t think they adhere so much to the Scriptures; they are much more carried away by emotions, their own feelings and their own thoughts. A man, on the other hand, knows that it is written, that this is how it must be, period. I think men are rule-followers and are able to detach themselves from their emotions.”

In this case, the speaker was also concerned about the clarity of the biblical message being conveyed, because of what he perceived to be a more emotional attitude from women. In response to this, a cautious dissent is expressed in the group (“I don’t think the situation is that extreme (...). I think that if the right people, even women, are placed in pastoral positions, the clarity of the gospel does not necessarily have to change.”), but overall, there were more consenting reactions.

The perceived differences are closely linked to the acceptance of women in the ministry and in church leadership. The experience in women’s groups was total rejection by some male pastors on Biblical grounds (“I had a conversation with my own church when my pastor said, ‘What a pity I’m a theologian now, because he can’t fellowship with me in ministry. And that I was living a sinful life’.”), and also the rejection of women as leaders of the church: “Even among those who accept the existence of women pastors as men, there is a general view among them that they are not leaders.” It was common knowledge among the female participants that there were still congregations that do not accept women pastors, which also explained the rejection of women as church leaders. However, one of them also expressed that there is a change in this, “there are now congregations where they are consciously looking for women, looking for a family. So, to have a mother, a pastor mother, it’s a very bizarre image, but the congregation needs this too.” It is worth pointing out that the speaker describes the phrase “pastor mother” as bizarre. The fact that the word ‘pastor’ still has a bit of ‘man’ in its meaning may have a role to play in this. This may be particularly noticeable in languages—including Hungarian—where there is no grammatical gender.

Both men’s focus groups expressed reservations about women’s ministry, but the dynamics of the conversations in the two groups were quite different in this respect. In one group, the criticisms of women’s leadership were met with explicitly negative responses from other participants, who disputed the validity of the criticisms. The male student in this group, who expressed a negative opinion, was worried about maintaining the traditional family roles of the female pastor, or more precisely, of the female pastor who leads the congregation: “Basically, if the pastor is a woman, then she is also the spiritual leader of the family. In my opinion, there is a slight deficiency in this. (...) I think that the man should be the spiritual leader. Because, if he is not the spiritual leader of the family, then the roles can shift a lot. (...) For example, maternal care is not provided by the wife, but the father takes on the parenting role.” Other participants in the group responded by arguing for the possibility of a caring father role and questioning the incompatibility of spiritual leadership and maternal care. No other viewpoint was raised in this group.

In the other group of men, however, there was a strong attitude of reservation about women’s ministry, and such statements tended to be met with agreement, or at least not openly challenged. In this second group of men, there were also arguments based on tradition (“I support a model that has worked well for centuries in all areas, which confirms that where possible, men should be in leadership positions.”) and on the Bible (“The Bible teaches us that men are fundamentally suited to this vocation.”). Both groups of men expressed the view that society and congregations are more open to male than to female pastors. There was a view that placed the church in a wider social context: “In Hungary, I think there is absolutely such a male-centered structure of thinking.” And there were also some where the reference to acceptance seemed more like an explanation for their own dismissive opinion, as in this case: “I think classically about it. I think that, if for no other reason, a male pastor tends to be more deserving or better in terms of acceptance of the older generation. He tends to get more respect for some reason.” At this point, it was very noticeable that the participants in the more dismissive male group tried to be careful in their wording, and rather to wrap up the dismissal in some kind of ‘common sense’ reference, as in this case: “A man is someone who gives speeches, a man is someone who teaches and leads and does what needs to be done. I’m not saying that women are incapable of this. I’m saying that currently... I’m just searching for the right words. At present, society is not mature enough to accept that a woman can do what a man can do.” This caution was evident in this group at several points. The reason was probably that they assumed some normative expectation on the part of the (female) moderator of the group, which they thought were contrary to the usual prejudices about women.

Opinions about women’s ministry, as this last quote has shown, are closely linked to opinions about women’s leadership. ‘Leadership ability’ emerges in the discussions essentially as the ability to lead congregations. We also asked specifically about how the participants in the interviews perceived the possibility or desirability of women taking on roles in higher church positions. A wide range of opinions and arguments were expressed, which can be grouped into three types. The first type refers to different characteristics of women or men, the second to the family, and the third to discrimination in the Church.

The refusal of women to take up leadership positions in the church was justified by some on the grounds of lack of skills, and the ability to make decisions was raised again: “I find that, you know, with women, that for some reason they don’t have the ability to make decisions. So I am not saying that they are not good, but that they are often in doubt, they cannot decide what to choose.” (M). The following discussion emerged in relation to this opinion:

“- But sometimes they themselves realize this and therefore don’t even attempt it.

[Q: You mean they don’t even apply for these positions?]

- I’m not saying that, because some do—there are plenty of career-obsessed.”

This view that women applying for leadership positions are careerists was also expressed by another member of the same group. According to him, the driving force behind this is the desire to prove women’s abilities: “For many, it is a desire to prove themselves or a drive to show that women are capable of this too.” The speaker sees this not only in the church but in the whole society as a negative phenomenon “that does not paint a very positive picture in most people’s minds” (M).

In one women’s group, practicality was mentioned as a quality that makes men more suitable for leadership: “men are often more practical in this way, and this is very, very useful in a position of, say, bishop, dean, I don’t know, archdeacon. “ In the same women’s group, the conflict with the traditional family was also raised as an argument, not so much from a practical reconciliation point of view, but rather as a consequence of internalized traditional roles: “I was just wondering why there is no woman bishop? I realized it’s because women are more family-centered, in the sense that they know that their role is to be in the family, not there, to play some larger role in the church or in the diocese, district, or whatever. But I think that’s the man’s job.”

Both groups of women, however, suggested that discrimination was definitely a barrier to women’s participation in higher church positions. “It is unspoken, but there is not much opportunity for this. For anyone to be able to take a position as a woman.” This was also part of the general social context: “It is set up in our society, or in the particular community that, well, it has to be a man. And maybe a woman is really much, much more qualified, and a lot of times the leaders don’t see that (...) The qualifications are there, and a lot of times they will choose a man over a woman (...) I would advocate that in the church, too, just because someone is a woman, that we shouldn’t limit them and should give them the opportunity.” In one group of men, discrimination in the church was partly seen as a generational issue: “The pastor who becomes a synod member is most often not a novice pastor, but a long-time pastor. And I think there are a lot of people among them who think that women should not become deacons, bishops and so on.” Related to discriminatory practices, but also posing practical difficulties, are those members of the church who find it unacceptable to have a female boss: “I think it would be very difficult as a woman, because the dean is leading the diocese and there are a lot of male pastors, even older than us or the same age as us, but I don’t know how cooperative they would be in terms of change with a female character, even one with the rank of dean.” (F).

In relation to higher church positions, an interesting question is the extent to which women themselves are ambitious or would accept higher church positions. In our previous research, we have found that women are quite reluctant to take on leadership positions and always emphasize that it was not their own initiative in cases where they occupy such positions (reference anonymized). In the focus groups with students, those women who would take on a higher position declared that they would do it only if it was necessary (“I would be in a higher position or would take it if I saw that there was no one better suited than me.”), and stressed that “I have no desire to do it.” This confirms that for a woman it goes against traditional expectations, and is therefore only acceptable in certain cases.

It is also worth touching on another issue related to the perception of women in the clergy, which is the feminization of the church (Nesbitt 1997; Wagner-Rau 2010; Schleifer and Miller 2017). Soon after the last formal-legal barriers to women’s entry into the ministry were removed and a greater proportion of women entered theology, the question arose whether the ministry would not become feminized in the same way as some secular professions. This still existing concern may contribute to the persistence or reinforcement of practices that discriminate against women in churches. It is not necessarily fueled by a mistrust of women in the pastoral role or doubts about their suitability, even if these may play a role. Rather, it reflects general fears about a potential decline in the status of the ministry. It is a long-standing experience that professions that are becoming more feminine are being devalued, or that professions that are being devalued are opening up to women in droves. These are often professions that offer less favorable conditions (in terms of money, working conditions, prestige), and therefore repel more mobile male workers who are more confronted with the demands of their responsibilities as family breadwinners (Koncz 2011). Although the motivations for career choices in the pastoral profession are significantly different from those in secular careers, the above mentioned effects impact churches as well. This aspect was also raised in the focus group discussions. In one case in the women’s group, the idea of church leadership career plan was met with a response that seemed to articulate concerns about the feminization of the ministry: “I don’t want to take away from your desire to be a congregation leader, it’s just that I think it’s important (...) that as we demand to be women, it’s very important that we have space in our church for men to be men. And, if there are very strong masculine women doing their work, then I do think there are roles where men are needed.” Another female participant saw this as a source of tension in the church: “it’s interesting to see the tension within, because I had a male theologian friend who was asked if he was afraid of the feminization of the profession.” This was confirmed by the fact that when the increasing proportion of women among pastors was discussed in one of the men’s groups, one participant stated that it “won’t happen [in our church]” that women will become the majority in the church, to which another participant responded, “Then I am reassured.”

In summary, although both traditional role expectations and emancipatory views were voiced regarding women’s role in the church, the former were clearly more prevalent in the discourses. Both women and men tended to formulate professional and personal plans and work–life balance strategies that complied with traditional gender-specific expectations.

5. Discussion

The strength of the focus group method is the presentation of the discourse. This is important because in real life, the decisions of women and men about their pastoral careers are made in the context of these discourses. Therefore, it is not only the exploration of the detailed experiences or attitudes of individuals in depth that may be important in this topic, but also the diversity of arguments and attitudes, the discourses that emerge from these, and the dynamics that emerge in the course of these discussions.

Looking at the results presented, it is clear that not only were there significant differences between the male and female groups, but also that the conversations varied greatly between the same-sex groups. One of the characteristics of a focus group is that when a strong opinion emerges in a group, more people join it, so a group norm is quickly established, and those who disagree are less likely or more cautious to express it. An opinion may be expressed that seems less accepted or even extreme in the context (for example, the rejection of women’s ministry), but the fact that it has been expressed can be liberating for those who also had it in their mind but would not have said it themselves. Or it can also provoke debate among those who disagree with this view. So the focus group discussions can amplify and make more visible certain discourses, opinions, and arguments that shape the decisions of ordinands about their careers in everyday life—but one should be aware of the limitation that not necessarily all existing shades of opinion are represented in every group. It is also important to note another limitation of the research; the focus group, like all qualitative research, cannot show the prevalence of each opinion that emerges. Thus, the results of the focus group research are, in a statistical sense, not generalizable, but they have high validity (Ritchie et al. 2013) and therefore provide a fairly accurate identification of the discourses and emerging opinions among theologians preparing for the ministry on issues related to gender inequality. It also has to be taken into consideration that in all cases the groups were led by women, which may have engendered normative expectations that influenced the men in the groups precisely on gender issues.

Cultural beliefs that discriminate against women (Ridgeway 2011) play a crucial role in the career choices of women pastors. One of the key findings from the focus group discussions is that these beliefs and the resulting gender-specific expectations are very strongly present in the church and in the thinking of the seminarians. Stereotypical beliefs about women and men were expressed to varying degree from group to group, but they seemed to have shaped the professional and personal plans and goals of the students in all groups. Horizontal segregation, which results in a higher proportion of men becoming leading pastors of congregations and women becoming institutional pastors, is reflected to a significant extent in the students’ career plans, which are thus likely to contribute to the persistence of this situation in the near future.

Both female and male students see problems in the relationship between work and private life, in the drawing of boundaries, and in the possible negative impact of pastoral work on the family. Their perceptions reflect that pastoral work (especially the work of a pastor leading a congregation) can be “greedy work” (Goldin 2021) that is difficult to reconcile with family and caring responsibilities. It is clear from our results that men’s as well as women’s private and professional plans are essentially based on the traditional gender order, and therefore women expect greater difficulties in reconciling work and private life (Charlton 1997; Hildenbrand 2013). Prospective women pastors intend to address these problems without radically challenging the norms of their social environment, and they plan their pastoral careers in a way to meet the expectations, without crossing the boundaries that are considered essential, and typically also by fulfilling traditional female roles. Although they have been found to take into account the compatibility with pastoral work in their private life choices (e.g., number of children), they typically try to resolve work–life tensions by making professional choices that are consistent with traditional gender roles. Thus, they more often envision their careers in positions that allow for a better work–life balance, such as associate pastoral positions or non-congregational ministry. These choices may contribute to the perpetuation of the horizontal (Nesbitt 1997; Chang 2005; De Gasquet 2010; Offenberger 2013) and vertical (Finlay 1996; Charlton 1997; Schleifer and Miller 2017; Zurlo 2024) segregation in churches, previously shown by a number of studies. Although female students typically see the difficulties women face in church careers as a given that they seek to adapt to, the focus group interviews also revealed opinions—among both women and men—that reject prescriptive stereotypes about women and the resulting practices that disadvantage women in churches. The strong prevalence of prejudiced attitudes towards women among male students can be a significant obstacle to these efforts, because it questions their suitability to lead congregations and even their capacity to become pastors.

As a final point in the discussion, it is worth considering the extent to which research findings obtained in the specific Hungarian context can provide valuable lessons for other regions. Some characteristics that distinguish Hungary (primarily) from Western European countries are highlighted in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. These characteristics stem primarily from the changed position of churches after the transition to democracy and from gender and family role perceptions that can be considered rather traditional in a European comparison. However, these are more likely to influence only the extent of disadvantages faced by women: the disadvantages follow a fairly similar pattern in most churches and countries. Thus, although our research results present attitudes and discourses in Hungary, it can provide important lessons in all areas where the formal and legal equality of female pastors is accompanied by deficiencies of genuine equivalence in their participation in church life. These lessons may be particularly important in cases where women’s participation in the church is embedded in a more conservative view of gender roles.

6. Conclusions

At the beginning of our research, we formulated two research questions. First, what gender differences or similarities can be observed between theology students’ interpretations of vocational plans and goals and their perceptions of work–life balance in the pastoral career; second, what are their perceptions of the different roles and opportunities for women and men in the church, with a special focus on female leaders in congregations and the church.

The analysis of the focus group discussions showed that students tend to have attitudes more in line with the traditional gender order in relation to both research questions. Their professional plans fit into the current situation in the church; women’s professional plans are highly characterized by aspirations for institutional pastoral positions, while men’s are directed toward the position of a congregational pastor. Women are preparing for starting a family and having children, which will conflict to a lesser or greater extent with their pastoral work, so they take this into account when formulating their professional plans, and this typically implies professional compromises. They are more likely to plan for associate pastoral positions and less likely to be preparing for senior pastoral positions in their congregation, and they justify this both on the basis of their own preferences as well as family commitments. Reservations about women’s leadership abilities were expressed in both the men’s and women’s groups; in the men’s groups it emerged as an opinion, while in the women’s groups both as an opinion and as an experienced expectation questioning their competences in their environment. There was also the experience in the women’s groups that there are not equal opportunities for women and men in the church, especially in terms of higher leadership positions. The election of a female bishop was seen as impossible in both men’s and women’s groups in the coming years; the most optimistic estimates put it at twenty years, the most pessimistic at fifty years. But even if it is a long way off, the Protestant churches are moving towards greater female empowerment. While the professional choices and work–life-balance strategies of women and men currently preparing to become pastors confirm rather than challenge the existing gender order and the resulting unequal gender relations in the church, there can also be detected an attitude among female students that women pastors need to better embrace their specific feminine characteristics and strengths in ministry and to represent their own perspectives in the church.