"The State of the Clergy"
  G. Lloyd Rediger 

It is likely that few other professionals are studied more than clergy. Why? Because they are an important part of America’s self-image. Because they have a newsworthy mystique. Because the role of clergy reflects the changes in contemporary spirituality. Because of recent scandals and breakdowns among clergy.

For twenty-four years I have participated in this research in informal and formal ways. From 1970 through 1989 I founded and directed the Office of Pastoral Services of the Wisconsin Conference of Churches. This was a counseling center devoted to the counseling of clergy and their families. Since 1990 I have been Consultant to the Minnesota Council of Churches for the Clergy Support Program. Through confidential counseling appointments, seminars, consultations, and many informal conversations, I have had the unique privilege of hearing what clergy are really feeling and thinking, in both national and international settings. I now devote my time to helping the church understand its spiritual leaders and to helping us clergy understand ourselves.

I have alluded to research on clergy many times in these columns to illustrate issues of concern to clergy. In this column, the research itself is the focus.

The point of reviewing this material in a journal we clergy take seriously, is for us to see and understand ourselves more clearly. The point of understanding ourselves is not only for a more effective ministry, but because we must become more proactive in reshaping the clergy role, or it will simply be done to us. The renowned sociologist, Robert Bellah, declared in a recent address that members of any “community” (neighborhood, profession, affiliation, nation) have a duty to participate in the shaping of that community lest it be distorted by outside influences.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Between 1987 and 1993, I conducted two statewide surveys of clergy—one in Wisconsin (1987) and one in Minnesota (1993). The Wisconsin survey was done in consultation with Robert Bendiksen, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin. For the Minnesota survey, Dan Bruch, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology at Concordia College, St. Paul, was my consultant, and Cindy Crimmins (Ph.D. candidate at University of Minnesota) was the data analyst. Their insights are included in this material.

Though these two surveys were not identical in information sought, they were very similar. I shall report from both and compare parts of them.

The responses to both surveys came from a random sample of clergy. Eight mainline Protestant denominations (all Lutherans were considered one denomination for this survey) were represented in both surveys, but the Minnesota survey includes Roman Catholics. Approximately one-third of respondents in both states were from cities of 25,000 or more. The rest were from small-town and rural settings. About 92 percent were male with less than 2 percent non-Caucasian. Less than 4 percent identified themselves as other than heterosexual. The average age of respondents from both states was in the upper forties. Their theological self identifications were “Evangelical” (29 percent, 15 percent Minnesota), “Conservative” (21 percent in both states), “Liberal” (about 40 percent in both states). Average income in Wisconsin (1987) was approximately $30,000, in Minnesota (1993) it was slightly higher. The average parish size of respondents in Wisconsin was about 450, while in Minnesota it was slightly higher.

SELF-MANAGEMENT ISSUES

A nearly identical set of items was presented to the voluntary respondents. They were asked to rate the following items from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree,” with five possible responses.

l. I nearly always feel like I should do more in ministry than I do.
2. I engage in substantial exercise at least twice a week.
3. My spiritual life has deteriorated over the last five years.
4. I watch my nutrition carefully.
5. I seldom have conflicts with members of my congregation.
6. I usually feel rested and normally energetic.
7. My usual sermon preparation pattern is to do most of it late Saturday.
8. I seldom have financial problems.
9. I have a lot of difficulty making decisions.
10. The main reason I stay in the ordained ministry is because I feel called of God to do so.

There is not space here to present the data from these items. So a brief summary must suffice. A composite score from the ten items was determined for each respondent.

The distribution of these composites indicates that none of the clergy manages themselves at either extreme (very poorly or very well). More than half the self-ratings clustered in the well- managed category. Another third rated mediocre. About five percent of the ratings were poor.

An experienced pastor can perceive that each of the ten items in the self-management section represents a generic category of pastoral responsibility. The items were presented in mixed style to minimize patterned response bias. Item number one is transparently a probe into the anxiety experience so pervasive in practitioners of the helping professions. By beginning with such an item, a message is sent that responses are expected to probe the depth of the responders’ experience.

Items two, four, and six explore care of the physical self. It takes some pastors a long time to realize the value of basic physical health and the interrelationship between physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being. It is easy to assume that dedication and passion for ministry will automatically generate health. Instead, we are learning that our stewardship in ministry includes keeping our full selves, not just our gifts and graces, in good condition for ministry.

Items three, five, and nine are insight questions, as well as reminders of the importance of spiritual health, the normalcy of conflict, and the value of decision making. There are few more valuable skills than insight. This skill has internal and external dimensions. To be able to see ourselves as others see us, and to understand ourselves, comprise the internal dimension. The external dimension includes not only sensitivity to the feelings of others, but also the ability to see how their behavior relates to their own internal experience. It also includes the ability to see interrelationships in group behavior, and to extrapolate from all of this toward being able to project behavior and consequences into the future.

Item seven probes role-specific practices. Research and experience indicate that sermon preparation habits are reliable indicators of the way a pastor handles most pastoral duties. They also reflect self-image. For no other pastoral duty contains a more prominent public performance factor.

Item eight reminds us that the management of other parts of our lives impinges on how we manage and are perceived in the pastoral role. This item is intended to encourage conscious management of four problematic factors in human experience—money, sexuality, energy, and intelligence.

The tenth item is a patent opportunity for a pastor to asses vocation, motivation, and accountability. The call of God is so central to our role that it serves as anchor and reference point in times of transition and trouble. I have found that a pastor with a clear sense of call is likely to weather the storms of ministry and have an inspired sense of dedication. But we should remind ourselves of the misuses some clergy make of this call.

SUPPORT ISSUES

The third section of the survey form was a studied probe of how the responding pastor experiences support or nonsupport as pastor and person. This is a difficult factor to probe and assess, for we are not yet certain why so many pastors are breaking down in this generation, compared to previous ones. There has always been some stress and malfeasance among clergy, but not in growing proportion as now is the case. This phenomenon is not accounted for by better reporting methods or new definitions of competence. Previously, clergy generated the best physical and mental health statistics of nearly any other class of people. We still do relatively well, but our wellness statistics now resemble those of society as a whole.

The support factor is nebulous also because of the mystique of the clergy role. Who really knows what pastors do, or what kind of support they need to do it? We all know about liturgy and preaching. But what constitutes the symbolic, caring presence and inspiring guidance expected of a pastor? And what is needed by a pastor in order to meet such expectations?

There are the obvious and traditional support factors such as training, credentials, salary, and the security of filling a needed role in society. But it is now apparent that such factors as respect, authority, continuing education, collegiality, intimacy, recreation, spiritual disciplines, and accountability are dynamic variables which determine pastoral effectiveness.

Through working with hundreds of clergy over the years, as well as through my own experience, I have learned that there are enormous energy drains associated with being a clergyperson. One of these is the loneliness of the pseudo-intimacies common to pastoring. This is the curious experience of being available to parishioners in caring, intimate, and confidential ways. Ways which are not typically reciprocated.

Another drain is the pervasiveness of the role. The expectations of this role (both the parishioners’ and ours) never seem to go away. In addition, our profession is the only one in which personal identity, professional identity, and religious faith are all wrapped up in the same package. Another drain is the image of success. How do we know when we are “successful” if the usual indicators—money, fame, and power—are not legitimate goals for us? Our striving, therefore, may not always rejuvenate us with tangible rewards. Yet another drain is the sheer weight of other people’s problems and pain, which we are expected to carry. It is much easier to imagine we do not allow caring and dependencies to drain us, than to actually set limits on such drains.

Energy is a precious commodity in ministry. It has four components—physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual. All must be present to provide a high-octane fuel for the demands of pastoring. The most important principle of energy management is that energy in must equal energy out. Our personal support system, like the battery in our car, must be constantly recharged, or it begins to deteriorate.

In order to assess the support process for clergy, the survey included items which asked the pastor to name specific types of potential supporters, and rate these according to both expectation and performance. Then pastors were asked to rate specific items which may be supportive (money, continuing education, hobbies, support services, equipment, sex, respect). Finally, they were queried as to expectations and goals—what they hoped for, what changes would help, what fantasies they had of other vocations, and what seminaries, denominations, and congregations could do to be more supportive to clergy.

Again, there is not room in this column for all the data and analysis. But these are a few of the conclusions which emerge from this part of the survey.

It is no surprise that spouses are expected to provide much of the moral support for clergy. For this is a traditional expectation of marriage. But the percent of support expected is changing. In the landmark study of clergy from the 1960s (Ex-Pastors, Gerald J. Jud, et al., Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1970), active clergy were found to be receiving 85 percent of their support from spouses (nearly all were female then). Our study shows clergy find 70 percent of their support coming from spouses (now including males). This trend is reflected in other recent studies as well.

It is also notable that the pattern of support from peers has changed. Jud found that clergy peers (same and different denominations) ranked low in the support list. Our study shows that clergy peers are almost tied for second ranking in the categories of supporters. It is apparent that the clergy networking movement is having a unifying effect.

It is discouraging to note that denominational officials and seminary professors rank very low on the list of supporters in Jud’s study. In our study, denominational officials rank near the bottom while seminary professors rank last. This is sad because both these categories of persons are very close to clergy during their training years and transitions. Both types of supporters are typically ordained themselves and would be expected to understand clergy needs. But pastors often regard them as privileged defectors from the ranks of everyday pastors. And they consistently report that they do not trust the motives of such persons, nor find them helpful in times of crisis or transition.

This lack of support is discouraging also because these persons are dominating influences in the church, who claim to care about the needs of clergy. Their influence and claim is viewed negatively by the majority of pastors.

A brief summary of the fourth section of our surveys will have to suffice. But its findings, when compared with the other sections, provides these generalizations. First, at least three quarters of clergy are functioning competently and with at least an acceptable level of satisfaction.

Second, the short list of improvements clergy desire is revealing. From their denominations they request sabbaticals, more training, and subsidized counseling, in that order of priority. From their congregations they ask higher salaries, more administrative assistance, and more time off. And from life in general, they desire more free time, a close friend, and more sex and money (these items tied).

Anyone trained in the therapeutic sciences can spot the one factor which appears in all three lists—time. This reflects the consistent pattern of stress which shows up in any contemporary study of clergy.

EXTRAPOLATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In 1971, Ted Mills’ classic study of clergy stress (Stress in Ministry, Edgar W. Mills and John P. Koval, Washington DC: Ministry Studies Board) indicated high levels of stress. This stress had become pervasive in all aspects of professional and personal life of clergy. Mills found a periodicity in stress patterns, as well. And he found conflict (role conflicts and conflicts in congregations) as high stressors.

More recent studies and books on clergy stress certainly acknowledge its presence. They offer cause-effect explanations, suggestions from pop psychology, and sometimes good theological remedies. Workshops in self-help and self-management are being provided everywhere.

The Wisconsin-Minnesota surveys certainly confirm the pervasiveness of clergy stress. They also indicate the typical coping mechanisms pastors use. When I combine the data from these surveys with the thousands of hours I have spent in listening to and counseling clergy, I am faced with some negative and positive conclusions.

First, it is reassuring to see that a high percentage of pastors still function well, in spite of turmoil, scandal, and stress. The public needs to be assured of this.

Second, the stress clergy have been experiencing has some specific and disturbing foci. One of these is the loss of respect and authority which used to undergird the clergy role.

Another focus of clergy stress is the growing level of depression I’ve seen in pastors over the years. A clinically trained person knows that depression is debilitating and dangerous in either its biochemical form or its affective form. Medication and talk therapy can help. But unless the life-conditions perceived by the sufferer change in some way, or the hope of change is substantiated, depression often becomes chronic.

Depression in its affective form is typically a function of internalized anger. Anger is usually internalized because of the fear of expressing it, because it is denied, and because no remedy is perceived. It is this relative lack of hope which is fueling much clergy depression. In its milder forms, it makes clergy more vulnerable to opportunities for malfeasance. In its more severe forms it depletes personal energy beyond the normal drain from work. This is a leading reason why denominational programs flounder and congregational life is often drab. Such depression can become dangerous to health and to life as well.

An ominous projection of clergy stress and depression into the future leads to a third conclusion: that a reactive process is beginning to simmer among pastors. They are becoming vocally angry. There are networks of angry clergy forming which not only share the anger at their victimization, but is becoming proactive in seeking change.

The church at large has not begun to see or understand the anger of a growing number of its clergy. The networking, the angry articles in journals, the lawsuits are the tip of the iceberg. Because of the depth of these passions, the perceived lack of remedy from church officials, and the targeting of pastors by unstable parishioners, as well as gender and ethnic concerns, we may expect pastors to seek drastic remedies in growing numbers.

A fourth conclusion from the surveys and my years of conversations with clergy is that a positive possibility for the clergy role can be projected. This role can be called Pastoral Ecologist. It consists of two functions of spiritual leadership: to be an ecologist of the human spirit, combined with being an ecologist of creation. In the first, the pastor functions much as the ancient shaman, not by using witchcraft, but by devoting much of ministry to responding in caring ways to human spiritual yearnings. In the second, the pastor leads the way in a renewed stewardship of our planet and the Christian mission. These two functions combine comfortably, for they are both primary in the Judeo-Christian heritage. I’ve written about these (“Pastoral Ecologist” and “Shaman”) in previous columns.

The point of research is to discover truth. What is done with this truth can lead to health and growth. Many of us are praying that organized religion will pay attention to the emerging data about clergy needs. For the health of the clergy is crucial to the health of the church. And we are saying to clergy, ourselves included, that we must build our own support systems, which are adequate for our needs and ministry. No one will do it for us.

Published in the Clergy Journal, March 1995