Introduction
Clergy well-being has been given increased attention over the past decade. This has been a positive response and should be welcomed. There is a greater awareness of the issues involved and the negative impact that stress can have.
While the increase in attention should be welcomed, the dominant strategies have been built mainly on positive concepts like “resilience”, “flourishing”, or “well-being” in contrast to frameworks that may be perceived as negative such as “burnout”, “institutional sickness” or “stress”.
The focus on positive concepts has led to a number of strategies, including the encouragement of better habits amongst clergy. This focus on the positive has had unintended consequences. Clergy are effectively made responsible for their own problems, creating an additional burden for struggling individuals, a self-critical narrative or source of guilt.
I suspect that we need both positive and negative ideas in our conceptual framework when it comes to clergy stress. We need to know what human flourishing looks like for clergy, but we also need a very clear idea of why human flourishing may not be happening.
This paper is an attempt to reframe the discussion using the concept of Occupational Burnout as a model for understanding the negative consequences of clergy stress. This may raise questions of causality which could be uncomfortable to some, but need to be addressed. It may also, however, provide a possible way forward for the generation of better strategies as this discussion continues.
I am not proposing that we abandon “human flourishing” as a core concept for addressing clergy well-being but that it is merely one point on a spectrum with “occupational burnout” at the other.
Wellbeing: Clergy under stress?
A number of surveys reveal that clergy stress is on the rise. The Living Ministry research undertaken by the Church of England revealed that 42% of clergy reported a decline in mental well-being.[1]
While the COVID-19 undoubtedly has had a significant impact, it has not been the only factor involved. As we shall see, many of the stressors experienced by clergy are not specifically related to the pandemic and often preceded it.
Burnout: The event horizon of clergy stress?
The concept of Occupational Burnout was first used in an academic context in 1969 by HB Bradley, who was describing the fatigue experienced by staff in a centre for young offenders[2]. Herbert Freudenberger wrote a paper in 1974 which helped define the term in more detail[3]. Since then, the work of Christina Maslach has been hugely influential, and included the creation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) in 1981.
The World Health Organisation has recognised the existence of burnout as a syndrome rather than a distinct disorder:
Burn-out is a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions: 1) feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion; 2) increased mental distance from one’s job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one’s job; and 3) reduced professional efficacy. Burn-out refers specifically to phenomena in the occupational context and should not be applied to describe experiences in other areas of life.[4]
The symptoms of burnout can include physical exhaustion, concentration difficulties, emotional instability, sleep disturbance, aches and pains, palpitations, gastrointestinal problems, vertigo and increased sensitivity to sound[5]
Louden and Francis explored the issue of clergy stress using the theoretical framework of occupational burnout, as conceptualised by Maslach[6]. They observed that clergy report both high levels of job satisfaction alongside high levels of work-related stress. This may seem contradictory at first, but these two factors may contribute to a feedback loop in which clergy seek greater satisfaction through work which in turn generates higher levels of stress.
Current approaches to clergy well-being have often focussed on the encouragement of positive behaviours rather than avoidance of causes. The aim of denominational policies has been to encourage better practice and personal accountability – or find more resilient clergy. We have generally focussed on prevention rather than cure.
While this is admirable, there is some value in being better aware of the negative consequences that both clergy and churches are trying to avoid.
Burnout represents the event horizon for clergy well-being. Like a black hole, it would be best to avoid it altogether, but its powerful gravitational pull can be hard to escape once you have crossed a certain line. Returning to well-being is not easy for those who have been sucked into its orbit. They need much more serious help.
I would propose that we use Occupational Burnout as a key measure for clergy well-being. It could help us to understand the negative consequences of clergy stress better, so that we are better able to avoid them. It may also help us to determine which strategies to use as organisations when individuals are unable to help themselves.
Risk Factors
Christina Maslach has been studying Occupational Burnout since 1976. She has played a key role in defining the concept and how it is understood. Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter identified six main risk factors which can increase the likelihood of Burnout. These come down to mismatches in: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values.[7]
It should be noted that most clergy have been dealing with issues relating to a number of these factors. From my own context in the Church of England, I have observed:
Workload: Clergy are responsible for more congregations, more mission initiatives, more paperwork, more targets and more strategies which they are to deliver. They generally have more responsibilities than they did in previous generations, and the workload of individuals inevitably increases as the number of ministers drops…
Control: Clergy normally have a relatively high level of freedom in terms of how they spend their time, but this freedom is being eroded by the increased level of responsibility and workload that they face. In the past, they may have been able to carve out a specialist ministry or area of interest, but this is becoming less common as generic responsibilities increase. Furthermore, many church members feel that they deserve a greater say in determining the work taken on by clergy, given that they are paying for it…
Reward: Most clergy don’t do what they do for money, but everyone needs to know that what they are doing is valued. In the past clergy were given huge affirmation by congregations and wider society, but this is less common as congregations become more critical, and society becomes more hostile. Many clergy feel that they are unappreciated by their colleagues and their denominational leaders. It’s hard to feel motivated when you don’t feel appreciated…
Community: Clergy often have uncomfortable relationships with particular people in their congregations. It is not uncommon for there to be deeply damaging relationships with officers or volunteers – who can often say and do hurtful things without any mechanism for addressing the problem. Ministers can be removed if they behave badly, but are usually expected to endure bad behaviour if it is focussed on them…
Fairness: Denominational leaders often have favourites, and this is expressed in the way that affirmative news stories and additional funding tend to go to certain congregations or ministers in preference to others. This is probably intended as the positive reinforcement of effective strategies, but it can feel desperately unfair, if your church doesn’t fit with the current trend…
Values: Ministers are driven by their beliefs. Their values are therefore deeply important to them. It can therefore feel incredibly difficult if their values are out of step with those being expressed by their leaders; whether this is in terms of human sexuality, mission, ecclesiology, or worship. Given the increasingly polarised nature of these debates, and the prevailing high levels of stress, it should not be surprising if clashes in values were to lead to increasingly emotional reactions…
A brief survey of anecdotal evidence like this would suggest that clergy are having to deal with an increasingly high level of risk factors. It may be helpful if further research could be done to quantify the level of risk and what we could do to alleviate it. In the meantime, we should not be surprised if these increased risks lead to increasing levels of Burnout.
Internal and External Strategies
Maslach and Leiter believe that burnout can only be addressed successfully through a combination of internal and external strategies. They posit that those who are suffering need both organisational change and individual education.[8]
Organisations have a natural inertia and a tendency towards stability. It is thus inevitable that institutions will focus on “education” or other internal strategies, rather than anything that may require systemic change, including changes in policy, strategy, deployment or rules. It is not in the immediate interests of managers and senior leadership teams to take action which may destabilise the existing organisation.
We should not be surprised therefore, that churches often focus their attention on personal wellbeing, stress management, counselling or coaching. The Church of England, for example, has produced a clergy covenant which emphasises the personal responsibility of clergy for their own well-being and requires them to be more accountable for having a healthy pattern of life and work.
As Maslach and Leiter have observed, this may not be enough, since there may be a need to address organisational change as well.
The focus on internal rather than external factors has one significant risk. If clergy are unable to address their issues through time off, therapy or coaching, they are therefore perceived, both by themselves and others, as being responsible for their own problems. If we focus only on internal strategies, but neglect the need for external interventions, we run the risk of “victim blaming”. What makes this worse, is that we reinforce internal narratives of guilt, failure and self-blame.
An unbalanced approach to clergy stress may be more deeply harmful than no strategy at all.
The Way Forward
As we have observed, there has been an increasing level of attention on the problem of clergy stress and well-being. This should be welcomed. On the other hand, the imbalance between internal and external strategies may actually be making things worse for a number of individuals. We therefore need to think more creatively about the way we address this problem.
Here are a number of suggestions:
- We need better awareness of the problem amongst senior staff, clergy and lay people. In particular, we need greater articulation of the need for both internal and external strategies, so that we avoid the risk of victim blaming.
- We need to listen more deeply to the stories of those affected, particularly those who have chosen to change jobs or leave ministry altogether. What is it that they were not getting which would have made their lives more bearable?
- We need a systematic survey of the risk factors and how these impact clergy. We need quantitative research into the way changes in ministerial context are increasing the likelihood of burnout.
- We need to build up a library of tools which can be used to address organisational change. This would give both HR and those with line management or pastoral responsibility a starting point in their discussions and some options to use in situations which are stressful both for the minister in question and for those representing the institution as a whole.
- We need to recognise the growing issue of mental health in the general population of which clergy stress may be a “canary in the coal mine”. How can we address the needs of the wider community while our own actions are resulting in increasing illness amongst our own staff. As Jesus said, we need to take the plank out of our own eye before we have anything to say about the mote in others.
In conclusion, Jesus came that we may have life in all its fullness. As churches we are treating our clergy as if this hope doesn’t apply to them. Worse than that, we treat them as “canon fodder” who can be used and put aside when they are broken. We could do better.
[1] Clergy Wellbeing in a Time of Covid Autonomy, Accountability and Support Louise McFerran and Liz Graveling Living Ministry Panel Survey Wave 3 January 2022
[2] Bradley HB (July 1969). “Community-based treatment for young adult offenders”. Crime & Delinquency. 15 (3): 359–370.
[3] Freudenberger HJ (January 1974). “Staff Burn-Out”. Journal of Social Issues. 30 (1): 159–165.
[4] Z73 Burn-out. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10). World Health Organization. 2019.
[5] Besèr A, Sorjonen K, Wahlberg K, Peterson U, Nygren A, Asberg M (February 2014). “Construction and evaluation of a self rating scale for stress-induced exhaustion disorder, the Karolinska Exhaustion Disorder Scale”. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 55 (1): 72–82. doi:10.1111/sjop.12088.
[6] Ministry Burnout: Myth or Reality? by Leslie J Francis, part of Issue 34 of Ministry Today, published in June 2005.
[7] Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP (2001). Schacter DL, Zahn-Waxler C, Fiske ST (eds.). “Job burnout”. Annual Review of Psychology. 52: 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.
[8] Maslach C, Leiter MP (1997). The Truth About Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It. New York: Jossey-Bass.
