Last year I wrote a lit review for a psychology class I was taking on the subject of clergy burnout. When you’re newly ordained, you get all kinds of advice on how to avoid burnout, but not a lot of clarity on what exactly it is or how it functions. So, I took advantage of the assignment as an opportunity to look at what the available literature has to say.
First of all, burnout isn’t unique to clergy. It’s a known phenomenon in a whole lot of “helping” professions, and also as just a human experience. Research into burnout typically offers a progressive model. Emotional Exhaustion leads to reduced Job Satisfaction, which ultimately metastasizes into Apathy, and finally: Burnout. At that point, people are likely to either have a mental health crisis or to leave their field of employment, or both. This means that “emotional exhaustion” is frequently studied and considered predictive of future burnout. This would explain why emotionally taxing “helping professions” such as teaching and nursing would have high levels of burnout, while less emotionally taxing professions have lower levels of burnout.
The natural response if you’re operating under this model is to try and reduce emotional exhaustion. This is where a lot of the “self-care” elements of advice for avoiding burnout are meant to help. Unfortunately, there’s a whole lot of anecdotal evidence out there that you can’t “self care” your way out of burnout, particularly if you’re a member of the clergy. Sorry, a bubble bath may be helpful, but it’s not a preventive measure.
There’s another model out there, posited by an Anglican priest and psychological researcher, Leslie Francis. Francis offers instead of a progressive model, a “balanced affect” model in which Emotional Exhaustion and “Satisfaction in Ministry” are independent factors which both contribute to burnout. “Satisfaction in Ministry” doesn’t just capture the notion of whether or not one finds the overall conditions of their ministry context satisfactory, but importantly, the extent to which one feels that their ministry makes a difference. Does the work matter? This is backed up by further research by Francis and others into such diverse questions as the role of theology, personal piety, ministry context (ex. multi-point churches, high or low dysfunction communities, etc) and personality in predicting burnout.
What Francis has found in much of his research is that clergy are able to bear high levels of emotional exhaustion without experiencing burnout, as long as they are generally satisfied in their ministry. This is part of the reason why factors such as theology and ministry context matter so very much. If clergy believe the work they do makes a difference and are not navigating extremely dysfunctional systems, they can bear a whole lot of emotional exhaustion and still thrive in their ministry.
While that may seem like good news on its face (and it is, in my opinion) it makes it substantially harder for an individual clergyperson to prevent their own burnout. Indeed, it highlights that much more acutely the extent to which the health of the institution as a whole matters. It also highlights the need clergy have for pastoral support and, importantly, routine opportunities for recognition. That said, we already have systems and structures that, if more intentionally operationalized with both reducing emotional exhaustion and improving satisfaction in ministry in mind, could help prevent burnout more effectively.
Clericus often ends up being reduced to a “meeting that could have been an email” combined with a group anxiety spiral about everything that is wrong in the church. While announcements and reminders of upcoming events and opportunities are important, they shouldn’t be the primary focus. Moreover, research done on clergy coping mechanisms finds that venting doesn’t seem to be correlated with overall improvement in emotional exhaustion. Of course, a routine opportunity to share struggles and seek support from peers is a good thing, so what this really comes down to is good facilitation. Facilitators should seek to encourage both celebration and lament and try to maintain a balance where everyone is allowed to speak and no one (usually the most pessimistic) voice takes over the conversation. This is also an opportunity for clergy to be reminded that their work matters, even if it doesn’t always yield objectively observable outcomes like more butts in pews. To the one person who had a shoulder to cry on in a waiting room that they otherwise might not have had, or the beloved soul who was able to pass into the nearer presence of God with ease after being prayed with, or the single mom who just needed a bag of groceries to get through to the next paycheck, or the youth who had a trustworthy counselor in perplexity, their priest or deacon made a world of difference. Finding ways to offer encouragement, on a regular basis, through clericus can both reduce burnout and make clericus something clergy want to go to rather than just something they feel they ought to go to.
Clergy retreat can fall into the same trap as clericus, only with the added weight of a core workshop that may or may not actually be what the clergy themselves need. Again, we want to focus on reducing emotional exhaustion and improving satisfaction in ministry. This isn’t meant to be a diocesan convention without the laity, so while it may seem intuitive to use this opportunity when all the clergy are gathered together to get some of the political business of the church done, there are probably other ways to accomplish these things. I would much rather see a single “while we’ve got you here” housekeeping meeting, a resource share, and then really focus on creating opportunities for the clergy who are gathered to receive care and encouragement and connection in a posture of active rest. Pray together. Eat together. Move together. Shoot, read together. Personally, I always pack something fun I’ve been wanting to read but haven’t had time to. It would be lovely to have a designated “readers nook” where all the introverts can gather in a quiet, comfy place and just read together. Gathering clergy together and giving them a to-do list of self-care techniques isn’t as powerful as providing opportunities for them to practice those techniques in an environment where they are “off the clock” at least a little. And yeah, bishops—gas up your clergy. They need to know that you see and appreciate the hard work they do.
A little while ago, I was really down. I was having a hard time with the cumulative weight of the work I’m doing in its place and time and feeling very isolated and under supported in the moment. So I reached out to a more experienced clergyperson I know and simply texted, “Hey, I really need a pep talk today.” We’re both crazy busy, but we made a plan to get together over zoom later in the day, and I shared what was going on, that I was feeling very discouraged, and how I just needed a good word. God bless that wonderful soul for navigating that moment with me and for giving me the good word I needed. Afterward, I did feel legitimately better and was able to get back in the proverbial saddle, trusting that, not only does God got this, but that I’ve got this, because I’m not alone. I can think of about five colleagues that I can send that exact text to and know I will receive a judgment-free listening ear and a pep talk within 24 hours. While I stated earlier that I don’t think giving already over-burdened clergy one more thing to do, which is what a lot of the self-care advice ultimately is, I do think this one more thing is so worth doing that I’m willing to prescribe it:
Figure out who your five cheerleaders are.
Why five? Well, frankly, we all have a whole lot going on, so part of it is simply allowing for the reality that you need a certain degree of flexibility with this list. The other thing to consider is that certain people are better for specific kinds of encouragement. Having five cheerleaders at-hand means that you can have some variety and can tap the right person for the context. Not sure if a colleague is really down to be that person? Ask them! All my cheerleaders are people who have explicitly told me to reach out if I need help or are people with whom I already had a relationship of mutual encouragement.
Offer to be somebody’s cheerleader.
It’s hard to ask for help, or even to know what kind of help you need. Explicitly saying to someone, “Hey, I know how stressful and hard this work can be, and I want to be in your corner. Text me if you need a pep talk,” can go a long way. It clearly communicates not only that you care, but also exactly how you are available to help. Of course, don’t offer this to somebody unless you legitimately have the bandwidth to do this for, and setting a boundary that “Hey, I can’t talk right now, but what about—?” should always be in your pocket for when you just can’t swing it. But it helps to foster a culture of encouragement in your community.
We’re all walking each other home. Sometimes that walk is really arduous and feels overwhelming. Remember that you’re never alone. If you need help and don’t know who to talk to, text “HOME” to 741741 to reach out to the Crisis Text Line. They offer free, confidential crisis support.
Here’s a partial list of the studies I read for the research project I did on clergy burnout. If you’re interested in learning more, I recommend giving some of these a read (or at least the abstracts)
Barnard, L. K., & Curry, J. F. (2011). The relationship of clergy burnout to self-compassion and other personality dimensions. Pastoral Psychology, 61(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-011-0377-0
Beebe, R. S. (2007). Predicting Burnout, conflict management style, and turnover among clergy. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706298157
Brewster, C. E., Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2011). Maintaining a public ministry in Rural England: Work-related psychological health and psychological type among Anglican clergy serving in multi-church benefices. The Public Significance of Religion, 20, 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004207066.i-495.90
Doolittle, B. R. (2007). Burnout and coping among Parish-based clergy. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670600857591
Doolittle, B. R. (2008). The impact of behaviors upon burnout among parish-based clergy. Journal of Religion and Health, 49(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-008-9217-7
Francis, L., Laycock, P., & Brewster, C. (2017). Work-related psychological wellbeing: Testing the balanced affect model among Anglican clergy. Religions, 8(7), 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8070118
Francis, L. J., Emslie, N. J., & Payne, V. J. (2019). The effect of emotional intelligence on work-related psychological health among Anglican clergy in Wales. Journal of Religion and Health, 58(5), 1631–1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-019-00798-7
Francis, L. J., Haley, J. M., & McKenna, U. (2022). Work-related psychological wellbeing and conservative Christian belief among Methodist Circuit ministers in Britain: Distinguishing between emotional exhaustion and satisfaction in ministry. Journal of Religion and Health, 62(3), 1636–1657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01637-y
Francis, L. J., Smith, G., & McKenna, U. (2024). Testing the AQ10 as a predictor of poor work-related psychological wellbeing among newly ordained Anglican clergy in England. Pastoral Psychology, 73(6), 847–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-024-01166-3
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
Randall, K. J. (2004). Burnout as a predictor of leaving Anglican parish ministry. Review of Religious Research, 46(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512250
Rodgerson, T. E., & Piedmont, R. L. (1998). Assessing the incremental validity of the religious problem-solving scale in the prediction of clergy Burnout. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(3), 517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388058
Yang, Y., & Hayes, J. A. (2020). Causes and consequences of burnout among mental health professionals: A practice-oriented review of recent empirical literature. Psychotherapy, 57(3), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000317