Most pastors lack extensive secular work experience, survey finds

[Michie]

Most Protestant clergy in the United States worked for 10 years or fewer in non-ministry occupations before becoming pastors, according to a recent survey from Lifeway Research.

In a report published Tuesday, Lifeway unveiled the results of a survey of 1,004 Protestant pastors conducted Aug. 29 – Sept. 20, 2023. The study had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.2% at the 95% confidence level.

According to the data, 58% of respondents said they spent 10 years or fewer working in a “non-ministry job” before becoming pastors, including 34% who said they spent five years or fewer and 13% who spent less than a year.

Continued below.

Most pastors lack extensive secular work experience, survey finds

Most Protestant clergy in the United States worked for 10 years or fewer in non-ministry occupations before becoming pastors, according to a recent survey from Lifeway Research

www.christianpost.com

 

[PloverWing]

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I agree that it's valuable to have secular work experience, that it helps one relate better to one's congregation. But if we're asking for 10+ years of secular work... You graduate from college at 21, then work for 10 years at a secular job, then start seminary at 31, maybe get ordained at 35, and only then start working as a curate somewhere. That's a pretty slow path. It can be a good path, but alternatively I could see someone feeling a call when they're much younger, in their teens or 20s, and it seems discouraging to tell them that they have to wait 15 or 20 years.

 

[RileyG]

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I agree that it's valuable to have secular work experience, that it helps one relate better to one's congregation. But if we're asking for 10+ years of secular work... You graduate from college at 21, then work for 10 years at a secular job, then start seminary at 31, maybe get ordained at 35, and only then start working as a curate somewhere. That's a pretty slow path. It can be a good path, but alternatively I could see someone feeling a call when they're much younger, in their teens or 20s, and it seems discouraging to tell them that they have to wait 15 or 20 years.

Yeah, occasionally you do find ministers or priests who get the calling when they are older and have plenty of experience under their belt. Like, Father James Martin, SJ, for example, who stated out in the corporate world.

 

[PloverWing]

Yeah, occasionally you do find ministers or priests who get the calling when they are older and have plenty of experience under their belt. Like, Father James Martin, SJ, for example, who stated out in the corporate world.

I've seen quite a few Episcopal priests who started out in secular careers, and then moved to the priesthood in mid-life. In a couple of cases (one former software developer, one former banker), the specific secular knowledge can be useful in the unexpected tasks of running a parish!

But I want to make sure we're not discouraging young people. If one of our teens says "I want to be a priest!", I hope they have the chance to go ahead and start discerning their calling, with the support of the church.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I agree that it's valuable to have secular work experience, that it helps one relate better to one's congregation. But if we're asking for 10+ years of secular work... You graduate from college at 21, then work for 10 years at a secular job, then start seminary at 31, maybe get ordained at 35, and only then start working as a curate somewhere. That's a pretty slow path. It can be a good path, but alternatively I could see someone feeling a call when they're much younger, in their teens or 20s, and it seems discouraging to tell them that they have to wait 15 or 20 years.

And, the other side of that is, if we discourage people from coming young, when they do offer, we might invest significant time, energy, and money, into training someone who has relatively little time left to offer the church. (The diocese I trained in no longer offered funding to potential candidates once they turned 50; that was controversial, but their argument was that by the time that person discerned a call, studied, was a curate, etc, they would have very little time left in active ministry).

Mind you, it does depend when we start measuring. When I went to seminary I'd only worked about three years in a professional job. But if you counted all the time I'd spent working a cash register as a student etc, I'd been working more than ten years. And that was definitely valuable experience (in dealing with people, if nothing else).

 

[Tuur]

Just sitting back reading. I remember when, at least locally, ministers were with their secular work like Paul was with tentmaking. This was also when churches shared a minister (local Methodist churches still do/did). At some point in my lifetime, full-time ministers became the norm, so much so that when one felt called to do as Paul did, he was looked at as an oddity among his peers.

Not being a minister, I supposes there's pros and cons about full time ministry or keeping a secular profession. Just know that there was a change locally in my lifetime.

 

[Paidiske]

For us it's been the other way. It used to be the norm to be in ministry full time, now more and more ministers have to take on secular work alongside ministry because the church can't support them any more.

 

[Tuur]

For us it's been the other way. It used to be the norm to be in ministry full time, now more and more ministers have to take on secular work alongside ministry because the church can't support them any more.

Originally, that was the case here. We used to have services "on halves," which was preaching every other Sunday, and Sunday School and Training Union every Sunday. Even then, two churches couldn't support a full-time minister. Apparently that was the case dating from the settlement period.

 

[Adam56]

Pastor Steven Anderson started being a Pastor at just 24 and he’s one of the most famous Baptist pastors out there.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I agree that it's valuable to have secular work experience, that it helps one relate better to one's congregation. But if we're asking for 10+ years of secular work... You graduate from college at 21, then work for 10 years at a secular job, then start seminary at 31, maybe get ordained at 35, and only then start working as a curate somewhere. That's a pretty slow path. It can be a good path, but alternatively I could see someone feeling a call when they're much younger, in their teens or 20s, and it seems discouraging to tell them that they have to wait 15 or 20 years.

 

[RootedWithGod]

Myself I have turned to more ministry work then considering a pastoral position for income as job.
But I am also much older now and may be why.

I have known both young and older pastors. I think at times if educated the quick mind of youth in batter with these new
attacks we have to deal with. Can be a formattable foe towards evil.
I think it can be easier to have knowledge when older. But I think the older a pastor is as well the easiest to get complacent with thing that are just as they always are. Youth seems easier to just have that fire to move ahead and motivate.
I am not saying older pastors are not valuable.
But when it comes to outside church work, its harder to give up what you have done so long and switch.
Over having youth that allows secular options from just shear energy.
Being 61, it would be hard for me to entertain finding employment in that way. And todays world does not look at age and experience as well as knowledge as meaningful. At least not as much as they used to.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Just sitting back reading. I remember when, at least locally, ministers were with their secular work like Paul was with tentmaking. This was also when churches shared a minister (local Methodist churches still do/did). At some point in my lifetime, full-time ministers became the norm, so much so that when one felt called to do as Paul did, he was looked at as an oddity among his peers.

Not being a minister, I supposes there's pros and cons about full time ministry or keeping a secular profession. Just know that there was a change locally in my lifetime.

At least with the way church tends to be structured these days, I don't think it's really reasonable to expect someone to hold down a full-time job on top of leading a congregation - at least not one any larger than a couple dozen people. The sermon prep alone is a solid part-time job, and if you expect this person to handle some of the church administration as well as having a family and being a reasonably healthy, balanced person - that's quite a lot.

I do think there are potential gains to be had in rethinking how church is structured (I have my own complaints about it unrelated to this); perhaps that could make this more viable.

 

[Tuur]

At least with the way church tends to be structured these days, I don't think it's really reasonable to expect someone to hold down a full-time job on top of leading a congregation - at least not one any larger than a couple dozen people. The sermon prep alone is a solid part-time job, and if you expect this person to handle some of the church administration as well as having a family and being a reasonably healthy, balanced person - that's quite a lot.

I do think there are potential gains to be had in rethinking how church is structured (I have my own complaints about it unrelated to this); perhaps that could make this more viable.

Not arguing yea or nay; will only observe the arguments I recall for full-time pastor was various "side duties" other than preaching. Things like visiting members in the hospital. It might be a denominational thing, but administrative duties are delegated to church officers.

I do know that when a particular minister had part ownership in a hardware store, some members may have gotten their noses out of joint about it, going by how the preacher announced it (and no, it wasn't an advertisement). That struck me odd as it had nothing to do with church funds or conflict of interest.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not arguing yea or nay; will only observe the arguments I recall for full-time pastor was various "side duties" other than preaching. Things like visiting members in the hospital. It might be a denominational thing, but administrative duties are delegated to church officers.

Yeah, it seems like having a teaching-only pastor is most viable in tiny churches without much Other Stuff and huge churches with enough infrastructure to handle the Other Stuff. I come mainly out of small-mid Baptist churches where there’s plenty of work to do and not enough reliable help to do it.

I do know that when a particular minister had part ownership in a hardware store, some members may have gotten their noses out of joint about it, going by how the preacher announced it (and no, it wasn't an advertisement). That struck me odd as it had nothing to do with church funds or conflict of interest.

People do like to be meddlesome. My qualms are purely pragmatic; I know how easy it is to burnout.

 

[Paidiske]

I do think there are potential gains to be had in rethinking how church is structured (I have my own complaints about it unrelated to this); perhaps that could make this more viable.

My personal view is gradually leaning more and more towards the view that ministry teams would make much more sense than a single minister model. Hypothetically, a ministry team of (say) two half-time pastors, could be much more effective than one full time person. And that principle could extend to other, more creative and flexible arrangements.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think academic credentialism actually helps Christians. I think it reduces the flexibility of the Church's in missions to a culture that is post-Christian. It can also become a source of spiritual pride, arrogance, and hubris.

Case in point, the Rev. Lilian Daniel in my own denomination. A decade or so ago, she wrote about a book that was snarky about "spiritual but not religious" folks, and she seemed to almost gloat about her academic credentials, especially the fact she sacrificed her time to get a degree from Yale, just so she could serve her religious community. As if any of that kind of sacrifice matters to somebody that's "spiritual but not religious". Some guy that communes with nature on a Sunday morning jog isn't going to give a flying fig that the Rev. Daniel spent years in school to get a M.Div. from Yale, it just has no purchase and is remarkably tone deaf.

 

[Paidiske]

While I'd agree about credentialism, I think a refusal to have any academic credentials, or to value them at all, is incredibly dangerous.

 

[iluvatar5150]

While I'd agree about credentialism, I think a refusal to have any academic credentials, or to value them at all, is incredibly dangerous.

Yeah, I grew up in churches where the average education level was on the left side of the bell curve and the amount of wacky stuff that was accepted as normal was… not good.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, I grew up in churches where the average education level was on the left side of the bell curve and the amount of wacky stuff that was accepted as normal was… not good.

And I've been to churches where everybody was educated more than the general population. Modern education has little to do with whether one is a human being worth spending time around.

The Quakers have survived hundreds of years and they don't traditionally have clergy at all.

 

[Paidiske]

Modern education has little to do with whether one is a human being worth spending time around.

The Quakers have survived hundreds of years and they don't traditionally have clergy at all.

And in a way, I'd say having no clergy is safer than having ignorant clergy. My concern is about people who are so lacking in basic knowledge (especially around matters like abuse and trauma) that they can be really harmful despite the best of intentions.

 

[FireDragon76]

And in a way, I'd say having no clergy is safer than having ignorant clergy. My concern is about people who are so lacking in basic knowledge (especially around matters like abuse and trauma) that they can be really harmful despite the best of intentions.

Doesn't that reflect more on power structures in particular religions, than the idea that clergy must be university educated per se?