There's a lot of truth to this...

[Paidiske]

... and not just in Covid times.

https://www.anglicanjournal.com/ministr ... WELxqvoiok

I've found it almost impossible to have honest conversations about this in churches, though, because the clash of expectations, and problems with boundaries (and, I suspect, a generation gap) make it very difficult to really hear each other and respond well.

 

[PloverWing]

Asking as someone on the other side of the altar rail: What is helpful and supportive for parishioners to do? And what keeps the honest conversations from being able to happen?

I can think of the obvious stuff: Remember that our clergy are human beings with feelings; don't be a jerk; don't sit and sulk about some offense; thank them once in a while; and make sure that lay leaders are carrying our share of the work load. But what else? Can you expand on the clash of expectations and problems with boundaries?

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you are inviting comment, I think the structures within which we expect clergy to function need to be reviewed. We have however such strong traditions that the structures themselves seem to be more important that the folks trying to serve within them. This leaves us in the position that church leaders can be set up to fail. This is clearly happening.

It is tricky because the structures themselves can represent important truths but somewhere the Love and Wisdom of Jesus is lost in the battle.

It is a sad day to see our Christianity buckle under the stresses of this modern age, but then diamonds are formed under heat and pressure so the outcome may be for refined servants to rise to prominence and lead the charge to a better future.

 

[Andrewn]

[The Christian Century published “Whose Problem is Clergy Burnout?”[3] last year. The fact that it was one of the magazine’s most-read articles of 2020 signals something of the range of this problem.]
Perhaps some insensitive people would respond to this by saying to the pastor, "I hope you're feeling better now after taking 1 year of rest because of Covid."

Every person needs to feel that their work is appreciated. This is especially difficult for pastors bc a lot of their work is behind the scene and has no immediate effect. And pastors often fail to explain what they do all week to parishioners.

I attended a church for years and never knew what social activities they had or what missions they supported. This had to partly my problem and partly the pastor's.

Covid restrictions, most likely exacerbated this problem. The pastor is now someone you see every week in a 20 minute video on YouTube.

To be more sensitive to the pastor's needs one needs to understand why they're unhappy. If I'm unhappy in a job, I change jobs. It happens to all of us if we don't get support.

Other than telling the pastor every Sunday that their sermon was superb and sending them birthday cards, what else can parishioners do?

 

[Paidiske]

Asking as someone on the other side of the altar rail: What is helpful and supportive for parishioners to do? And what keeps the honest conversations from being able to happen?

I can think of the obvious stuff: Remember that our clergy are human beings with feelings; don't be a jerk; don't sit and sulk about some offense; thank them once in a while; and make sure that lay leaders are carrying our share of the work load. But what else? Can you expand on the clash of expectations and problems with boundaries?

Good questions!

I think the most helpful and supportive thing is just to realise that this stuff needs to be talked about. I had a parishioner last week say to me, "You know, I was in a conversation about workplace safety this week, and they were talking about burnout, and it made me think I should ask you what we can do to support you better." Even though that conversation didn't immediately lead to something being changed, I could have wept with gratitude that someone a) recognised and b) cared that this might be an issue. And we have started and can continue a conversation about where the gaps are in the parish's life now and how people might be equipped to step into them.

What keeps the honest conversations from happening? There's the million-dollar question. I think, for example, of something that happened in my last parish. When I started there, there was someone who volunteered admin support in the office two mornings a week. She was brilliant; not just administratively but in terms of pastoral contact and communication and just generally keeping all sorts of things on track. But after I'd been there a while, for very valid and fair reasons, she decided it was time to stop doing that, and there was no one who wanted to take it on. And when I tried to talk to people in the parish about what that meant - I couldn't do everything I had been doing and everything she had been doing, something would have to give, how might we rearrange things or what might we let go, or whatever - it was an absolute disaster. I had people accusing me of being lazy, at least one person yelling at me about how dare I make it sound like the parish wasn't supporting me, all sorts of stuff. I can only guess at the reasons for that reaction - anxiety? Grief for the "glory days" of the parish where this wouldn't have been an issue because we had paid admin staff? Lack of realisation of what I actually did with my time? But it left me bruised and hesitant to try again to deal with that sort of thing.

The clash of expectations thing is something I'm still unpacking as I go, but I find, for example, that this sort of thing is extremely common. Someone will have a short hospital stay and no one will tell me. Days later, all her friends are wittering about how "the vicar didn't visit." I'm not a mind reader, folks! I will gladly visit if someone will just tell me. But I think there has been a shift from a time when tighter-knit community meant that people "just knew" of a lot of those sorts of issues. I really resonated with the paragraph in the article about pastoral care being a two-way street; if I know of a need, I'll do my best to meet it, but if you have a need it helps if you actually do something to tell me.

I also think that ministry has changed enormously both with the level of technological change in the last generation, and with the level of compliance burden. I wasn't trained in college on how to do digital marketing, for example, but I administrate the parish's Facebook page and can't get anyone else to take it on; but then that that kind of thing is real work that takes time might not be recognised. And don't get me started on the amount of time and energy that goes into legal compliance - everything from child safety to copyright to food safety and on and on it goes - that didn't exist years ago. But people are happy to leave it to the vicar, who often hasn't been trained for it (me spending days trying to work out how to understand and apply the secular Privacy Act with regard to parish publications is just migraine-inducing) and has no real support in it. Or, for another example, our local government is making some grants available for particular purposes. I have no particular experience or skill in grant application writing and asked for volunteers to help. Two different people have told me they have that experience and skill, but they don't want to do it. So, that leaves me to muddle through on my own, and it probably won't happen because it won't make it to the top of my to-do list by the due date.

And boundaries! For example, I have one day off a week. Because of the fluid nature of ministry, it's not unusual for things to intrude on that day off, so I keep a running record of time worked and when necessary take a day in lieu. Generally speaking this would be seen as uncontroversial, but I have had parish wardens asking me to account for how I've spent that time, insisting that some things are not validly part of my work (eg. "I go to synod as a lay person and it's not my job, so time spent at synod shouldn't be counted as part of your work hours" was an absolute classic), that sort of thing. Or - this one was particularly special - once a year the wardens are supposed to do a maintenance check on the house. One year, it so happened that this occurred on a day when I had been literally sick in bed for a week and the house was very untidy, and the wardens complained to the archdeacon about my housekeeping and got him to come out and do an inspection.

Anyway, clearly I could go on and on... but I don't know if that begins to answer your question.

Perhaps some insensitive people would respond to this by saying to the pastor, "I hope you're feeling better now after taking 1 year of rest because of Covid."

I hope you hear the sound of hollow laughter from clergy everywhere...

To be more sensitive to the pastor's needs one needs to understand why they're unhappy. ...

Other than telling the pastor every Sunday that their sermon was superb and sending them birthday cards, what else can parishioners do?

I love being a parish priest. I love my work, I love the people, and I love seeing God at work in the life of a community. On the whole I am happy in my work, despite the stress sometimes. But I simply cannot do everything. The admin and communications, the compliance, the pastoral care, the teaching, the liturgical leadership, the strategic leadership, the community outreach, staying grounded in prayer and attending to ongoing personal and professional development... there could be two of me and we'd both have plenty to do. One of me can't do it all and do it well.

The single most valuable thing any parishioner could do would be to come to me and say, "I'd love to work out how to use my gifts more/better in the parish, can you help me figure out how to do that?" Then I can encourage and equip you to take your place in parish life - whatever that might be - and we can work towards being a community in which everyone's gifts are valued and used and everyone makes a needed contribution.

And I realise that parishioners have lives and not everyone is in a place to do that, and that's fine. But if even a fraction of people did, it would make a real difference!

 

[Andrewn]

The single most valuable thing any parishioner could do would be to come to me and say, "I'd love to work out how to use my gifts more/better in the parish, can you help me figure out how to do that?" Then I can encourage and equip you to take your place in parish life - whatever that might be - and we can work towards being a community in which everyone's gifts are valued and used and everyone makes a needed contribution.

Thank you so much for explaining some of the pressures facing pastors. The advice you give in the quoted paragraph is quite valuable and I will try to do this.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good questions!

I love being a parish priest. I love my work, I love the people, and I love seeing God at work in the life of a community. On the whole I am happy in my work, despite the stress sometimes. But I simply cannot do everything. The admin and communications, the compliance, the pastoral care, the teaching, the liturgical leadership, the strategic leadership, the community outreach, staying grounded in prayer and attending to ongoing personal and professional development... there could be two of me and we'd both have plenty to do. One of me can't do it all and do it well.

Hypothetically, I would rather be a monk, but I don’t mind the work, and my conscience precludes abandoning people.

The single most valuable thing any parishioner could do would be to come to me and say, "I'd love to work out how to use my gifts more/better in the parish, can you help me figure out how to do that?" Then I can encourage and equip you to take your place in parish life - whatever that might be - and we can work towards being a community in which everyone's gifts are valued and used and everyone makes a needed contribution.

And I realise that parishioners have lives and not everyone is in a place to do that, and that's fine. But if even a fraction of people did, it would make a real difference!

Indeed; when people come forward and ask how they can help, it is a blessing. I have in the past asked them to do that, making it clear that I desired not their money, but their time, and this has actually worked. But with a different set of people, I could see it causing grumbling and an awkward silence.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The responses so far, pertain to managing ones activities within the present structures.

Is questioning the structures that leave church leaders vulnerable to excessive stress, in the too hard basket?

 

[The Liturgist]

The responses so far, pertain to managing ones activities within the present structures.

Is questioning the structures that leave church leaders vulnerable to excessive stress, in the too hard basket?

No, its in the impossible basket, because church leadership has always been a job so challenging that it can only be performed with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. For proof, read Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

 

[Paidiske]

Hypothetically, I would rather be a monk, but I don’t mind the work, and my conscience precludes abandoning people.

I considered monastic life, but concluded that I am not obedient enough. I prefer the relative freedom I have as a secular priest. (I have known a few nun-priests, and I could perhaps see myself retiring into a community should my husband die before me, but for this phase of my life and ministry it's enough to be an associate of a community).

The responses so far, pertain to managing ones activities within the present structures.

Is questioning the structures that leave church leaders vulnerable to excessive stress, in the too hard basket?

Yes and no. In some ways I'm open to questioning church structures, and particularly the balance between what happens at a congregational level and what happens at a diocesan level (more centralised support from the dioceses could go an awful long way).

But I'm not really keen on the idea of revolutionising those structures. On the whole, I see them as time-tested, and flexible enough to adapt to different contexts. And in the end, I'm comfortable in ministry as an Anglican in part because our structures provide for a relatively high level of accountability and discipline, and I value that.

Of course, it depends which structures we want to blame for the current situation. I'm not sure it's a matter of "structures" so much as culture and attitudes.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I considered monastic life, but concluded that I am not obedient enough. I prefer the relative freedom I have as a secular priest. (I have known a few nun-priests, and I could perhaps see myself retiring into a community should my husband die before me, but for this phase of my life and ministry it's enough to be an associate of a community).



Yes and no. In some ways I'm open to questioning church structures, and particularly the balance between what happens at a congregational level and what happens at a diocesan level (more centralised support from the dioceses could go an awful long way).

But I'm not really keen on the idea of revolutionising those structures. On the whole, I see them as time-tested, and flexible enough to adapt to different contexts. And in the end, I'm comfortable in ministry as an Anglican in part because our structures provide for a relatively high level of accountability and discipline, and I value that.

Of course, it depends which structures we want to blame for the current situation. I'm not sure it's a matter of "structures" so much as culture and attitudes.

Yes I appreciate your response. I think there is room for more plural leadership - in our central city church we have three ordained servants that work together and share the load. This also opens up close accountability.

 

[Paidiske]

There is definitely room for more team ministry. I've worked in team ministries and find that it's great to have that support and complementarity of gifts, skills, experience etc. But that can happen within our existing structures.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes and it needs to...

How much of the stress expressed so far could be alleviated by joint ministry?

 

[Paidiske]

How much of the stress expressed so far could be alleviated by joint ministry?

Some. But even so, expanding or amalgamating paid ministry roles can only be part of the answer (by amalgamating I mean, for example, putting several parishes together and having their clergy work as a team). The reality is that the funds won't support paying for everything to be done; we need to build a culture in which each lay person also understands that their gifts and skills have a place as well.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Some. But even so, expanding or amalgamating paid ministry roles can only be part of the answer (by amalgamating I mean, for example, putting several parishes together and having their clergy work as a team). The reality is that the funds won't support paying for everything to be done; we need to build a culture in which each lay person also understands that their gifts and skills have a place as well.

This may be easier to achieve if the leaders were not paid in the usual sense and depended on the collective support from the congregation. In this culture all servants would be on the same plane and working together.

 

[Paidiske]

This may be easier to achieve if the leaders were not paid in the usual sense and depended on the collective support from the congregation.

No. Far too open to bullying and abuse, in all sorts of ways. Who wants to add to the listed stresses, that if - for example - you decide to tackle an issue in the congregation, you run the risk of not being paid that month because people have decided to punish you for it? Or the reverse set of issues; that capable and gifted ministers are only willing to work with wealthy congregations who reward them the best?

Being paid a regular, agreed stipend is one of the things which makes a lifetime of ministry even possible. Take that away and you'd be putting ministers in an even more impossible situation, and hobbling the church.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No. Far too open to bullying and abuse, in all sorts of ways. Who wants to add to the listed stresses, that if - for example - you decide to tackle an issue in the congregation, you run the risk of not being paid that month because people have decided to punish you for it? Or the reverse set of issues; that capable and gifted ministers are only willing to work with wealthy congregations who reward them the best?

Being paid a regular, agreed stipend is one of the things which makes a lifetime of ministry even possible. Take that away and you'd be putting ministers in an even more impossible situation, and hobbling the church.

Mmmm... well the church in Acts didn't seem to have the issues you describe...

I think they sorted out the attitudes instead of having a mess on their hands...

Then again the church then was more a private fellowship rather than an open door for all...

 

[Paidiske]

Mmmm... well the church in Acts didn't seem to have the issues you describe...

The early church had plenty of issues, some of which we glimpse through their correspondence.

But we are not the early church. We don't live in that social context; the world has changed, the church has changed, and ministry today is not what ministry was then. I see that as simple fact rather than a problem or issue. Our call is to be faithful in our context.

I find it really difficult when people seem to think that the best way to deal with problems today is to make life even more precarious and difficult for people in ministry. I mean, how is it going to improve things, to say to ministers, we will still expect everything of you that we do now, but it'll be up to your congregation whether they want to pay you enough to live on?

I mean, nobody goes into ministry to get rich, but it's important to know that your family's going to have food on the table.

And I just noticed your comment about being on "the same plane." Being paid a stipend doesn't put you on a different plane to the congregation; after all, they all get paid for their work, and most of them get paid more than we do!

 

[The Liturgist]

Mmmm... well the church in Acts didn't seem to have the issues you describe...

I think they sorted out the attitudes instead of having a mess on their hands...

Then again the church then was more a private fellowship rather than an open door for all...

Actually, in this point you are grossly mistaken. If you think the early church as depicted in Acts was some sort of ecclesiological paradise, you should consider the following:

• The Apostles were routinely martyred; only St. John survived to die of natural causes, and he was tortured. St. Ignatius the bishop of Antioch, a disciple of St. John, was fed to lions. St. Thomas the Apostle was impaled by a spear thrown at him by an outraged Raja in Kerala, India (where Christianity has existed since 51 AD, and the world’s oldest surviving church building is there; this will shock some people, but the fact of the matter is that Kerala was a logical destination for St. Thomas, who previously set up congregations in Edessa, Nineveh and Seleucia-Cstesiphon, as Kerala was home to an Aramaic speaking Jewish community. St. Bartholomew was flayed (I forget who did it, but I suspect the Persians/Sassanians, as they had a reputation for doing that, and famously skinned Mani, the syncretic Gnostic heretic to whose cult St. Augustine once belonged, before being persuaded to convert to Christianity by St. Ambrose of Milan).
• There was frequently an extreme lack of unity; the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was convened because of a dispute over whether or not gentiles joining the church required circumcision. St. Paul writes in one of his epistles that he “withstood Peter to his face.”
• The Apostles and their successors, the Bishops and Presbyters, were paid. Indeed I recall St. Paul mentioning this, and early books of church order mandated it, on the basis that clergy ought not to be concerned with worldly affairs, and also according to precedent, for the Kohanim and Levites “lived by the altar,” being sustained by the sacrifices of first fruits and portions of the meat from animals sacrificed for various reasons, and it was the duty of the 11 other tribes to support Levi, especially the priests, and especially when the priests were actively serving in the Temple.
• Each of the Apostles was responsible for a large number of congregations in geographically massive areas, in some cases far larger than the metropolitan provinces, archdioceses, eparchies, districts, synods, conferences, deaneries and other modern units of church administration (consider the distance from Judea through Syria to Iraq, and from Iraq to Southern India, and that was the apostolate of St. Thomas; likewise consider the distance from Jerusalem to Antioch, Antioch to Ephesus, Ephesus to Thessalonika, Thessalonika to Macedonia, Macedonia to Athens, Athens to Corinth, and Corinth to Rome, and that was roughly the area in which St. Paul evangelized to the gentiles and St. Peter evangelized

 

[Carl Emerson]

Actually, in this point you are grossly mistaken. If you think the early church as depicted in Acts was some sort of ecclesiological paradise, you should consider the following:

• The Apostles were routinely martyred; only St. John survived to die of natural causes, and he was tortured. St. Ignatius the bishop of Antioch, a disciple of St. John, was fed to lions. St. Thomas the Apostle was impaled by a spear thrown at him by an outraged Raja in Kerala, India (where Christianity has existed since 51 AD, and the world’s oldest surviving church building is there; this will shock some people, but the fact of the matter is that Kerala was a logical destination for St. Thomas, who previously set up congregations in Edessa, Nineveh and Seleucia-Cstesiphon, as Kerala was home to an Aramaic speaking Jewish community. St. Bartholomew was flayed (I forget who did it, but I suspect the Persians/Sassanians, as they had a reputation for doing that, and famously skinned Mani, the syncretic Gnostic heretic to whose cult St. Augustine once belonged, before being persuaded to convert to Christianity by St. Ambrose of Milan).
• There was frequently an extreme lack of unity; the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was convened because of a dispute over whether or not gentiles joining the church required circumcision. St. Paul writes in one of his epistles that he “withstood Peter to his face.”
• The Apostles and their successors, the Bishops and Presbyters, were paid. Indeed I recall St. Paul mentioning this, and early books of church order mandated it, on the basis that clergy ought not to be concerned with worldly affairs, and also according to precedent, for the Kohanim and Levites “lived by the altar,” being sustained by the sacrifices of first fruits and portions of the meat from animals sacrificed for various reasons, and it was the duty of the 11 other tribes to support Levi, especially the priests, and especially when the priests were actively serving in the Temple.
• Each of the Apostles was responsible for a large number of congregations in geographically massive areas, in some cases far larger than the metropolitan provinces, archdioceses, eparchies, districts, synods, conferences, deaneries and other modern units of church administration (consider the distance from Judea through Syria to Iraq, and from Iraq to Southern India, and that was the apostolate of St. Thomas; likewise consider the distance from Jerusalem to Antioch, Antioch to Ephesus, Ephesus to Thessalonika, Thessalonika to Macedonia, Macedonia to Athens, Athens to Corinth, and Corinth to Rome, and that was roughly the area in which St. Paul evangelized to the gentiles and St. Peter evangelized

Well when He shakes your building in response to your approach to fellowship, you will have my ear. I the mean time I will take it that there are principles in Acts to be heeded.