50 Years of Burnout Studies: What has Changed in Clergy Wellbeing?

THRIVING TOGETHER BLOG INTRO

For many years, I have shared both the pain and joys of those who work with churches. Like many of you, I have often wondered if there are better ways to thrive together and make a missional impact on our world. It’s not about trying harder; it’s about doing different things in new ways. This involves interrupting our routines and reflecting on our practices.

As a pastoral supervisor, trainer, lecturer, and consultant for churches and non-profits, I strive to provide valuable insights. I hope my posts serve as refreshing water for those planted in churches and leading denominations so we can thrive together.

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments. Or you can reach out to me through my website: www.ianduncum.com.au.

50 Years of Burnout Studies: What has Changed in Clergy Wellbeing?

Over the past fifty years, clergy wellbeing has moved from being a largely unspoken concern to a well‑researched field that is reshaping denominational policies, supervisory practices and congregational expectations.¹ In the earlier decades, “stress” and “burnout” were treated as individual spiritual or moral failures; more recent work frames them as complex outcomes of theological assumptions, organisational structures and psychosocial hazards.¹ This overview traces that trajectory and highlights key research phases and ecclesial responses.

Early awareness (1970s–1990s): stress and burnout emerge

From the 1970s, broader occupational stress and burnout research (for example, Maslach’s work on emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation) began to inform pastoral care literature, but clergy were only rarely examined as a distinct occupational group.¹ Pastoral authors and counsellors drew on this secular literature to describe ministers who were exhausted, disillusioned and questioning their call, yet most accounts were anecdotal or small‑scale.¹ By the 1980s–1990s, emerging empirical and pastoral work started to identify unique stressors for ministers: role overload, family visibility in the congregation, unrealistic expectations of perfection, constant availability and the emotional toll of conflict.²

In this period, denominational responses tended to be informal and uneven. Occasional retreats were offered to some clergy, sabbaticals were granted to a minority, and spiritual direction or mentoring was available in certain dioceses or networks, but there was little systematic language of “clergy wellbeing” or “psychological safety.”¹ The implicit message was that resilient pastors coped through personal spirituality and hard work, rather than through structural support or shared responsibility.¹

Consolidation of research (2000s): burnout as a defined problem

The early 2000s saw the first larger studies that explicitly identified burnout as a significant factor in clergy attrition. One often‑cited survey of ministers who had left parish roles reported that burnout was among the top reasons for leaving, with around 14 percent naming burnout as their primary reason.³ Comparison studies between pastors and other helping professions showed that clergy typically experience moderate levels of burnout, shaped by role overload, ambiguous expectations, administrative demands, criticism and emotional isolation.⁴ At the same time, many reported high levels of intrinsic job satisfaction and sense of calling, setting up a paradox of being both energised and depleted.⁴

Practical theology and psychology of religion began to generate more focused quantitative work on clergy stress, depression, resilience and spiritual wellbeing, often using or adapting the Maslach Burnout Inventory and related measures.⁵ These studies highlighted that psychological distress among clergy could not be explained simply by lack of faith or personal weakness; instead, it correlated with workload, conflict, isolation and limited control over one’s work.⁵

Denominational responses in this phase

In response to this growing body of evidence, some mainline denominations introduced or expanded pastoral counselling services, Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) and more structured sabbatical policies, though uptake and access remained uneven.¹ Clergy conferences and in‑service training increasingly included sessions on stress management, boundaries, self‑care and work–family balance, but these were often framed as matters of individual skill and discipline rather than as prompts for systemic reform.¹ Congregations, for their part, were largely encouraged to “support their pastor” through prayer and appreciation, with less explicit attention to concrete structural changes in expectations or workload.¹

Diversification and global studies (2010s): wellbeing as a field

The 2010s marked a turning point as research diversified across traditions (Evangelical, Mainline, Catholic, Orthodox and Pentecostal) and across countries. Studies began to explore work–family conflict, psychological distress, spiritual wellbeing, job satisfaction and flourishing among clergy using more rigorous designs and larger samples.⁵ Researchers identified clusters of stressors, including intense spiritual care demands, family concerns, poor control over schedule, managerial overload, absence of mentors and difficult relationships with lay leaders.²

Comparative work with other helping professions showed that clergy are vulnerable to similar burnout dynamics as teachers, nurses and social workers, but that their experience is shaped by distinctive spiritual and vocational dimensions.⁴ These include strong calling narratives, sacrificial expectations and the perception of ministry as sacred work that must not be abandoned lightly.⁴ Some studies noted that conservative belief, clear vocational identity and disciplined spiritual practices could be protective for work‑related psychological wellbeing, even in demanding contexts.⁶

Denominational and congregational responses

During this decade, more denominations developed explicit “clergy wellbeing” language and tools. Typical initiatives included:

·       Introducing or strengthening codes of practice around working hours, rest days and holiday entitlements, sometimes accompanied by guidelines on “reasonable expectations” of clergy availability.¹

·       Promoting or mandating pastoral supervision, coaching and peer support groups for ministers, especially in the early years of ministry.¹

·       Providing congregational resources (articles, sermons, seminars) that emphasised healthy boundaries, sabbath practice and realistic expectations of pastors, though practical implementation varied widely from parish to parish.¹

These developments signalled a shift from treating clergy distress as a private problem to acknowledging it as a shared organisational concern, even if structural reforms lagged behind rhetoric.¹

Systemic focus and large programmes (late 2010s–early 2020s)

The late 2010s and early 2020s saw the emergence of large‑scale, often longitudinal projects that moved beyond measuring burnout to examining broader patterns of flourishing and wellbeing. The Church of England’s Living Ministry project, a ten‑year study of ordained clergy, explored spiritual, relational, physical, mental and material wellbeing across different stages of ministry and life circumstances.⁷ It highlighted, among other things, the importance of supportive collegial networks, fair deployment practices and realistic expectations of growth and change.⁷

Systematic reviews—such as a recent review of burnout among Catholic clergy—brought together multiple studies and showed that burnout is related to age, personality, type of priesthood (diocesan or religious) and social support, not simply to workload volume.⁸ Older clergy sometimes showed lower emotional exhaustion than younger peers, while introversion and perfectionism were associated with higher risk.⁸ Research conducted during and after the Covid‑19 pandemic reported declines in mental wellbeing among clergy, with incumbents often faring worse than assistant ministers due to heightened responsibility, rapid change and accumulated role overload.⁹

Denominational responses

In this phase, several major churches began producing practical wellbeing resources directly informed by research findings. Examples include booklets such as How Clergy Thrive and diocesan guidelines for sustainable ministry, distributed widely to curates and incumbents.⁷ Some dioceses adopted clergy wellbeing covenants or policies that articulate shared responsibility between bishop or denomination, clergy and congregations for healthy patterns of work, rest and accountability.⁷

Trusts and foundations increased funding for retreats, counselling, sabbaticals and continuing education, often explicitly framed as investments in clergy wellbeing and flourishing rather than discretionary extras.⁷ In addition, some jurisdictions experimented with providing confidential psychological services specifically tailored to clergy and their families.⁷

Congregational responses

At the congregational level, changes were more patchy but still notable. In some contexts, parish councils and leadership boards began to integrate wellbeing questions into annual reviews and ministry development plans.¹ Heightened awareness of clergy mental health led some congregations to adjust expectations around availability, to protect time off and to support pastors’ participation in supervision, counselling or spiritual direction.¹ The pandemic experience, with its visibility of clergy strain and rapid innovation, accelerated conversations about sustainable workloads and the emotional impacts of ministry transitions.⁹

Current phase (mid‑2020s): from individual resilience to systemic and theological reform

Recent writing and research argue that the central issue is not only individual resilience but also systemic and theological.¹⁰ Structural factors—such as administrative overload, responsibility for multiple congregations, shrinking financial and volunteer bases, and ambiguous role expectations—are now recognised as significant drivers of stress and burnout.¹⁰ Commentators have warned against treating clergy as quasi‑managers or perpetual change‑agents, suggesting that this intensifies role conflict and erodes the sense of pastoral identity.¹⁰

Some theologians call for a recovery of the “cure of souls” as the core of pastoral ministry, in contrast to a managerial model that measures success primarily by numerical growth or organisational innovation.¹⁰ At the same time, demographic and cultural shifts mean that revitalisation, replanting and church planting remain urgent, especially for younger generations who are often drawn to new expressions of church.¹⁰ This creates a tension between sustainable ministry and higher‑risk pioneering work.¹⁰

Empirical studies in this phase highlight that conservative belief, spiritual practices, supportive relationships and clear vocational identity can be protective for work‑related psychological wellbeing.⁶

·       In the Well‑Being in Ministry study of Australian religious workers, Bickerton and colleagues reported that spiritual resources were negatively related to all aspects of burnout, suggesting that such resources help reduce burnout regardless of job demands.¹¹

·       Bickerton’s thesis and subsequent publications on “spiritual resources as antecedents of work engagement” show that secure attachment to God, a sense of calling and a sense of “collaborating with God” in ministry predict higher work engagement, which in turn lowers intentions to leave and mitigates burnout risk.¹²

·       In interviews and popular summaries, he stresses that clergy often experience both high stress and high job satisfaction, and that an “alive faith” and regular spiritual refuelling are crucial for sustaining wellbeing in high‑demand contexts.¹³

Valerie Ling’s clergy wellbeing research complements this by emphasising psychosocial hazards.

·       Her re‑analysis of a 2023 clergy sample (around 200 clergy) examined leadership behaviours, reflective practices and emotional processing alongside psychosocial hazards, concluding that loneliness, interpersonal stress and conflict are central drivers of clergy exhaustion.¹⁴

·       She argues that spiritual and reflective practices still matter, but that they must be supported by healthier relational and organisational environments—better supervision, clearer expectations and safer workplace cultures—if burnout is to be effectively prevented.¹⁴

Other research and practitioner evidence underline the importance of concrete practices such as taking holidays when they are due, guarding a weekly day off and engaging in external reflective supervision as part of a comprehensive wellbeing strategy.⁹ ¹¹

Emerging denominational responses

In light of these insights, some dioceses and networks are experimenting with team‑based ministry models, clustering parishes and sharing workloads to reduce isolation and impossible portfolios.¹ Theologically, this is often framed as more closely reflecting the plurality of leadership in passages such as Ephesians 4:7–13 and as a way of releasing gifts among both staff and lay leaders.¹ Multisite churches are one growing expression of such a team-based model.

A growing number of dioceses have reduced the expected working week for ministers from six days to five, recognising that a six‑day norm is neither sustainable nor consistent with contemporary understandings of healthy work patterns.¹ Others have not yet made this change, which continues to create disparities in clergy experience.¹ Alongside this, there is increased emphasis on mandatory pastoral supervision, reflective practice and regular spiritual direction as normative, not exceptional, for clergy.¹ Some denominations currently mandate supervision only for the first three to five years of ministry, while others are moving towards a whole‑of‑career expectation, consistent (although 50 years behind) with practices in other people helping professions such as counselling and psychology.¹ Other denominations are lagging in implimenting supervision in spite of research amongst clergy and non-clergy indicating its many benefits.

Strategic documents, diocesan reviews and governance reforms now more often include a “clergy wellbeing” lens, asking how parish structures, reporting requirements and change processes impact pastoral health.⁷ However, many congregations still have weak HR practices and minimal policy frameworks for supporting staff.¹ A minority of denominations apply Fair Work–style provisions to ministers, but many resist this, arguing that clergy are not employees in a conventional sense, which complicates attempts to standardise working conditions and protections.¹

Emerging congregational practices

At the congregational level, some leadership teams are adopting mutual covenants that spell out expectations of clergy rest, holidays, availability and boundaries, making explicit what has often been left to assumption.¹ Lay leaders are increasingly encouraged to share ministry—in visiting, governance, pastoral care and leadership—so that the pastor is not the default “catch‑all” for every task.¹ In some contexts, conversations about pastoral transitions and appointments now include explicit discussion of wellbeing, family impact and sustainable expectations, which are no longer treated as signs of weakness or lack of commitment.¹

Overall trajectory

Taken together, the history of clergy wellbeing research and response can be sketched in four broad phases:

1.      1970s–1990s – Stress and burnout language appears; clergy are recognised as vulnerable, but responses are mostly ad hoc, informal and focused on the individual.¹

2.     2000s – Larger studies identify burnout as a significant contributor to clergy attrition; denominations begin to name the problem and develop limited support structures.³ ⁵

3.     2010s – Research broadens to wellbeing, resilience and flourishing; supervision, coaching and wellbeing training become more common, though implementation remains uneven.² ⁵

4.     2020s – Longitudinal and systematic studies (e.g., Living Ministry, Catholic reviews, Covid‑era research) and theological reflection push the conversation towards systemic and theological reform, not just self‑care.⁷ ⁸ ¹⁰

The overall direction of travel is clear: the narrative has shifted from viewing clergy burnout as a personal deficiency to recognising it as a shared responsibility involving denominational structures, congregational expectations and the church’s own theology and practice of ministry.¹ ¹⁰

Footnotes

1.      “Great Expectations, Sobering Realities: Findings from a new study on clergy burnout,” Alban Institute.

2.     “Understanding Burnout and Pastoral Burnout: Practical Principles and Implications for Pastoral Ministries,” Campbellsville Review.

3.     “Clergy Burnout: A Comparison Study with Other Helping Professions,” Duke Clergy Health Initiative (earlier study).

4.     “Clergy Burnout: A Comparison Study with Other Helping Professionals,” updated web edition, Duke Clergy Health Initiative.

5.      Doctoral work on clergy burnout and practical theology, Asbury Theological Seminary dissertation.

6.     “Conservative Belief and Psychological Well‑Being Among Clergy,” recent quantitative study.

7.      Church of England, “Living Ministry” project and How Clergy Thrive resources.

8.     “Occupational Stress and Catholic Priests: A Scoping Review of the Evidence,” systematic review of Catholic clergy burnout.

9.     NCLS Research, “COVID and Church: What Effect Did It Have?” including findings on clergy mental health and wellbeing.

10.   Mark Clavier, “Clergy Burnout and the Cure of Souls,” Substack.

11.    Grant Bickerton et al., Well‑Being in Ministry: Study Overview and Results, Baptist Union of Victoria.

12.   Grant Bickerton, Spiritual Resources as Antecedents of Work Engagement among Australian Religious Workers, Western Sydney University PhD thesis.

13.   “Withered and Watered: Countering Burnout,” The Gospel Coalition Australia; plus interviews in Insights and Effective Serving with Grant Bickerton.

14.   Valerie Ling, “2023 Clergy Wellbeing Research Report,” related commentary and interviews on The Pastor’s Heart.

© 2026 Ian Duncum. All rights reserved. No reproduction without written permission. Rev Dr Ian Duncum is a trained and accredited church consultant with over 20 years of experience with non-profit enterprises and churches across several denominations. This includes denominational leadership in church health, church planting, consultancy training, and adjunct lecturing & research in the tertiary education sector. Ian is formerly the General Manager of AAOS. An accredited minister with a track record of growing churches, Ian trains church consultants, facilitates training for ministers and leaders, and supervises pastors and other leaders. Ian can be contacted at ian@ianduncum.com.au.