The Clergy Resilience Model: A Tool for Supporting Clergy Well-being

Abstract

The Clergy Resilience Model is a theoretical framework with a systemic perspective that is useful to denominations, individual clerics, and therapists in supporting clergy resilience and well-being. This article describes the development of this framework specific to clergy. As there is limited literature on the nature of clergy resilience or the specific variables that enable clergy to positively adapt to the challenges and adversity they face, the Clergy Resilience Model provides a useful framework to begin to understand clergy resilience as a dynamic process. The Clergy Resilience Model highlights the balance between adversity clergy encounter and supportive resources they have access to, as well as the overarching influence of key spiritual factors on clergy resilience. The Clergy Resilience Model was developed as a tool that may help clergy resilience both on an individual and systemic level by creating awareness of critical factors.

Keywords

clergy resilience well-being

Resilience theory has been applied to clergy (Meek et al., 2003) and to the development of programs to enhance clergy resilience (Abernethy et al., 2016). However, there is limited published human research directly involving clergy to gain knowledge of the specific variables that impact clergy resilience or a theoretical model specific to the profession. Instead, resilience principles have been extended from overall resilience research and its application to other professions, without knowing how this may be relevant or irrelevant to clergy resilience.

Resilience is defined in this article as a process that is developmental and arises from a combination of individual and systemic variables and cognitive appraisal, and results in positive adaptation to adversity and stress. The positive psychology perspective of resilience seeks to understand positive adaptation to adversity, rather than its negative outcomes. Since clergy are at risk of experiencing the negative impacts of role-related stress and adversity, especially burnout, knowledge of the nature of clergy resilience and a theoretical model to understand it may provide valuable intelligence to mitigate these impacts.

Clergy Resilience

Resilience is understood as an ordinary human adaptive process, rather than an unusual phenomenon experienced by a select few (Masten, 2001). Resilience research consists of two different streams, one considering resilience as a personality trait and another considering resilience as a contextual process (Smith-Osborne & Bolton, 2013). Resilience as a personality trait is a reputable stream of resilience research (Smith-Osborne & Bolton, 2013); however, for the purpose of this article, I align with the stream of research that looks at resilience as a process due to my systemic perspective that considers the impact of individuals, families, communities, workplaces, and policies on resilience (Doney, 2013).

Resilience varies across the life span as it is a process of navigating, adapting to, or handling adversity through the available individual, relational, and contextual resources that allow for positive adaptation (Windle, 2011). This process view of resilience recognizes that accessibility or inaccessibility to resources affect a person’s capacity for adaptation (Windle, 2011). In addition to identifying resilience as a process impacted by multiple variables, it is also developmental, as it changes over time. Gu and Day (2007) claimed that “the nature of resilience is determined by the interaction between the internal assets of the individual and the external environments in which the individual lives and grows (or does not grow)” (p. 1314). The Clergy Resilience Model defines resilience as a developmental process that arises from a combination of individual, relational, and contextual variables, including cognitive appraisal, and results in positive adaptation to adversity and stress (Fletcher & Sarka, 2011; Gu & Day, 2007; Masten, 2001; Windle, 2011).

Adversity experienced by clergy

Clergy face adversity similar to other human service providers, as well as challenges unique to the profession. Clergy adversity and stress has been well documented in the literature (Joynt, 2017) and the problem of burnout has been highlighted, making resilience a worthwhile consideration. There are a range of documented risk factors for clergy burnout. Compassion fatigue, avoidant or accommodating conflict style, high role expectations by self and others (Jackson-Jordan, 2013), a sense of calling to change the world, taking on unreasonable responsibility (Grudem, 2016), limited resources, multiple roles and responsibilities, high expectations, low appreciation and salary, and social isolation (Abernethy et al., 2016) are all risk factors for clergy burnout. These acknowledged risks for clergy burnout highlight the need for greater insight into how clergy positively adapt to the challenges they encounter in their roles.

Expectations of personal and professional perfection uniquely affect clergy. Proeschold-Bell et al. (2015) emphasized the sacred nature of clergy calling. They indicated

This call, or the desire to serve God through ministry, can arise from a specific extraordinary incident or event, years of discernment, religious mentors identifying an individual as a potential leader, or all three. No matter how the call to ministry occurs, it is always sacred . . . when someone gives sacred meaning to something, they will: exert substantial energy and time for it . . . Clergy experience stronger pulls to their work than employees in other professions, and the stakes of perceived failure are higher for clergy than for other employees. (Proeschold-Bell et al., 2015, p. 704)

Furthermore, Case et al. (2020) found that clergy with low mental health had high expectations of themselves and lacked self-acceptance. The sacred nature of the call to ministry can cause high self-expectations which can be adverse for clergy.

Furthermore, intrusive and unrealistic expectations of clergy from others are correlated with burnout (Abernethy et al., 2016). Clergy are expected by others to be skilled in biblical and theological knowledge and to also engage in personal spiritual transformation and exemplify personal spirituality. There is “the sense of a minister having to be a special sort of person, not only in the actual caring and proclaiming work, but in all areas of his or her professional and personal life” (Coate, 1989, p. 87, emphasis original). Furthermore, clergy hold symbolic roles, such as being a parental figure, that hold emotional expectations (Avis, 1992). Role complexity, arising from the multiple roles and responsibilities of clerics, also results in high self-expectations and expectations of others (Abernethy et al., 2016). High expectations from others and self are a unique form of adversity clergy encounter.

Clergy satisfaction

Despite the adversity faced by clergy, there is also great satisfaction found in their work. Clergy find satisfaction in various aspects of their role that are enjoyable, rewarding, and rejuvenating (Malcolm et al., 2019). Aspects that clergy find satisfying include (a) creative initiative, (b) personal spiritual practices, (c) leadership/management practices, (d) pastoral care practices, (e) fostering faith development, (f) vocational calling, (g) social responsibilities, (h) ongoing learning, (i) building work relationships, (j) time and diversity of tasks, (k) community worship and liturgy, and (l) preaching (Malcolm et al., 2019). In addition, Proeschold-Bell et al. (2015) reported clergy experience work satisfaction, as well as satisfaction in their interpersonal relationships, intrapersonal experiences, and in family life. Furthermore, clergy who experienced congregational support reported greater ministry satisfaction (Proeschold-Bell et al., 2015). Despite the stress and adversity experienced in ministry there is also satisfaction.

Aspects of clergy resilience

There is emerging knowledge about clergy resilience. Two significant aspects of clergy resilience include work-life balance and dynamic spirituality (Meek et al., 2003). Meek et al. (2003) also indicated that clergy need support in having a realistic appraisal of circumstances, including sharing of their struggles and reconnecting to their calling to ministry in order for them to be resilient. Overlapping with resilience, Burns et al. (2013) encouraged clergy thriving through the cultivation of their spiritual life; caring for their physical, mental, and emotional health; increasing their emotional and cultural intelligence; prioritizing their marriage and family relationships; and developing skills in leadership and management.

To maintain resilience, Jackson-Jordan (2013) advocated for clergy to focused on self-care, to engage in peer groups, to receive education on resilience, to receive training in conflict management, to develop support for their spiritual life, and to develop supportive relationships. Jackson-Jordan (2013) also recommended congregational education on supporting clergy health as a means to enhance clergy resilience. Proeschold-Bell et al. (2015) recommended social support to promote clergy positive mental health. Interventions to foster resilience target both the personal and professional domains of clergy.

Case et al. (2020) found three factors that distinguished clergy with better mental health from those with low mental health. First, these clergy were intentional about caring for their health. Second, their orientation toward ministry was one of partnership with God in long-term outcomes. Third, these clergy were comfortable setting work–life boundaries (Case et al., 2020). Milstein et al. (2020) found that clergy spiritual well-being was protective against depression, even up to 1 year later.

A pastoral theology approach to resilience by Searby (2015) emphasized that growth can result from adverse experiences and that resources, both spiritual and relational, can help clergy resilience. Searby (2015) highlighted intimacy with God, mentoring relationships, a focus on calling and core values, knowledge of personal strengths and weaknesses, good boundaries, emotional stability, rejection of invalid messages, and acceptance of grace as resources for clergy resilience.

Making meaning is a central aspect of clergy work, as they make meaning of their own experiences and also help make meaning for those they serve. According to Park and Folkman (1997), meaning involves answering the question of why an event occurred and is considered a critical aspect of existence and response to adversity. Congruence between a person’s belief system, referred to as global meaning, and the appraisal of a given situation, referred to as situational meaning, is essential (Park & Folkman, 1997). Distress arises when there is incongruence between situational and global meaning (Park & Folkman, 1997). Global meaning includes beliefs about the benevolence of the world, self-worth, competency, and control (Park & Folkman, 1997). Situational meaning involves primary appraisal of the event’s significance and secondary appraisal of what can be done about the event, such as available coping strategies and resources and expected outcomes (Park & Folkman, 1997).

Park and Folkman (1997) considered success in meaning-making to occur when the situational meaning is altered to fit global meaning or when the global belief system is altered to accommodate the adverse situational event. If the situational and global meaning is not brought into alignment, the discrepancy will cause distress. According to Park and Folkman (1997), “religiousness is an important philosophical orientation that affects their understanding of the world, and that makes reality and suffering understandable and bearable” (p. 121). Religion provides global meaning by providing causal reasons and various coping strategies (Park & Folkman, 1997). Belief systems, especially religious beliefs, tend to be stable and most often, the situational meaning is reappraised, rather than the global belief system changed (Park & Folkman, 1997). Clergy global belief systems are the basis from which situational adversity is appraised. The nature of the clergy’s theological belief system will impact the meaning of adversity, thus influencing clergy resilience.

The spiritual beliefs of clergy affect their resilience, with many beliefs increasing resilience and others potentially decreasing resilience. Beliefs about good and evil, life purpose, and long- and short-term goals provide meaning and possible coping strategies to people of faith (Abernethy et al., 2016; Allain-Chapman, 2012; Forney, 2010; Titus, 2006). A spiritual sense of calling to ministry is a unique part of clergy belief systems and results in interwoven personal, professional, and religious identities (Pargament et al., 2001). Beliefs about calling and this interwoven identity also positively and negatively affect clergy resilience. For example, balanced sense of control involves the paradox of viewing the self as having control over the ministry, rather than being a victim of circumstances, while also acknowledging God’s sovereignty in aspects beyond one’s control (Forney, 2010). Resilience is fueled by self-worth, agency, and a vision of things being better in the future (Allain-Chapman, 2012). The spirutal dimension is a significant aspect of clergy resilience.

Influencing Theoretical Frameworks

Several theoretical frameworks informed the development of an initial framework for understanding resilience and the eventual Clergy Resilience Model. These frameworks were used to provide insight into clergy resilience as a process, including Hill’s (1958) ABC-X model, Meichenbaum’s (2005) stress inoculation theory, Liu et al.’s (2017) Multi-System Model of Resilience, and Richardson’s (2002) Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency. First, Hill’s (1958) historic ABC-X model, which was later modified by Patterson (2002) and then used by Lee (2010) with clergy resilience, provided a valuable framework for consideration. The ABC-X model aligns with Fletcher and Sarka’s (2011) emphasis on the role of appraisal in the process of resilience. The ABC-X model considered the balance of adversity (A-factor) in relation to resources (B-factor), plus the appraisal or meaning made of both adversity and resources (C-factor) influencing the crisis or stress experience (X-factor). The ABC-X model aligned with Masten and Obradovic’s (2006) definition of resilience as “mental processes and behaviour in promoting personal assets and protecting an individual from the potential negative effect of stressors” (p. 14). This definition was supported by a study by Eagle et al. (2019) that highlighted the importance of cognitive appraisal in the perception of social support and recommended interventions for clergy that boost perception of social support, such as cognitive reframing.

The ABC-X model considered the various variables involved in the resilience process, including adversity. As highlighted by Seery and Quinton (2016), it is not possible to understand resilience without understanding the adversity a person is currently facing. For example, a high sense of well-being may not reflect resilience, as two people may have high well-being, but one is due to a lack of adversity, whereas another is due to resilience in response to adversity (Seery & Quinton, 2016). The ABC-X model provides a framework that captures the essential variables of the resilience process.

Second, the stress inoculation theory, which arises from stress management and anxiety treatment, provided valuable theoretical consideration to understand resilience (Seery & Quinton, 2016). Stress inoculation theory considered moderate levels of adversity to activate personal resources, such as social supports, to achieve a sense of mastery (Meichenbaum, 2005). Research suggested a curvilinear relationship between adversity and resilience, where those who experienced moderate adversity had better outcomes than those who experienced low or high adversity (Fletcher & Sarka, 2011). Lifetime adversity seemed to predict resilience, with resilience considered as a function of collective adversity over the life course (Seery & Quinton, 2016). Consideration of this curvilinear relationship between adversity and resilience, over the lifetime is a valuable insight when considering clergy resilience.

Third, Liu et al.’s (2017) Multi-System Model of Resilience (MSMR) also provided useful insights on resilience to inform a theory of clergy resilience. Liu et al. (2017) conceptualized a multilayered approach to supportive resources with three concentric circles. The MSMR begins with the more influential inner circle of core resilience, including individual variables, like demographics, health behaviors, and the body’s response to stress. The next circle is referred to as internal resilience, which includes psychosocial variables that can be acquired through interpersonal sources, such as social competency, coping and appraisal, and hardiness. The final circle is external resilience, such as socioeconomic status and geographic location (Liu et al., 2017). The MSMR viewed resilience as a part of functioning in response to everyday stress and is helpful in viewing clergy resilience as a process arising from multilayered resources.

Finally, Richardson’s (2002) Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency also provided useful understandings on resilience that were used to inform an understanding of clergy resilience. Richardson (2002) considered the impact of adversity and stressors on biopsychosocial–spiritual homeostasis and the disruption and reintegration process. Protective factors are deemed to buffer the effects of adversity affecting homeostasis. Biopsychosocial–spiritual homeostasis is considered to be stable physical, mental, and spiritual adaptation to current circumstances. Richardson (2002) believed there to be four possible outcomes of reintegration following homeostasis disruption, including (a) dysfunctional reintegration, (b) reintegration with loss, (c) reintegration back to homeostasis, or (d) resilient reintegration. However, Richardson (2002) seemed to only consider resilience to be above-average functioning and not a return to near-average functioning, as suggested by Luthar and Cicchetti (2000). Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) considered resilience to be dependent on the adversity faced. Richardson’s (2002) and Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) offer additional insight into the above theories considering the possibility of both reintegration back to homeostasis and resilient reintegration as potential criteria for resilience.

Individually, none of the theories provided a complete framework for understanding clergy resilience. By integrating components of Liu et al. (2017) and Richardson (2002) into Hill’s (1958) original and Patterson’s (2002), a broader model is achieved. Combining Liu et al.’s (2017) multisystem perspective of resources into Patterson’s (2002) B-factor allows for a holistic view of resources. The inclusion of Richardson’s (2002) four categories of reintegration provides a more nuanced view of the adaptive outcome. Meichenbaum’s (2005) stress inoculation perspective highlighted that the balance of A-variables, B-variables, and C-variables is not a simple equation due to the potential curvilinear relationship between adversity and resilience.

Clergy Resilience Model

The Clergy Resilience Model further incorporated categories of adversity and supportive resources specific to clergy as reported by Clarke et al. (2022a, 2022b). Adversity and challenges encountered by clergy included the categories of workload, expectations, isolation, and personal challenges (Clarke et al., 2022b). Resources that were considered by clergy to support their resilience included the categories of spiritual life, relational supports, personal aspects, and organizational practices (Clarke et al., 2022a). These clergy-specific types of adversity were incorporated under A-factor and resources that support resilience were incorporated under B-factor into the framework. Dashed arrows between adversity and resources were added to further illustrate the dynamic influence on each other. This model reflects the unique variables related to clergy resilience and is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Clergy resilience model.

Furthermore, aspects related to the overarching influence of key spiritual factors on clergy resilience (Clarke, 2021; Clarke et al., 2022a) were also incorporated into the global meaning aspect of the model. In considering spiritual life supportive resources, Clarke (2021) considered some aspects of this category to have a higher-level influence on clergy resilience, through the appraisal processes and global meaning. These aspects included theological meaning-making, clear calling, and partnership with God.

The Clergy Resilience Model reflects a process view of resilience in which resilience is a process of interacting parts and a possible outcome. Initially, an event or experience is evaluated by the global meaning system as to whether it is adverse or not. When adversity is encountered, a second part of the resilience process that occurs in is the accessing of resources to buffer and balance the effects of the adversity. Resources are also impacted by the global meaning system, which guides what is deemed as supportive by a cleric. The experience of adversity may result in loss or burnout, rather than resilience, depending on the severity of the adversity and the available resources. Ideally, the outcome of buffering the adverse experience, both through the global meaning system and supportive resources, results in an outcome when a person returns to their baseline of functioning or experiences resilient growth following adversity.

The Clergy Resilience Model also highlights the importance of spiritual meaning in the global appraisal system of the clergy member. Theological beliefs, calling to ministry, and partnership with God impacted how clergy interpreted adversity and how they viewed resources (Clarke, 2021, Clarke et al., 2022a, 2022b). These findings point to an appraisal system that governs the global meaning given to situational events. The theological framework of clerics affects their approach to ministry, influences how they interpret events, and how they respond to adversity (Fallon et al., 2013). This is aligned with Case et al. (2020), who found that the cleric’s orientation to ministry was one of the factors that distinguished clergy with better mental health from those with worse mental health.

Highlighting the influence of global meaning in the Clergy Resilience Model is fitting with Park and Folkman (1997), who indicated that religion provides global meaning by providing causal reasons and various coping strategies. A spiritual framework can provide clergy with guidance on responding to the adversity they face (Fallon et al., 2013; Nouwen, 1989). The global meaning aspect of the Clergy Resilience Model also aligns with Proeschold-Bell et al.’s (2015) view of calling as sacred and therefore exerting more pull on clergy to their work than other professionals.

Impacting beliefs

Beliefs related to ministry calling act as interpretative filters for the experience of adverse events and determine spiritual coping resources, thus influencing the resilience of clergy. The expectation of adversity combined with the awareness of God’s presence in the midst of it is a theological perspective of Christian clergy that enables resilience. A clear calling to ministry was identified as an important aspect of clergy resilience and seemed to be an anchor point for clergy despite adversity (Clarke et al., 2022a). Cleric’s global belief system seem to be significantly influenced by their theology, view of partnership with God, and sense of calling (Clarke et al., 2022a). Consistent with Park and Folkman (1997) the global belief system of clergy seemed to help them make sense of the situational adversity they experience. A strong calling to ministry seemed to affect motivation, hope, and confidence (Clarke, 2021; Clarke et al., 2022a). Clergy’s sense of calling to ministry was also a central part of their belief system and results in interwoven personal, professional, and religious identities (Pargament et al., 2001). Self-expectations, related to the sacred nature of their call to ministry, can cause stress for clergy (Clarke et al., 2022b). If calling to ministry was questioned lead to insecurity and discouragement for some clergy, and it was considered determinantal to their resilience (Clarke et al., 2022b).

Ministering in the sense of partnership with God was identified as a supportive resource and linked to a sense of grace and strength (Clarke et al., 2022a). Clergy may have had a sense that this partnership is about God working through them and this seemed to relieve some of the pressure arising for clergy from ministry workload and expectations (Clarke et al., 2022a, 2022b). Forney (2010) emphasized that when clergy hold a balanced view of their calling, it allows them to view themselves as actively collaborating with God in his purposes, rather than passively standing by helplessly. Case et al. (2020) identified as helpful clergy who viewed ministry as “God’s work” with whom they participated. Furthermore, the intimacy and acceptance from God may also alleviate a sense of isolation.

Furthermore, clerics’ relationships with God and their spiritual practices were also a key resource for clergy (Clarke et al., 2022a). Spiritual life was tied to the global meaning but also a resource that clergy accessed in times of adversity (Clarke, 2021). For clergy, a balanced sense of control involves the paradox of viewing the self as having control over the ministry, rather than being a victim of circumstances, while also acknowledging God’s sovereignty in aspects beyond one’s control (Forney, 2010). For example, prayer was a resource to release things that were beyond a cleric’s control. The use of spiritual resources fits with Titus’s (2006) perspective on spiritual resilience.

In addition to the overarching impact of the global meaning system on clergy resilience, the Clergy Resilience Model also reveals an ongoing balance in resilience. As adversity and resources are in a dynamic relationship, there is a continuous balancing that occurs. Adversity and resources ebb and flow in a cleric’s life, and ongoing evaluation of both of these can benefit clergy. The COVID-19 pandemic was a sharp reminder of how adversity can increase, and resources can decrease, requiring a re-balancing for resilience. The Clergy Resilience Model may provide a useful tool for clergy to evaluate their own adversity-resource balance at any given time. Awareness of this resilience balance may prove beneficial to individual clerics in evaluating both the levels of adversity they are experiencing and the supportive resources accessible to them.

In summary, by incorporating clergy-specific findings to develop the Clergy Resilience Model it allows for a new systemic theory for understanding clergy resilience. First, it incorporates the specific themes of adversity reported by clergy. Second, it integrates the specific themes of systemic resources that clergy consider to support their resilience. Third, it identifies the overarching global meaning system and three crucial apsects that have an overarching influence on clergy resilience. Finally, the Clergy Resilience Model emphasizes a process perspective and the ongoing nature of balance in resilience.

Discussion and Implications

As clergy resilience is a systemic issue, there are a number of key stakeholders who significantly impact it, including clerics themselves, congregations, denominations, and educational institutions. All of these groups can benefit from the Clergy Resilience Model as it provides a useful visual framework for insight into the ongoing and changing process of resilience that clergy experience.

Clerics themselves understandably have a key role in their resilience. It may be helpful for individual clerics to use the model to engage in ongoing self-evaluation of levels of adversity they are experiencing, which resources are present in their life, and how they are experiencing the balance between the two. In times of increased adversity, clergy may benefit from increasing their engagement with supportive resources.

The Clergy Resilience Model highlights the adversity that is characteristically experienced by many clergy. Knowledge of the types of adversity that clergy experience may have a normalizing effect and offer encouragement to an individual cleric that they are not unique or deficient if they are experiencing such things. The model highlights the balancing effect of supportive resources that can act as a counterbalance to the effects of the adversity.

Congregations play a role in clergy resilience, potentially increasing adversity or in being a supportive resource. The Clergy Resilience Model can be used to inform congregations about the balance of resilience and to evaluate themselves for the ways they may be contributing to the negative or positive. For example, critical congregants are a source of stress for clergy, whereas supportive congregations are a resource for clergy resilience. Congregations can contribute to clergy resilience by considering their relational interactions with their clerics and working to reduce criticism and increase encouragement and care.

Denominations can also benefit from the Clergy Resilience Model as it highlights the critical influence they have on a number of areas. First, calling to ministry has an overarching impact on clergy resilience and denominations play a crucial role in screening and confirming ministry-calling through a careful process. Also, denominations can play a critical role in the supportive resource category of organizational practices. For example, denominations can set standards for clergy to engage in resources to support their well-being and resilience, and accountability to these standards. Pre-service training and early ministry are two periods of unique influence on clergy where there seems to be more openness to guidance and more structured accountability. Ministry students might be required to be engaging with a spiritual director or a new cleric be required to have a mentor. However, as clergy develop in their career, it is important for denominations to move to a more flexible approach, but with accountability. This flexible accountability should include expectation for clergy engagement with supportive resources, but not prescribing what resources will work best for any given cleric. An example might be setting a standard of going on a retreat but allowing clerics to deem when, where, and with whom they do such a retreat. Clear standards and accountability for clergy may be necessary to overcome the challenge of workload, which can hinder engagement with resources.

Denominations also have a role in increasing access to resources that clergy find supportive of their resilience. Denominational events and gatherings provide many resources that support clergy resilience, such as peer relationships, skill-specific training, and affirmation of calling and spiritual nourishment. Denominational financial support for services, such as professional counseling, can make this supportive resource available when it might not be financially accessible to an individual. However, barriers to accessing initiatives like this need to be considered. For example, if a denomination has funds available for their clergy to access professional counseling but the cleric must self-disclose the desire for counseling to a denominational leader to access these funds, this may be a barrier. Likewise, ineffective communication about the initiative may be a barrier. Denominations also have a role in helping congregations address unnecessary or unrealistic expectations they have of their clergy, thereby reducing adversity.

Educational institutions can also benefit from Clergy Resilience Model as they have a unique role in clergy resilience due to their influence in the pre-service training of clergy. The Clergy Resilience Model can be an educational model used by schools to provide students with training in the adversity and challenges they will face in ministry. Alongside this, the model can also educate students on supportive resources and require that students develop and engage with some of these. Collaboration between denominations and educational institutions is important concerning two key areas that affect resilience. First, affirming a clear call to ministry would be beneficial before and during training. More hierarchical traditions consider calling before approving someone to begin training and continue to evaluate it during training through collaborating with the educational institution. For less hierarchical traditions or non-denominational schools, the process of affirming calling may be lacking. It may be beneficial for such schools to consider increasing collaboration with their key denominational partners to ensure that a foundation of clear calling begins in pre-service training.

Collaboration between educational institutions and denominations is essential for the ongoing training and development of clergy. It will likely be beneficial for educational institutions to seek increased collaboration with their denominational partners to determine the training needs of modern clergy and evaluate if, how, when, and by whom these are being addressed. Furthermore, it will likely be beneficial for denominations to collaborate to determine when and by whom specific training needs will be met in the ministry span. Beyond pre-service training, educational institutions may be uniquely equipped to support denominations in providing ongoing skill-specific training and lifelong learning to their clerics.

Recommendations for Further Research

Further testing and scrutiny of the theoretical Clergy Resilience Model is needed. This model can be valuable for individual clergy in considering their own resources and also in providing insight to congregations, denominations, and educational institutions, considering how to support clergy resilience. Further inquiry may be useful to determine if the supportive resources identified have generalizable value and might be used to create a useful assessment tool. The importance of clergy’s global meaning system, including theological meaning-making, calling, and partnership with God, on clergy resilience needs further investigation. The Clergy Resilience Model may also have application to other caring professionals, such as teachers and nurses. The general aspects of the model may be adaptable to the unique features of each profession, as has been done with clergy.

The Clergy Resilience Model was developed with a focus on clergy who remain in ministry. However, it does not capture those who leave the profession. It would be valuable to study former clerics who have left ministry to gain a more fulsome understanding of resilience. It is important to consider the Clergy Resilience Model, especially the supportive resource categories as descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

Conclusion

The development of the Clergy Resilience Model provides foundational knowledge about clergy resilience that is valuable for considering how clergy resilience can be supported and nurtured. Clergy face distinctive challenge in their roles related to workload, expectations, isolation, and personal challenges. Clergy also have specific resources that they value to support their resilience related to spiritual life, relational supports, personal aspects, and organizational practices. Spiritual resources were very prominent for clergy, with some, such as calling to ministry, having an overarching effect on their resilience through global meaning. The Clergy Resilience Model is a tool that may help clergy resilience both on individual and systemic levels by creating awareness of the key factors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Keith Walker, Shelley Spurr, Vicki Squires, Paul Newton, and Tracy Trothen who served as advisors in the development of this model and Aaron Smith who provided feedback on this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Margaret Allison Clarke

Author Biography

Margaret Allison Clarke is the Counselling Department Head and an Assistant Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy at Briercrest Seminary. She is a Registered Counselling Therapist (ACTA), Registered Marriage and Family Therapist and Supervisor Mentor (CAMFT), and a Clinical Fellow and Approved Supervisor (AAMFT). In addition to her faculty role, she also has a private practice, Evoke Counselling Services. As a professor, researcher, and therapist she desires to support data informed clergy resilience development through post-secondary training, ongoing professional development, and individual care.

References

Abernethy

A. D.

Grannum

G. D.

Gordon

C. L.

Williamson

Currier

J. M.

(2016). The pastors empowerment program: A resilience education intervention to prevent clergy burnout. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 3(3), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000109

Allain-Chapman

(2012). Resilient pastors: The role of adversity in healing and growth. SPCK.

Avis

(1992). Authority, leadership and conflict in the church. Trinity Press International.

Burns

Chapman

Guthrie

D. C.

(2013). Resilient ministry : What pastors told us about surviving and thriving. IVP Books.

Case

A. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

Huffman

K. F.

Sittser

Wallace

Khatiwoda

Proeschold-Bell

R. J.

(2020). Attitudes and behaviors that differentiate clergy with positive mental health from those with burnout. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 48(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1617525

Clarke

M. A.

(2021). Understanding Clergy Resilience: A Mixed Methods Research Study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan).

Clarke

M. A.

Walker

K. D.

Spurr

Squires

(2022a). Clergy resilience: Accessing supportive resources to balance the impact of role-related stress and adversity. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 15423050221090864.

Clarke

M. A.

Walker

K. D.

Spurr

Squires

(2022b). Role-related stress and adversity impacting christian clergy resilience: A pan-canadian study. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 15423050221133033.

Coate

M. A.

(1989). Clergy stress: The hidden conflicts in ministry. SPCK.

10.

Doney

P. A.

(2013). Fostering resilience: A necessary skill for teacher retention. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9324-x

11.

Eagle

D. E.

Hybels

C. F.

Proeschold-Bell

R. J.

(2019). Perceived social support, received social support, and depression among clergy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7), 2055–2073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518776134

12.

Fallon

Rice

Howie

J. W.

(2013). Factors that precipitate and mitigate crises in ministry. Pastoral Psychology, 62, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-012-0486-4

13.

Fletcher

Sarka

(2011). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts and theory. http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/8063/1/221275_PubSub2839_Sarkar.pdf

14.

Forney

D. G.

(2010). A calm in the tempest: Developing resilience in religious leaders. Journal of Religious Leadership, 9, 1–33.

15.

Grudem

(2016, January 1). Pour it out: God doesn’t intend pastors to burn out. There’s a better way. Leadership, 32–36.

16.

Day

(2007). Teachers resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1302–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006

17.

Hill

(1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 49, 139–150.

18.

Jackson-Jordan

E. A.

(2013). Clergy burnout and resilience: A review of the literature. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 67(1), 1–5.

19.

Joynt

(2017). Exodus of clergy: The role of leadership in responding to the call. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 73(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i4.4625

20.

Lee

(2010). Dispositional resiliency and adjustment in protestant pastors: A pilot study. Pastoral Psychology, 59, 631–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-010-0283-x

21.

Liu

J. J. W.

Reed

Girard

T. A.

(2017). Advancing resilience: An integrative, multi-system model of resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.007

22.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

(2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885.

23.

Malcolm

W. M.

Coetzee

K. L.

Fisher

E. A.

(2019). Measuring ministry-specific stress and satisfaction: The psychometric properties of the positive and negative aspects inventories. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 47(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091647119837018

24.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

25.

Masten

A. S.

Obradovic

(2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.003

26.

Meek

K. R.

McMinn

M. R.

Brower

C. M.

Burnett

T. D.

McRay

B. W.

Ramey

M. L.

Villa

D. D.

(2003). Maintaining personal resiliency: Lessons learned from evangelical protestant clergy. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31(4), 339–347.

27.

Meichenbaum

(2005). Stress inoculation training: A preventative and treatment approach. In Lehrer

P. M.

Woolfolk

R. L.

Sime

W. S.

(Eds.), Principles and practice of stress management (3rd ed., pp. 497–518). Guilford Press.

28.

Milstein

Hybels

C. F.

Proeschold-Bell

R. J.

(2020). A prospective study of clergy spiritual well-being, depressive symptoms, and occupational distress. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(4), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000252

29.

Nouwen

H. J. M.

(1989). In the name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian leadership. Crossroad Publishing.

30.

Pargament

K. I.

Tarakeshwar

Ellison

C. G.

Wulff

K. M.

(2001). Religious coping among the religious: The relationships between religious coping and well-being in a national sample of Presbyterian clergy, elders, and members. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(3), 497–513.

31.

Park

C. L.

Folkman

(1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 115–144.

32.

Patterson

J. M.

(2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349–360.

33.

Proeschold-Bell

R. J.

Eisenberg

Adams

Smith

Legrand

Wilk

(2015). The Glory of God is a human being fully alive: Predictors of positive versus negative mental health among clergy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(4), 702–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12234

34.

Richardson

G. E.

(2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10020

35.

Searby

M. A.

(2015). The resilient pastor: Ten principles for developing pastoral resilience. RESOURCE Publications.

36.

Seery

M. D.

Quinton

W. J.

(2016). Understanding resilience: From negative life events to everyday stressors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 181–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.002

37.

Smith-Osborne

Bolton

K. W.

(2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures across the life course. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2011.597305

38.

Titus

C. S.

(2006). Resilience and the virtue of fortitude: Aquinas in dialogue with the psychosocial sciences. The Catholic University of America Press.

39.

Windle

(2011). What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 21(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259810000420