Where is the next generation of pastors going to come from? Part Three.

This is the third in a series of posts looking at some of the factors that are hindering the next generation from embracing the call to pastoral ministry. Part one and part two can be found here.

This one comes with a trigger warning as it relates to the abuse of power in ministry settings. Note that I’m focusing here only on where congregational dynamics can be the source of the problem; see my earlier article on where pastors can abuse their power.

Comments on this post are being moderated before appearing, to avoid specific situations or people being inappropriately shared/named on social media. Specific grievances and appeals should follow the process for the relevant organisation or denomination.

The (sometimes) toxic work environment of pastoral ministry

Judging by the array of comments on social media, the current leadership of the Australian men’s cricket team is a divisive topic. It appears to be divided partly along generational lines, albeit with plenty of exceptions—myself included.

One of the greats of this era was Justin Langer, who took over the coaching role in 2018 in the wake of the famous sandpaper incident. He brought with him a passionate, fiery coaching style of his era: rousing dressing-room speeches; nail-biting intensity during close matches; and (allegedly) an unpredictable moodiness following a poor performance. And success on the field appeared to vindicate it. If you want to win at this level, this is the price you have to pay.

However, the senior players, it seems, became worn down by the intensity—which was exacerbated the isolation bubble required during the pandemic. Although a player-led intervention saw Langer respond to criticism and take more of a back seat, by the end of 2021 it was clear that the playing group was wanting to move on. Langer resigned in early 2022, and many of his former teammates lined up to criticise the current players—especially captain Pat Cummins—for being “gutless,” “selfish,” and “too woke” (linked also to issues around sponsorship deals with fossil fuel companies).

By the looks of things, many of my fellow Gen-X cricket fans sided with Langer and the players of his era. Others, however, praised the new generation for standing up for what they believed: both in terms of advocating for climate change, and for refusing to put up with a toxic work environment (no matter how much they valued Langer as a person and player). For me, I don’t know enough to presume to judge; yet my sympathies do tend toward the current players, given the frequent incidences of bullying and hyper-masculinity I encountered in junior cricket. And as I get older, although I still love to see my team win, I get more joy out of the spirit in which recent series have been played.[1] (OK, so I originally wrote this before the Bairstow stumping incident, which has further divided opinion. But still…)

But I think this saga is totemic of an important societal change. The next generation—having been taught from a young age to call out bullying, sexism, racism, and other dehumanising behaviours—is no longer going to tolerate a workplace culture that is toxic.

What does this mean for the church?

It’s hardly news that the workplace in some churches can be toxic. Even in healthy churches, relational tensions can be difficult to navigate. This is further complicated by the fact that many of the people involved are volunteers, so are not directly answerable to a line manager or the HR department. And since we are Christians, the understandable desire to show grace and forgiveness can easily become a culture that puts up with bad behaviour. Or, at the extreme, tolerates abuse. So, over time, we can send the message: if you’re called to be a pastor, this is the price you have to pay.

Perhaps part of the younger generations’ reluctance to go into pastoral ministry is not simply that they don’t want to pay that price—but they (rightly) say that this shouldn’t be the price. They’re not prepared to buy into a culture in which churches can behave however they like, and the pastor is called to put up with it. (Martyrdom should be a result of external hostility, not friendly fire!)

And before we dismiss them as “snowflakes,” we should realise that many older, experienced pastors have also had enough. After a decade or two of local church ministry, they’re finding other places to serve, worn down by conflict, undermining, and the impossible expectations of a consumer-culture.

How do we change not just the perception, but sometimes the reality, that to be a pastor means to put up with a workplace culture that’s no longer acceptable elsewhere? We know it’s never going to be an easy job. But it shouldn’t be so hard that it breaks this many people.

Of the three factors I’ve looked at, I think this is the most difficult to find solutions. Part of it might be to boost the ongoing training for pastors in difficult settings, and to fund more external support (such as quality pastoral supervision). But we also need to work from the other direction: to train churches in how to exercise their duty of care to their pastors; to set up (and enforce) the kind of workplace policies that are now standard elsewhere; and to stop recommending pastors apply to churches that have a track record of breaking them.

What are other ways we can make this undeniably difficult calling more sustainable, and therefore more attractive?

---

[1] This is perhaps due, in part, to the way in which the IPL has brought players from different nations together on the same team. Increased contact alone between different groups doesn’t reduce conflict, but co-operating toward a mutual goal most certainly does. See the “robber’s cave” experiments in Muzafer Sherif, Group Conflict and Co-Operation: Their Social Psychology (1967). But I digress.