At Annual Conference I had an interesting conversation with a few pastors about the state of the United Methodist Church and young clergy leadership. The conversation started when I asked someone if they had seen or read The Crisis of Younger Clergy by Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel. I was surprised by the response which was something to the effect of, “I don’t really buy into stuff like that.” The explanation was that they did not believe in the myths of scarcity that are often perpetuated in the UMC relating to the absence of young clergy and the general decline of the church. At this point someone else joined in and agreed that they thought all of that stuff was overdone.
After reading Weems and Michel’s presentation of the research done by the Lewis Center for Church Leadership, it seems to me that refusing to believe that there is a crisis of younger clergy is ignoring or avoiding the evidence. Here are some of the things that Weems and Michel reveal:
- In the United Methodist Church and many other denominations, the percentage of clergy under the age of 35 has dropped to below 5 percent. (vii)
- The percentage of United Methodist elders age 35 and under has decreased from 15.05 percent in 1985 to 4.92 percent in 2007. (2)
- The total church membership in the United Methodist Church declined between 1985 and 2005, as did the total number of elders, the number of churches, and the number of pastoral charges. But the decline in the number of young clergy has been proportionally much greater than any of these other changes. (9)
- From 1985 to 2007, the total decline in the number of elders was 3,578. The decline in the under-35 age bracket was 2,343, or 73 percent of the total. (9) [I think there should be an exclamation point after that one!]
- The Constitution of the United States affords 25-year-olds the right to serve the United States House of Representatives. At 21, a physician can be licensed to practice medicine in the state of New York. Yet 28 is generally the youngest age at which one can be ordained elder in The United Methodist Church; and those who are elders in their 20s or early 30s often are thought not to be ready for particularly challenging assignments. (22)
Ultimately, Weems and Michel demonstrate very convincingly that there is a problem. However, the major strength of their book is not that they are able to convince the reader that there is a problem; rather, after getting your attention, they take advantage of the opportunity to make some concrete suggestions about what to do about it. And, their suggestions are based on an extensive survey of young UM clergy, where they received responses from almost half of all elders in the UMC who are under 35 (ix).
As a young clergy in the UMC, it is often very frustrating to hear people lamenting the absence of young people in the church (whether pastors or laity) and then refuse to seek guidance from young people themselves. In my own Annual Conference, I have been blessed to get to know several pastors whose gifts and grace are overwhelmingly evident. Unfortunately, I do not see any of those people being given the chance to exercise significant leadership within the Annual Conference. Sometimes it seems that too many people are panicking because they don’t see enough young people in church, but for whatever reason, they are unable or unwilling to ask the few young people who are in the church what they think about how the church (and the ordination process) can become more hospitable to younger folks.
I mention this, because it seems to me that one of the most valuable contributions of The Crisis of Younger Clergy is that it models taking seriously the perspectives and wisdom of young people when trying to figure out how to solve the “problem of young people.” For the most part, the prescriptions that the authors make about what to do in order to address the crisis of younger clergy is based in the actually responses that they got from younger clergy. This is so obvious as to be almost absurd that everyone hasn’t already figured this out. But, when Weems and Michels found that their research showed that there was a serious lack of young clergy and they decided to ask what can be done to address this problem, instead of assembling a team of experienced pastors, or instead of polling every cabinet in the UMC, or asking tenured academics, they asked the people who were in the demographic that they were studying! Nobody knows the strengths and weaknesses of the journey to ordination in the UMC, and life as a younger pastor in the UMC better than the younger pastors who are going through the process.
If you are interested in getting a glimpse at what younger pastors think about things like the appointment process and the road to ordination, this is the book to read — because it is based in what young pastors themselves have said about these very things. Here are some of the things that they found:
- The emerging generation of United Methodist elders does not think the system of itinerancy works well. Less than 5 percent of young elders responding to the Lewis Center’s survey strongly agreed with the statement, “Itineracy as practiced today is working well” (69).
Here are some more insights related to the itineracy and the appointment process, as it relates to younger clergy:
- Lyle Schaller argues (and the authors research shows that many younger clergy would agree) that “talented ministers are ‘set up to fail’ by being invited to serve churches where their gifts, skills, experience, personality, and other characteristics do not match the needs and culture of that congregation at this point in its history” (61-2).
- “More strategic deployment of young clergy is arguably the best way the denomination can use the scarce resource of young leadership to enhance its outreach among younger generations, while at the same time helping young clergy survive and thrive in ministry. In the opinion of those responding to the Lewis Center’s survey, the single most important thing conferences can do to support young clergy is to pay more attention to first and second appointments” (62).
- “Today most clergy come from large membership or suburban churches. Congregational life in many of the churches to which they are assigned bears no resemblance to what they have previously experienced” (64).
The authors also found that “many of today’s young clergy express disillusionment with the ‘pay your dues’ and ‘wait your turn’ mentality that governs clergy advancement” (78). I would add a few things to this. This is especially frustrating, when younger clergy often observe middle-age second career pastors being “fast-tracked” to leadership positions in the Annual Conference. It makes me wonder, why are younger clergy given the message that they have to pay their dues, while older clergy don’t just because they are closer to retirement? In many ways, we seem to have an appointment process that rewards second career pastors and gives less attention and support to younger clergy who enter seminary immediately after completing college. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that we are getting what the system seems set up to encourage.
The authors also discussed salaries and debt related to going to seminary. 69% of clergy under 35 who responded to the survey have debt from seminary. 52% have more than $10,000 of debt, and 15% have more than $30,000! (86).
Ultimately, this book is worth reading for people who want to understand what younger pastor’s experience of ministry in the United Methodist Church is like. It raises some very important questions that I hope the UMC will take seriously, and I hope we will spend more time and energy not just investing in younger clergy, but in listening to them, and giving them a meaningful voice in our Annual Conferences.
Kevin M. Watson 
Very interesting.
Last year Baylor and Lifeway published some data from studies about why those under 30 find the church irrelevant. I know it isn’t exactly the same but it is sort of related. There seems to be a disconnect from those over 50 with the those under 30.
As for the cost of seminary that is one thing that Southern Baptist do well. The cost of to attend a Southern Baptist seminary is very low. We were paying just about $900 excluding books a semester in 2003 when my husband finished. We lived in student housing and paid about $400 a month for everything except phone & internet. That is way below the going rate in the Fort Worth area.
Two of the concerns I have with the way we do ministry to the “young” are that a disproportionate number of the leadership seem to be PKs and whether the expectations all around are realistic. While PKs can certainly provide a needed perspective, we need a far broader appeal. If people are in school, it is going to be very difficult for them to attend the meetings of various conference agencies (whether annual, jurisdictional or General).
My hopes surrounding the perspective of young people that we are sending to GC were diminished in the discussion about the new hymnal. I would have figured that young people would have been uniformly opposed, but instead the speakers seemed to be split 50/50. There aren’t any messiahs out there.
All of us need to use the gifts that God has given us to build His church to BOTH bring new believers in the door AND to use them as His Son commanded us to do in Matthew 25.
I ‘second’ the comments above, as well as what you are saying, Kevin. I also have a couple of thoughts:
1) Really, this is an observation. The age range of bishops we just elected ran from the youngest at 54 to the oldest at 59. I say it’s just an observation because I don’t know what to make of it. But, in the southeast jurisdiction, where they elected the eldest, even with the age rise in mandatory retirement, he will two terms – likely only one annual conference. It may have to do that it takes that many years to get known well-enough to draw support, but I can’t help thinking that this is part of the problem you mention.
2) I wonder if conferences have truly come to grips with women clergy (in particular clergy couples) and wives who have ‘non-traditional’ roles. The itinerate system still seems to want to work with a male pastor and homemaker wife (or wife in traditional role) who can move more or less anywhere. Most of these would likely be younger people. I have heard some horrid stories of what conferences have done to clergy couples.
Hey Kevin, I totally agree with the bulk of your post and think there needs to be a little more confidence placed in the upcoming generation. I also think we need to be willing to make mistakes for the sake of getting “unstuck” as a denomination.
However, let me offer an example of people within the conference offering leadership to some a younger clergyperson. At Annual Conference, I was elected as the Vice-Chair of the Mission and Service Ministry Team. I’m not writing this in any way to say, “look at me.” I’m saying it to say there are folks who are willing to entrust a 31 year-old elder with a leadership position at the conference level. That means a great deal to me, and I appreciate the affirmation.
Many times, I feel that the leadership seems to be concerned with us being “vetted” (to use a trendy word) in relative safety and not putting us in over our heads. It isn’t necessarily a lack of trust so much as it is a fear of doing the wrong thing for either young clergy or the conference. Anyway, I know that’s a pretty charitable reading, but I’m a fan of handing out a little charity!
Dee – Thanks for providing another perspective.
Creed – Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comment. I had not thought about the PK angle. I can say that I know many gifted young clergy who are not PKs, and I also know some very gifted young clergy who are. My only observation is that PKs sometimes seem to be more comfortable with the way things work than those who did not grow up with it are.
Will – Thanks for your thoughts. Your observation about the age range of bishops is very interesting. It is also interesting to me to note the differences in ministry experience, especially for the folks who are second career. You raise some very important questions as well in your second point. I knew of one couple who were only able to see each other on the weekends because he worked in a major city and her appointment was two hours away from that city.
Matt – Thanks for your comments. I am happy to see that my observations about gifted young clergy not being in Annual Conference leadership proven wrong. The young clergy in our AC are well represented by your leadership.
I am afraid you are right about the desire to place young clergy in places where they can’t make too big of mistakes. The tragedy is that it seems that most young people go into ministry because they believe that God is calling them to make a difference in the church, even to be an agent of change, and then so often young pastors are appointed to churches that seem to want a chaplain more than a visionary or an energetic leader who can lead them into a new future.
Further, the desire to vet pastors would seem to be a reflection of very poor theology, or an absence of theological reflection. When we look at the Scriptures, the model of leadership does not seem to be people who are obviously safe and aren’t going to do too much damage. They are people that have no obvious experience or qualifications, except that they are be faithful to the burning desire that has been given to them by God. It seems to me that God best works through people who have confidence primarily in God’s ability, rather than in their own.
To come back to your comments, I appreciate your reading that it is not that people aren’t willing to put their trust in younger clergy, but that they are, with good intentions seeking to do the best thing, not just for the church, but even for younger clergy themselves. I would agree with you. I have yet to meet anyone in my conference who does not seem to be a person of good intentions and good will. Yet, with all do respect, I would still say that some of our criteria for what makes for a trustworthy pastor, and some of the ways that it seems that we make appointments are in need of revision. That would seem to be consistent with the findings of Weems and Michel in The Crisis of Younger Clergy.
Pingback: Letting Others Do My Posting… « matt judkins
Afraid I’m a ‘second career’ person in British Methodism, but I recognise your bullet-point issues. I came from a large suburban church and have been placed in failing churches where there really is no opportunity to exercise any of the skills I’m really good at.
The difference between me and a younger person, I think, is that I feel I’ve already ‘proven’ myself in another field and 5 to 7 years seems like a short time rather than an eternity. Also, in our system I feel that I pretty well know that I’m not going to put enough years into the church to be fast-tracked into anything. I came into ministry as a second ‘career’ knowing that this would be the case.
A big difference between British Methodism and the UMC is that all ministers get the same stipend with very small additional stipends going to Superintendents and District Chairs. So it’s not a question of being forced to live in poverty on the one end of the scale; but nor do we have the possibility of making a bigger salary in a bigger church.
I guess I wonder mostly about itinerancy and whether it’s actually serving the function it’s meant to serve.
I realise that no church is going to get bright, passionate, fired-up young people into ordained ministry if it presents to them a spectre of 20 years of difficult ministry before they are placed in a situation where their gifts can be used. That said, I too would *love* to be in a position where the stuff I’m good at could actually be used and I don’t feel that it’s any more ‘OK’ to waste my talents than it is to waste the talents of young people.
(I’m now hoping that no one I know in real life reads this!)
Pam – Thank you for stopping by, and thank you for the reminder that all pastors desire to be placed in situations where they can thrive in ministry and where their gifts can be most naturally used.
It is also very interesting to hear the ways in which the British system is different than the UMC.
In talking about the perspective of younger clergy, I in no way intended to disparage the contribution or the worth of second career pastors. I sincerely hope my comments have not given that impression. Again, I appreciate your comments and your willingness to provide a different way of looking at things. Thanks!
I find it very interesting to read this post and see that other groups are facing similar problems as Baptist. Although, I think we are not lacking young preachers. It is very easy to become a minister in a Baptist (SBC) church which can be good but at other times can be bad. I have seen many instances of a young upcoming minister placed in a position that he was not ready or mature enough to handle. I have also seen others overlooked or marginalized because they lacked connections. One thing the SBC has done is try to push younger ministers into church plants rather than established churches. Some do well, while others do not. We found it to be a difficult thing because we our sponsoring church didn’t provide the needed support.
In talking about the perspective of younger clergy, I in no way intended to disparage the contribution or the worth of second career pastors. I sincerely hope my comments have not given that impression.
I’ve seen similar things said before elsewhere and sometimes I want to say ‘Hey! I feel that way too!’
Maybe just two other points (I like these discussions; excuse me if I’m being too verbose.)
1) I sincerely do think that there is a ‘cultural issue’ and it’s one where I think the UK is ‘ahead’ of the US for a change. That’s ‘post-Christianity’. Gone are the days when ‘all’ a minister had to do was be a great preacher and a good programme manager. I don’t know what the answer is to this, but I think that, to a certain extent, to be a minister in Western culture today is to to be a bearer of a light that might not be destined to start a bonfire.
2) I think it *is* a no-brainer that younger ministers will attract younger church members. Even if we think that it ‘shouldn’t’ be that way, I do think it’s the reality of how people work. People join churches because they think they can make friends and it’s going to be a very rare 20- or 30- something who joins a congregation that mainly consists of 70-year olds. (The reality in many of our churches over here.) In the case of my denomination (and I’m assuming the UMC), we do need to start allowing and encouraging younger people to enter the ministry. It’s something we’ve actually discouraged in the latter decades.
You wrote:
“Today most clergy come from large membership or suburban churches. Congregational life in many of the churches to which they are assigned bears no resemblance to what they have previously experienced” (64).
PamBG wrote:
“I realise that no church is going to get bright, passionate, fired-up young people into ordained ministry if it presents to them a spectre of 20 years of difficult ministry before they are placed in a situation where their gifts can be used. That said, I too would *love* to be in a position where the stuff I’m good at could actually be used and I don’t feel that it’s any more ‘OK’ to waste my talents than it is to waste the talents of young people.”
Thanks for this, Kevin. A key item arising both within the book, your review, and some of these comments is the disconnect with assuming that all pastors are more or less interchangeable pieces with any given church in the annual conference. The point about years of assignments that are so disconnected with persons’ experiences is not so much about people not being stretched and pushed outside of our boxes so much as the stewardship issue on the conference’s part related to the gifts and strengths of clergy, and younger clergy in particular. Two thoughts on this…
1. Routinely placing persons in situations in which their gifts and strengths are largely ignored and not drawn upon is a very good recipe for getting them to think they probably have better things to do with their lives…and they would be right.
2. That the number of seminarians and younger clergy is so disproportionately suburban presses the question: “What is it about our church that so few (young) persons from rural and urban areas are responding to a call to ordained ministry?” Which is more troubling–that so many suburban young adults are sent to small towns and encounter the huge cultural disconnect they do, or that there’s something about our denominational culture that doesn’t have nearly enough geographical/sub-culture variety in terms of who’s responding to calls to ordained ministry?
Dee – I think my Annual Conference is planning on starting some new churches. I am not sure if there is a particular demographic that they are thinking of there, but in light of my earlier comments about hesitating to trust younger clergy, I would say that placing younger clergy in new church plants, at least the way our conference is talking about doing it, is a profound act of trust, because they are investing substantial resources in each new church plant.
Pam – Thanks for following up. On your second point, I think you are right. Your comments made me think about how younger pastors are sometimes appointed to a church “Because there are no young people there” and they want the pastor to bring in the young folk. It would be comical if it weren’t also frustrating when you are dealing with it, because especially in the more rural churches there often aren’t very many young people in the community. That is to say that I think it would make a tremendous amount of since to put younger clergy in situations where they can be in ministry with the younger populations that are already in church and in places where there is a younger population that can the pastor can hope to make connections with.
Guy – Thanks for your comments. I think you are dead on with your first point, and I think that is one of the reasons why there are so many young people in seminary who end up moving to something other than local church ministry when they graduate. They get a feel for what they are going to do after seminary and it is not faithful to their understanding of God’s calling on their life. I would add to this that in the UM (sorry that I can’t remember if you are UM) appointment process, the expectation is that the cabinet will make an appointment considering the persons gifts and grace for ministry. I am not quoting directly here, but from what I remember from writing my ordination papers. Here is what I don’t remember being in the Discipline about the appointment process: years of experience, or age of the pastor, the salary that the pastor deserves, whether it will be perceived as a promotion or demotion… I think ultimately it is a stewardship issue. Are we being good stewards of the leadership that God is providing?
Your second point has really got me thinking. I don’t have anything to add, but I think you are raising some very interesting and important issues.
Pingback: The Ideal First Appointment « deeply committed
Kevin,
Well our convention doesn’t really provide much funding. Maybe that is why they push young pastors into church plant. We didn’t really get much support either.