understanding boundary-related stress in clergy families

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 08:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Marriage & Family ReviewPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20

Understanding Boundary-Related Stress in ClergyFamiliesE. Wayne Hill a , Carol Anderson Darling b & Nikki M.Raimondi ba First Baptist Church , 669 W. Main Street, P.O.Drawer 1024, Sylva, NC, 28779, USAb Department of Family and Child Sciences , FloridaState University , Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1491, USAPublished online: 24 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: E. Wayne Hill , Carol Anderson Darling & Nikki M. Raimondi (2003)Understanding Boundary-Related Stress in Clergy Families, Marriage & Family Review,35:1-2, 147-166, DOI: 10.1300/J002v35n01_09

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v35n01_09

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J002v35n01_09

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v35n01_09

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Understanding Boundary-Related Stressin Clergy Families

E. Wayne HillCarol Anderson Darling

Nikki M. Raimondi

ABSTRACT. Clergy play an important role in our society by workingwith individuals, families, churches, and communities. Many clergymembers and their families report experiencing high levels of stress dueto their demanding responsibilities and hectic schedules. The presentstudy aimed to gain a more in-depth understanding of boundary-relatedstress and coping resources of clergy and their families. Data were col-lected through focus groups consisting of clergy and clergy spouses. Re-sults revealed a number of boundary-related stressors affecting thequality of life for clergy and their families. Boundary-related stressorswere found to include issues surrounding time, mobility, congregationalfit, space, isolation, and intrusions. In order to cope with these bound-ary-related stressors, clergy and their families reported that they used avariety of coping methods to buffer the impact of boundary intrusions.

E. Wayne Hill is affiliated with the First Baptist Church, 669 W. Main Street, P.O.Drawer 1024, Sylva, NC 28779.

Carol Anderson Darling is affiliated with the Department of Family and Child Sci-ences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1491.

Nikki M. Raimondi is affiliated with the School of Social Work, Florida State Uni-versity, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2570.

Address correspondence to E. Wayne Hill.This research project was made possible by a grant from the D. A. and Elizabeth

Turner Clergy Center of the Pastoral Institute in Columbus, Georgia. The authors alsowish to thank Stacy West, Lenore McWey, James Delvin, Chia-Jen Su, and StacyHollon, research assistants from Florida State University, for their many contributionsto this project.

Marriage & Family Review, Vol. 35(1/2) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J002 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

10.1300/J002v35n01_09 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Recommendations for clergy families, denominations, and congregationsare provided to help deal with this multifaceted issue. [Article copies availablefor a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mailaddress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Stress, boundaries, family, clergy, coping, quality of life

Clergy play a vital role in helping individuals, families, churches, and com-munities during stressful and turbulent times. They are often called upon towork long hours with ambiguous schedules, especially in times of crisis. Dueto the high demands that accompany the ministerial profession, many clergyreport experiencing high levels of career-related stress (Blackbird & Wright,1985; Lee & Balswick, 1989; Mills & Koval, 1971; Morris & Blanton, 1994a,1998). Clergy stress not only affects the clergy person, but also has importantconsequences for the clergy’s family (Morris & Blanton, 1994b; Lee, 1999).

Given the role clergy currently play in our society, ministers routinely inter-act with and relate to a significant number of individuals, including their ownimmediate families, the congregational family, and the larger family within thecommunity. The demands created by these numerous relationships foster an in-creasingly complex set of boundary-related issues that have the potential forproducing both great reward and great frustration. Thus, the present study aimsto gain a more in-depth understanding of clergy boundary-related stress andcoping resources that impact the quality of life for clergy and their families.

LITERATURE REVIEW

As early as 1957, the literature has documented the intense impact that theclergy profession can have on the clergy person. John Oberlin, a noted clergy-man, writes, “The pastor . . . if he tries to be what he ought to be . . . is a poordog, a beast of burden, a cart horse. He must do everything, watch everything,and answer for everything. From early morning, until bedtime he is occupied,hurried, crushed without being able to do a tenth of what ought to be done”(Bartlett, 1957, p. 15).

The role of stress in the lives of clergy has been examined in various studies.A survey of 5,000 Protestant clergy regarding ministry career stress revealedthat 75% of the clergy reported stressful experiences that were accompaniedby emotional states of frustration, anguish, depression, and doubts (Mills &

148 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Koval, 1971). Clergy frequently experienced the high expectations of parish-ioners and congregational leaders as very stressful, unrealistic, and intrusive(Blackbird & Wright, 1985; Lee & Balswick, 1989; Morris & Blanton, 1998).Other stressors include relocation adjustments that have an impact on the well-being of clergy members, as well as their families. As a result, numerousboundary disruptions are said to be created by a so called “mobility syndrome”often leaving clergy families more vulnerable to stress (Morris & Blanton,1994b).

Although career-related stress seems to be a well-known component of theclergy profession, research has also documented similar types of occupationalstress in a variety of professions. High levels of occupational stress have beenreported by police officers, nurses, firefighters, teachers, and social workers(Greenberg, 1990). Occupational stress seems to be reported by workers most“when work objectives are unclear, when they have conflicting demandsplaced on them, when they have too little or too much to do, when they have lit-tle input in decisions that affect them, and when they are responsible for otherworkers’ development” (Greenberg, 1990, p. 295). In addition, Hawkins andKlas (1997) reviewed and summarized the existing literature on four groups ofhelping professions: regular teachers, special education teachers, nurses, andsocial workers. Their study revealed that time management was the most sig-nificant stressor for each of these groups of helping professionals.

Career-related stress can have an impact on personal and family relation-ships. For example, Power and Swanson (1999) examined the effect of occu-pational stress on the home life of dual-doctor partnerships to determine theboundary interface between work and home. They discovered that work stresshad a greater impact on home life than home-related stress had on work life.Additionally, their study revealed that time on call, the ethical commitment tothe medical profession, and work intrusions on family time were identified asmajor sources of conflict for these dual-doctor couples. In 1996, Miller andGillies researched the impact of work-related stress on personal and family re-lationships for a sample of HIV/AIDS and oncology staff in the health field.Findings of the study revealed that the sample spent a great deal of time dis-cussing work issues with their partners, which often created conflict at home.Specifically, 39% of the participants reported that their partners often com-plained about their work commitments, and 25% of the participants noted thattheir relationships had been negatively impacted by their work.

As in other professions, it is clear that career-related stress not only impactsclergy persons, but also their families (Ostrander, Henry, & Fournier, 1994).Much of the literature in this area has focused on the stressful impact of thehigh expectations placed on clergy spouses and clergy children. Spouses andchildren of clergy are often intensely scrutinized by members of the church

Hill, Darling, and Raimondi 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

and expected to uphold unrealistic standards of behavior (Lee, 1992; Morris &Blanton, 1994b; Taylor, 1977). Clergy families have reported experiencinghigh levels of stress in maintaining clear boundaries around their family sys-tem. Lee (1999) argues, “clergy families experience a career-specific type ofboundary ambiguity, one characterized not by traumatic or ambiguous losswithin the family, but by the intrusiveness of extra-familial systems” (p. 479).For any given family, especially clergy families, it is not only the boundariesbetween internal subsystems that directly impact family functioning, but alsothe boundaries that are able to be established between the family and its socialenvironment.

The concept of boundaries has long been discussed in the literature as a vitalcomponent of healthy functioning family systems. Boundaries can be definedas “invisible barriers that surround individuals and subsystems, regulating theamount of contact with others” (Nichols & Schwartz, 1995, p. 214). The con-cept of boundaries includes the roles and rules that define a family’s subsys-tems and how these subsystems are perceived by the whole family system(Minuchin, 1974). Boundaries surrounding family systems separate the sys-tem from the other parts of its environment making it a distinguishable unit(L’Abate, Ganahl, & Hansen, 1986).

A family system can often be described as having boundaries that fall on acontinuum between “open and closed.” From a systemic perspective, theamount of information allowed to enter or leave the family system determineswhere on the continuum a family may fall. Whereas families that exhibit ex-tremely closed boundaries allow very little information to enter or leave theirfamily system, families that exhibit extremely open boundaries allow a largeamount of information to enter or leave their family system (Montgomery,1988). Froma Walsh (1982) states, “Each family has a structure and a prefer-ence for certain transactional patterns that may meet ordinary demands. Thestrength of the system depends on its ability to mobilize alternative patternswhen stressed by internal or external change. The boundaries of the systemmust be clear and firm; yet the system must be flexible enough for interchangebetween autonomy and interdependence, for promotion of psychosocialgrowth of members and maintenance of the integrity of the system, and forcontinuity and restructuring in response to stress” (p. 14).

Healthy family systems are said to maintain a structure that allows for clearboundaries. Unclear boundaries may create an unstable or dysfunctional fam-ily system. “In healthy families, boundaries are clear enough to protect the sepa-rateness and the autonomy of individuals and subsystems, and permeable enoughto ensure mutual support and affections” (Nichols & Schwartz, 1995, p. 240).When boundaries are firm and clear, they serve to protect the autonomy of thefamily’s subsystems and the entire family unit. When whole family systems are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

not protected by secure boundaries, the individuals within the system may beplaced in vulnerable positions and may not have the opportunity to develophealthy patterns of relating and functioning (Nichols & Schwartz, 1995).

Learning to clarify boundaries and to deal with boundary ambiguity in fam-ilies after a loss or addition “is one of the most critical developmental tasks re-quired of families during the life cycle” (Boss, 2002, p. 104). The ability to“take in” or “let go” in terms of both physical and psychological boundaries,and thus adapt to the changes such actions demand, is an essential coping strat-egy for all families. Boss (2002) declared, “Because of losses (primarily) andacquisitions, this continual process of boundary maintenance is never per-fectly achieved. The family’s participation in the process of clarification andmaintenance is critical” (p. 104). In addition, clergy families must cope withthe ambiguous boundary issue of who and what to let in and who and what tokeep out and when. Creating clear boundaries is not an easy task for clergyfamilies, especially with the cultural stereotype that clergy families are always“open” and “available to everyone at any time.”

Based on the reported literature regarding the importance of boundaries inthe functioning of families and the boundary-related stress affecting clergyfamilies, the purpose of this study was to examine the stress of intrusions intothe boundaries of clergy and their families, as they are perceived by clergy andclergy spouses. The study also aimed to identify the coping resources they em-ployed to handle the various stresses that impact their lives.

METHODOLOGY

A focus group methodology was used to gain information for this inquiry.The incorporation of a qualitative design was chosen for this study because ofits unique ability to facilitate understanding of meaning or “reality” from thepoint of view of those involved in the context of the study (Polson & Piercy,1993). Strauss and Corbin (1990) argue that qualitative methods can servemultiple functions in conducting research. They state, “Qualitative methodscan be used to uncover and understand what lies behind any phenomenonabout which little is yet known. It can be used to gain novel and fresh slants onthings about which quite a bit is already known. Also, qualitative methods cangive the intricate details of phenomena that are difficult to convey with quanti-tative methods” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 19). Within the qualitative para-digm, focus group methods aim to probe the attitudes and opinions of smallgroups. The format of a group adds a “group dynamic” dimension that mayproduce more information than structured individual interviews (Polson &Piercy, 1993). Focus groups have been found to be stimulating to respon-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

dents and seem to provide rich data through cumulative and elaborative re-sponses often not seen in individual interview settings (Denzin & Lincoln,1998).

Three groups of clergy and two groups of clergy spouses were involved inthis investigation resulting in 19 clergy and 13 clergy spouses. The group sizevaried from a minimum of 5 in one of the clergy groups to a maximum groupsize of 8 in one of the clergy spouse groups. The clergy and clergy spouseswere not necessarily married to each other. The clergy had been involved intheir roles for an average of 13.7 years (range of 1 to 29 years). Whereas two ofthe clergy were single, the others had been married for an average of 20.3 years(range of 6 months to 34 years), and had an average of 2.4 children (range of 1to 4). The clergy spouses had been married to an individual who had been apastor for an average of 12.4 years (range of 6 months to 26 years), had beenmarried to this clergy person for an average of 23.3 years (range of 6 months to41 years), and had an average of 2.4 children (range of 1 to 4).

The respondents were contacted by a southeastern regional clergy supportcenter with approximately 5,000 clergy who were involved with the center.This interdenominational center, which serves Georgia, South Carolina, Ala-bama, Florida, and Tennessee, provides various resources and information toclergy and their families. Although any denominational group can be in-volved with the center, it predominantly serves protestant denominations.The center contacted clergy and spouses within a reasonable traveling dis-tance to the center and invited them to participate in the focus groups. Atten-tion was paid to having a range of participants based on denomination type,congregation size, as well as gender and race of clergy and spouse.

A team of two interviewers conducted the focus group sessions. Both mem-bers of the team were university professors and had teaching and research ex-pertise in family stress and relationships, qualitative methodology, andpastoral counseling. Interview guidelines were developed and revised basedon input from the clergy center. After introducing the purpose of the focusgroups and obtaining some basic background information, the interviewersposed 16 general questions to each of the groups followed by additional probesfor further expansion of their comments. The questions primarily related tovarious stressors in their lives such as time constraints, financial concerns,family issues, congregational expectations, church politics, retirement stress,and cultural or societal concerns. Other questions related to compassion, fa-tigue, burnout, and physiological and psychological reactions to stress alongwith methods of coping with stress, occupational benefits, spiritual well-be-ing, and quality of life. Each focus group, which was interviewed in a confer-ence room located within the clergy center, lasted approximately one and ahalf hours. In addition to notes being taken during these sessions, the partici-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

pants were asked for permission to tape record the interviews with all groupsindicating a willingness to have this done.

When all of the focus groups were completed, a professional transcribertyped the information from the audiotapes. Data from the transcriptions wereanalyzed using a constant comparative method of analysis, including contin-ually categorizing, sorting, and coding of data in order to identify relevant in-formation and major themes (Glaser, 1978). The intent of these focus groupsessions was not to provide statistically generalizable quantitative data. In-stead the analysis involved an emphasis on the trends and comments thatwere repeated in several different focus group sessions, which were also il-lustrated by representative comments drawn from the transcript (Sevier,1989).

RESULTS

An examination of the qualitative data revealed that the primary bound-ary-related themes affecting the stress of clergy families centered around sixkey issues. These issues, which included time, mobility, congregational fit,space, isolation, and intrusions, had an impact on the lives of the clergy, clergyspouses, and their children. In order to cope with these boundary-related intru-sions, these family members used a variety of coping methods to mediate andbuffer the impact of boundary intrusions on their lives. A model was devel-oped to illustrate the unique, intertwined relationship between family, bound-ary intrusions, and coping strategies (see Figure 1). The core or center of themodel contains the interconnected relationships between clergy, clergyspouses, and their children. The six boundary-related stressors are aligned out-side of the circle to illustrate their external influence on the core family rela-tionships. Finally, a “buffer zone” of coping strategies is situated between thecore family unit and the external boundary stressors to denote the importanceof coping resources in handling boundary-related stress within clergy families.The broken lines indicate the permeability of the boundaries. The narrative be-low provides a summary of the perceived boundary issues of clergy and clergyspouses, clergy family relationships and interactions, and coping strategies ofclergy and clergy spouses.

Perceived Boundary Issues of Clergy and Spouses

Time. Allocating time is always an important issue for any professional, butclergy have unique boundary-related issues regarding time in terms of discern-ing those they let into their world and those they exclude. It is not easy for them


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

to discern how best to proportion their time especially when they are engagedin what were seemingly routine conversations with parishioners that turn intounexpected counseling sessions. The conversations can easily turn into coun-seling sessions that become significant and important, such as when a personreveals some troubling issue or concern. The minister clearly needs and wantsto be attentive to such revelations, but may have other agendas or personsclaiming his or her time.

One busy and obviously frustrated clergy voiced this theme when he de-clared, “There is too much to do and not enough time to do it.” Participants ofthe study reported that they felt overwhelmed by all of the tasks they wereasked to complete. The majority of clergy reported they worked at least 60hours a week or more, and many stated that they were asked to work “crazyhours.” One member of the clergy stated, “I’m never through with anything.”With all the tasks that clergy are asked to perform, time management seems tobe an area in which most clergy find themselves struggling, especially when itcomes to balancing work and family. One member of the focus group declared,“Because I’m so busy being a minister, I feel conflict in being a good husbandand father.” Another expressed, “Our time belongs to the church. If we makeplans for our family and the church comes up with something, then our plansare cancelled.”

Spouses of clergy expressed the same sentiments about time constraints astheir clergy partners. One of the biggest struggles faced by clergy spouses was


Cop

ing

Strategies of Clergy Fam

ilies

Time

Intrusions

Isolation

Mobility

CongregationalFit

Space

Clergy Spouse

Children

Family Relationships

FIGURE 1. Boundary Issues Facing Clergy Families

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

that the clergy were on call “24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” As one spousenoted, “We do not have enough time to do all we need to do.” They expressedagain and again how being on call intrudes into their family time. One spousestated, “He gets called away frequently and it disrupts family time, especiallyholidays.” Another spouse expressed her frustration noting that “members ofthe congregation show up at all hours of the night,” thus disrupting familyplans and activities.

Mobility. The boundary ambiguity and related stress of mobility issues be-come apparent as soon as clergy find they have an opportunity to move to abetter location or more progressive congregation, only to then have to debatethe stark and very real needs of their families. It may be nice “moving on up,”but at what cost. Every move creates added stress in terms of balancing theneeds the clergy person has for professional development versus the needs ofhis or her family. The ambiguity in this quagmire can keep the clergy personawake at night given all the ruminating “shoulds” and “oughts” that frequentlyplague him or her.

The issue of mobility appeared numerous times within the data as a stressorfor clergy. Clergy reported that moving and changing appointments on a regu-lar basis created extreme stress in their lives. This was particularly true forMethodists with their itinerant system of church polity, whereby moves occurmore often than in other denominations. The aspects of moving that werestated to be most stressful included having to change communities frequentlyand the subsequent adjustments this created for various family members, suchas the children and their needing to orient to new neighborhoods, friends, andschools; moving costs; and the moving process itself. One clergy memberstated that the most stressful thing about frequent moves was “feeling as if Ihave no control of my destiny.”

Clergy spouses reported similar stressors with regard to frequent relocation.Many spouses stated that they tended to relocate about every five years.“Moving prevents us from forming close relationships with members of thechurch and other members of the community,” stated one clergy spouse.Spouses also reported that it was difficult for the children to change schoolsfrequently and it was extremely frustrating to have “someone else decide whenwe stay or when we move.”

Congregational Fit. Boundary-related stress and ambiguity around the is-sue of congregational fit are legion. Clergy clearly have differing personalities,and this is also true for various congregations. Trying to find a “goodness offit” between the two can be very difficult. Clergy often struggle in wantingtheir congregation to change, while the congregation wants the clergy tochange. This kind of dance not only creates additional frustration and stress,but can also result in an unsatisfying and unproductive union.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Issues regarding the congregation-clergy fit repeatedly surfaced as signifi-cant stressors in the lives of clergy. Some examples of stress experiencedwithin the congregational setting included conflicts with and between staffmembers and tensions between the clergy and the laity regarding differingtheological beliefs, ideas, and philosophies. Passive-aggressive tendencies onthe part of some parishioners and clergy, perceived spiritual laziness amongmembers of the congregation, struggles with those who want to undermine thegoals of the church, and battling tradition when trying to introduce new ideaswere also frequently mentioned. “Playing peacekeeper” was also consideredstressful by many of the study’s participants to the extent that one clergy mem-ber stated that his biggest stress with the congregation was “keeping the peaceamong adults who sometimes acted like children.” A final stressful experiencereported by clergy with regard to congregational fit issues had to do with theiroften being compared to previous pastors.

Many of the clergy spouses also reported feeling stress in relation to congre-gational issues. “Betrayal of trust” by other church members was reported as astressor by some spouses. One spouse stated that one of her biggest worrieswas “always wondering when people in the church would turn againstyou–waiting for the axe to fall or the other shoe to drop.” Another stressor forspouses within the congregation or ministry was listening to “constant criti-cism of their spouses (clergy person)” by other church members. Finally, somespouses reported that battling certain traditions in the church was also stressfulfor them. For example, one participant in the study noted that many churchmembers made statements such as, “we’ve done it this way for years, andwe’re not going to change.”

Space. Many clergy find that the issue of space also creates uncomfortableand unquestionable boundary ambiguity. Clergy struggle to find personal andprivate space in their homes and with their lives. They want to be welcomingand hospitable to all, but also need time for themselves and their families. It isnot easy for them to say “no” in general, and yet they inevitably will have to doso, if they are to protect their time and the time of their families.

For many clergy families, who were living in parsonages, space was an im-portant issue. Several felt that some parishioners were not sensitive to theirneed for private space centered in their home. Feeling ownership of the parson-age, some parishioners would often feel they could show up on the clergy’sdoorsteps at most any time. Many clergy reported that they wanted their homesto be their sanctuaries–the one place they could escape from the cares of minis-try to relax and find solace with their families and to decorate and furnish theirhomes as they wished. Their experiences, however, were that some parishio-ners did not share these views, but rather felt that they controlled the parsonageto the point of picking colors of paint, wallpaper, or drapes or deciding where


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

furniture should be placed or portraits of prominent members of the congrega-tion should be hung.

An additional concern for clergy related to their private personal space. Nomatter where they desired to go in the community, they encountered parishio-ners and frequently felt the ministerial role oppressing them. Many clergy re-ported having difficulty separating them from the role they played. Going tothe gym, for example, often turned into opportunities for ministry with parish-ioners and others engaging them in what often became “pastoral counselingconversations.”

Clergy spouses also reported that they had difficulty finding space of theirown, not to mention finding time with their spouse and their families. Sincetheir homes were frequently open to the congregation and their spouses wereon call, many felt they did not have adequate time with their clergy spouse as acouple or family. One spouse stated, “I never seem to have his undivided atten-tion.” These problems were further exacerbated when the clergy family livedin a parsonage adjacent to the church.

Isolation. The boundary ambiguity of isolation issues often goes unnoticedand unaddressed by the busy clergy. Without question clergy are expected toalways be available with very little consideration for what they might need.This dysfunctional stereotype perpetuates a myth that often heightens theiranxiety and stress. They are put on this pedestal of invincibility, which has thesecondary gain of grandiosity; however, it also leaves them feeling lonely andisolated.

Clergy tended to feel isolated from the rest of the community and reportedfeeling a sense of loneliness and vulnerability within their communities. Sev-eral clergy stated that they did not have many close friends in their lives withwhom they could connect or turn to in times of need. One member of the focusgroup stated, “Clergy don’t feel like they have a pastor to turn to themselves,which makes them feel very isolated.”

Clergy spouses reported that they also felt alone within their communities.They stated that they were automatically considered different because theywere clergy spouses. One spouse expressed that there was “no sense of belong-ing to the total community. People treated you as only a member of the reli-gious community.” Some spouses stated that they felt isolated because theywere not able to live close to family members. Others noted that the constantmoving made it difficult to feel connected in general to the community inwhich they lived.

Intrusions. Nowhere is the issue of boundary ambiguity more prevalent orrampant than the issue of boundary intrusions. Because clergy are “supposed”to be kind, loving, open, and available to the needs of others, they often havedifficulty sifting out or sorting out authentic and immediate needs from those


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

less urgent. The incessant and often intense ambiguity they feel as they seek todiscern the difference can create much stress for them.

One of the major stressors reported by clergy in relation to intrusions wasthe lack of privacy that clergy experienced. “Learning to set boundaries andlearning to protect my family’s privacy have been our biggest stressors,” statedone clergy member. Another expressed shock as he revealed, “I had one guycome right in the house and down the hallway when my wife was in the bed-room dressing.” Along with the issue of privacy, time demands also seemed tobe taxing on a family’s ability to avoid intrusions. Many clergy indicated thatthe time demands they felt from their work often invaded the time with theirfamilies. Finally, several study participants discussed how intrusions often oc-curred within their parenting roles. One focus group member stated, “Mem-bers of the church try to tell us how to raise our children.”

Clergy spouses also reported that lack of privacy created a great deal ofstress in their lives. Spouses said that they felt intense scrutiny of their familylife. When asked about privacy, one spouse stated, “We live in a glass house.”Another intrusion issue mentioned by clergy spouses was preparing for unex-pected company. One spouse noted, “People just show up at the house.” Thisinvasion of family privacy, along with interruptions of holidays and family va-cations, seemed to be among the many boundary stress issues that spouses andtheir families dealt with on a daily basis.

Clergy Family Relationships and Interactions

Clergy struggle in their relationships with their spouses and children in thecontext of their ministry, which often does not facilitate but rather detractsfrom their family time and cohesiveness. Clergy were often gearing up forweekends with their concomitant weddings and worship services, while theirspouses were wanting and needing to have some “down time” after working allweek. This schedule incompatibility often created much weariness on the partof the spouse and created tension between the clergy couple. One ministervoiced this struggle in these words, “I think that my wife is aware that the onlycompetitor to her in my heart is my ministry and that’s the only affair she hasever had to worry about.”

Clergy families are often separated from their extended family, thus creat-ing a lack of familial support networks especially needed when young childrenare in the household. While many families can use weekends to visit extendedfamilies, clergy have responsibilities on weekends, as well as during the week,and are not able to readily travel long distances for family visits. Negotiatingthe spouse’s role in the church was often stressful as well. Many parishionershad their own varied ideas about the role the minister’s spouse should play.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Some clergy spouses suggested that it was difficult sometimes being the soleconfidant for their clergy partner. Many expressed their sense of isolation andloneliness by asking, “Who is our pastor when we need one?” Frequent reloca-tions often created much stress for ministers, their spouses, and their childrengiven all the adjustments to new schools, new neighborhoods, and newfriends–not to mention the grief over friends and family left behind.

Ministers and their spouses often felt that parishioners held their children tohigher standards. PKs (“Preachers’ Kids”) are expected to represent all youthin the church and should therefore be model children. One minister stated,“You are a minister’s child, you represent all youth. There is always scrutinyabout what pastors’ children do and do not do.” Another father described an in-cident when his daughter was pressured by the congregation to go on a churchouting even though she had just recovered from surgery. He reported, “She hada cyst, which needed to be closed, and that required surgery. . . . They had a tripfor white water rafting coming up that was to involve all the youth in thechurch, but she could not go because she was told to stay out of the water and tostay out of situations where she could damage the area or she could wind upwith an infection. She asked not to go. We had a member of the congregationwho told her, ‘By God, you are the minister’s daughter and you represent all ofour youth and you will go.’. . . When I told him that she would not go, he toldme that he would see about that. My daughter did not go on that trip.” Otherministers and their spouses stated that the demands of the church often inter-rupted valued family time. As one minister’s spouse lamented, “Your ten yearold is blowing out the candles on her birthday cake and her father is calledaway.”

Coping Strategies of Clergy and Spouses

As part of the focus group, the researchers felt that it was important to iden-tify and explore specific coping strategies employed by clergy families to han-dle the stress brought about by boundary-related intrusions. In commentingon the importance of congregational fit for coping with the stress of pastoralministry, one minister made the following statement: “If you’re in a churchthat is really supportive of its pastor, stress is down; relationships are good;my children feel like they have other parents and grandparents in the congre-gation; my wife feels like she has friends; and we feel that we are part of thisgreat big family.” Clergy and clergy spouses often commented that compati-bility or “goodness of fit” created a strong bond where a mutuality of caringand goal seeking helped with the normal day-to-day stresses of being in theministry.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Other clergy suggested the need to manage their time by prioritizing theirschedules. One minister stated, “You find that you have to prioritize yourselfor it would be very difficult to get any of it done.” Another minister statedthat he avoided burnout by “trying not to take the issues home with him andby not getting too emotionally involved.” Some clergy reported that theyfound a mentor or retired pastor, someone outside their congregation, withwhom they could unburden themselves. This was especially helpful if theminister to whom they shared was of a different denomination, thus provid-ing a greater sense of safety, autonomy, confidentiality, and security. Somereported getting out of town for an overnight outing away from the phoneand demands of the parish. Others stated that they often attended nonessen-tial denominational meetings in order to make contact with friends in othertowns, allowing time to share burdens and address certain congregationalproblems. Some pastors were in congregations where periodic sabbaticalswere an option to provide for renewal, ease stress, and enhance family time.Regarding stress in general, one clergy member noted that “Not all stress isbad. However, some stress is unique to the ministry. We need to be taughthow to manage our stress, especially that which others might not be able tounderstand.”

Spouses of clergy stated they needed to connect with others in the com-munity in order to seek out support. They also often used electronic mailand telephone answering machines to protect their boundaries during mealtimes at home, as well as special family times. Ministers and their spousesreported that even in the context of their stress, they often felt grateful to bein the ministry. They cited the rewards of seeing people helped and watch-ing them grow and how this helped to buffer some of their stresses andstrains. The ambivalence that many clergy and their spouses perceivedabout pastoral ministry was expressed poignantly by one minister who said,“There is a part of me that just loves the dynamic of being with people andwanting to be a caregiver, to provide nurturance, and to impact things intheir lives.” However, this willingness to minister in such an open mannerentails the inherent risk of being hurt, offended, misjudged, or used in someway.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggested that clergy and clergy spouses did indeed feel stressas they navigated through the unsettling waters of pastoral ministry. Many ofthese stressors were common to all busy professionals and their families, butmost were uniquely colored by the special role the clergy were called upon to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

play in our society. Our findings suggested that most of the stress they experi-enced could be connected directly or indirectly to boundary-related stress.

Whereas the issue of time is always an important concern for busy profes-sionals in general (Daly, 2001), various studies suggest that it is a significantboundary issue for clergy (Blackbird & Wright, 1985; Lee & Balswick, 1989;Morris & Blanton, 1994b). Busy ministers often feel the stress of too much todo and too little time in which to do it (Lee, 1999). This study supported the re-search finding that ministers and their spouses struggle with drawing bound-aries around their time for themselves, each other, their families, and theirministry. Learning to create those boundaries is not easy for most clergy giventhe many demands and the high expectations of being all things to all people.

Ministers and their spouses also reported mobility issues as being a sourceof stress for them and their families, as suggested by other studies (Morris &Blanton, 1994b; Morris & Blanton, 1998; Ostrander, Henry, & Fournier,1994). Frequent moves disrupted families and created added stress and strainwithin and between family members. These moves often made it difficult forclergy families to connect and to find essential support networks. Many wereoften geographically separated from extended family and found frequentmoves an added burden. Those ministers in the study who were able to sustainlonger tenures in their churches seemed to report a greater sense of connectionto the community. However, in some denominations, relocations were re-quired after a certain time and this frequently created greater stress for theclergy family.

Finding personal space was one of the most difficult challenges facing theclergy. It is easy to let the gallant call of ministry distract one from his or herown personal and family life, so clergy persons have to be vigilant in protect-ing their boundaries in this arena. This issue, as did most of these boundary-re-lated issues, came down to how the minister managed his or her time. Dopersonal and family times get placed on the schedule or do other activities andagendas overshadow personal and family needs?

One important issue related to space concerned the parsonage. It appearedfrom this study that for most clergy and their spouses, parsonages were a disad-vantage and potentially created additional stress. The need for one’s personalspace certainly extended to one’s home, but when the pastor’s home wasviewed as church property, this created ambiguous boundary issues that madeit difficult for the clergy and his family to negotiate. It appeared that parson-ages did not allow a sense of ownership and personal space. In fact, it made itmore difficult for the minister and his or her family to set personal and familialboundaries because they were living in someone else’s home–the congrega-tion’s home.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Based on the study, it appeared that clergy who lived in a parsonage experi-enced the most intrusions with parishioners feeling that they somehow hadmore ownership and thus permission to drop by the parsonage. Clergy in thefocus groups who lived in parsonages that were connected to or adjacent to thechurch seemed to have an even more difficult time with intrusions. Manychurch groups would often meet on the church property, which created a lackof privacy for the clergy family and also made it much too convenient for pa-rishioners to drop in for a visit. Some pastors avoided going outside to cook outor just to sit because of intruding church activities taking place in their back-yard.

As reported in other studies (Lee & Balswick, 1989; Morris & Blanton,1998; Warner & Carter, 1984), the issue of isolation was found to be a signifi-cant stressor for clergy families. Isolation appeared to occur because ministerswere often set apart by their parishioners and were seen as somehow different.Clergy families often found it difficult to make enduring friendships becauseof mobility issues that prevented close connections, as well as personal andprofessional boundary issues. Can the pastor, or should the pastor, talk abouthis or her frustrations with other parishioners with parishioners? In drawingsuch professional boundaries, some isolation was inevitable. Clergy andclergy spouses reported that having friends outside their immediate congrega-tion helped with feelings of isolation.

Intrusions were also reported to be an important boundary issue faced bymost clergy. These data on intrusiveness were supported by other studies ofclergy and their families (Lee, 1999; Morris & Blanton, 1998). Being on call“24/7,” as many would say, left them open to being called at most any hour ofthe day or night. This was also at times inevitable and went with the position,but those clergy who were able to have some sense of control over the manydemands in their lives found creative ways to handle these intrusions. Someused caller ID to screen calls, thus being able to identify those persons callingwith legitimate concerns versus those who just wanted to chat. Some also usedthe answering machine to screen calls and to set certain boundaries aroundmeal times and special family times.

Given the nature of boundary-related stress, boundary ambiguity, as onemight expect, became an important issue regarding the health and well-beingof these clergy families. Boss (2002), for example, suggests that there are twotypes of boundary ambiguity that at high levels can create stress and dysfunc-tion for families. One type relates to the physical absence of a family memberwho is perceived to be psychologically present. The other type is the oppo-site–psychological absence, but physical presence. Both types of boundaryambiguity existed with a number of these clergy families adding stress to theirfamily functioning. The long hours and “24/7” expectations of availability fre-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

quently took ministers away from their families even though they were per-ceived as present emotionally, as noted in the minister’s statement regardingbeing called away during his daughter’s 10th birthday party. In addition,clergy can also be so preoccupied with congregational concerns that they arenot always present emotionally when they are in fact present physically asnoted by one minister who said that the only affair his wife had to worry aboutwas the one with his church.

As expected these varied and related boundary issues certainly had an im-pact on the clergy family’s relationships. These busy ministers struggled tomaintain appropriate boundaries around their relationships with their spousesand their children. On call twenty-four hours a day and with high expectationsplaced upon them, it was not easy for them to find time for nurturing them-selves and their families. It seemed that those clergy who were able to maintainreasonable and appropriate boundaries between their work and their family lifereported less stress on the home front.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Clergy and clergy spouses obviously experience a plethora of stresses re-lated to the various roles they play in parish ministry. As a result of our find-ings, there are a number of implications/recommendations that would behelpful to clergy and their families in reducing and coping with these bound-ary-related issues.

Broderick (1993) suggested that the defining characteristic of a family sys-tem is its ability to maintain “selectively permeable boundaries” between itsmembers and its environment. This is no easy task and all families strugglewith such selectivity on an ongoing basis. Certainly this is true for the clergyfamily. The role they play in our culture often suggests that their boundariesshould always be open, when in fact, it is critical that they be “selective” intheir openness in order to protect their sense of family well-being. Thus, assist-ing clergy families in physical and psychological boundary maintenance, bal-ance, and selectivity becomes critical as they seek to maintain and protect theirfamily members.

While clergy are on the forefront in dealing with the stress of others, theyneed assistance in handling their own personal and familial needs. Becausetime constraints were creating stress for the clergy and their families, theyclearly need assistance with time management boundary-related issues. Oneway to deal with these time issues is to increase available assistance to clergywith paid or volunteer support to deal with youth activities, home and medicalvisitations, and/or wedding coordination. Denominational executives are also


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

in a strategic position to make workshops and continuing education offeringson this topic readily available. Business personnel in the local congregationswho are skilled in time management may be enlisted at the denominationallevel to assist in this training. Denominational leaders and congregations couldalso arrange for clergy and their families to have respite weekends or sabbati-cals. In this way they can get away from the continuing demands on their pro-fessional roles and regain a balance in their lives.

Second, it is essential that clergy families need increased and ongoing sup-port networks for themselves and their families. The isolation clergy feel isreal and will not dissipate unless support systems are built into the structure oftheir denominational hierarchy and polity (Morris & Blanton, 1995). Sometype of group supervision/parish assistance program could be created that in-volves clergy meeting on a regular basis across denominations. Clergy andtheir spouses need anonymity to feel safe in sharing their concerns and strug-gles and will do so more readily across denominations than within denomina-tions because of political/hierarchy issues. Interview experiences with theseclergy and clergy spouses from different denominations revealed a genuineopenness and eagerness in sharing with each other.

Third, clergy families would benefit from ongoing educational and enrich-ment programs that would address pertinent issues, such as parish-congregationboundaries, family process, financial management, administrative management,and health and family wellness. In particular, denominations need to increasetheir dialogue with clergy and clergy spouses about the roles they can and doplay in their lives. With so many clergy and clergy spouses feeling that supportis minimal, creating an ongoing forum for sharing concerns and ideas is criti-cal. Interdenominational cooperation in the creation of these programs is es-sential. Denominations have a great deal in common and thus much to shareand learn from each other that would be mutually beneficial.

Fourth, internships should be required for beginning ministers, as they areof most professionals. Such internships would allow on-the-job training viaexperienced ministers allowing for the opportunity of learning the real natureof ministry from seasoned veterans who know where the pitfalls are locatedand know how to deal with them as well. These internships, while perhaps dif-ficult to manage, would be enhanced across denominations and could also helpaddress, via experiential education, specific boundary-related stressors, suchas those identified in this study.

One final implication of this study relates to the need for further research.As the baby boomer generation approaches retirement, there will be an in-creasing number of clergy who will be leaving the ministry. Not only is there aneed to address the concerns of retired clergy families, but also the uniquequalities of clergy who are doing well in their ministry and those who are at


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

risk. Perhaps by such identification there can be greater understanding of thepros and cons of pastoral ministry, the unique needs of clergy families, as wellas better ascertain specific coping/management strategies most helpful in deal-ing with the boundary-related stressors clergy identified in this study.

With the increasing diversity of the U.S. population, it is also important toinvestigate the unique stresses, strains, and strengths of clergy families fromdifferent ethnic and racial backgrounds. An examination also needs to be doneto explore relevant leadership issues, struggles, and organizational manage-ment styles as they relate to congregational/clergy fit issues.

One clergy made a most revealing and poignant comment. He said, “Minis-try is like a walk in a beautiful pasture with a few hidden land mines, althoughyou have a general idea where the mines are. If you avoid the mines, life isbeautiful; if you hit a mine, it is devastating.” His observation highlights theperceptions that many clergy and clergy spouses have regarding what they per-ceive to be the sometimes-treacherous nature of ministry. In their efforts toserve, clergy and clergy spouses face specific land mines as they traverse thefields of ministry. Thus, it is imperative that the needs of clergy and their fami-lies be addressed in an effort to enable them to avoid the land mines createdsometimes by their own folly, as well as those created by the unique stress ofparish ministry.

REFERENCES

Bartlett, G. E. (1957). The minister, pastor or promoter? Pastoral Psychology, 8, 15.Blackbird, T., & Wright, P. H. (1985). Pastors’ friendships: Project overview and an

exploration of the pedestal effect. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13,274-283.

Boss, P. (2002). Family stress management: A contextual approach (2nd Ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Broderick, C. B. (1993) Understanding family process: Basics of family systems the-ory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Daly, K. (2001). Deconstructing family time: From ideology to lived experience. Jour-nal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 283-294.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.Sage Publications.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of groundedtheory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Greenberg, J. S. (1990). Comprehensive stress management. Wm. C. Brown Pub-lishers.

Hawkins, F., & Klas, L. (1997). Time management as a stressor for helping profession-als: Implications for employment. Journal of Employment Counseling, 34, 2-6.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

L’Abate, L., Ganahl, G., & Hansen, J. (1986). Methods of family therapy. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, C. (1992). PK: Helping pastor’s kids through their identity crisis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan.

Lee, C. (1999). Specifying intrusive demands and their outcomes in congregationalministry: A report on the ministry demands inventory. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion, 39, 477-489.

Lee, C., & Balswick, J. (1989). Life in a glass house: The minister’s family in its uniquesocial context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Miller, D., & Gillies, P. (1996). Is there life after work? Experience of HIV and oncol-ogy health staff. AIDS Care, 8, 167-182.

Mills, E., & Koval, J. (1971). Stress in the ministry. Washington, DC: Ministry StudiesBoard.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Montgomery, J. (1988). Family systems and beyond. New York: Human Sciences

Press.Morris, M., & Blanton, P. (1998). Predictors of family functioning among clergy and

spouses: Influence of social context and perceptions of work-related stressors.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 27-41.

Morris, M., & Blanton, P. (1995). The availability and importance of denominationalsupport services as perceived by clergy husbands and their wives. Pastoral Psy-chology, 44, 29-44.

Morris, M., & Blanton, P. W. (1994a). Denominational perceptions of stress and theprovision of support services for clergy families. Pastoral Psychology, 42,345-364.

Morris, M., & Blanton, P. (1994b). The influence of work-related stressors on clergyhusbands and their wives. Family Relations, 43, 189-195.

Nichols, M., & Schwartz, R. (1995). Family therapy: Concepts and methods. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Ostrander, D., Henry, C., & Fournier, D. (1994). Stress, family resources, coping, andadaptation in ministers’ families. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 13,50-67.

Polson, M., & Piercy, F. (1993). The impact of training stress on married family ther-apy trainees and their families: A focus group study. Journal of Family Psychother-apy, 4, 69-92.

Sevier, R. (1989). Conducting focus group research. Journal of College Admissions,no. 122, Winter, 4-9.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory pro-cedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

Swanson, V., & Power, K. (1999). Stress, satisfaction, and role conflict in dual-doctorpartnerships. Community, Work, and Family, 2, 67-88.

Taylor, M. (1977). Two-person career or two-career marriage? The Christian Ministry,8, 18-20.

Walsh, F. (1982). Normal family process. New York: The Guilford Press.Warner, J., & Carter, J. (1984). Loneliness, marital adjustment, and burnout in pastoral

and lay persons. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 125-131.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

10 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

understanding boundary-related stress in clergy families

Documents