Researchers found that the changing religious landscape in America, sped up by the pandemic and enforced lockdowns, has led to the challenging times that pastors now face, causing more of them to think of changing churches or leaving the profession altogether.

As American pastors have grown increasingly discontent with their profession, more than half have seriously considered leaving pastoral ministry since 2020 for various reasons, a new study from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research suggests.
In “I’m Exhausted All the Time—Exploring the Factors Contributing to Growing Clergy Discontentment,” released as part of the Institute’s larger project “Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations,” researchers surveyed a nationally representative group of 1,700 religious leaders in the fall of 2023 then compared the findings to responses provided by clergy and their congregations in earlier EPIC surveys.
“The further we are from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the more we observe larger percentages of clergy pondering alternatives to their present congregation, vocation, or both,” the research team led by Scott Thumma, professor of Sociology of Religion at Hartford International University for Religion and Peace and director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, stated in the report.
The data suggests that as of fall 2023, 53% of religious leaders have seriously considered leaving pastoral ministry at least once since 2020. This share is significantly higher than the 37% of pastors who reported in 2021 that they had similar thoughts since 2020.
About 44% of pastors also said they seriously considered leaving their congregations at least once since 2020. This is more than double the 21% of pastors who reported this sentiment in 2021.
“While there is some overlap in these two thoughts, it is not entirely the same group of leaders considering leaving both their current congregation and the ministry profession altogether. About a third of leaders report having both thoughts, a third have considered one or the other (11% consider only leaving their congregation and 20% consider only leaving the profession) and the final third have never considered leaving either,” researchers explained.
The growing discontent among pastors was described in the report as a “disconcerting” reality that implies “clergy are in the midst of a challenging time.”
The average clergyperson was described as a 59-year-old leader who had served in their position for a median of seven years and was 80% more likely to be white and male. Some 75% were employed full time, and 60% of them served solo rather than as part of a team of leaders.
While most pastors reported taking a day off during the week, only a few have taken a sabbatical in the last decade. About a third held paid employment beyond their ministry work, and this was found to be more common among pastors who served part time. Nevertheless, more than a quarter of full-time pastors reported additional employment.
In their efforts to explain the rising discontent among clergy, researchers examined questions of overall health and wellness among the leaders. They found that it did not appear that “a large percentage of clergy have suddenly become unwell or are suffering a dramatic emotional or spiritual disease and then thinking about leaving.”
Researchers found that the changing religious landscape in America, sped up by the pandemic and enforced lockdowns, has led to the challenging times that pastors now face, causing more of them to think of changing churches or leaving the profession altogether.
“The post-pandemic turnover has left our lay leadership depleted; people’s sense of connection and commitment is less than before; it’s hard to get people to do DIY church in the way that we did before; people seem to be more demanding of services. Plus — people’s doubt is at an all-time high. I’m spiritually exhausted from talking people back into faith — am I even doing them a favor?” one pastor in the study said.
Researchers pointed to the decades-long decline in in-person attendance and church membership numbers.
Read More
Related Posts:

“What God has joined together” implies that marriage is not merely a human agreement but a relationship in which God changes the status of a man and a woman from being single (they are no longer two) to being married (one flesh). From the moment they are married, they are unified in a mysterious way that belongs to no other human relationship, having all the God-given rights and responsibilities of marriage that they did not have before. Being “one flesh” includes the sexual union of a husband and wife (see Gen. 2:24), but it is more than that because it means that they have left their parents’ household (“a man shall leave his father and his mother,” Gen. 2:24) and have established a new family, such that their primary human loyalty is now to each other, before anyone else.

All commentary sections adapted from the ESV Study Bible.
1. Ephesians 5:22–27
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Read More
The first example of general submission (Eph. 5:21) is illustrated as Paul exhorts wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22–24, 33). Husbands, on the other hand, are not told to submit to their wives but to love them (Eph. 5:25–33). Paul’s first example of general submission from Eph. 5:21 is the right ordering of the marriage relationship (see also Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). The submission of wives is not like the obedience children owe parents, nor does this text command all women to submit to all men (to your own husbands, not to all husbands!). Both genders are equally created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–28) and heirs together of eternal life (Gal. 3:28–29). This submission is in deference to the ultimate leadership of the husband for the health and harmonious working of the marriage relationship.
The focus in these verses is on Christ, for husbands do not “sanctify” their wives or “wash” them of their sins, though they are to do all in their power to promote their wives’ holiness. “Sanctify” here means “to consecrate into the Lord’s service through cleansing, washing of water.” This might be a reference to baptism, since it is common in the Bible to speak of invisible, spiritual things (in this case, spiritual cleansing) by pointing to an outward physical sign of them (see Rom. 6:3–4). There may also be a link here to Ezek. 16:1–13, where the Lord washes infant Israel, raises her, and eventually elevates her to royalty and marries her, which would correspond to presenting the church to himself in splendor at his marriage supper (see also Ezek. 36:25; Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2, 9–11). without blemish. The church’s utter holiness and moral perfection will be consummated in resurrection glory, but is derived from the consecrating sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
2. Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Read More
“Not good” is a jarring contrast to Gen. 1:31; clearly, the situation here has not yet arrived to “very good.” “I will make him” can also be translated “I will make for him,” which explains Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 11:9. In order to find the man a helper fit for him, God brings to him all the livestock, birds, and beasts of the field. None of these, however, proves to be “fit for” the man. “Helper” (Hb. ‘ezer’) is one who supplies strength in the area that is lacking in “the helped.” The term does not imply that the helper is either stronger or weaker than the one helped. “Fit for him” or “matching him” (cf. ESV footnote) is not the same as “like him”: a wife is not her husband’s clone but complements him.

3. Matthew 19:4–6
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Read More
“What God has joined together” implies that marriage is not merely a human agreement but a relationship in which God changes the status of a man and a woman from being single (they are no longer two) to being married (one flesh). From the moment they are married, they are unified in a mysterious way that belongs to no other human relationship, having all the God-given rights and responsibilities of marriage that they did not have before. Being “one flesh” includes the sexual union of a husband and wife (see Gen. 2:24), but it is more than that because it means that they have left their parents’ household (“a man shall leave his father and his mother,” Gen. 2:24) and have established a new family, such that their primary human loyalty is now to each other, before anyone else. Jesus avoids the Pharisaic argument about reasons for divorce and goes back to the beginning of creation to demonstrate God’s intention for the institution of marriage. It is to be a permanent bond between a man and a woman that joins them into one new union that is consecrated by physical intercourse (Gen. 2:24).
4. Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Read More
Instead of telling wives to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō), as was typical in Roman households, Paul appeals to them to “submit” (Gk. hypotassō), based on his conviction that men have a God-given leadership role in the family. The term suggests an ordering of society in which wives should align themselves with and respect the leadership of their husbands (see Eph. 5:22–33).
Read More
Related Posts:

At its stated meeting on Tuesday, November 6, 2022, the PCA Missouri Presbytery voted to release the three ministerial staff members of Memorial Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, Missouri. The Presbytery voted to release Dr. Greg Johnson, Lead Pastor, Associate Pastor Keith Robinson, and Youth and Family Pastor Sam Dolby from the Presbyterian Church in America. The Presbytery acted under the provision of the Book of Church Order 38-3a.
This action follows the vote of the Memorial Presbyterian Church congregation on November 18 to withdraw from the PCA. All pending actions against the church and the pastors are now closed.
At the conclusion of the Missouri Presbytery meeting it issued a letter to the Presbyterian Church in America, which follows.
December 6, 2022
Dear Friends in the PCA,
On Friday, November 18, 2022, Memorial Presbyterian Church in St. Louis voted to withdraw from the PCA at a duly called meeting of the congregation. Concurrent with this, one of its TEs, Doug Mendis, asked that he be honorably retired by the Missouri Presbytery, while its other three TEs (Greg Johnson, Keith Robinson, and Sam Dolby) requested that their names be “removed from the rolls” of the Missouri Presbytery, according to the provisions of BCO 38-3a.
At a special called meeting of the Missouri Presbytery on December 6, 2022, the presbytery acknowledged the departure of and dismissed Memorial, granted TE Mendis’ request to be honorably retired, and approved the requests of TEs Johnson, Robinson, and Dolby to have their names removed the rolls of the Missouri Presbytery with immediate effect (per BCO 38-3a). In the case of TE Johnson, while the Missouri Presbytery had recently empowered its moderator to appoint a committee to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation of TE Johnson, it determined after healthy debate “not to conduct the case (BCO 38-3a)” due to concerns regarding the potential impact of a lengthy investigation and how this might affect the long-term purity and peace of the church.
Memorial is still in the process of discerning its future denominational affiliation. For more information regarding Memorial’s specific reasons for departure or its future plans, please contact Memorial Church directly. Questions concerning other pending judicial actions pertaining to Memorial or TE Johnson should be directed to the office of the Stated Clerk.
As we seek to move forward, we want to underline the varying perspectives within our presbytery concerning Memorial’s departure.
First, we want to underline our sadness at Memorial’s departure. Setting aside the most recent controversies, Memorial has been a part of the PCA and the Missouri Presbytery for over 40 years and over that time many faithful friends have ministered the gospel from the bosom of this historic congregation. We will miss their partnership in this most central of all enterprises and we wish them well as they seek a new denominational home.
Second, we want to underline our agreement with Memorial that the decision they have taken is in the best interest of all parties, including Memorial, the Missouri Presbytery, and the Presbyterian Church in America.
Over the last several years, tension has grown between Memorial and many of its denominational partners as Memorial sought to reach and disciple people who experience same-sex attraction and/or gender incongruence. These tensions were particularly occasioned by the heavy involvement of Memorial and TE Johnson with the Revoice conference, the church’s outreach to the local arts community—including LGBT artists—through The Chapel ministry, and by statements made by TE Johnson in various venues since the conclusion of the previous SJC case (SJC 2020-12).
Over the last two years in particular, leaders of the Missouri Presbytery have been in regular dialogue and prayer with leaders at Memorial, including TE Johnson, concerning many of these issues. While recognizing Memorial’s unique position in reaching into the secular LGBT community, many in our presbytery had serious concerns about the wisdom and long-term implications of the strategies employed by Memorial and its leaders, believing that some might not be sufficient to guard and maintain the peace and purity of the church.
As these discussions became more focused, each party concluded that a mutually agreed separation was the only course forward since the deep differences between Memorial and the Missouri Presbytery on the matters in question could not ultimately be reconciled. As a result, we also agreed that it was best for Memorial’s TEs to pursue their respective callings outside of the boundaries of the PCA.
In making the decision to support Memorial and its TEs’ withdrawal from the denomination, we pray that many of the tensions that have disturbed the peace of our denomination over the past several years might now begin to dissipate and lead to a season of renewal, during which we can focus on our positive mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission. We also pray that the Lord would give wisdom and grace to the leaders of Memorial Church as they walk forward in faith.
Finally, your brothers in Missouri Presbytery want to underline our continuing desire to actively and eagerly participate in the PCA as we move forward into our 50th year celebrations. In this regard, we heartily affirm the report of the AIC on Human Sexuality and continue to strive to protect the peace and purity of the church to the best of our ability.
The Missouri Presbytery
Related Posts: