“I don’t understand why a person with a college-education has trouble finding work,” the older pastor commented after encountering a middle-aged parishioner, struggling with a mid-life job search.

The Church may be the last organization on earth to understand the changes facing the modern work force.

The Church, entrenched in the past, is dealing with the same problems with less success.

For countless decades or even centuries, mid-life was the pinnacle of a skilled worker’s career. Knowledge and experience positioned them as authorities. They commanded handsome wages. Life was good and the retirement years were looking sweet.

Today’s middle-aged, college-educated, skilled workers face a different world. Their skills are less valued. Newer skills of the connected age are not difficult to master, but they take time, effort and a continuing investment. Unlike youth, who can set aside the demands of independent living for four to eight years, the middle-aged workers are retooling while caring for teenagers, aging parents and still paying mortgages. Retirement is far less certain.

How does this affect the world of Church?

The Church still honors the system of hierarchy to some degree — even if they don’t call it “hierarchy.”

The people currently elected or appointed to leadership positions earned  their credentials the traditional way. Their positions are less market-driven. It has been enough in many cases to foster a reputation among a very narrow group of similarly trained and credentialed colleagues. They have been able to avoid the demands of the rest of the world — but not without consequence.

Change is every bit as imperative, but can be avoided until situations are dire with no damage to reputation. There are plenty of places to deflect blame for poor performance (economy, demographics, media, culture, lay people).

The great influx of second-career clergy may be adding candidates to the clergy roster who find the ever-changing demands of the secular world to be daunting. A major role of hierarchy is to keep the pool of available leaders active in ministry, regardless of their skills. Bottom line: the Church has incentive to stay the same to complement the skill sets of leadership–most of whom have very similar training and experience.

Sustaining clergy is a purpose of hierarchy, although it is rarely presented that way. Hierarchies want the available jobs to match the skills of available clergy. The Church is going to have to do a good bit of wiggling to loosen that stick from the mud!

This creates a division in expectations of laity and clergy. Laity, who must change or perish in their secular lives, grow impatient with clergy leaders, who roll out programs based on ministry models that used to work. The people at the top, most likely well into middle age, are disconnected from the lives of the laity. Empathy has not been the Church’s strong suit, especially since there is a LOT less money to work with.

Survival becomes the standard for success. Laity are not flocking to sacrifice for an organization in survival mode–especially one that threatens the local expression of faith with the strong arm of ecclesiastic power.

Survival standards are used to judge congregations. “We just don’t see how you can survive,” they are likely to say, even as they are dealing with the same or even more severe challenges.

There are ways to survive. There are ways to thrive. They are ways to reach out. But they will require new methods, new technology, new vision, a respect for younger blood and  lay talents and lifelong learning for Church leaders. Church leaders cannot ask congregations to make changes if they, themselves, are unable to change.

Laity are pretty busy making changes in their own lives.