• Who is the happiest of the them all?

    Mirror, mirror, on the wall….
    Who is the happiest of them all?

    Turns out the answer is clergy.

    According to the BBC, the government is beginning to include measures of happiness in what it attempts to do and part of that has been trying to quantify who the happiest people are in society. Turns out the answer at the top of the list is “vicars/priests”.

    I’m not at all surprised. Oh, but there’s so much to say about it – not least the fact that I know plenty of clergy who are very far from happy. My hunch is that those who are unhappy in this job tend not to be unhappy about the essence of the job and are frustrated because they can’t vicar enough to fulfil the hopes that they once had. (My apologies for verbing the noun in that last sentence).

    The list itself is fascinating as it lists job categories by average income too. Second most happy people are CEOs bringing in lots of dosh.

    Here’e the top ten happy categories:

    (Rank) Occupation Mean income (£s)
    (1) Clergy 20,568
    (2) Chief executives and senior officials 117,700
    (3) Managers and proprietors in agriculture and horticulture 31,721
    (4) Company secretaries 18,176
    (5) Quality assurance and regulatory professionals 42,898
    (6) Health care practice managers 31,267
    (7) Medical practitioners 70,648
    (8) Farmers 24,520
    (9) Hotel and accommodation managers and proprietors 32,470
    (10) Skilled metal, electrical and electronic trades supervisors 35,316

    I’ve been asking myself why it is that clergy come out at the top. Some combination of the following factors is probably at work:

    • Very high degree of autonomy – notwithstanding bishops, presbyteries and other forms of oversight, clergy have to be very self-motivated.
    • We are in the joy business.
    • There’s a relatively high level of vocational testing before you get in – the churches try to select those who are most likely to cope with a very odd life.
    • High satisfaction levels around being with people in trauma and emotional need – you know you are doing good very often
    • High level of variety in daily life.
    • It is a life not a job.
    • Inner calling is a greater motivator than money – you don’t go into it for more money.
    • Lots of opportunity to develop a life where internal reflection allows you to work through your own stuff.
    • The job involves telling people they are loved and learning how much you yourself are loved too.
    • You get to walk into places and situations where others are frightened and help them deal with their fears.
    • Worship.

    I’ll write sometime about why clergy are not happy. But for today, I’d be interested in any further comments about why clergy are happy.

    Anyone?

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

  2. Jimmy Avatar

    Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.

  3. Jimmy Avatar

    Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

  4. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

    I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
    http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

  5. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

  6. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

  7. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

    There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

    I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Called or Collared

    A new and interesting development locally is a monthly inter-faith coffee morning. A few of us from different faith traditions go and have coffee together in a local cafe. No agenda. Very relaxed. It is a meeting which includes RC, Presbyterian and Episcopal Christians, the local Immam and someone from a Tibetan Buddhist centre. We…

  • Dialogue des Carmélites

    To the RSAMD tonight for the decapitation of nuns. An odd way to spend the evening, but it was clear that they all had it coming to them in the end. It is a great piece and was extremely well staged. Amongst other good singing, Soeur Constance stood out from the crowd. The first third…

  • Sermon – 22 June 2008

    For audio, click on the icon below. The text that I had in front of me is below, though I think I went a little off piste once or twice. [audio:Sermon 22 June 2008.mp3] It is often said that history is written by the winners – whenever there is a conflict, it is those who…

  • Gibson St Gala

    Just back from St Silas Church. I’d been at the the Gibson St Gala. It is a great little street festival – much more fun, I think than the big parade which took place on Byers Rd last week. St Silas have a fantastic position for this one and were making the most of it…