What is in Kelvin's Head?

Who is the happiest of the them all?

21/03/2014

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?

vocation, why clergy are happy

7 responses to “Sermon – 1 June 2008”

Di

01/06/2008

It seems to me more and more important for us to rediscover the idea of the divine inspiration of the reader of scripture as well as that of the authors.

Thank you for this, Kelvin. I agree with you wholeheartedly. After all, only the author truly knows what was in his head when he wrote it and indeed, where the inspiration came from.

Oh, and I enjoyed the rest too.

Reply
Marion Conn

02/06/2008

Once again I’m listening to this late at night. Definitely food for thought and prayer. I was outside in the rain tonight, I really like the idea of that I was not just wet, but drenched in Grace. Thanks Kelvin.

Good Night.

Reply
Jonathan Ensor

03/06/2008

I believe that everyone has a right to freedom of thought. Freedom of speech is a circumscribed fact of life in the UK and it is certainly an interesting idea that reading can be inspired, but who is the arbiter of what is inspired and who is the arbiter of what is apostate. I may believe with all my heart that I am divinely inspired, but I still have to convince other people that this is the case and that I am not being grandiose etc. If I pontificate about a text in the common domain, I may well have to justify myself and/or defend my position at some considerable cost, which I may or may not be willing to pay.

Reply
kelvin

03/06/2008

Thank you for your comments.

Jonathan – I think that I was suggesting that we see both the authorship of texts and the reading of texts as activities that can be inspired. I think that there has to be some dialogue between author and reader.

I also think that in the history of looking at biblical texts, some people have emphasised the value of the text to the individual whilst others have read the text in community. (We might also presume that the texts themselves were gathered in community). I don’t think that I’d like to lose sight of that idea of inspiration coming when a community reads a text together. That idea is important to me as it counters against the idea of individuals thinking that they (alone) are divinely inspired.

It seems to me that more people have believed that they alone were the only proper source of truth or inspiration or legitimacy than has actually been the case.

Reply
Elizabeth

03/06/2008

Having heard this text spoken of many, many, many times in the context of Luther’s reading, I must say it was an enormous relief to hear this other way of reading. This tempts me to return to other texts of Paul’s that might be worth re-reading without Evangelical/Calvinist/Lutheran-coloured glasses.

Reply
Jonathan Ensor

03/06/2008

Kelvin, I agree that there has to be a community, but pretty universally in churches I have been to the Minister has preached and the community has continued to be fragmented. Also there is no chance of dialogue with dead authors and in the realm of art, once a work is in the public realm it is available for multiple interpretations which the artist may well never have considered. Even legal documents which attempt to define the law are interpreted by the judiciary. There is little chance for art or literature or the bible to be consistently read because the implications of certain phrases or sentences may reside in the way that they are written rather than in the mind of the author and the definitions may be too loosely drawn.

Reply
kelvin

03/06/2008

Many thanks for your comments.

Reply