Clergy and priests are the sixth most trustworthy group in society
Does anyone else find this a little disheartening:
Respondents were read a list of 21 groups and asked which of them they generally trusted to tell the truth. Doctors scored most highly (88%), followed by teachers (81%), professors (74%), judges (72%), scientists (71%), and then clergy/priests on 68%. Politicians as a whole (14%), government ministers (17%), and journalists (19%) occupied the bottom three positions.
Full details over at BRIN
Tags: Religion Society
July 1st, 2011 at 9:27 am
Yep, it is kinda sad
… but hardly surprising: we (as in both the church and society at large) place very high — superhuman if we’re honest — expectations on clergy, push them to breaking point, then point the finger when they fall.
Superb summary of what they’re up against here: I am the Vicar, I am.
July 1st, 2011 at 9:29 am
It would be interesting to know how those surveyed formed their judgement. I would imagine everyone surveyed had personal experience of doctors and teachers, and would hope/assume that judges were trustworthy, whereas they might not have personal experience of priests.
Given the antagonism to religion that often seem to dominate the media and how science is revered I think to be ranked 6th out of 21 beneath doctors, teachers, professors, judges and scientists is a pretty good result.
July 1st, 2011 at 9:44 am
Good points Pam. I like your positive approach.
July 1st, 2011 at 12:29 pm
No, I don’t find it disheartening at all – indeed I think it is most healthy. Why should anyone think a priest or clergyman is any less/more likely to be trustworthy than say a teacher or social worker or a doctor or a bin man? It is curious how we happily take Matt 7:1 and tend to think it is about negatively judging people… i.e. we shouldn’t think badly of people, or judge their negative actions, because we will be judged in the same manner. But there is no caveat in the verse saying “Do not judge, [ABOUT PEOPLE’S BAD BEHAVIOUR] or you too will be judged.” The injunction is just not to make judgements about people. Matt 7:1 is one of the reasons why I have always had problems with the idea of saints – and although via the several years I spent in a monastery, I got ‘into’ the idea of ‘saints’ days’ and feast etc. – inwardly I did and do think the idea of saint cults is just stupid because of Matt 7:1 – we have judged this person as ‘special’ and their life as ‘holy’ and in doing so we have considerable raise the bar for ourselves!!
Three of my closest friends are Anglican priests; several more are ministers or priests from a variety of denominations. I shared a house with two of my closest friends long before they were dog-collared (at the same time – we were all in lay ministry together) and have now known them 25 years (this week in fact 6/07/1986 is the day we first met) – I know them warts and all and therefore have always found it rather peculiar the way other people behave around them when they have a dog collar on. It is the same phenomenon I’ve noticed at the monastery, how guests/seculars build a picture of the community that is purely grounded in their expectations and imagination rather than reality. They make judgements about the life of the community that are just not true, just based on wishful thinking – in a very real sense, making others the receptacle for the goodness and holiness they perceive as lacking in their own life. On several occasions I have got chatting with a guest and s/he has mentioned a certain brother and then gone doey-eyed and said something along the lines of ‘Oh he is such a lovely, holy man…’ – and I’ve thought ‘Come and live with him, and when you’ve seen thump another brother, or go out of his way to be nasty and cause discord, or called you all the f*****g c***s under the sun, you might not think so highly of a brother who strives to be a saint in his relationships with guests or those who only know the community slightly and yet is a devil with his fellow brethren who are lumbered with him 24/7.
Yet aren’t we all like this, to a greater or lesser degree? The problem is when you start judging whether someone is more ‘spiritual’ or ‘trustworthy’ than yourself, it is often an excuse to either remain where you are or wallow in self-pity and its contingent inverted pride ‘Oh I wish I could be like Father Peter Perfect; but I am just too sinful for that…’ (inverted pride); ‘Oh Father Peter Perfect is SO pious… but he is a devout man, like all priests and it is a specialist calling… I don’t have to be so ‘holy’ in my everyday life.’ (vicarious piety). There is nothing special about a priest, pastor or minister – and I think it is unhelpful for our own spiritual welfare to believe there is.
As an aside, a good deal of my thesis is about how we construct reality – why do we think many of the well-known ‘faith based organisations’ are any better (or worse) than secular charities or private companies in the same line of work? Why is it, that a disproportionate number of people (particularly practicing Christians) I’ve interviewed or surveyed via questionnaires, think many faith based organisations are somehow ‘special’ – that they receive little or no money from the state, that they are staffed by a band of devout staff – but mainly volunteers – and are an expression of a special species of love and kindness? Why is it that we think of anything tinged with the essence of ‘religion’ (but it has to be the ‘right’ religion – Islamic organisations aren’t seen in such a kindly light!) is somehow more virtuous or trustworthy than a secular social work agency or a private company? Similarly why do we think a priest should be more (or less) trustworthy than a doctor? With the symbolic universe that makes up our consciousness we have created a little hierarchy of virtues. Alas, returning to Matt 7:1, this condemns us, rather than the objects of our judgement!
P.
July 1st, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I’m surprised it is that high!