'A more working-class CofE': is the CofE prepared to be politically and culturally more conservative?

There can also be issues of a cultural mismatch between those exploring ministry and the expectations of the Church. While being interviewed at a selection  conference Lee was asked by an interviewer who his favourite artist was. He  answered “Eminem”. The interviewer corrected him, saying he meant an artist such as a painter, not a rap singer. It is clear that the expectations of the interviewer did not take into account someone from Lee’s background.

These words are from the Church of England General Synod briefing paper accompanying a Private Member’s Motion calling for a 'Strategy for encouraging the ministry of people from working class backgrounds'.

It is rather amusing to think of progressive, bourgeois members of the General Synod now doing Google searches for Eminem, seeking to demonstrate their openness to the working class by integrating his lyrics into the their sermons and future General Synod speeches.

They bite off of this 'cause they like my sh*t (Yeah)

No f*cks (d.a. got that dope, yeah), take offense, but you like that sh*t.

Not the music I am into, but I suppose it is better than General Synod members quoting, with much approval, from the hosts of 'The Rest is Politics'.

While Eminem is mentioned in this attempt to provide "more ministers who instinctively understand the life and culture of working class communities" oddly absent is any reference whatsoever to one of the significant dividing lines between working class and middle/upper class attitudes: politics and the culture wars.

The absence is distinctly odd as this has been the focus of much commentary since the 2016 Brexit referendum. In the words of a Social Market Foundation report from 2023:

The education divide has played a decisive role in recent votes in the UK. Education is one of the strongest predictors of Brexit preferences, with school leavers and graduates overwhelmingly backing Leave and Remain respectively. The Conservatives’ increased vote share in 2017 and 2019 was also driven by a near doubling of support among school leavers between 2015 and 2019. This is a new development – before 2016, school leavers were more likely to vote Labour in every election since 1979, while graduates have tended to vote Conservative. Education is the strongest predictor of voters’ social values.

Even with Labour winning the 2024 British General Election, YouGov noted:

Education remains a strong indicator of how someone voted, with Labour doing a lot better than the Conservatives amongst those who have a university degree (42% to 18%). By contrast, the Tories performed marginally better than Labour amongst those whose highest level of education attained is GCSEs or lower.

In that 2024 General Election, the combined Conservative and Reform UK amongst those categorised as having a High education level (that is, degree or above) was 26%; for Medium it was 42%; and Lower (GCSE or below) it was 54% (more than double that for High). The latter category was the only one in which the Conservatives outpolled Labour.

These trends are also evident in the most recent polling, with Reform (32%) now outpolling the Conservatives (22%) amongst C2DE voters. Only 17% of ABC1 voters indicate that they would vote Reform. The combined vote for the Left - Labour/Liberal Democrat/Greens - amongst ABC1 voters is 56%; amongst C2DE voters it is 40%.

In other words, a 'more working class CofE' would be a CofE which would have to give much more space for and considerably more respect to voters on the Right. 

It is also the same with aspects of the culture wars. Mindful that the CofE has been consistently aligned with progressive opinion in that culture wars, it would be rather a shock to the system for the CofE to seek to reflect the more culturally conservative attitudes of working class voters.

Consider, for example, capital punishment. According to a recent survey almost 1 in 2 C2DE voters support restoring the death penalty, compared to around 1 in 3 ABC1 voters. Support for scrapping the previous Government's Rwanda scheme, to address illegal immigration, stood at 46% amongst ABC1 voters - but at only 32% amongst C2DE voters.

Over 1 in 10 ABC1 voters have a negative view of the armed forces: it is 1 in 20 C2DE voters. Increasing the size of the armed forces has the support of healthy majority of C2DE voters, 54%, considerably ahead of 43% of ABC1 voters.

31% of ABC1 voters regard being 'Woke' as positive, contrasting with a mere 18% of C2DE voters.

If the Church of England is seriously concerned with - in the words of the Church Times report on the views of the author of the Private Member's Motion - "a more working class CofE, which better reflected the diversity of the nation it sought to serve", it has to do rather more than discover Eminem. It would have to give respect to and space for more politically and culturally conservative views.

In some senses, this should be rather straightforward for the CofE. A culturally conservative outlook should find much to affirm in the CofE. Its clergy, after all, take the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Memorials to those who served the Empire are found in many parish churches. Prayers for the monarch and the realm are a fundamental part of the Book of Common Prayer. CofE clergy provide a majority of the padres for the armed forces. It is integral to the story of England. It has a crucial role in national and communal ceremonies of Remembrance. And, alongside Whig and Socialist traditions in the CofE, there has been a long and noble tradition of Church Tories. 

It should be straightforward for the CofE to respect and give space for politically and culturally conservatives views - but it clearly is not. It is not because, in many parts, the Church of England is 'Guardian readers preaching at Daily Mail readers'. (It's Daily Mail readers, by the way, because there are very, very few Sun readers in the pews.)

Only one Church of England bishop (out of 108) voiced support for Brexit. The bishops in the House of Lords were a consistent and united bloc as they publicly and loudly opposed the previous Government's attempt to address illegal immigration. And, as Bishop Philip North has memorably put it, "middle-class clergy squirm nervously during Remem­brance Sunday". George Orwell's critique of the left-wing English intelligentsia rather too neatly fits with the preponderance of episcopal and clerical opinion in the Church of England:

In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution ... It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of 
standing to attention during 'God save the King' than of stealing from a
poor box.

In the words of the briefing paper accompanying the Private Member's Motion:

We are a national church called to the cure of souls of all in our country. Having ministers who understand and relate to all the different communities in our country is essential. We need more ministers who instinctively understand the life and culture of working class communities, and who those communities will trust.

Indeed. But to seek "a more working-class CofE" while refusing to recognise, never mind address, the very significant gap in political views and culture war stances between the institution of the CofE and majority working class opinion does not at all suggest a serious initiative.

It will, no doubt, be objected that the Gospel, which the Church of England is called to proclaim, challenges and transforms political opinions. This is, of course, entirely correct. It is strange, however, that progressive political opinion does not appear to be meaningfully challenged by the Gospel. In what way has the politically and culturally progressive opinion which predominates in the CofE's episcopal and clerical ranks been regularly challenged by the Gospel? The suspicion must be that there is a deeply engrained - and very convenient - assumption that progressive views do not require to be challenged in anything like the same way that is the case with conservative views. 

It is not, however, incompatible with a Christian moral vision to make the prudential judgement that the United Kingdom requires a significant reduction in immigration. It is not at all incompatible with a Christian moral vision to be patriotic, to take pride in the vocation of the armed forces, or to believe that the United Kingdom has historically been a force for good in the world. Nor is it incompatible with historic Christian teaching (embodied in Article 37) that capital punishment can be morally licit. Despite this, each of these conservative views have little - if any - place in the official discourse of the Church of England.

What could the Church of England to address its evident hostility to conservative political and cultural views with majority working class support? Rather ironically, perhaps it should take heed of Labour. Labour MPs representing Red Wall constituencies have urged the Prime Minister to get tough on immigration. Health Secretary Wes Streeting's recent Fabian speech indicated a willingness to confront and challenge DEI ideology:

he also attacked an “ideologically driven, gimmicky gesture politics” around equality, diversity and inclusion and what he called the “nonsense” of “anti-whiteness”, as well as warning Labour’s equality agenda should not be derailed by “the politics of sociology seminars”.

“How did we go so wrong when the party founded by and for the working class basically said to a whole bunch of men in this country, ‘oh no, sorry, our equalities agenda isnt for you’. Really?”

The Blue Labour group of MPs seeks answers as to how, as one report has stated it, "Labour can connect more strongly with a lost tranche of working-class voters". Dan Carden, the group's chair, has outlined its political vision:

bold, left-wing economic policies, much lower immigration, a complete rejection of divisive identity politics, and proudly reclaiming our patriotism.

Another MP belonging to the group, Jonathan Brash, has spoken with approval of aspects of Trump's approach to border security:

Secure borders, perfectly reasonable. Will I agree on every policy he has around how he goes about that? No, I won’t. But on the principle of he thinks the borders should be secure, I do.

The point is not that this is how bishops of the Church of England must be speaking: the point is that if the Labour Party has space for such views, if a Labour Health Secretary can speak in this way, if these can be the views of Labour MPs seeking to reconnect with working class voters, there must be space for those who hold similar views if the Church of England is in any way serious about deepening its presence within and encouraging vocations from working class communities.

With reference to "working class culture", the briefing paper accompanying the Private Member's Bill has this to say:

As the “favourite artist” question showed, working class people may have a different set of cultural reference points, and more widely can have a different way of interacting and living their life. Sometimes this difference can be seen in a negative light, while it is just a different cultural background. Rather than problematize working class culture, are there ways we can celebrate its riches as a gift to God’s Church?

Is the CofE really prepared to stop 'problematizing' the political and cultural views of working class communities? Looking in from the outside, I confess to being rather sceptical. The deeply entrenched hostility towards conservative political and cultural views within the CofE - evident again and again in its political interventions and commentary on cultural issues - provide little, if any, evidence that the CofE has the institutional ability or willingness to respect and make space for such views. There are, therefore, likely to be warm words about Eminem, but little else. This would be a profound failure by a national Church, preferring (after the example of TEC) its own comfortable, monolithic political and cultural progressive consensus rather than, for the sake of the Gospel, better reflecting the diversity of the nation it ought to serve.