Looking at the pictures of the far-right demonstrations in Southampton last week, you may have seen a man in a clerical collar.
This was Pastor Chris Wickland, minister of Living Word Church in Titchfield in Hampshire.
Despite my many criticisms of Wickland, I can’t imagine him personally chucking a dustbin at a police officer. But his views are not much different to many of those who did.
Who is Chris Wickland?
Wickland is one of a small but increasingly vocal and emboldened number of out-and-out far-right clergy from independent churches or fringe denominations who are explicitly allied to figures such as Tommy Robinson.
Earlier in the day, Wickland was interviewed by Tommy Robinson himself. In the interview, posted on Instagram, Wickland declares that “minorities are being elevated way beyond” the majority.
Chris Wickland’s social media feeds are fall of vicious posts dehumanising Muslims, migrants and LGBTQ+ people, along with support for the far-right in the USA. He has a tendency of using the word “effeminate” to describe Christians and churches with whom he disagrees.
Chris Wickland has at least showed himself willing to engage in discussion with people with whom he disagrees. That is to say, he did when I met him in December, when I went along to watch part of Tommy Robinson’s “carol service” in central London. Wickland appeared on the stage next to Robinson wearing clerical dress, a great piece of visual propaganda for Robinson’s claim to be defending “Christian” Britain.
Tommy Robinson didn’t stop when I called out to him as he walked past me on the way out of the “carol concert”. Chris Wickland did, however, stop when I challenged him and was at least willing to answer my questions about his views. He was polite, but his arguments were full of the most tortuous twisting of scripture to fit passages that were ripped from their context to fit into a nationalist, racist agenda.
Making the far-right seem respectable
None of the clergy who turn up at Tommy Robinson events belong to mainstream denominations – but this shouldn’t make us complacent. Rikki Doolan, who seems to have played a major role in Robinson’s reported conversion to Christianity, is another independent minister. Cei Dewar, Phil Harris and Brett Murphy, whose views are essentially fascist, are associated with the Confessing Anglican Church.
At the same time, Nigel Farage and the Reform Party seem to have given up even the pretence of not being racist following the tragic murder of Henry Nowak. Reform Party members include a large number of Christians in mainstream denominations. Reform make much of their belief in defending a “Christian” Britain (which never really existed) and upholding “Christian values” (which they somehow square with turning back refugees and cutting support for the people most in need).
However marginal figures such as Wickland may be, they are increasingly confident and explicit in their views as the Overton Window in Britain lurches far to the right.
When casual observers see a man in a clerical collar in the footage of violent racist demonstrators, perhaps the biggest fault lies with mainstream church leaders who are failing to recognise the size of the problem or to do much about it. Those of us who reject the far-right because of our Christian faith need to be far more vocal and visible in saying so.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My book, The Upside-Down Bible: What Jesus really said about money, sex and violence (Darton, Longman and Todd, 2015) is available in paperback or e-book for £9.99.
Symon Hill 
I don’t know Wickland personally but I read what he writes, just as I read what you write, just as I read what many people write, whether or not I agree with them. I like to open the windows and curtains of my echo-chamber to fresh air and sunlight as often as I can. I don’t always agree with Wickland but, even when don’t, I often sympathise with his motivations. And the same for you – although I happen to disagree with you much more.
But then I read this rather unpleasant and unnecessary smear and I realise that you are not willing to extend the same grace to others who disagree with you. Some statements are simply false and defamatory – e.g. “Chris Wickland’s social media feeds are fall of vicious posts dehumanising Muslims, migrants and LGBTQ+ people”. It is not an edifying way to talk about another brother-in-Christ who, like you, is simply trying to make sense of life and work out his salvation (Philippians 2:12). As such, it reflects much more poorly on you than it does on him.
“Far-right”, like “racist”, “Islamophobic”, etc. is a facile cliché shorn of any real meaning by its application to anyone who disagrees with the prevailing secular group-think. It even gets used against views which were pretty mainstream a mere two or three decades ago! In fact, your fear that the Overton Window is lurching far to the right couldn’t be more off the mark. It remains far to the left with even any glacial shift being fought tooth-and-nail. I would add that, if the dam does burst and we really do end up with an extreme right party, that will mainly be the fault of the leftists who for so long have pushed the pendulum of dogma hard in one direction whilst insisting that no alternative perspective is valid and that anyone who does not agree with them is morally deficient. The left does not have a monopoly on righteousness – in fact, extreme left regimes killed many more people in the 20th century than did extreme right ones.
As for Wickland, call him “far-right” if you really must. But don’t expect anyone to listen. Parroting such hackneyed shibboleths looks tired, unoriginal and derivative. Even if it were not worn out and over-used, an ad hominem has no real power anyway.
As an aside, after your own run-ins with the authorities it might have behoved you to understand that there are usually two sides to encounters with the police. It is ironic that by rushing people to court and prison for relative mild offences such as throwing objects at the police, the so-called “justice” system in this country is simply confirming the protestors’ grievance about two-tier policing. You are incidentally also ignoring the fact that every protest – including ones with which you agree – has elements of violence, sometimes fomented by false-flag agents.
Thanks for your comment. Please forgive me for taking weeks to respond. I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into writing the comment and I regret not responding sooner.
Your comment helped me to reflect on how I write and speak about people with whom I disagree. It is not my intention to smear or misrepresent anyone. Reading your comment, I am reminded of the need to ensure that any criticisms I make are accurate and can be substantiated.
You point to my comment “Chris Wickland’s social media feeds are fall of vicious posts dehumanising Muslims, migrants and LGBTQ+ people”. You say this is false. However, I really don’t think it is. I think this is an accurate description of Chris Wickland’s social media feeds, although I accept that I have put it strongly. For what it’s worth, I made the same point to Chris Wickland when we spoke face-to-face in December. We spoke to each other courteously despite our strong disagreements.
However, your message has helped me to appreciate that I should perhaps have given more specific examples to back up my point, which I will bear in mind in future.
I appreciate that words such as “far-right” and “racist” *can* be thrown around with little thought about their meaning. However, just because a word can be used in a meaningless way, it does not follow that it *never* has any meaning. A word that is sometimes used too freely and carelessly can at other times can used carefully and accurately. You may disagree with my description of Chris Wickland’s views as “far-right”, which is fair enough. It does not follow, however, that I am using this term casually or without careful thought. I consider it an accurate description given his alliance with people such as Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins and his endorsement of claims about migrants and Muslims that are either highly speculative or demonstrably factually untrue. I can send you several examples of this if you would like me to do so.
Thank you for your comments about the Overton Window, which I found fascinating. It is a helpful reminder to me that the Overton Window looks different depending on where you are standing. It seems to me that most parties and commentators accept the basis of Thatcherite economics, including private ownership of industry and very limited taxes on the wealthy. Labour’s economic policies are centrist at best. There has been little meaningful action to tackle the tax-dodging of the very wealthy or to address climate chaos. I appreciate that on some issues – such as disability rights and LGBT+ rights – the Overton Window may be considered to have moved to the left in recent decades, but it seems to have swung right again in the last couple of years, what with Reform-led councils wanting to ban LGBT+ books in libraries, for example.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the prevailing secular group think”. My desire to follow Jesus often leads me to ally with people of other faiths and none in certain contexts; I am not following dominant views for the sake of doing so. There are many issues on which I disagree with the dominant view in society. I also tend to have run-ins with those parts of the left that seek to shut down debate (I have little time for the sort of left-wingers who spend more time making sure that other left-wingers have what they regard as the correct line that they do actually trying to change anything). I certainly do not maintain (as you put it) that “no alternative perspective is valid” or that people who disagree with me are “morally deficient”. While I am not convinced that your numbers add up for the claim that far-left regimes have killed more people than far-right ones, I agree that far-left regimes have killed millions of people. That is indeed appalling, and I utterly condemn those regimes for doing so.
Regarding your final paragraph, please be assured that I am certainly not assuming that the police are right in any encounter with far-right protesters or any other protesters! I am not convinced that the police and “justice” system are helping the matter at all; they often seem to be making things worse. While I find the claims of “two-tier policing” to be ludicrous, I have no wish to defend policing in this country. It is often appalling and harmful.
It is not true, incidentally, that *every* protest has elements of violence. I have been to many that don’t. However, I agree that many of them do, including some with which I otherwise agree. I can broadly support a protest without agreeing with everyone on it about everything.
In conclusion, I hope you’ll believe me when I say that (while not agreeing with most of your comment) I appreciate you taking the time to comment. Your remarks have helped me to think certain things through. God bless you.