Seven Steps to Help Unite the Church of America

It was Jesus Himself who said, “Every kingdom divided against itself... will not stand.” The same applies for the Church: If we are divided against ourselves, we will be ruined and we will not stand. And if we, the people of God in America, will not stand, neither will our nation.  Yet unity is of no use if it is not based on truth.

Seven Steps to Help Unite the Church of America | Article | AskDrBrown

It was Jesus Himself who said, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.” (Matthew 12:25) 

The same applies for the Church: If we are divided against ourselves, we will be ruined and we will not stand. And if we, the people of God in America, will not stand, neither will our nation. But how we can unite when there are such deep divisions and differences among us?

Unity is of no use if it is not based on truth. 

Unity is not real if it is founded on ethical or doctrinal compromise. Unity will not stand if it is only skin deep.

How, then, can we come together as one in a true and meaningful way when we are so far apart on so many issues?

I’m not talking here about uniting with professing Christians who deny the authority of Scripture and do not even believe Jesus rose from the dead. They are not part of God’s true Church.

I’m talking about genuine believers. About people who are serious about loving and serving the Lord. About people who recognize the Bible as God’s Word.

How can we unite as the force God intended us to be when we can’t even get along?

Speaking from my own experience, when I take a strong stand for issues such as religious liberty, the importance of marriage and family, and the sanctity of life, some believers view me as nothing more than a rightwing Republican – or even a white supremacist, Christian nationalist, insurrectionist.

When I address issues such as racial injustice and care for the poor, or when I call us to follow the example of Jesus and not repay evil for evil, some believers call me woke and weak, a leftist, a communist, a compromiser, and a RINO.

I’m sure the devil gets a rise out of all of this. The more we snipe at each other, the less we will pay attention to him. Can we not do better?

In the 1960s, the parents who lived through World War II and made many sacrifices for America’s freedom were taken aback at young people protesting the Vietnam War.

The parents said, “America, love it or leave it.” The kids said, “Make love, not war.”

But there was actually truth on both sides.

On the one hand, many of the parents did sacrifice greatly to make the world a better place, in particular for their own children and grandchildren. Freedom comes at a price. And these parents were right to be concerned about the growing trend of sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, Eastern religion, and rebellion.

On the other hand, these young people had good reason to be concerned about the war in Vietnam, especially when they were the ones who were dying there. For what purpose? And to what end? They also recognized that there had to be more to life than the American dream.

Yet instead of hearing one another, the generation gap grew greater.

It’s the same in our day, except that the divisions are not just generational. They cut across every sector of the society and run right through the Church.

Friends of a white couple told me that they recently left a prominent multi-racial church after one of the pastors made an offhand comment that if you were a Christian, you had no business voting Republican. (Yes, Republican.)

Another pastor told me that hundreds of young people left his church because so many white evangelicals voted for Trump. (Ironically, this pastor had a justice department in his church and worked against racism.)

So, you’re damned (or saved) if you vote Republican, and you’re damned (or saved) if you vote Democrat.

I thought we were damned or saved based on what we did with Jesus.

With the goal of seeing God’s people unite around Him rather than divide over politics or social issues, here are some principles to put into practice. The fate of the nation, not to mention the reputation of Jesus in our land, depends on it.

First, recognize that unity is very important to the Lord. Take a few minutes and re-read John 17, remembering that this is the longest prayer of the Lord recorded in Scripture, also containing some of the last words He spoke before His arrest and crucifixion. Unity matters deeply to the Lord. It should matter to us.

Second, learn to appreciate the diversity of the Body. I would encourage you to read through Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. The hand is just as needed as the foot. The eye is just as needed as the ear. That means that I need you and you need me. That is the gospel truth.

Third, find some common ground in Jesus. Share your testimonies with each other. Talk about your relationship with the Lord and what He means to you. Share some favorite scriptures or spiritual truths. Find some family kinship before you explore your differences.

Fourth, make an effort to understand your brother or sister’s perspective. Rather than live in an echo chamber or simply debate the rightness of your position, make a genuine effort to understand where your Christian colleague is coming from. Why do you vote differently than I do? Why do you prioritize certain issues? You may not be convinced, but at least you will gain insight and, perhaps, even some empathy.

Fifth, refuse to caricature those you differ with. We will get a lot of likes and clicks and amens to our name-calling rhetoric. But all that means is that carnal people are applauding our carnality. Anyone can call names. Anyone can mock and caricature. But it takes patience and grace and humility to speak truthfully about fellow-believers with whom we differ.

Sixth, do not write off other believers. In the words of one of my esteemed colleagues, we must not amputate the parts of the Body we do not like. We are so quick to cancel those who challenge our positions, to dismiss them as if they were trash to be thrown out, to reject them as if they were of no value. This is the opposite of the biblical admonition to love another as Jesus loved us (read through 1 John a few times for emphasis here). Scornful, dismissive, denigrating attitudes do not please the Lord.

Seventh, pray for one another. Not only will others benefit by your prayers for them, but you yourself will be changed. In fact, the more you pray for those you differ with, the more you will become concerned for their wellbeing, the more you will feel love for them, the more you will have God’s heart. Putting this principle into practice would be absolutely transformative.

So, here is a challenge from heaven, based on the Word of God. (I could multiple verses to back each point.) And I did say not a single syllable about compromising our convictions. I cannot even relate to such a thought.

But I am urging us to do better. Surely we can. Surely we must.

There is much more to be said. But this is a start.

Baseless hatred is leaving a horrific trail of blood in its wake.

Yet every day, in the most irresponsible ways, political leaders, news outlets, and talking heads in the media are flaming the fires of racial and ethnic hatred. Worse still, many of them are doing this for the purpose of political gain or viewer ratings.

This is as deplorable as it is sick.

Baseless Hatred Is Destroying Our Nation | Articles | AskDrBrown

This past Saturday, an 18-year-old white man went on a murderous rampage in a market in Buffalo, motivated by hatred towards blacks and others. Then, on Sunday, a Chinese man entered a Presbyterian church and killed one and wounded others, motivated by his hatred of Taiwan. And last month, a black man shot and injured 29 subway riders in New York City, motivated by racial hatred as well. Baseless hatred is destroying our nation.

There is a fascinating Talmudic tradition that asked why the First Temple was destroyed (in 586 BC) and the Second Temple was destroyed (in 70 AD).

The Talmud states, “Due to what reason was the First Temple destroyed? It was destroyed because three matters existed in the First Temple: idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed . . . .”

These are serious sins, all worthy of divine judgment. And so, because these spiritual and moral violations were so prevalent, the Temple was destroyed.

The Talmud continues, “However, in the Second Temple period the people were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvahs, and acts of kindness, so why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was baseless hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of baseless hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.” (Yoma 9b)

Jesus Himself was the victim of baseless hatred, explaining to His disciples that He was “hated without a cause” (John 15:25, with reference to Ps 35:19; 69:4). And that hatred led to His rejection and crucifixion.

It was baseless hatred that was behind the Christmas parade massacre of whites in Waukesha. And the shooting of Republicans at a baseball game in DC. And the slaughter of Hispanics at a Walmart in El Paso. And the murder of blacks in a church in Charleston. And the killing of Jews in Jersey City.

Baseless hatred is leaving a horrific trail of blood in its wake.

Yet every day, in the most irresponsible ways, political leaders, news outlets, and talking heads in the media are flaming the fires of racial and ethnic hatred. Worse still, many of them are doing this for the purpose of political gain or viewer ratings.

On May 15, Glenn Greenwald posted a lengthy article titled, “The Demented - and Selective - Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings,” The article’s subtitle read, “All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground.”

He did not overstate his case in the least, carefully documenting the points he was making. Without question, the constant exploitation of these terrible crimes for political purposes is absolutely inexcusable.

And while his focus was on the left’s habit of using these tragedies for political gain, further fanning the flames of hatred in the process, the indictment can be broader still: there is way too much irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric from all sides of the political spectrum.

With good reason Greenwald ended his article with these sobering words: “The distinction between peaceful advocacy even of noxious ideas and those who engage in violence in the name of such ideas is fundamental to notions of fairness, justice and the ability to speak freely. But if you really want to claim that a public figure has ‘blood on their hands’ every time someone murders in the name of ideas and ideologies they support, then the list of people you should be accusing of murder is a very, very long one indeed.”

In another article, I plan to explore more fully how politicians and news outlets are demonizing whole swaths of people in the aftermath of the Buffalo massacre.

To cite one case in point, a Rolling Stone headline announces, “The Buffalo Shooter Isn’t a ‘Lone Wolf.’ He’s a Mainstream Republican.” Yes, “The right-wing extremists who control the modern GOP are all gripped by a racist delusion. The shooter is just the latest to act on it.”

And so, the cycle continues and the inflaming of hatred grows deeper. Rolling Stone makes baseless, reckless, and hateful accusations, which further angers those falsely accused, deepening their own sense of hatred. When will all this stop?

Hatred will always be here on this planet, as long as sinful human beings exist. But it is a crime against humanity to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

We can have our strong convictions. We can put our stakes in the ground and stand for what we believe to be right.

But we must not respond to hatred and lies with our own hateful rhetoric. Instead, in the words of Paul, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21)

The Buffalo Shooter Wanted to Murder Blacks and Jews, Especially Jews

America is reeling again at the news of yet another mass shooting, this time resulting in 10 people dead and 3 injured. In particular, the Black American community is reeling, since they were the particular targets of a depraved White teenager, allegedly a self-professed White-supremacist. How can such a thing happen in this day and age? 

Now is the time for Americans Jews and Blacks to join together, backed by every follower of Jesus in the nation, and declaring, “There is no place for this kind of murderous hatred in our land!”

The Buffalo Shooter Wanted to Murder Blacks and Jews, Especially Jews | Articles | AskDrBrown

America is reeling again at the news of yet another mass shooting, this time resulting in 10 people dead and 3 injured. In particular, the Black American community is reeling, since they were the particular targets of a depraved White teenager, allegedly a self-professed White-supremacist. How can such a thing happen in this day and age? Innocent Black Americans having their blood spilled by an evil White man?

Yet the evil in this young man’s heart goes deeper still. It was not just Black Americans he targeted for murder. He was a Jew-hater as well, actually calling for Gentile Americans to declare war on American Jews.

In his own words (from the manifesto he posted online), “The real war I’m advocating for is the gentiles vs the Jews. We outnumber them 100x, and they are not strong by themselves.

“By their Jewish ways, they turn us against each other. When you realize this you will know that the Jews are the biggest problem the Western world has ever had. They must be called out and killed.”

This is reminiscent of the sentiments of Jew-killer John Earnest, himself a professing Christian, who told a 911 emergency line dispatcher, “I just shot up a synagogue . . . because Jewish people are destroying the White race.”

To be clear, I do not want to draw attention away from the very real tragedy that unfolded live and online on Saturday. (What kind of sick world are we living in?)

Ten men and women went out shopping and never came home. Others were seriously wounded. Families are in shock and agony. Who can imagine their grief?

May God give them comfort and hope in the midst of their unspeakable pain.

And tragically, this massacre only confirms the fears of many Black Americans, in whose minds racism is alive and well in our country and violent White supremacists are never far away.

May we rise up as a nation to condemn these evil acts and to demonstrate tangibly that they represent the sentiments of the tiniest, most demented fringe minority. Not on our soil! Not on our watch!

At the same time, we do well to recognize that White supremacists hate both Blacks and Jews. Both are considered different and therefore dangerous. Both are considered outsiders. And both, despite the white skin of most American Jews, are considered a threat to America’s whiteness.

As reported by the New York Post, “Through his ‘research,’ the self-described white supremacist and anti-Semite came to see low white birth rates around the world as a ‘crisis’ that ‘will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.’”

This mirrors what John Earnest (himself only 19 at the time) wrote in his own manifesto: “It is unlawful and cowardly to stand on the sidelines as the European people are genocided [sic] around you. I did not want to have to kill Jews. But they have given us no other option.”

In the early 1990s, while walking the streets of Manhattan with a colleague of mine, himself a Jewish believer in Jesus like me, I encountered a group of Black Hebrew Israelites preaching on a street corner with a loud sound system.

The main speaker was railing against White Jews like me. He claimed we were not Jews at all but were the manifestation of Satan.

Never one to back away from confrontation, I approached their stage and asked him, “If we are not Jews, why did Hitler try to exterminate us?”

He gave a lame answer (although he actually quoted a few words in Hebrew to me!), and I walked on, only to sense in my spirit that I was not finished yet.

So, I turned back and began to shout out, “These men are preaching a religion of hate! Jesus preached a religion of love!” (At this, the burly bodyguards approached me with clubs in their hands, but I made clear that my intentions were entirely peaceful.)

Then I said, “We are both nations of liberated slaves, and one day, we’re going to find ourselves at the bottom of the barrel. As Blacks and Jews, we need each other!”

At that, as I was the only White person in the crowd (along with my friend), the listeners began to shout, “Death to the White man! Death to America!”

But I had made my point, which I believe to this day. (For my 2019 encounter with a similar group in Charlotte, NC, see here. For the 2019 murder of Jews in New Jersey by a Black man connected to Black Hebrew Israelites, see here.)

As Blacks and Jews in America, we do need each other.

White supremacists hate us both with a passion, and the lies being used to destroy Blacks are being used to destroy Jews.

We are both minorities. We are both “different.” And we are both considered a threat. (For the record, antisemites hate Jews who believe in Jesus just as they hate Jews who do not believe in Jesus, as Jewish Christians in Nazi Germany tragically learned.)

Sadly, the strong bond once felt by American Blacks and Jews, epitomized in the famous picture of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marching arm and arm with Dr. Martin Luther King, has largely been severed.

Now is the time to talk face to face and overcome mutual suspicions and fears.

Now is the time for Americans Jews and Blacks to join together, backed by every follower of Jesus in the nation, and declaring, “There is no place for this kind of murderous hatred in our land!”

And now is the time to uproot the lies which fuel the fires of this hatred.

When It Comes to Abortion, Don’t Let the Race Baiters Influence You

We know the playbook well enough by now. The moment a divisive political issue arises, the left will immediately exclaim, “White supremacy! Racism! You are just trying to keep Black Americans down!”

So it is today with the debate over abortion. The leftist race baiters are making this is into an issue about racial discrimination when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. It is an issue about the sanctity of life.

When It Comes to Abortion, Don’t Let the Race Baiters Influence You | Articles | AskDrBrown

We know the playbook well enough by now. The moment a divisive political issue arises, the left will immediately exclaim, “White supremacy! Racism! You are just trying to keep Black Americans down!”

We may be calling for free and fair elections for all. The left will call it voter suppression, aimed at keeping poor Blacks away from the voting booths.

We may be calling for lower taxes for the middle class with the goal of seeing all Americans, especially the lower class, benefit in the process. The left will say, “You just want to keep poor Blacks in the ghetto!”

So it is today with the debate over abortion. The leftist race baiters are making this is into an issue about racial discrimination when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. It is an issue about the sanctity of life.

In fact, anyone who has spent even one hour with pro-life leaders will know there is a singular focus to the movement: saving the lives of innocent babies in the womb. That is it.

In keeping with that focus, there is a desire to help mothers and fathers welcome their child into the world in tangible ways, providing support and guidance as much as possible.

For those who do not want their babies (or feel they cannot welcome their child into the world), there is a strong adoption movement among pro-lifers as well. We will gladly raise your child!

This means that pro-lifers spend a lot of time working with minority women and babies due to the demographics of abortion.

That’s because they care about life, they care about babies, and they care about mothers.

To suggest even for a split second that this is a racist attack against Black women is as obscene as it is untrue.

Of course, some of these charges are made in dispassionate ways, as in this PBS report from Jackson, Mississippi: “If you are Black or Hispanic in a conservative state that already limits access to abortions, you are far more likely than a White person to have one.

“And if the U.S. Supreme court allows states to further restrict or even ban abortions, minorities will bear the brunt of it, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press.”

More specifically, “When it comes to the effect on minority women, the numbers are unambiguous. In Mississippi, people of color comprise 44% of the population but 81% of women receiving abortions, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks health statistics.

“In Texas, they’re 59% of the population and 74% of those receiving abortions. The numbers in Alabama are 35% and 69%. In Louisiana, minorities represent 42% of the population, according to the state Health Department, and about 72% of those receiving abortions.”

So, the argument goes, because Blacks and Hispanics have higher rates of poverty and abortion than do Whites, overturning Roe v. Wade will put a special burden on these minorities. Therefore it is racist, both in intent and in outcome.

Stated more bluntly, “‘Abortion restrictions are racist,’ said Cathy Torres, an organizing manager with Frontera Fund, a Texas organization that helps women pay for abortions. ‘They directly impact people of color, Black, brown, Indigenous people ... people who are trying to make ends meet.’”

Abortion should be recognized as a racist attack against Blacks and other minorities, since a disproportionate number of their children never make it out of the womb. As noted on the ProtectBlackLife.org website, “The leading cause of death in the African American community is abortion!”

That’s why many pro-lifers have referred to abortion as Black genocide, viewing it as yet another societal attack on African Americans.

Responding to this claim, a carefully documented 2017 article in the National Black Law Journal written by Shyrissa Dobbins-Harris says that seeing abortion as a form of Black genocide is a “myth.”

As Dobbins-Harris writes, “The underlying assumption of this myth is that Blackwomen lack the critical thinking skills to avoid falling into the pitfall of ‘murdering their babies’. Abortion by Blackwomen is often blamed on white women and their feminism as an insidious tool to further eradicate Black people in America. Prominent believers in this myth range from presidential candidates to religious leaders like Luis Farrakhan and Pastor Clenard Childress. Some Black anti-choice activists also believe that any contraception, or practices which limit the conception of Black infants is an act of genocide against the Black race.”

With all respect to Dobbins-Harris, from the pro-life perspective, we do not believe that Black women “lack the critical thinking skills to avoid falling into the pitfall of ‘murdering their babies’.”

To be candid, in all my years of working with some of the top pro-life leaders in the nation, I have never heard anyone even hint at such a notion, not in the slightest. In fact, the argument would shock these pro-life leaders since it never once occurred to them.

Instead, this is a matter of abortion advocates targeting poor minority communities for decades, either because of eugenics or profitability (once government support was available) or, possibly, misguided compassion.

Either way, abortion as the option for unwanted pregnancy has become much more a way of life (pardon the irony of the expression) in these communities. Consequently, the abortion rates are higher.

How else do we explain that more Black babies are aborted than are born in New York City? And how is it anti-Black to say, “This is an outrageous attack against Black Americans, and we want to work together holistically to stop it”?

Interestingly, as noted in the Wall Street Journal in July 2018, “When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, polling showed that blacks were less likely than whites to support abortion. Sixties-era civil rights activists like Fannie Lou Hamer and Whitney Young had denounced the procedure as a form of genocide. Jesse Jackson called abortion ‘murder’ and once told a black newspaper in Chicago that ‘we used to look for death from the man in the blue coat and now it comes in a white coat.’”

In fact, a Policy Report on, “The Effects of Abortion on the Black Community,” issued by the Center for Urban Renewal and Education in June 2015, quoted a pro-life Jesse Jackson from 1977.

He said, “Politicians argue for abortion largely because they do not want to spend the necessary money to feed, clothe and educate more people. Here arguments for inconvenience and economic savings take precedence over arguments for human value and human life... Psychiatrists, social workers and doctors often argue for abortion on the basis that the child will grow up mentally and emotionally scarred. But who of us is complete? If incompleteness were the criteri(on) for taking life, we would all be dead. If you can justify abortion on the basis of emotional incompleteness, then your logic could also lead you to killing for other forms of incompleteness — blindness, crippleness, old age.”

Sadly, as noted by the WSJ, “In the intervening decades, those views shifted. Mr. Jackson abandoned the pro-life ship to run for president in 1984, and leaders of black civil-rights organizations today are joined at the hip with abortion-rights proponents such as Planned Parenthood. A Pew Research Center survey taken last year found that 50% of Hispanics, 58% of whites and 62% of blacks now say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.”

In that light, it is a highly effective political tool to call the overturning of Roe a white supremacist act that specifically targets Blacks.

I urge you to not to fall for that deadly lie.

It Is Much Easier to Condemn Past Generations Than to Judge Our Own

It is very easy for us to condemn the moral actions (or, inactions) of past generations. “If only we had been there,” we say to ourselves, “we would never have done what they did.” But are we sure? Will our actions (or, inactions) be judged harshly by future generations?

It is far easier to judge others than to judge ourselves.

It Is Much Easier to Condemn Past Generations Than to Judge Our Own | Articles | AskDrBrown

It is very easy for us to condemn the moral actions (or, inactions) of past generations. “If only we had been there,” we say to ourselves, “we would never have done what they did.” But are we sure? Will our actions (or, inactions) be judged harshly by future generations?

It is far easier to judge others than to judge ourselves. 

As Paul wrote, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (Romans 2:1).

If we had been born and raised as white Christians in the early 1800’s in Alabama, are we sure that we would have recognized the evils of slavery?

If we had been Christians living in Europe during the Holocaust, are we sure that we would not have looked the other way rather than risked our lives to save our Jewish neighbors?

And isn’t it ironic that some of the most vocal social justice warriors today are among the most militant proponents of abortion, one of the greatest moral abominations on the planet?

Commenting on this mindset, Jesus said to the hypocritical religious leaders, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!” (Matthew 23:29-32)

Not long after He spoke these words of rebuke, some of these very leaders were complicit in His death.

Thinking back to the Holocaust, a September 2013 article in the strongly left-leaning The Nation begins with these words: “In early 1943, at the height of the Holocaust, a prominent journalist denounced President Franklin Roosevelt’s response to the Nazi genocide in harsh terms: “You and I and the President and the Congress and the State Department are accessories to the crime and share Hitler’s guilt,” she wrote. “If we had behaved like humane and generous people instead of complacent, cowardly ones, the two million Jews lying today in the earth of Poland and Hitler’s other crowded graveyards would be alive and safe…. We had it in our power to rescue this doomed people and we did not lift a hand to do it—or perhaps it would be fairer to say that we lifted just one cautious hand, encased in a tight-fitting glove of quotas and visas and affidavits, and a thick layer of prejudice.”

And who was it that penned this biting denunciation? It was “none other than Freda Kirchwey, staunch New Dealer, Roosevelt supporter and editor in chief of The Nation.”

The article continues, “The Nation spoke out early and vociferously for US action to rescue Europe’s Jews. After the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, it called for admission to the United States of at least 15,000 German Jewish refugee children. (The administration declined to endorse the proposal.) The Roosevelt administration’s refugee policy ‘is one which must sicken any person of ordinarily humane instinct,’ Kirchwey wrote in 1940. ‘It is as if we were to examine laboriously the curriculum vitae of flood victims clinging to a piece of floating wreckage and finally to decide that no matter what their virtues, all but a few had better be allowed to drown.’”

Could many lives have been saved, both Jewish and Gentile, had America taken action earlier?

Coming under special fire in this just-quoted article was Prof. Laurence Zuckerman, who had defended FDR’s World War II actions. In response, he wrote (remember, this was in 2013), “At a time when our country’s leaders and many of its citizens are agonizing over how to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, we might all agree that figuring out the best way to stop mass murder overseas has never been an easy task.”

And so it is that, today, we find ourselves in a similar situation. Right in front of our own eyes, on our TV screens and smartphones and tablets, we see the terrible carnage in Ukraine, often in real time. Our government even accuses the Russians of “war crimes” and “genocide.”

Yet we have our reasons, we say, not to engage more fully. “Should we use our planes or send our soldiers, it will result in a much greater, potentially world-impacting bloodbath. At times like this, we need to act strategically and pragmatically.”

And every day, the body count grows, including thousands upon thousands of Ukrainian citizens (with countless babies and children and women and elderly among them), as other nations take similar, cautious stands.

Are we doing the right thing? Will history look back at us favorably?

And what of our participation in the Beijing Winter Olympics after accusing China of committing “egregious human rights abuses and atrocities”? Was a diplomatic boycott really the best we could do?

As to our policy with Ukraine, I do not claim to know with certainty what course of action is right, very much wanting to help the Ukrainians end the war quickly but being unsure of the long-term consequences.

But that’s the point I’m making. We all have our excuses. We all have our reasons. We all have our justifications.

And yet, just as we look back with horror at Christian participation in the slave trade, future generations will look back in horror at some of the choices we have made today. Are we sure we are on the side of that which is right and just and true?

May God help us to humble ourselves in His sight, to be ruthlessly honest, to be willing to receive truthful criticism, and to want our blind spots exposed. To quote Paul again (in a very different context), “But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged” (1 Corinthians 11:30).

On University Campuses It Is ‘Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee’

Prof. Widdowson, a longtime tenured professor, was fired for "offensive" comments (that truth be told, were probably quite accurate).

That’s the reality on our campuses today. The good news is that Widdowson is fighting back with vigor, wit, and determination (in the courts too), calling out the “woke” crowd.

On University Campuses It Is ‘Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee’ | Articles | AskDrBrown

It takes a lot for a tenured professor to be fired, but it recently happened to Frances Widdowson. 

As reported by Fox News, Widdowson “who taught economics, justice and policy studies, was fired from Mount Royal University (MRU) in Calgary, Alberta, last December after stoking controversy for comments criticizing BLM, which she said ‘destroyed MRU’ to such an extent that she ‘doesn’t recognize the institution anymore.’”

In addition, “Widdowson, who studied Indigenization initiatives for 20 years, also took flak for claiming that Canada's controversial residential school program offered Indigenous children the opportunity ‘to get an education that normally they wouldn’t have received.’ Her comments came amid a national backlash over the discovery of unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia.”

And for that, she was fired, no doubt with the help of a Change.org petition titled, “Fire France Widdowson – a Racist Professor at MRU.”

To quote the petition itself, “Frances Widdowson is a racist professor who works at Mount Royal University. This is a call to demand that the university condemns Widdowson's hateful actions against the BIPOC community and that she is terminated for her racist remarks.

“Mount Royal University has still yet to make a statement regarding Widdowson's racist actions and continues to employ her.

“In ignoring the racist actions of people in power, we directly contribute to the systemic racism within our society.”

Now, you may or may not agree with Widdowson’s comments, and you may or may not agree that they were racist.

But she certainly had every right to express these views as a college professor, especially a tenured professor. To deny her that right is to deny free speech, plain and simple.

As Elon Musk recently said, “A good sign as to whether there is free speech is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like. And if that is the case, then we have free speech.”

But what makes the firing of Widdowson all the more egregious is that those on the left are allowed to engage in all kinds of outrageous hate speech without any penalty in the least or, certainly, without losing their job. (I have documented this radical shift to the left on American campuses in the chapter “The Campus Thought Police” in my new book The Silencing of the Lambs: The Ominous Rise of Cancel Culture and How We Can Overcome It.)

For example, in April 2020, in response to Kansas lawmakers who argued against a complete shutdown of religious services due to Covid, Philip Nel, an English professor at Kansas State University tweeted, “Local branch of death cult, aka @KansasGOP, votes to exempt churches from quarantine rules, endangering the lives of us all.”

That sounds pretty hateful to me. But was Nel censored for this tweet, let alone fired? Not a chance. (For the record, he’s the author of “Was the Cat in the Hat Black?: The Hidden Racism of Children’s Literature” and “Tales for Little Rebels: A Collection of Radical Children’s Literature.”)

Last December, Professor Monica Casper, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at San Diego State University, tweeted this with reference to the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court case, which could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade: “Two sexual predators, a white lady, and some racists walk into a courtroom…#SCOTUS #AbortionIsHealthcare.”

What a despicable characterization of an immensely important pro-life case.

Does she still have her job? Is she still dean? Take a guess.

But perhaps these comments were too mild, hardly worthy of dismissal or censure.

How about these comments? As reported by Prof. Jonathan Turley on February 2: “An Australian professor of “moral psychology” used Twitter to call for the death of Trump supporters.  Neither Twitter nor his colleagues objected to Macquarie University Associate Professor Mark Alfano calling for ‘more of this please‘ after reading that a Trump supporter died in the recent Capitol Hill riot. He also called such deaths ‘comedy.’ He is not the first academic to call for such violence or defend killings. We previously discussed Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis who writes for the site Lawyers, Guns, and Money and declared that he saw ‘nothing wrong’ with the killing of a conservative protester. (A view defended by other academics). Other professors have simply called for all ‘Republicans to suffer.’ What is striking is that such views are neither barred by Twitter nor, according to a conservative site that broke this story, denounced at his university.”

Another professor openly wished for the death of Republican lawmakers who were shot at a baseball game in 2017, while in 2018, yet another professor posted this: “OK, officially, I now hate white people. I am a white people, for God’s sake, but can we keep them — us — us out of my neighborhood? I just went to Harlem Shake on 124 and Lenox for a Classic burger to go, that would [be] my dinner, and the place is overrun with little Caucasian [expletives] who know their parents will approve of anything they do.” (He actually had a lot more to say, but this gives you an idea.)

Were either of these professors fired? Nope. Were they censored?

In the first example, citing Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams, he had also written that “all self-identified white people (no exceptions) are invested in and collude with systematic white racism/white supremacy.” And he tweeted that “whiteness is terrorism,” defending his comments rather than apologizing for them.

As a result of his “let them die” wish for the wounded GOP lawmakers, he was temporarily suspended, shortly after which he was granted tenure. I am not making this up.

In the case of the second professor quoted here, James Livingston, a tenured history professor at Rutgers, the university decided to sanction him but then reversed its position.

Yet Prof. Widdowson, a longtime tenured professor, was fired for comments that were far less offensive than any of these (and, the truth be told, probably quite accurate).

That’s the reality on our campuses today, and I barely scratched the surface of some of the extremism that exists.

The good news is that Widdowson is fighting back with vigor, wit, and determination (in the courts too), calling out the “woke” crowd.

It happened in a moment of time, and the fall was swift and severe. One day, Morgan Wallen was a famous country music star. The next day, he was largely deplatformed. What, exactly, caused his sudden fall?

Country Music Says No to Cancel Culture | Articles | AskDrBrown

It happened in a moment of time, and the fall was swift and severe. 

One day, Morgan Wallen was a famous country music star. The next day, he was largely deplatformed. 

Time to Cancel Dwayne Johnson (the Rock)?

The plot thickens as our contemporary cancel culture gets into a feeding frenzy. Who will the next victim be? 
First, there was an attempt to cancel Joe Rogan’s massive podcast because he was allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID and vaccines.
Next, acting superstar and former professional wrestler Dwayne Johnson (aka the Rock), stood up for Rogan, saying, “Great stuff here, brother. Perfectly articulated.” But then a damning compilation from Rogan’s podcasts was released. How did this affect Johnson’s support of Rogan?

The plot thickens as our contemporary cancel culture gets into a feeding frenzy. 

First, there was an attempt to cancel Joe Rogan’s massive podcast because he was allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID and vaccines.

Next, acting superstar and former professional wrestler Dwayne Johnson (aka the Rock), stood up for Rogan, saying, “Great stuff here, brother. Perfectly articulated.” Yes, Johnson was looking forward to “coming on one day and breaking out the tequila with you.”

But then a damning compilation from Rogan’s podcasts was released where, in years past, he freely used the n-word, not in a derogatory way towards blacks, but saying it and repeating it nonetheless. (For example, if he was quoting someone who used it in the past, he did as well.)

And how did this affect Johnson’s support of Rogan?

As reported on Vulture.com, “After author Don Winslow tagged Johnson in a tweet linking to the compilation video, Johnson replied, ‘Thank you so much for this. I hear you as well as everyone here 100%.’ He continued, ‘I was not aware of his N word use prior to my comments, but now I’ve become educated to his complete narrative. Learning moment for me.’”

So much for Johnson’s support, understandably.

As Rogan himself said in a subsequent apology, it was the “most regretful and shameful thing” that he ever had to address in a public setting.

“I know that to most people,” he said, “there's no context where a White person is ever allowed to say that, never mind publicly on a podcast, and I agree with that. Now, I haven't said it in years.” (Rogan also claimed that the compilation did take his quotes out of context.)

Unfortunately for Johnson, what goes around comes around, and if you have dirty laundry in your own closet, you can expect it to be exposed.

And when it comes to professional wrestling, where Johnson first rose to fame and fortune, racial (or ethnic) caricaturing has long and sordid history.

Not surprisingly, a short video was found with Johnson making fun of the Chinese language. And the Swedish language. (I found this 5-minute clip from 2010 on YouTube with over 469,000 views, titled, “The rock speaks swedish and chinese,” giving the full context for the language segments. Judging from the comments, people took it as attended, as the Rock being silly rather than offensive.)

Then he called wrestler Kane a retard. Then – here’s where he fell over the cliff – he likened wrestler John Cena to “a bloated transvestite Wonder Woman.”

Now, as reported by Dan Lawrence on the Giant Freakin Robot site, “Trans Comments From Dwayne Johnson Result In Push To Get The Rock Canceled.”

Yes, “Johnson’s latest negatively perceived situation comes as a result of a series of comments exposing the actor’s alleged mockery of the Trans community. This has resulted in a Twitter trend picking up speed to get ‘The Rock’ canceled for his remarks.”

I’m certainly not laughing at his transvestite or retard comments. (As for his Chinese and Swedish jokes – please.)

But I am saying that a former superstar professional wrestler who was anything but PC is probably one of the last ones to criticize another public figure for not being careful with his or her speech.

Of course, hardly a day goes by without someone getting caught for an infelicitous (or worse) past comment.

Most recently, a video tape from 2019 resurfaced with Eric Adams, now New York City’s mayor referring to white cops as “crackers.”

Race Relations

Seven Steps to Help Unite the Church of America

Baseless Hatred is Destroying Our Nation

The Buffalo Shooter Wanted to Murder Blacks and Jews, Especially Jews

When It Comes to Abortion, Don’t Let the Race Baiters Influence You

It Is Much Easier to Condemn Past Generations Than to Judge Our Own

On University Campuses It Is ‘Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee’

Country Music Says No to Cancel Culture

Time to Cancel Dwayne Johnson (the Rock)?

Is There Blood on the Hands of the Leftist Provocateurs?

The Massive Difference Between Dr. Martin Luther King and BLM

Do You Become a ‘Closet Liberal’ the Moment You Question a Single Conservative Talking Point?

The Tragic Racial Politicizing of the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

What Many of Us White Americans Still Do Not Understand

If the Democrats Want to Lose Badly in 2022 Here’s the Strategy to Follow

Some Crucial Questions for Proponents and Opponents of CRT

The Obvious Lessons from the Virginia Elections

No, Juan Williams. ‘Parents’ Rights’ Is Not a Code for 'White Race Politics'

No, Mr. Obama this is Not ‘Fake Outrage’

Thoughts on Reparations, Righteousness, CRT, and Justice

Race is Now the 'Elephant in the Room' Even When There is NO Elephant