What Happens in Maryland Stays in Maryland

harry-jackson Lately I’ve been discussing the battle over the marriage definition with friends and parishioners.
I have been amazed by a new collaboration between former political
rivals in all of our urban, minority communities.

The largely white religious right is
literally becoming a melting pot of diversity as far as this marriage
issue is concerned. Huge numbers of blacks and Hispanics of faith are
starting to feel that there is a “not so subtle” media attack on
the nation’s most fundamental institutions. They realize that many
movies and TV sitcoms have gone out of their way to express support
of so-called “gay rights.”

They marveled at the number of celebrities that have jumped on the
bandwagon for same-sex marriage. Two weeks ago 8, a play about
Prop 8 produced by Rob Reiner, trotted out Hollywood’s
finest—including Brad Pitt, George Clooney, among several openly
gay actors and actresses. The entertainers read selected testimonies
of traditional marriage which have never been released to the public.
The point of the play was simply to ridicule traditional marriage
supporters and “expose the bigotry” of the traditional point of
view.

All of this media attention has been coordinated and timed with
legislative battles in New York, Maryland and Washington state. The
800-pound gorilla in the room is that the Supreme Court will likely
rule on the constitutionality of referendums or votes on maintaining
the definition of marriage. Even the though the Supreme Court should
be above politics, the court will likely attempt to gauge the
aggregate public opinion about same-sex marriage.

In Maryland, the home of several of my lead churches, black clergy
voices were instrumental in blocking the same-sex marriage initiative
last year—so much so that Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered and Bisexual
(LGBT) activists lobbying in Maryland specifically targeted blacks
with a celebrity-studded marketing blitz. The opposition campaign
featured videos of black actors such as Michael Kenneth Williams (of
television’s The Wire, set in Maryland) and Baltimore native
Mo’nique winking at the camera and extolling the virtues of the gay
community. These PR efforts were synchronized with the strong-armed
tactics of Gov. Martin O’Malley (D).

There is a huge amendment campaign going on in Maryland right
now—to develop their version of proposition 8. As I have already
stated, the national media campaign is now coming to roost in
Maryland. Liberal talking heads project that blacks like me should
identify with gay people because they are fighting the same battle
for civil rights that we did. The overwhelming majority of black
Americans find this argument both offensive and ridiculous.

In fact, not long ago, Jonathon Capehart (openly gay writer for
The Washington Post and frequent commentator on MSNBC)
received a tweet that challenged his interpretation of current events
and history. The tweet read: “Still can’t believe u think the
choice of being gay is congruent to the struggle of blacks. Ain’t
never seen no gay plantations!”

Although the tweet succinctly captures how the vast majority of
blacks feel about this comparison, Capehart’s answers to the tweet
refused to address the two main concerns expressed by the writer.

First, the simple fact is that gay Americans have never been
rounded up and shackled into centuries of forced labor. They have
never been branded, owned or sold with the full permission of the
government. Further, in every state in the nation, gay Americans can
live as they choose; what traditional marriage advocates object to is
their crusade to redefine age-old institution for the rest of us.

The attempt of homosexual activists—of any race—to hijack the
moral authority that black Americans won through their blood, sweat,
tears and prayers is both dishonest and outrageous.

Secondly, Capehart went on to dismiss the tweet’s assertion that
the black experience and the gay experience in America are not
comparable because the individual refers to homosexuality as a
choice.

Let me explain.

First of all, I must point out that someone could theoretically
believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait and still not believe
that the historic suffering of gays compares to that of blacks. Human
suffering is nearly impossible to quantify, but I have a feeling that
the homosexual lobby would have difficulty coming up with numbers to
match the estimated 8 million blacks who suffered through the Middle
Passage (more than 1 million of whom are believed to have perished at
sea) or the millions born into bondage in the centuries that
followed.

Next, whether one defines homosexuality by the presence of
same-sex attraction or the choice of same-sex partners is really a
matter of semantics. Laws cannot regulate feelings; they can only
regulate behavior. What Capehart really wants when he asks the rest
of us to redefine marriage in the name of “equality” and
“dignity” is our approval of homosexuality.

Simply put, redefining marriage to include homosexual couples
forces the rest of us to say that in the eyes of the law, homosexual
behavior is morally equal to heterosexual behavior. They believe this
is self-evident, but not all of us agree.

The five states that will pursue constitutional amendments
defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman will
likely influence the fate of the institution of marriage nationally.
I am praying for the family and friends of folks from these states.
May you speak your worldview with passion and clarity. I also pray
that you will support the cause with your dollars and volunteer
service.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior
pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He is also the guest editor of the
January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social
transformation.

Live Free or Die: A Promise

harry-jackson What would you do if someone was threatening to kill you? Imagine
that this person not only hated you vehemently, but was thought to
have killed many of his own family members in cold blood. You know
for a fact he owns several weapons and strongly suspect he has been
attempting to purchase more. On top of all that, he publicly
proclaims his desire to kill you on a regular basis. Would you take
his threats seriously?

The scenario I described might sound like the setup for a terrible
summer movie, but it almost exactly parallels the behavior of Iran
toward Israel and the United States over the past several years.
Iran’s leaders—President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—have openly declared their intention to
“wipe Israel off the map” on numerous occasions.

Less publicized are statements like Ahmadinejad’s from 2008:
“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United
States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor
of power and wealth has started.” Their intentions toward the
United States and Israel could not be clearer.

A growing body of intelligence suggests that the Iranians, who
already possess a large arsenal of ballistic missiles, are in the
process of building nuclear weapons. While they may not have the
capability of striking the United States mainland from their own,
they could certainly hit Israel or pass off a nuclear weapon to a
terrorist organization.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who met with President
Obama earlier this week, has openly threatened to strike Iranian
nuclear facilities rather than allow them to attain nuclear
capabilities on his watch. I think most reasonable people can
understand why he would make this threat.

An Israeli strike on Iran is a serious matter, one which would at
a very minimum disrupt an already unstable oil supply. So it is
understandable that the White House would want to avoid an Israeli
strike if possible. Yet openly disagreeing with the Israeli threat to
strike has two effects: It lessens the deterrent force of such a
possibility, and it treats Israel and Iran as morally equivalent
parties in a conflict. In reality, nothing could be further from the
truth.

Israel is a democracy, like the United States, which respects the
rights of individuals to freely practice religion and live as they
choose under the law. There are many Muslims and Christians—as well
as Jewish people—living and working in Israel. Iran, on the other
hand, recently condemned a Christian pastor to death for the crime of
converting to Christianity. As of this writing, the fate of Pastor
Youcef Nadarkhani is uncertain.

Why does Iran want to annihilate Israel? One reason is undoubtedly
the growing power of Twelver Shi’ism, a sect of Shia Islam. This
sect believes that the “Twelfth Imam”— who disappeared as a
child during the late 800s—will return soon to save the world and
establish the Islamic reign over the world. They hold the Twelfth
Imam to be the legitimate leader of Islam, but to prepare the way for
his coming, these Islamists believe they must destroy Israel and the
United States.

While many Iranians both inside and outside Iran reject Twelver
radicalism, the group has been growing in popularity in recent
decades. (As many as 85 percent of Shia Muslims worldwide are
believed to be Twelvers.)

Both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei invoke radical Twelver imagery and
vocabulary regularly in their speeches. Some analysts believe they do
this to stir up the emotions of their Twelver followers, while others
fear that the president and the supreme leader themselves may truly
believe this is the end of days, and that their job is to prepare the
way for return of the Twelfth Imam.

Twelver radicals in Iran believe the United States is weak, afraid
to fight and ready to fall. This belief emboldens plans to build
weapons for the purpose of destroying both Israel and the United
States, however insane that may sound to people in the West. By
continually offering to talk to Tehran and publicly abandoning
Israel, the current administration is playing right into the
radicals’ hands.

If Israel conducts a preemptive strike on Iran, the U.S. will
undoubtedly be drawn into the conflict. Before we get involved in
such a volatile controversy, we must have the military will to
totally reduce the rogue nation to military powerlessness. We also
will have to be willing to endure $8-a-gallon fuel prices.

Let me be clear: Islam is not an evil religion. Nonetheless, the
men presenting themselves as the faithful in Iran are, in fact, evil.
Their disregard for human life and international peace is very
evident. Our nation will have to decide if it agrees with New
Hampshire’s official state motto, which was adopted at the close of
World War II: “Live Free or Die.”

Defending freedom will remain very expensive in terms of
petroleum, cash and American blood. As a preacher, I can never
promote war as the ultimate answer. But as a realistic Christian, I
can support St. Augustine’s Just War Theory. More specifically, I
must support the U.S. aligning militarily with Israel to avoid
senseless killings engineered by evil factions in the earth.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He is also the guest editor of the January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social transformation.

Class Warfare African-American Style

The New York Times recently featured an innovative MBA
program at George Washington University. Not only was the course of
study designed to enhance the professional business skills of its
participants, it hoped to teach personal business and economics to
people vulnerable to personal financial failure.

Who were they? Astute cultural analysts? Children of single-parent
households? Convicted felons? People with learning disabilities? No,
one of the groups targeted by GWU was retired professional athletes,
especially those who played in the NFL. GWU understands something
that numerous political ideologues do not: Personal financial
management skills must be acquired if personal or business wealth is
to be sustained. In other words: “It’s one thing to make money,
but it takes skill and training keep it.”

Why would the academics target athletes and other professionals
with volatile incomes? The answer is simple: Moving from boom to bust
has landed scores of athletes and entertainers in the “poor house.”
After watching this year’s Super Bowl, it’s especially hard for
most Americans to say the word poverty in the same breath as
professional football or award-winning entertainment. Nonetheless the
tension between potential, passion and poverty is illustrative of
America’s current national financial dilemma. The U.S. is still the
richest nation in the world, but we are in danger of squandering our
blessed position of influence and our prosperity.

This fall both parties will advance their best approaches to
producing jobs, helping the poor and jump-starting our faltering
economy. Conservatives must translate their positions into practical
language. We need to give the nation a fresh vision and a strategic
game plan that will create an economic climate that is conducive to
economic opportunity; but simultaneously we also need to encourage
state and federal programs that help people learn self-control,
maturity and how to steward the money they have.

Please let me continue with the professional sports analogy for a
few moments. Despite their exceptional cash flow; just two years
after retirement, almost 80 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or
facing serious financial problems. There are numerous examples we
could dredge up in the NFL. Terrell Owens is the most recent one that
comes to mind. The phenomenally talented wide receiver admitted to GQ
this month that he is completely broke—despite making more than $80
million during his career.

A secondary problem for people in this realm of life is short-term
thinking. They often do not complete their bachelor’s degrees,
despite being awarded full scholarships to college. And when the
paychecks stop coming, they don’t know what to do.

For those who saw the exceptional movie Moneyball, they
will remember that the Oakland Athletics’ general manager began his
baseball career with a decision to give up a scholarship to the
prestigious Stanford University and a college degree. Later in life,
Billy Beane regretted putting money ahead of his long-term career
development. This decision was a major aspect of the movie.
Fortunately, he learned how to make wiser decisions as he went
through life and became a major strategic force in the entire
industry.

In contrast, too many of us don’t take ownership of our bad
decisions. Again Terrell Owens is a great example of the reason for
national financial woes. In his GQ interview, he never took
full responsibility for his situation. Instead he blamed his advisers
and the four women with whom he fathered illegitimate children.

So how do we get out of this mess? I have discovered some answers
as I look back at my own family’s history. Like many blacks, my
grandfather rose out of post-slavery poverty without the aid of
government “poverty programs.” With only a second grade
education, he led our family into several generations of prosperity.
There were three crucial ingredients to our journey from poverty:

1. Entrepreneurship

2. Military service

3. Education

If you go far enough back in the ancestry of the overwhelming
majority of successful blacks today, you will see many combinations
of these three elements. Why?

Of course the military was one of the few organizations willing to
hire and promote blacks in the first half of the 20th century.
Secondly, starting one’s own business is always an avenue to wealth
creation for individuals who don’t own land. Thirdly, education has
been the great equalizer for many ethnic groups in our land.

The difference between working your way up through the military
ranks or building your own business versus playing in the NFL is that
you learn vital skills on the journey. Military service and
entrepreneurship teach leadership, responsibility, self-discipline
and risk assessment, all of which are vital to protecting and growing
wealth. In addition, education gives a universal frame of reference
for excellence and often opens multiple industry opportunities.

Real solutions are necessary for black economic recovery to occur.
The highest unemployment rate in the nation is among blacks. Black
men are in dire need of additional help with primary school
education, prison rehabilitation and retraining. Unfortunately,
governmental solutions for poverty cannot provide the tangible
support and accountability that family members and faith-based
organizations can.

This year, conservatives with an urban agenda could bring real
hope to all of our minority communities. Let’s make it happen!

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He is also the guest editor of the January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social transformation.

Rewriting History: The Victor’s Privilege

harry-jackson The last few years I have been repeatedly disappointed by the
bickering and pettiness displayed by our legislators, political
pundits and candidates for office. I have longed for representatives
who are informed and articulate, who habitually seek the best laws
and results for the land. Unfortunately, the history I have reviewed
recently suggests that we may be more like our forefathers than we
would like to believe.

Those who long nostalgically for more civil times should not read
some of the pamphlets distributed during the election of 1800 when
Jefferson defeated Adams! Neither should they watch the movie
Conspiracy, which discusses the way Washingtonians accused of
working with John Wilkes Booth were unfairly stripped of their rights
and executed. Although the political process was fraught with danger
and contention, there were also many leaders who paid a real price
for their convictions.

For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has loomed larger than
life in the hearts and minds of Americans since his assassination in
1968. The massive monument which now stands on the National Mall in
Washington, D.C., is a physical manifestation of the spiritual giant
he has been to so many of us over the past two generations. Today’s
leaders can only hope to capture a fraction of the respect from his
followers and fear from his opponents that Dr. King commanded during
his lifetime. Yet this was never the life that he sought for himself.
Indeed, if there is one lesson we can learn from this man today, it
is that the best leaders are often reluctant to bear the burden of
leadership, because they understand the cost is so high.

Those who have studied Dr.
King’s life know that he came to a crossroads in his life in
Montgomery, Ala., in 1956, after two years of pastoring Dexter Avenue
Baptist Church. Before accepting that position, he had intended to
pursue a quiet academic career filled with teaching, studying and
writing. After moving to Alabama he was made head of the pastors’
association that led the famous bus boycotts and found that he and
his family were facing growing harassment by local police.

One day in 1956 he stopped what he was doing and prayed at his
kitchen table, asking the Lord whether such activism was worth the
risk to himself and his family. These are the words he heard in
response: “Stand up for righteousness. Stand up for justice. Stand
up for truth. And lo, I will be with you. Even until the end of the
world.”

All of the events that followed in Dr. King’s life—the ones
that we remember—reflected his obedience to these words. How many
of our political and community leaders today can say honestly that
such obedience has been the driving force of their careers?

Those who worked with Dr. King on a daily basis remember more than
the fiery speeches that captured a nation’s attention and stirred
its moral conscience. They remember a soft-spoken, thoughtful man who
was keenly focused on the task at hand. They remember a man who
worked late into the night and rose early; someone who came across as
genuine and accessible to the people around him. Dr. King didn’t
seek the spotlight as so many would-be celebrities do today; he was
thrust into the spotlight by the demands of his times. He didn’t
hunger for attention, but he used the attention directed at him to
further the cause he fought for—not his career.

Think about King’s quality of leadership in light of the petty
politics we observe today, where members of both parties are willing
to sacrifice principles and progress to score cheap points with the
special interest groups. While we can’t know for certain what King
would have said about the economy, healthcare, taxes or Social
Security, we can be confident he would not have switched positions on
these issues for opportunistic reasons. He would likely have had some
choice words for the numerous elected officials caught in ethics and
corruption scandals over the past months and years as well.

With today’s emphasis on political correctness, it is easy to
forget how often Dr. King spoke of “moral law,” “natural law,”
or even “God’s law” in his writings and speeches. Would such a
man have embraced the current wholesale removal of God from the
public square by secularist totalitarians? I think not. Dr. King was
radically different from leaders in either party today. He was
committed to making things happen. His ideology was not self-centered
or self-serving.

It is difficult for us to remember the raw physical courage it
took during that era; members of the movement were not only being
arrested and thrown in jail, but murdered on a regular basis. Most of
us remember Medgar Evers and Dr. King, but how many remember Ben
Chester White, Wharlest Jackson or Oneal Moore? We must pray that God
will raise up a new generation of leaders who will have as much
intellectual courage as our ancestors. We need innovators,
businessmen and problem solvers who will be willing to give their
lives to the cause of restoring America to everything God has called
it to be.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He is also the guest editor of the January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social transformation.

America’s Way Out

harry-jackson The role of the church in the public square has been the subject of
many recent debates. Much of the concern about Christians and the evangelical church
has centered on how we will use our considerable secular power at the
ballot box. While I agree that the church should fully engage in the
democratic process, there is much more we can offer the American public.

This article is something of an open letter to the Christian
community. After weeks of reflection upon our current national problems,
I arrived at a blinding flash of the obvious. My epiphany is that our
spiritual standing before God is our greatest gift to the nation. In a
manner of speaking, we have friends in “high” places. We are the
ultimate insiders.

When we pray and believe things happen. Unfortunately, we have not always understood the ways of God.
We often pray when we should lobby and we lobby when we should pray.
For example, during the Bush presidency there has been more prayer
offered up for the nation than ever. As a result of all the prayer the
Lord did many good things. In addition, he also allowed things to occur
which could bring the rest of the nation to her knees. There is a war
raging in Iraq, the economy is in shambles and energy costs are soaring.
Our national woes may cause millions to lose confidence in false gods, humanistic ideologies and even their own abilities.

America needs to return to God and the Bible. Radical cultural reform and repentance will release the blessing of God to our land. Without such a spiritual awakening,
the nation may languish for years in the throws of economic depression
and moral decline. The scriptures say “Righteousness exalteth a nation:
but sin is a reproach to any people” Prov. 14:24 (KJV).

We Christians have been placed in this nation as a source of
inspiration and blessing for America as a whole. The Bible promises that
if God’s people will humble themselves and pray that God will hear from
heaven and heal our land (2 Chron. 7:14). The church can release a spiritual blessing
on the nation that can turn the fortunes of the entire land around.
This will happen as the church is renewed spiritually. A third great
awakening is needed to restore personal holiness to the church and
position the church.

In Isa. 55:1-5,
the Lord promises that if His people return to Him, He will heal their
lives and bless their entire nation. Next, we will be a source of
blessings and prosperity to many other nations as well. This has
certainly been the historic legacy of our nation.

In this time of crisis, we must choose to renew our national covenant
with God. Isaiah 55 implies that we must return to a sold-out, 100
percent committed form of Christianity in order to see God release an
overflow blessing that will cause His people to be a light every strata
of society.

Yet there is more! The church has two important roles to play in the nation: an evangelistic role and a prophetic role.

In our evangelistic role, we should be the ultimate voice of hope,
encouragement and spiritual direction. In this role, we should desire to
win people over to our worldview with love, compassion, and kindness.
As soul winners and evangelists, we must recognize that we have not been
called to condemn people that live ungodly lives. Instead, we are
called to give them hope and an example that they can live a life of
personal victory and freedom.

In addition to our call to impact the world through evangelism, the American church also has a very profound prophetic
role. Similar to the prophets of the Old Testament who called Israel
and Judah to remember God and obey His laws, there is a place for us to
do the same. The prophetic role of the church often leads to direct
confrontation around issues of national sin and the failure of the
church. Politicians often call these prophetic issues “divisive.” In our
book Personal Faith, Public Policy, Tony Perkins and I went to
great lengths to define the church’s prophetic role and give practical,
scriptural guidelines for our engagement in public policy and politics.

Even though there is a clear tension between the evangelistic and
prophetic roles of the church, America needs both. Let us become the
embodiment of The God’s Answer to America’s problems. Join me in a
spiritual quest to become more like Jesus—living a life of personal
holiness. In addition, let’s be the relevant evangelistic and a prophetic voice the nation needs. Together, we can make the difference!

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He is also the guest editor of the January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social transformation.

Defying Political Labels: Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy

harry-jackson On Oct. 16, the new memorial for Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) was
finally completed. There was only one problem with the work: The
wrong words were carved on the statue. The tone of the phrase
misrepresented “the spirit” of the fallen leader. After a huge
controversy, the memorial leadership decided to change the writing on
the statue.

This change was legitimate. Unfortunately an illegitimate
expression occurred this past week. Politico reported that Tavis
Smiley had been disinvited from the 20th annual MLK luncheon, hosted
by the Peoria Civic Center. Why? Mr. Smiley has said publicly that
President Obama had not done enough for black Americans, which,
according to the center, upset some people. He was replaced by
reliable liberal Michael Eric Dyson.

In later interviews, Mr. Smiley noted that only a small handful of
the 1,500 ticket holders for the event complained about his comments,
resulting in his ouster from the luncheon. He also made it clear that
he supports President Obama, but as a journalist feels obligated to
hold him accountable for his actions in office. While I may disagree
with Mr. Smiley on some issues, I certainly agree that his honest
appraisal of President Obama’s performance should not disqualify
him from speaking at a luncheon honoring Dr. King.

In fact, Smiley’s dismissal from the event dishonors Dr. King’s
legacy of holding all political leaders accountable for their actions
and judging people based on their character, rather than their skin
color. As I have written before, this is yet another example of the
totalitarian attempts at thought control by leaders in the black
community who purport to speak for Dr. King and African-Americans in
general. We blacks who refuse to kowtow to the extreme left are not
only disinvited from events, but often publicly excommunicated from
our own race.

True students of history understand that Dr. King, during his
life, defied our current labels of “liberal” or “conservative.”
This holds true for both his personal sentiments as communicated in
his speeches and writings, as well as for the policies he advocated.
On social issues, he—like the vast majority of black Americans—was
unequivocally in line with conservative biblical teaching and
traditional American values. On economic and foreign policy issues,
some of his statements were so far to the left they would make
today’s liberals blush. It is impossible to say that either of the
two major political parties today has a monopoly on King’s legacy;
if anything, they are both failing to live up to it.

Since the days of slavery, there have been disagreements about how
to best advance African-Americans. At the turn of the 20th century,
both Booker T. Washington and . Du Bois labored tirelessly for
the cause of bettering the prospects of newly freed slaves. President
Obama shares much in common with Du Bois: Both were born outside the
South and attended Harvard. Both attained prominence through
political activism and espoused a model of change based on the
leadership of the elite—Ivy-League educated policymakers in
President Obama’s case, and the “Talented Tenth” of Du Bois.

Washington, by contrast, was born in the South into the very heart
of Jim Crow America. He was educated at a historically black college
(Hampton Institute which later became Hampton University) and rose
from poverty to prosperity through entrepreneurship. Mr. Washington
wanted to promote the means for immediate progress among everyday
blacks. As the first leader of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama,
Washington’s primary focus was teaching the uneducated, unskilled
southern blacks to be self-reliant. This meant offering courses to
train black teachers, but also to train blacks for farming and other
less glamorous jobs that were available in the South at the time.

By contrast, Du Bois wrote in his essay “The Talented Tenth”
that he thought it most important to develop “the best of this race
that they may guide the mass away from the contamination and death of
the worst.” He felt that if middle-class blacks could receive an
Ivy League quality education, they would be able to lead the rest of
the black community to a more prosperous future.

In actuality, both Du Bois and Washington contributed immeasurably
to the advancement of black Americans. Although their approaches to
the problem seemed mutually exclusive and even contradictory at
times, both were necessary to overcome the oppressive aftermath of
slavery. Three generations later, Dr. King refused to be painted into
an ideological corner when addressing the challenges of the
segregated South. He enlisted both educated spokespersons as well as
everyday activists to accomplish the goal of equality for blacks in
the eyes of the law.

Today, black Americans face the challenges of failing schools,
broken homes, skyrocketing unemployment, and rates of AIDS and other
diseases that are well above the national average. It will take a
variety of approaches to effectively address these problems, and
African-Americans cannot afford to be shackled to the rhetoric of the
political left. We need to hear criticisms and solutions from all
over the ideological spectrum so that we can employ the best
approaches to improve education, restore families, reduce
unemployment and empower African-Americans to live healthy,
prosperous lives.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior pastor
of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He also serves as a regional bishop for the
Fellowship of International Churches. Additionally, Bishop Jackson is
the founder and president of High Impact Leadership Coalition, which
seeks to protect the moral compass of the nation by educating and
empowering churches, as well as community and political leaders.

Bishop Jackson is the guest editor of the January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social transformation.

Charming the Cobra: Education and Race

harry-jackson Much political noise has been made about providing grants and/or
loans for higher education. For minorities, these programs are seen
as invitations for full participation in the American system. Many
Americans believe changing the higher education equation for
minorities is the only way to “level the playing field”
economically for America’s minorities.

More specifically, liberals often believe solving the education
conundrum is mandatory for our future. Conservatives, however, almost
universally declare that the education gap can be addressed by
neither federal programs nor funding. They both are probably correct
in this situation.

Solving America’s education gap is tantamount to our nation
fighting a cobra. In cobra fighting, you have two choices. First, you
can charm the cobra (typically by playing music), and prevent him
from striking you today. Secondly, you can choose to attack him like
Rikki Tikki Tavey, the mongoose of Rudyard Kipling fame, and solve
your problem permanently. Dealing with our educational woes at the
university level, while the majority of minority children are vastly
unprepared for life, simply charms the cobra.

To kill the cobra of educational inequities in America, we must
begin in pre-elementary school. Although we can do important work at
every stage of the educational process, our problem is that no one
wants to wait the 20-30 years it will take to reform a system. I want
to sound an alarm concerning our urgent national need to improve the
education of minority students. Further, I want to advocate that
resources and focus be directed primarily at charter schools.

Let me explain. While the nation’s high school dropout rate for
black and Latino students is 43 percent, in urban centers like
Detroit it is as high as 80 percent. This does not mean these young
people will never graduate. It simply means they do not graduate on
time. Unfortunately, academic failure is only the indicator of much
greater problems.

High school dropouts have higher rates of unemployment,
incarceration (60 percent of black male dropouts are eventually
incarcerated), drug use and violent behavior. Our struggling economy
has served to exacerbate these problems: The black unemployment rate
nationwide surged to 16.7 percent this fall, the highest since 1984.
But for black males in their 20s who lack a high school diploma, the
unemployment rate is a shocking 72 percent!

While almost everyone acknowledges that these problems begin in
childhood, the failure of urban public schools is an extremely touchy
subject. Many teachers are quick to point out the chaotic
environments poor urban students go home to every day. On the other
hand, parents who cannot afford private school are frustrated with
the disorderly school environments to which their children are
exposed. Unfortunately, both are correct: Too many inner city parents
do not provide the structure and discipline their children need to
succeed, but too many urban classrooms lack precisely the same
things.

These are exceedingly complicated problems with multiple causes,
and they will not be speedily resolved with one particular
intervention. However, that does NOT mean there is nothing we can do;
we must increase educational choice for urban parents, and local
churches must equip those parents to prepare their children for
educational success.

According to Andrew Broy of the Illinois Network of Charter
Schools, “Across all [Chicago area] charter schools, the average
growth rate of 3.8 scale points over those three years is 60 percent
higher than the Chicago average, an average that includes selective
enrollment high schools.” This means inner-city children in Chicago
charter schools showed more improvement than middle-class children in
magnet schools. Most famously, Urban Prep Academy in Chicago has
achieved 100 percent college enrollment for its all-male (and almost
entirely black) graduating class for two years successively.

How can we duplicate these results? Charter schools that show the
most success have comprehensive behavior policies, intense coaching
of teachers, longer school days and a “no excuses” approach to
education. Better trained teachers are able to offer rigorous
instruction, as well as be better attuned to the particular needs of
their students. For students from a disordered home environment,
longer days not only allow for more instruction, but limit the time
students are unsupervised or subjected to poor influences.

The “no-excuses” approach is vital to student success.
Students of any socioeconomic status who are given excuses not to
achieve will find ways to fail, but poor students lack stable parents
who can cushion their fall until they determine a course of action
toward a future. It is not surprising then how schools that
acknowledge the obstacles many urban students face but refuse to
accept them as excuses for failure are seeing their students succeed
at higher rates.

I want to encourage you to advocate for charter schools in your
region. Be sure your county commissioners and state representatives
are clear on your opinions regarding the need for quality education
from the youngest student to the postgraduate level. We can make a
difference today for the future of the next generation of Americans.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in the
Washington, D.C., area. He is also the guest editor of the January-February 2012 issue of Ministry Today about social transformation.

Hornets in the Middle East

When I was about 10 years old, I fell into a hornets’ nest. The hornets got caught in my clothing. The more I fought, the more they stung me. Later I counted about 20 stings. It was a painful few days, but I survived. Every now and then, I see someone caught up in a flurry of painful but meaningless activity. I am reminded of my childhood experience and often use the age-old expression, “They fell into a hornets’ nest.” Most Americans agree that President Obama fell into a Middle Eastern hornets’ nest during the last few months. Despite the toppling of totalitarian states and the possibility of the establishment of new democracy, it is difficult to see a realistic end to the terrorism, bloodshed, and warfare in this important region of the world.

The death of Osama Bin Laden marked a symbolic end to America’s war on terrorism. National jubilation is the only way to describe our corporate feeling about the demise of this “arch enemy” of everything Americans stand for. Perhaps this euphoric victory led the administration’s foreign policy strategists into a subtle state of hubris. This false feeling of power may have convinced them that they could actually advance the peace process by imposing the US will on the Palestinian/Israeli peace process.

The entire nation is aware that on Thursday May 19, the president declared Middle Eastern peace talks could only progress if Israel would agree to return to their 1967 boundaries. After a veritable maelstrom of rebuttals, the president’s international policy team realized the error of their ways. Therefore, the next Sunday morning (5-22-11) the president retracted his peace talk ultimatum. He even went so far as to claim that he was misquoted. His clarification speech occurred at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual meeting in Washington, DC. Despite the public acquiescence of former Prime Minister Netanyahu, the president seemed to create even more controversy. As I walked through the more than 11,000 pro-Israel advocates, I heard everything from motherly articulation of forgiveness to numerous people declaring they would never vote for President Obama again.

The most adamant individuals repeated a familiar chorus, “You don’t just throw your friends under the bus!” Even the most casual observer of the Middle Eastern geo-political scene understands Israel will soon be surrounded by an even more hostile set of neighbors than they have been in the past. The majority of the citizens of bordering nations have never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. Some nearby nations are so adamant about the illegitimacy of Israel the maps used in their schools do not even depict or acknowledge Israel in any way. Their myopic view is that the Jews can simply go back to “wherever they came from.”

This is a significant issue. No one can negotiate with someone who simply wants to annihilate you. Yes, they will take any concessions that you are willing to give them, while laughing at you behind your back. Surely the administration is smart enough to know this. Therefore, any public relations presentation that the Israelis are being intractable and refuse to negotiate in good faith is a myth even the most naive Washington staffer should reject thoroughly. The reality is that the true Palestinian citizens are often being used as pawns in an evil chess match for regional dominance. I am personally concerned our nation is starting to look like prideful “users” who break promises and betray their friends. I am convinced the US must somehow maintain a sense of commitment to our lifetime partners. We must avoid the appearance of a nation appeasing the anger of newly found friends at the expense of valued, long-term relationships.

Many US citizens forget we cannot separate Israel from its ethnic identity. In other words, some nations hate Israel for the most irrational reasons. Further, holocaust deniers and anti-Semites abound in the region. We must not become an indirect instrument of hatred and bigotry.

Ironically, as long ago as the 19th century, anti-Semitism in Europe expressed itself in murder, persecution, and massacres. Against this historic backdrop, Zionists like Theodor Herzl led the way in encouraging both religious and secular Jews to consider a Jewish state. Hitler’s assault on Jews was a manifestation of the worst nightmare Zionists had feared for a nearly a century. The 1948 establishment of the modern Jewish state was necessary for the survival of Jews from many nations. Importantly, the US was one of the earliest partners of this new country. An essential aspect of the nation’s “raison d’être” is to serve as a safe haven for Jewish refugees from around the world. Nonetheless, the nation has not become an oppressive theocracy that imposes a state religion on its citizens. In fact, nearly 50 percent of Israeli citizens are not religiously observant Jews.

In the shifting sands of Middle Eastern politics, the predictability of our relationship with Israel should be protected. For example, on Memorial Day morning, international news agencies reported 20 protesters in Yemen were shot by their own government. Just this past March, hundreds of thousands rallied all across the nation in opposition to the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. At that time, the Yemeni president accused his closest standing ally, the US, and Israel of instigating the protests against him. Although his blame shifting gambit failed to gain him popular support, US intelligence discovered one of Saleh’s internal allies (Sheik Abdul-Majid al-Zindani) actually did betray him. He encouraged tens of thousands of demonstrators in the capital of Sanaa to overthrow his government.

Against this backdrop of international intrigue, America needs to do what the old western adage says, “You’ve gotta dance with the one who brought you.” This means, if necessary, we must stand back to back with Israel against all opposition. Changing partners at this dangerous juncture could result in empowering a generation of rogue nations. Therefore, we must let our congressmen and senators hear these concerns.