Monday, January 19, 2009

Dr. King’s Prayer for Barack Obama

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others. In dangerous valleys and hazardous pathways, he will lift some bruised and beaten brother to a higher and more noble life.” When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote those stirring words in 1963, he was up to his neck in controversies, struggling to build a movement and gain support for the cause of civil rights at a time when the resistance from forces seen and unseen was overwhelming.

He had carried out successful voter registration drives in Georgia, Alabama, and Virginia by that time, and in August of 1963 he would lead the now legendary March on Washington. When he addressed that crowd of nearly a quarter million men, women, and children from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King laid out for all Americans a dream of reconciliation and renewal that would change the conversation about race relations forever. He helped America to understand that reconciliation isn’t about division but addition, and about the process of bringing us together as a nation.

King’s efforts worked! As a result of his personal sacrifice, the worst kinds of bigotry and oppression are much rarer now than they were a generation ago. King would be pleased that the nation no longer has 40 percent of black Americans living below the poverty line, along with another 20 percent barely financially solvent. Even though there still remains a significant income gap between whites and blacks in this country, blacks have come a long way. African-Americans control an estimated $800 billion in annual purchasing power. “Black America” would be the 15th or 16th richest nation on earth, if its economic strength were expressed as a gross domestic product. This is an amazing achievement for one race in one generation. More amazing than the financial, educational, and entertainment achievements of the black community is the fact that in 2009 we will witness the swearing in of our nation’s first black president. Just one day after the 23rd federal celebration of the Martin Luther King Day, Barack Obama will become the nation’s 44th president. Dr. King could not possibly have suspected that his speeches would have been so catalytic - literally changing the outlook and practices of the nation.

The “I Have a Dream” speech has become a major historic document – often quoted but often not fully comprehended. Let’s take a moment to reconnect with Dr. King’s heart and vision as he gave his historic speech. He had come to Washington to dramatize a shameful condition and in a sense to cash a check. He explained to the nation that the founding fathers of America had given its citizens a “promissory note.” King’s metaphor was very clear as he continued his speech, “Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check that has come back marked insufficient funds … We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. ... ”

If the 1963 the March on Washington was about blacks making a bounced check good, the swearing in of Barack Obama will show the last, the least, and the left out that it’s possible for their family to cash their inheritance check. The level of the joy expressed on Tuesday will be proportional to the feelings of shame and rejection each individual has experienced. The larger the bounced check – hope deferred, dashed dreams - the greater the joy for President Obama.

Many white Americans will also weep at the ceremony because President Obama will represent hope, possibility, and destiny to them as well. The kind of America we all want to live in is a racially reconciled America that gives opportunity to all its sons and daughters. In fact, the then candidate Obama realized this connection with King’s Dream when he gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. Ironically, or should I say providentially, he accepted his party’s nomination on the anniversary of King’s most celebrated March on Washington.

Although I don’t always agree with all of Barack Obama’s policies, politics, or philosophies; I must celebrate his unique place in history. He represents the fulfillment of King’s dream for all American’s – black, white, Hispanic and Asian. Like a relay runner receiving the baton in the final leg of the race, Barack Obama has received the baton from Dr. King and others. Dr. King, if he were here, might pray the following prayer for the new president, “I thank you, Heavenly Father, for the tremendous journey this visionary nation has taken in Your name. Today’s America has journeyed light years from the social background of the pre-civil rights era, from the period of lynching, sitting in the back of the bus, and suffering with intolerable working conditions. Today’s America will never again have urban children who feel as though drug dealers are their only role models or that the end of the welfare line is a reasonable career destination. Today’s America will truly see that the child of an immigrant can compete with the descendents of the Rockefellers and the Hiltons.

May President Obama run his leg of the race with skill, dignity, rhythm, and class. May President Obama prove the greatness of his character at times of challenge and controversy. May he be the true neighbor that risks his position and popularity to do what’s best for the nation You have chosen to be a beacon of Hope to the world. Lord, continue to bless America! In Jesus name I pray!”

The real question for every American is not what King would pray, but “How will you pray for the new president, for the nation, and for your family?"

Harry R. Jackson Jr. is senior pastor of 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in the nation's capital. Jackson, who earned an MBA from Harvard, is a best-selling author and popular conference speaker. He leads the High-Impact Leadership Coalition.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Israel's Invasion: Should We Support This Action?

Harry R. Jackson

Israel’s ground invasion into northern Gaza last weekend was surprising for many people. Unfortunately, the ground war had to occur in light of Hamas’ failure to cease bombing Israeli citizens. Palestinian sympathizers are already depicting the struggle as a David vs. Goliath conflict. In a strange biblical reversal the Israelis are now being painted as Goliath because of their superior military power. In reality, the Palestinians have been the aggressors who hope to win the war for public approval and sympathy.

As I have analyzed the situation, it seems to me that Israel’s recent escalation of the conflict is ironically the only way they can actually hope for peace. Israel’s goal is obviously to topple, impair, or reform the Palestinian government. They hope that a governing entity will emerge from this ground invasion with which someone can reason. Once Israeli leaders decided that they had to stop the killing of their citizens immediately, this course of action became inevitable. Even a casual observer understands that Hamas cannot be trusted to negotiate peace in good faith. Despite these facts, no one wants Israel to create their own version of Iraq. Many ministers believe that Israel did the most moral thing in a morally confused dilemma.

I am not advocating war. Neither am I suggesting that all Palestinians are evil. On the other hand, I do believe that peace-loving Christians should advocate that all nations deal harshly with terrorists. Despite my strong sentiments, a reasonable person may still ask, “Aren’t the Israelis stooping to the same moral level as Hamas, because their violent retaliation will result in the loss of innocence, civilian life? The answer is “no.”

Unfortunately, there are times, in a fallen world, when war cannot be avoided. Bible believing Christians are universally slow to endorse war, but sometimes it is the only option to defend innocent life.

St. Augustine, known as a father of modern Christianity, is often credited with developing foundational, biblical premises of how national armed conflict should be viewed. He did not promote war because of self-defense. Augustine believed that it was never permissible to kill someone in order to defend our personal lives or property. Rather, based on Jesus’ teaching of turning the other cheek (see Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29), he felt that Christian love required a nonviolent response to imminent personal danger. But this rule of “turning the other cheek” did not apply to the Christian obligation to care for the defenseless and weak. Therefore, according to Augustine, Christian rulers were obligated to make peace in order to protect subjects—even if force of arms was the only way to stop an attack upon the defenseless.

Augustine’s biblical views became the basis of the medieval Christian doctrine called the Just War Theory. St. Thomas Aquinas built on the writings of Augustine as he crystallized this doctrine. He taught that there were three conditions necessary for a morally legitimate war:

1. Legitimate authority
2. Just cause
3. Right intention

In the interest of time I will not attempt to trace the concept of just wars from Aquinas’s day to the present. I will simply summarize the modern principles derived from Augustine’s and St. Thomas Aquinas’s doctrines that are accepted by most nations. These principles are divided into two categories:

1. Jus ad bellum (justice in resort to war) principles, which apply to political leaders. These include:
· Just cause
· Legitimate authority
· Comparative justice
· Right intention
· Last resort
· Reasonable chance of success

2. Jus in bello (justice in the conduct of war) principles, which apply to military commanders and soldiers. These include:
· Proportionality
· Discrimination

Most of the points are self-explanatory. But I want to zero in on three of them—right intention, proportionality, and discrimination. As we think about the concept of right intention, we must keep in mind that war is most moral when its primary objective is to stop genocide or accomplish some other noble aim. Unfortunately, many nations wage war based on less honorable purposes. Wars to gain access to natural resources such as oil, minerals, or even water rights violate the primary concept of right intention. A few examples of immoral reasons for war are ethnic cleansing, economic gain, expansion of territory, and increased international influence.

The second point that needs to be explained is proportionality, sometimes referred to as the “principle of macro-proportionality.” This is in keeping with the words of Jesus in Luke 14:31–32. This principle suggests that the amount of force used should be in proportion to the military objective pursued. In other words, moral warriors would not kill soldiers simply to kill them. Further, they would certainly not kill or maim innocent civilians. This leads us to the third point that we want to highlight—discrimination.

This concept says essentially that soldiers should fight soldiers. It is sometimes called “the principle of noncombatant immunity.” The unfortunate reality of war is that there will always be some “collateral damage” or loss of life of innocent civilians. But the principle still holds: we should seek to minimize the number of noncombatants that are hurt. “Weapons,” such as land mines, are especially reprehensible because they kill noncombatants for years after the conflict.

In conclusion, we should all pray for the peace of Jerusalem. As Christians pray, we should not be drawn into an anti-Israel propaganda campaign designed to make them out to be the “bad guys” in an unfortunate moral quagmire. The foreign affairs arena will require great discernment over the next few years. I hope that President-elect Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton are up to the task. Whether we like it or not, America is still the world’s policeman.



Harry R. Jackson Jr. is senior pastor of 3,000-member Hope Christian Church in the nation's capital. Jackson, who earned an MBA from Harvard, is a best-selling author and popular conference speaker. He leads the High-Impact Leadership Coalition.


*The commentary provided on this page does not necessarily reflect the views of Strang Communications.