Recently I contacted a white colleague to set up a cross-cultural event for our two congregations to view and discuss the movie "Amistad." While we were planning the event, I decided to see the movie for myself. I experienced the movie on a visceral level, clearly the director's intention. But what Steven Spielberg could not have anticipated was the profound feeling of familiarity that I, a person of near African descent (for indeed all humanity ultimately is of African descent), would experience while viewing this film. I had mixed emotions after the viewing. One thing, however, was perfectly clear: The last thing I wanted to do was to sit in a room with a bunch of white people and talk about my feelings.

The irony of the situation was enhanced by the fact that I had looked forward to celebrating the "Amistad" event as part of the rich heritage of social justice of my church, the United Church of Christ (formerly the Congregational Church). I knew the story of the Amistad as the seminal event in the Congregational Church's commitment to people of African descent, a commitment that continued after the abolition of slavery in the form of academies, schools and colleges to educate the freed slav es. A foundation (the American Missionary Assn.) and six historically black colleges and universities from that period continue to benefit black people in this country.

For days after seeing the movie, I still was trying to put into words what I felt. Finally, it came to me in the form of a question: So why do I still feel like a slave? If these liberating events happened more than 100 years ago, why do I still feel like a slave? If good people of European descent prevailed over the wicked purveyors of human flesh, slavery, misery and death, why do I still feel like a slave? If Cinque and the others were judged to be born free as Africans and not "born slaves, as on a plantation," why do I still feel like a slave?

Then it hit me. Those haunting words, first laid out in the movie as a legal strategy to set Cinque free, were the very words that had condemned subsequent generations of us Africans to the same slavery that he would escape.

Why is this so? Why is Cinque's victory not also my victory? Because I was born on a plantation, a plantation called America. Yes, the Civil War was fought and won to preserve the Union and set the slaves free. Yes, the Constitution has been amended to stipulate my rights as a full citizen. Yes, these things are all true.

But it is also true that while the names of the institutions of oppression have been changed to protect the guilty, the reality of that oppression continued from the Amistad event for another 125 years, through the civil rights movement and continues on in various forms today. It also is true that the reparations that were approved by the government to those direct victims of slavery never were delivered. So those whose names had been changed from their true African names to those of their European owners often found themselves living on the same "plantation" on which they were born and doing the same jobs at which they had previously toiled and for not much more pay. While no one may have called them slaves, I'm sure their question then i s my question today. So why do I still feel like a slave?

I still feel like a slave every time a white person presumes that the best thing I can do is serve or entertain him or her. I feel like a slave every time any of my people are refused service at a Denny's, stopped without probable cause by police, followed by store security, not hired, denied housing or killed by some skinhead because of the color of their skin. I feel like a slave every time I hear my name and know it is not my own.

I still feel like a slave when I face the reality that even the descendants of those noble New England Congregationalists who fought with faith and substance to send Cinque back to Africa would not today consider me eligible to be the pastor of one of their still substantially segregated churches.

But I take heart in the story of "Amistad." I will not stop struggling for the freedom of my people. I will not give up on finding honorable allies of European descent. I will not stop encouraging people of near African descent to be better than we have been. And in spite of it all, I will follow Cinque's advice to his colleagues in chains: "Keep your head up."

We applaud the fact that President Clinton has seen fit to put the African continent on the American political agenda in a positive and respectful way. He thus has elevated a shortsighted and crisis-oriented policy to a new level of thoughtfulness and proactivity.

We were impressed with the president's attempt to couch the history of the relationship between the United States and the peoples of Africa within the religious category of "sin." For truly this is where it belongs. But we found both his historical and contemporary analysis of that relationship quite inadequate. Clinton's remarks acknowledging that "before we were even a nation, European Americans received the fruits of the slave trade. And we were wrong in that," were more of a confession than an apology for slavery. And a very limited confession at that. After all, it's not as though one Christmas morning the 13 colonies simply received a fruit basket from Europe filled with Africans. No, the colonies and the United States after them were active participants in the solicitation, acquisition, transportation and exploitation of Africans as slaves. This was a phenomenon that decimated many parts of the continent and depopulated whole regions. Estimates of Africans who died as a result o f slavery and colonization range from 60 million to 200 million. For an apology to have its intended effect, a full confession, though not sufficient, is a prerequisite.

More disturbing, however, is Clinton's astonishing assertion that "the worst sin America ever committed about Africa was the sin of neglect and ignorance." The sin of slavery notwithstanding, we only wish America had left Africa alone. The facts are quite to the contrary. The U.S. has continuously been involved with Africa in ways detrimental to African peoples. Historically, even after the slave trade ended, the U.S. continued to receive the benefits of the European colonization and exploitatio n of Africa for another hundred years in the form of mineral resources, raw materials and agricultural products.

Further, in the post-colonial era, America has continued to receive more, economically, than it has given to Africa. The debt payments to Western banks and a positive trade balance have continued to undermine sound economic development on the African continent. Politically, the United States has never left Africa alone. Rather than supporting the aspirations of emerging African states for liberty and freedom, the United States actively supported the colonial powers in their attempts to keep Africa in a subservient position. The U.S. sent napalm and helicopters to Portuguese forces to put down freedom movements in Angola and Mozambique. America supported the racist forces resisting freedom in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The CIA was active across the continent subverting progressive governments. No, Mr. President, America has not neglected Africa.

Clinton's overture has value and will win new friends on the continent. We are glad for the aid for education, agriculture and economic development. But the amount of U.S. aid to the collective nations south of the Sahara is dwarfed by our aid to Israel. If we could stop the massive arms supplies from flowing out from our shores to every local conflict in Africa, we might begin to make some real progress.

Africa, generally, has been judged too hastily by the American public as a disaster. We must recognize that outside of Ethiopia, Sub-Saharan Africa only began to enter the modern community of nations within the past 40 years. For Clinton's gesture to become more than a cosmetic attempt to stake a claim to history, he must truly decide what justice demands in regard to Africa. We feel America should give back to Africa in proportion to what America has received from Africa.

The president further commented on the African Americans in his delegation as an example of how America has benefited from its relationship to Africa. To us, it only begs the questions: How would Africa be different today if Martin Luther King Jr. had been a Nigerian? Or if Barbara Jordan had been a Somali? Or if Paul Robeson had been a Rwandan? Or if Thurgood Marshall had been a Sudanese? Or if Fannie Lou Hamer had been a Liberian? Maybe an African president would be visiting us instead.

History is important, so let us not forget the ancient civilizations of Africa that made long-standing essential contributions to human civilization. On the clock of human history, the recent difficulties of the continent represent only a few seconds. We look forward to Africa once again resuming its rightful place and blessing the whole of humankind.

The Southern Baptist Convention has felt the need to reaffirm its teaching that in marriage, the man rules. And further, that the Christian duty of the wife is not only to submit to his rule but to do so "graciously." Not being Southern Baptist, I have no particular stake in what they choose to teach. My concern, however, is the presumption that this teaching is the genuine biblical teaching. When it comes to the Bible, I have quite a stake.

The Bible did not fall from heaven in perfect English. It has come to us through many human hands—inspired by encounters with God, but human hands all the same. So the question must be asked, what did the writer of Ephesians mean to accomplish by advocating that wives be submissive to their husbands? Were he and the other early Christians transmitting sacred doctrine from God to their new emerging community to lead them away from the pagan world around them?

The clear historical answer is a resounding no. They were, in fact, quite deliberately trying to fit in to the Hellenistic culture that was the nurturing environment for the growing church. They were not only evangelizing in a spiritually and philosophically competitive arena, but at the same time holding a somewhat defensive posture in light of the not infrequent persecutions directed toward the new religion. It was important to the early Christians to be like the world around them, and they expressed this to their followers as being consistent with their faith.

If the church today is to be faithful to biblical principles as well as words, we must continue to interpret the world around us and determine appropriate contemporary Christian responses to it. The Christian community of 2nd century Hellenistic culture sought to fit in to the highest values of the philosophical standards of the day. Christians wanted to show that their faith produced persons at least as honorable as the disciples of the Stoic schools. So, yes, Christians are "good" husbands to their wives, "good" fathers to their children and "good" masters to their slaves. Have we forgotten about the church's ancient and not-so-ancient acquiescence to the brutality of slavery? We also like to forget that in the Bible, the injunction to wives is inseparable from the immediately subsequent instruction that slaves be subject to their masters.

These so-called "household codes" were standard fare for the Greco-Roman world. The only thing "Christian" about them are the embellishments that encourage love toward wives, nonprovocative parenting techniques and nonthreatening strategies toward obtaining slaves' obedience. Therefore, liberal mainline churches teach that to be faithful Christians, we must look at the world around us and encourage the best and highest values of our society. It was only such an approach that allowed the Christian church to join the enlightenment spirit and fight for the abolition of slavery. It was only such an approach that allowed the church to join the women's liberation movement and fight for women's rights.

Now that the church and society have succeeded in broadening women's roles and opportunities in the world, it would seem inconsistent to confine and restrict women's roles in a Christian marriage and family. Remember, too, that there are real world consequences to these narrow interpretations, such as wives being abused by husbands.

Those who wrote the words we revere in the Bible did not know that they would be read by us nearly 2,000 years later. To be faithful to their words and our God, we need not live in their time, but faithfully live in ours.

A recent photograph in The Times reminded me of Camille Cosby's statement that Americans taught her son's killer how to feel about blacks. The picture showed three Chinese industrialists encountering a black homeless woman on Fifth Street in downtown Los Angeles. Their looks of pity and indifference spoke volumes.

"So this is how foreigners learn about black people," I said to myself.

Volunteers from the Executive Service Corps, a group of retired executives, were teaching Chinese industrial managers how to modernize the Chinese economy and help its transition from socialism to capitalism. Much to the credit of the organizers, they believed that showing their foreign guests the negative human consequences of a capitalistic, market-driven economy was a good idea. So the volunteers took the visitors to skid row to show them dislocated, marginalized people and some of the ways that a compassionate society provides relief for them. It's obvious that the volunteers were well-intentioned.

However, what these businessmen neglected to ask was what were they teaching the Chinese visitors about African Americans. I am sure these volunteers would be alarmed at the idea of spreading bad news about African Americans around the globe. But that's exactly what they were doing.

Consider that during their three-month visit, the Chinese managers were taken to the headquarters of several major Southern California corporations, among them Boeing, Unocal and Xerox; I'm sure there were few blacks at any of them. Then consider that they spent their evenings in the Palos Verdes, Beverly Hills and Valley homes of these retired executives; few blacks there, I'm sure. Further consider that their lectures and presentations, which were held at USC, were conducted by profess ors and industry types; probably few if any blacks there.

Then, finally, consider that they were taken to skid row to see rehabilitation services for drug addicts and mentally ill, homeless and otherwise helpless individuals; I'm sure there were plenty of blacks there.

Without a racist word being spoken or a disparaging remark being made, these foreigners had learned that African Americans do not participate in the industrial segment of our capitalist economy but are marginalized, helpless and homeless people. Can you imagine the message that will be sent to the Chinese business community when these visitors return home with the trophy of a prominently played newspaper picture?

Such images and messages regarding the pathologies that plague African Americans are so deeply woven into the fabric of American life and culture that the subliminal lessons taught are often unacknowledged. Yet they have a power and an endurance that is intractable. The information communicated, albeit silently, is bound to be distorted abroad.

If Chinese commercial forces fulfill their international potential, I would hate to think what role people of African descent would have in such an economy.

Many have dismissed Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush's claim that Jesus Christ is the political philosopher to have influenced him the most. His assertion was seen as religious pandering at its worst. Yet I decided to take him seriously, and I discovered that Bush had not taken the "political" teachings of Jesus seriously. Indeed, he betrayed no knowledge of their content.

Let's look at just a few of Jesus' best-known political teachings.

When telling of the judgment of the "nations" (ergo political), Jesus said, according to Matthew's Gospel: "For I was hungry and you gave me food ... I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.... Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers ... you did it to me." It sounds to me like welfare, open immigration, universal health care, increased international aid and prison reform, all in one sermon.

In another sermon (you know, the one on the Mount?) Jesus is reported to have said, again according to Matthew: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'Do not resist an evildoer.' But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." This is a direct contradiction to the very idea of the death penalty. Yet Bush has shown no pity when it comes to executions in his state.

If Christ is Bush's favorite political philosopher, why are none of these themes reflected in his so-called political philosophy of compassionate conservatism?

If these are not his understandings of Christ's teachings, then he should show what connections he has made between his positions and those of his close friend, Jesus. Maybe we ask too much of a person who, when asked about his daily reading, listed several newspapers and a book or two but not the Bible. Politicians who run on the coattails of their religion do so at great peril to their political credibility and the confidence of a diverse constituency.

As an ordained minister who ran for political office myself, I listed my employment in the church as a point of departure, not a destination for my political leadership.

All persons of faith, whether clergy or lay of whatever religion, best represent their beliefs when there is a seamless relationship between their deeply held values and the work they have done.

Among the 2000 presidential contenders, only Democrat Bill Bradley has refused to discuss publicly his religious status. In the face of all the Bible-thumping going on in both major parties' campaigns, his practice seems as bold a statement of his spirituality as any overt claim of piety by the others.

Which reminds me of some other sayings of Jesus, also from Matthew's Gospel: "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them." And: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father."

It's like a bad dream from which we just can't seem to wake up. I picked up The Times recently and read the front-page headline, "Rampart Settlements Could Hit $125 Million" from 120 cases. I ran into the street to see the angry crowd of protesters making their way to Parker Center. The streets were empty.

Well, it was only 6:15 a.m. I had breakfast, got dressed, dropped the kids off at school and headed downtown. As I descended the First Street hill toward police headquarters, I expected to have to detour to avoid the marchers. But all was eerily quiet. Had no one noticed we were in the midst of the most compelling police corruption scandal of our generation?

We can't seem to get the drama of civic outrage going because Police Chief Bernard C. Parks keeps stepping on everyone's lines, even his own. In December, Parks complained that the Coalition for Police Accountability and the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the coalition's founders, "describe the LAPD as a police department rampant with corruption and abuse." "Nothing could be further from the truth," he said indignantly in a press release, going on to chastise the ACLU's Ramona Ripston for saying "that to complain to the LAPD, citizens need to go to the police to make a complaint." Parks smugly counters that LAPD complaint forms are located in many governmental offices. (Oh, yeah?)

Yet later, the chief is quoted by The Times as stating that lax oversight and poor adherence to departmental policies helped "corruption to flourish" in the LAPD! Further, he recommends that 200 officers and civilian employees be added to the Internal Affairs Division. Why? Because when complaints were lodged against officers, too often they were investigated within the division where they occurred! Parks said, "Many of those complaints involved serious community complaints that should have been handled by [Internal Affairs] to ensure the most independent and thorough investigation possible." Now I'm really confused. Isn't that the point that Ripston et al were making in December when he so bitterly complained about them?

This marvelous public relations display by Chief Parks is like none we've seen from any previous police chief. In one moment he is indignant, and in the next he is contrite. And he is equally believable as both villain and hero. It has been masterful. Thus, to date no groundswell of civic outrage has been able to pick up any steam. What a difference a videotape makes.

If this disaster does not stir the hearts of the citizenry to righteous indignation, then the scene is set for future relapses. We cannot and should not invest the integrity and accountability of our police department in any one man. Not because he is unworthy, but because the LAPD belongs to all of us. It is up to all of us to hold those who serve us (with the power of life and death) to the standards that we set through an open and participatory process.

We must be fully committed to rooting out the corruption that has deeply stained our city. Full commitment requires full participation. The City Council recently held closed-session hearings on what is arguably the most important city business it will conduct for many years to come. While such sessions may at times be necessary, an open process must begin for the sake of the public acceptance of the outcome of this critical investigation.

This is not a challenge to the competence or honesty of Chief Parks. It is a challenge to his notion that he and his staff are sufficient to clean up their own mess. This mess belongs to all of us, affects all of us, threatens all of us and undoubtedly will dearly cost all of us.

Civilian oversight, a cornerstone of community policing, requires a broader and more engaging participation by the public than is currently offered by the chief's "I'll let you know when I know" approach. And it is the role of the Coalition for Police Accountability, the ACLU, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and any other civic-minded bodies to stimulate the public's concern in these matters. For indeed, public confidence will only erode as more criminal cases are affected and more officers are involved and as the scandal reaches to higher ranks in the administration.

The chief is expected to propose that an ethics enforcement section be established that would " continually conduct sting operations to find and root out corruption." Because, as the chief himself said, "It is not a question of 'if' but 'when' these deplorable circumstances would recur. These failures and their causes cannot be viewed as one-time events for which the department can 'close the books.' "

Amen, brother. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The shine of his belt buckle, the color of his keys, the reflection from his wristwatch, but his wallet? One year ago, Amadou Diallo lost his life to 19 bullets from New York's finest because of his wallet. Twenty-five years ago, my wallet saved my life.

I was in college but the incident still burns bright in my memory. I was walking across Harvard Yard and noticed the unfamiliar blue lights of a Cambridge police car. As I approached my destination, the car drew closer. In my innocent mind I began to think, "I wonder what's going on in Grays Hall?" Suddenly the car stopped and the two officers jumped out. One crouched behind the car door; the other approached me slowly with hand on gun. And then I knew, it wasn't inside Grays Hall, the problem was outside Grays Hall and it was me.

I wonder now, if I had ignored the flashing lights (after all I knew they weren't meant for me) and reached for the door, would those have been my last steps?

I cannot help thinking, What was on Amadou Diallo's innocent mind? What did he think as the unmarked car disgorged its mysterious cargo and as the men in plainclothes rushed up the block? Did he even know they were coming to his door? He did not realize in time that it was him. He was the danger. Maybe he reached for his wallet for the identification that was being demanded. But they thought, mistakenly, tragically, that he was a criminal and his wallet was a gun.

In the incident involving me, the Cambridge police warned me to take my hands out of my pockets, slowly. I complied. They asked me for I.D. I complied. I showed them my Harvard student card. They relaxed. I lived. I demanded to know why I had been stopped. They said someone had been mugged in the subway and I fit the description, a black man in a white coat. I fit the profile.

The verdict of not guilty for the New York police officers accused of murdering Diallo did not surprise me. I just had heard a lecture on the law regarding use of deadly force from Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks. The law states that if an officer believes that lethal danger is imminent, the officer may use deadly force. Even if the officer is mistaken, even if the danger is accelerated because the officer trips and falls [as police claim in the shooting death of a homeless woman, Margaret Mitchell, in Los Angeles], the officer is within the law to use deadly force.

The real tragedy of the verdict is not that it was wrong, but that it was right. The travesty is that it was legal to kill Diallo, that it was legal to kill Mitchell, and that if I had opened that door or pulled my hands out too quickly it would have been legal to kill me too.

The scary part of racial profiling is that in addition to the fact of there being a crime committed, a suspect at large and the perception of a gun, complexion is an element of the danger. Blackness is considered a risk factor. But why is this not so with whiteness? My question about racial profiling is: How do they ever catch any white criminals? There ought to be a law.

The protests in New York are misplaced. They protest because the killing of Diallo was wrong. They should protest because it was "right." They should protest because it was legal. Because if it had been wrong, we could hope that it might not happen again. But because it was "right," because it was legal, we can start counting the days until the next Amadou Diallo.

I finally figured out how to get my kids to listen to my music. Force. By sheer parental authority, I required them to submit to my musical tutelage in the hopes that they might discover what real music is. OK, actually we struck a deal. On the way to school we would listen to their music in the car and on the way home, by golly, we would listen to mine.

On the way to school I endured Limp Bizkit, Dr. Dre, Destiny's Child (which I didn't mind too much) and, oh yes, Eminem. But on the way back I tortured them with the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane and, oh yes, Jimi Hendrix. Then one day the magical moment came. My teenager begged to hear Hendrix one more time. Then we started to sing along, "You don't care for me, I don't care about that, you got a new fool, ha, I like it like that, I have only got one burning desire, let me stand next to your fire!" Quickly, I changed tracks and the solemn strains of "Hey Joe" rang out: "Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand? I'm goin' downtown to shoot my ol' lady, 'cause I caught her messing around with another man."

Suddenly, I realized that their music and my music weren't as different as public opinion would have me think. In fact the subject matter of R&B, pop and rock music hasn't changed at all. It was, is and always will be about love, sex, money, power, drugs and violence, in one form or another. In the 1970s, KC and the Sunshine Band sang, "Shake your booty" and today rapper Mystikal sings, "Shake yaha--!" The Beatles sang, "I get high, with a little help from my friends." Snoop Dogg sings, "Rollin' down the street smoking 'endo,' sippin' on gin and juice."

Some approach it tenderly. Some approach it raw. Some approach it symbolically. Some use the blunt ugliness of the violence to turn us away. Others stand on peaceful shores and beckon us gently (Marvin Gaye, "What's Goin' On").

While Hendrix's "Joe" didn't put his wife in the trunk and drive her off the cliff, as depicted in an Eminem tune, she was dead nonetheless. Interestingly, the lyrics of today's rap music seem to obscure rather than reveal the underlying message. Possibly because their explicitness consumes all your mental attention the first 20 times you hear the song. Today, the message is often buried under raw, nasty, scatological and pornographic words that most of "us" don't understand anyway. The central critique of rap is that no such message is discernible. Maybe it's because we haven't listened that 21st time.

I must admit, the first rap song I heard blew me away with the power of its social critique. In fact, the title of the song was "The Message." It begins, "Broken glass everywhere, people pissin' on the street like they just don't care!" While in 1979 the lyric seemed scandalous, for one who had been in a New York subway, there were no other words to describe the experience. However, its chorus made the point of the song unmistakably clear, "It's like a jungle sometimes; it makes me wonder how I keep from going under, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"

The extreme lyrics of Eminem et al. suggest to me the imminent end of the evolution of rap. One must ask, now that Eminem has broken through the taboos of murder, rape and incest, where can the genre go next? Snoop Dogg, for his part, recently made the leap into X-rated videos. This is, in fact, a capitulation to the boundaries that he has reached. There is nothing else he has to say that we are interested in hearing. Nor can he manage a more creative way to say it. So now he retreads his biggest hits with accompanying sex scenes.

The truth is that the best rappers begin with a burst of power, speaking out of their experience. But as soon as they run out of genuine material, they start to speak out of their fantasies and imagination. What we quickly find is that their fantasies are generally pathetic and their imagination is bankrupt. How much money they made (by rapping about their real life). How many women they've had (after making all that money—funny, none were the lovers before that they have now become). How much power they have (over other rappers whose fortunes have faded, "West Si-I-ide!").

The rap wars that killed Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls are the saddest examples of how they have never really transcended the environment that spawned them. Even Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs' $300-million empire may not save him from 15 years in prison on weapons and bribery charges. And this is why, in the final analysis, they are more to be pitied than feared. So Eminem may follow Snoop Dogg to the video booths. Or he may squeeze one more angst-filled rap out of his Grammy-winning experience or his pending prison sentence for his weapons conviction. So I don't worry that he will corrupt my boys. In fact, I think I'll just kick back, relax and watch how they deal with the music of their kids!

One thing that doesn't get talked about in the rash of school shootings: Why are they happening in mostly white and suburban or rural schools? Why aren't they happening in inner-city schools?

There's no question that violence is just as pervasive, if not more so, in the 'hood as in the 'burbs. However, there is a different social matrix in the inner city.

Let's begin by calling these school shootings exactly what they are: suicides. With the exception of the two boys in Jonesboro, Ark., there was no attempt or even intent to escape. They either kill themselves (Columbine), expect to be killed or give themselves up, with life imprisonment awaiting them.

These "suicides" are accompanied by the desire to kill as many others as possible on the way out. This pattern of suicide could be called "the Samson syndrome."

At the end of the biblical story of Samson, we find him betrayed and weakened, his eyes gouged out and subjected to humiliation for the entertainment of the Philistines. As he stands between the pillars of the temple, in one final, desperate act, he pulls the pillars down, killing himself and 3,000 Philistines.

For the boys in today's school shootings, the bullies, the athletes, the homecoming queen, the BMOC—all are pillars of the school temple that they must destroy. So, in one final desperate act, they are destroying as many Philistines as they can.

But what else can we say about the children who commit these acts? Can we identify them in advance? According to psychologist Bryan Nichols, who works with the L.A. Bridges gang diversion program, in almost every case the perpetrator is a child who has suffered a significant narcissistic injury. That is, "their sense of self, already fragile due to weaknesses born of physical frailty, biological limitations and/or parental inattention, becomes annihilated by assault from an outside agency" such as the bully, a girlfriend, parent or other enemy. They then feel compelled to end their lives with the satisfaction of an inordinate and overwhelming display of power.

To get back to the mystery of why these events happen in suburban and rural schools and not (so far) in inner-city schools, we have to examine the social matrix of the inner city. The same psychological problems exist but find a different outlet there. In the inner city, some of these weak and bullied kids find protection and a degree of acceptance in a gang.

Being a member of a gang allows them to insulate themselves from the raw and seemingly relentless assaults on their ego that they would otherwise have to endure. As gang members, they are vicariously empowered by the fearful respect given to the group. Even the bullies are at bay because, in the inner city, the bullies are more typically the gang leaders.

The violence of the gang is often random, but it is not suicidal. Gang members always plan to get away. Which explains the drive-by. They may spray the front of a school or a house in a rival's territory, but they don't stay long enough for the body count to climb into the dozens. Neither have they engaged the technology of the bomb.

Another reason the Samson syndrome doesn't happen in the inner city is because children there who have the most potential for violence are in gangs, so they are easily identified. This allows the community to respond with gang diversion and prevention programs.

In the suburban-rural setting, these weak and damaged kids add isolation to their predicament. While acting in tandem at times, this arrangement does not rise to the level of a gang. They are basically loners who live on the margins of their culture, noses pressed up against the glass of the hated mainstream society. They live isolated lives, even in their own homes, where parents do not even bother to enter their rooms. But by entering their parents' rooms, many of these children find the weapons they need for their deadly acts.

Until we admit that these events, wherever they happen, are a product of our overall culture and our social condition and not unpredictable acts of sociopathic kids, they will continue to happen. These kids will walk by our sides, sit in our classrooms and live in our shadows. Then, in one final act of desperation, they will take the temple down, leaving us only with our now familiar and still pathetic refrain: "I never thought it could happen here."

For the season of Advent, the United Church of Christ had planned a nationwide television ad campaign extending an open welcome to all people, especially gays and lesbians. The message was simple: "Jesus didn't turn people away; neither do we, the United Church of Christ." The visuals dramatized people, including two men holding hands, being turned away by bouncers at the door of a church.

But the major networks wouldn't air the ad. ABC was at least consistent: It never airs religious ads. NBC and CBS, however, said no because the ad was "too controversial" or was "advocacy."

CBS stated that its policy prohibited advocacy ads on any questions of public debate in this case, gay marriage. But the ad neither says nor implies anything about gay marriage, only that "no matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome." It cannot be that gay people attending church is a question of debate.

If advocacy is truly the objection, then ads from the armed services should also be banned because recruitment of soldiers is clearly advocacy for war.

NBC, for its part, simply stated that the ad was too controversial. If so, then the news department should cover the story. We have been welcoming and ordaining gays and lesbians for decades, yet when we request coverage, the networks skip it because it's not news. So, either let us buy the time to welcome people who feel excluded from some Christian churches or send news crews to our 6,000 churches. To neither cover us as news nor allow us to buy time because we're too controversial is to deny us our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion.

Right-wing/fundamentalist Christianity has so dominated the media that many Americans don't believe liberal/progressive Christianity even exists. The fundamentalist message is the de facto Christian message because such groups have the money to not only buy airtime but to have their own shows. And every time Jerry Falwell blames gays or feminists for society's ills, he shows up on the news.

Some have suggested that the ad was inappropriate because it proselytizes. But we liberals don't do evangelism. I like to call it "invitationalism." It is simply our way of saying who we are and extending an invitation to anyone who has felt unwelcome in the Christian community.

Some TV network executives have alluded to the notion that the ad implies that other churches exclude some people. That is simply the plain history of Christian churches in our country. The commercial does not name names. But I will. Jimmy Carter resigned from his Southern Baptist church in 1976 because its constitution prohibited membership to blacks. It is a fact that gays have experienced rejection, exclusion and condemnation in a broad variety of "Christian" congregations. And Thursday, the Methodists "convicted" the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud of being a lesbian; she faces defrocking.

This ad is our small effort to deliver a message of "extravagant welcome" to all people.

It is a sad beginning to Black History Month when a group of black preachers have so forgotten the past that they agree to be tutored in "moral values" by Republican operatives in sheep's clothing.

Don't get us wrong: Some of our best friends are Republicans. But the recent invasion by Karl Rove's minions into the heart of black communities and black churches across the country most recently on Tuesday at the Crenshaw Christian Center, one of Los Angeles' biggest churches, has been downright offensive.

Seventy pastors apparently turned out for Tuesday's meeting, which was supposedly organized by conservative black ministers who had backed George W. Bush in November and who are seeking to promote what they say is a new agenda for the black community.

Are they doing it with programs that bring jobs, education and opportunity? Nooooooooooooo. They are doing it with a campaign against gay marriage. They are unveiling a "black contract with America on moral values." That's right, Newt Gingrich is back and he's black! And in case you didn't know, gay marriage, not gang violence, gay marriage, not hyper-unemployment and undereducation, is what has destroyed our jobs, closed our schools and forfeited our opportunities.

That the ideological descendants of the architects of Jim Crow would be setting up shop in inner cities to structure a solution to the problems of being black in America is beyond ludicrous.

And the focus on gay marriage is a fundamental betrayal of the civil rights movement in this country. If these people have their way, it will be the first time since Jim Crow that discrimination against a group of people is written into law. Everywhere you see the phrase "gay marriage," just remember the word "miscegenation." Listen to the arguments they're making: It's unnatural. It's against God's plan for humanity. Haven't we heard that before?

These ministers also claim a deep concern for the "unborn" who are aborted. OK. We all want to reduce the number of abortions. But this is best done through economic empowerment to support a family and through contraception for effective family planning. The fact is that abortions have increased in some states under President Bush, according to a study from Fuller Theological Seminary, after both teen pregnancy and abortions declined under President Clinton.

The saddest part is that these ministers, who have inherited a legacy of respect, leadership and authority, would squander their profound birthright for a bowl of faith-based porridge. The underbelly of this Republican initiative is the promise of funding for church programs. That's a true sellout.

The black church has always stood with the oppressed and never the oppressor. It has not been in the forefront of the "pro-life" movement because it recognized that prohibiting abortions leads to the maiming and death of thousands of poor, often black, women. It has not been in the forefront of the movement against gay marriage because it doesn't adhere to the biblical literalism of many fundamentalist churches and looks more to the compassion of Jesus than to conservative legalism.

If the black church took the Bible literally we would still be "slaves obey[ing] your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). The gospel of freedom that has been the hope and strength of the black church is still a powerful and meaningful message to millions who are weekly inspired to struggle harder, study longer and love so fervently that hate, discrimination and prejudice wilt under its persistent presence.

Only if Terri Schiavo had actually died on Good Friday could the resonance of the passion story told about Jesus and the passion story unfolding around Terri have been stronger. The drama, the tension, the excitement, the suffering, the heroes, the villains; they were all there.

Clearly, Terri is Jesus in this drama. She is the innocent one. She is the suffering servant. She is the silent one, who does not speak, even in the face of false witnesses whose words condemn her to death. She is the one being deprived of food and water and in the words of the protesters, the one being tortured to death. This is the key connection with the other passion story. Crucifixion was not exactly an act as much as it was a process. It was not like beheading, quick and to the point (which was a quite available means of execution in Jesus day, witness the fate of John the Baptist). Crucifixion, which avoided any fatal wounds as the victim was nailed or tied to the crossbeam, intended to torture its victim to death. Without food or water, victims of crucifixion would hang for days before they died, ultimately from exhaustion. The biblical detail of Jesus having been pierced in the side by the soldiers sword was actually to hasten Jesus death before the arrival of that evenings Jewish Sabbath. (I wont even address the implications of that!)

George Bush is unequivocally Pontius Pilate. He flies back from his Texas retreat to sign Terris law. Even though he knows it will not save her life it allows him to present clean hands to his faithful constituents and give him, one presumes, a clear conscience and a good nights sleep (something the president is known to cherish).

Terri's parents and the throngs of protesters have become the disciples and bystanders, watching and following Terri's trial and crucifixion at a distance. Pleading for her life but helpless to intervene directly, they gnash their teeth and weep and wail. In an astonishing rehearsal of biblical events we even have their testimony of Terri's four last words (Jesus had seven) from the cross (read hospice), I waaaaaa[to live]. Then, in a scene taken directly from the script of the passion story in the Gospels, they even begged just to take a sponge and put it to her mouth.

And Michael Schiavo, poor Michael, he is the personification of the Roman soldiers. He, like the soldiers, was charged with carrying out her sentence of death. A sentence imposed by a higher power than himself he felt he had no choice. Bound by duty and with orders from the authorities (the Roman Empire) the soldiers flogged, whipped, and then crucified Jesus. Bound by Terri's wishes and with orders from the authorities (the Florida State Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals) Michael pulled the plug (or the tube as it was in this case), denied his wife food and water and watched her slowly die. Michael recognized, in the words of 11th U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty. Then, in the face of insults, threats and all manner of accusation, he stood guard over her body so that the disciples wouldn't come and take her down from the cross.

It is as though the Christian Right wanted to get it right this time. They couldnt prevent the crucifixion of Jesus two thousand years ago, but by golly, they were going to prevent the crucifixion of Terri Schiavo. Interestingly, Terri and Jesus have both become symbols of this pseudo-religious political movement. Emptied of all content, they serve at the whim of those who would manipulate their silence and absence to make points in their attempt to establish a so-called culture of life.

The ironies have not been lost on the rest of us. The hyperbolic concern with one feeding tube connected to one person in contrast to the total lack of action regarding the millions of human beings whose feeding tubes are quite connected (i.e., their mouths) but are empty. The president, when governor of Texas charged with signing the death warrants for those on death row, could not [spend] one hour (Matthew 26:40) to review their cases and thus failed 152 times to err on the side of life.

Terri Schiavo's ordeal brings me to this conclusion. Life is more than living. And it is the easy way out that claims to preserve all life at all cost. It is hard to decide for ourselves, let alone for others, when our lives have been exhausted of all meaning and the inevitability of death is to be welcomed and not resisted. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace (Luke 2:29) is my prayer for Terri Schiavo.

I am an avid supporter of free speech, so I am very clear that to shut down reactionary speech today is to preclude reformation speech tomorrow. So, I disagreed with the Carlsbad Union School District's decision to deny a venue to the meeting titled "The Illegal Immigration Crisis" sponsored by state Sen. Bill Morrow.

I also disagree with the Carlsbad mayor who wants to charge the meeting participants the cost of police protection. If we at Pilgrim United Church of Christ were to hold a seminar on gay marriage I would hate to think that we would have to foot the bill because of the protesters who would be sure to show up.

However, this was not the innocent "open public forum" that Sen. Morrow advertised. This was a closed-minded, one-sided, mean-spirited political rally that should have been held in a private setting and supported by private donations.

The evening began with a seemingly sincere gesture to answer questions from the audience even from those who disagreed with the premise of the meeting, all eight of them (by a show of hands, out of a crowd of 400). But after boasting about the panel's ability to answer any and all questions, when the evening ended two hours later not one question had been asked or answered. So much for the "free exchange of ideas" promised by Sen. Morrow.

The bottom line for this group was that they were psychologically and emotionally prepared to deport up to 30 million people. On a side note, it was interesting how the estimates of undocumented persons in the U.S. rose from 10 million to 30 million as the evening went on. It was as though, drunk on the hyperbole of their own rhetoric, they could not restrain themselves from exaggeration.

No practical solutions to the very real problems we face were offered, only a litany of complaints that laid the blame for every conceivable social problem from child molestation to traffic jams at the feet of undocumented Mexicans (and make no mistake about it, this meeting was about Mexicans).

As a minister of the Christian faith I must ask, "What does God think about our immigration crisis?" My first inclination is that God does not recognize our arbitrary borders anyway. There are no "aliens" with this God.

However, we humans have devised these borders. What does God say about how we should treat those "we" (not God) consider aliens? Deuteronomy says, "Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien ... of justice." For those who say we should not reward lawbreakers, Proverbs 6:30 says, "Thieves are not despised who steal only to satisfy their appetite when they are hungry." And, of course, Jesus in Matthew 25:43 curses those because "I was a stranger and you did not welcome me."

For me and Pilgrim Church, we will continue to feed migrant workers, house the homeless, advocate for the voiceless and preach the "good news" of Jesus' extravagant welcome to all people, regardless of their documented status.