I regularly speak to women's and men's groups. My current exercise for them: 'Turn to the few people around you and discuss what you would say if your teenage daughter or son asked you "Why does President Clinton, by his own admission, have these affairs with young women?"'

The answers are usually predictable. 'Bill and Hilary sleep in separate bedrooms in the White House you know...' 'He's a baby boomer: a product of a culture driven by Hollywood amoralism - or worse, the idea that adultery is fun if you can get away with it.' But one woman in our Mildura meeting said: 'Bill Clinton doesn't like himself' (general laughter - until they began to think about it)... And so on...

There are three broad reactions Christians (or others) can have to President Clinton's admissions of adultery: antinomianism, moralism, and grace.

Antinomianism: (from two Greek words, anti = against, nomos = law; ie. a denial of the binding nature of moral law). Apparently the majority of American adults believe Bill Clinton's behavior is just about sex. Fifty to 66% of adult married Americans (according to various polls) have had an affair. So, the common retort: 'We elect a President to govern: what happens in his private life is no one else's business.'

Two examples of moralism.(My definition: making what appear to be self-righteous judgments about the behavior of another without a sympathetic understanding of causes, an identification with the other as a fellow-sinner, and a greater emphasis on sin and judgment than on grace/love and forgiveness).

James Dobson: 'Although sexual affairs have occurred often in high places, the public has never approved of such conduct... We know that this 50 year old man had sexual relations repeatedly and brazenly in the White House with a woman 27 years his junior. Then he spoke on national television while shaking his finger at the camera, and denied ever having had a sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky... His affair with Gennifer Flowers... he admits having lied about... Clinton is not the only politician who lacks character, but he is the only one in American history to my knowledge who has been specifically applauded for his deceit... We are facing a profound moral crisis - not only because one man has disgraced us, but because our people no longer recognize the nature of evil. And when a nation reaches that state of depravity, judgment is a certainty.' ('Clinton: does character matter?' in the current issue of the Festival of Light's magazine 'Light', Adelaide, November 1998, p.3).

Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham): 'Mr. Clinton's months-long extramarital sexual behavior in the Oval Office now concerns him and the rest of the world, not just his immediate family. If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?

'Private conduct does have public consequences. Some of Mr. Clinton's defenders present King David of the Bible, one of history's great leaders, as an example, as they call on us to forgive and forget the president's moral failings. Since God pardoned David's adulterous act with Bathsheba, the reasoning goes, we should similarly forgive Mr. Clinton. But forgiveness is not the end of David's story. Huge consequences followed immediately. The prophet Nathan confronted David with the news that while his life would be spared, the life of his child would be extinguished after just seven days on earth. Bathsheba's husband and others were killed in an attempt to cover up the illicit affair. David, who confessed his sin when confronted by Nathan (perhaps God's special prosecutor), also witnessed a bloody coup attempt by his own son, Absalom. He was never the same king.

'The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin. As a boy, I remember my mother telling me of the consequences of sin. Like a boat, whose wake can capsize other boats, sin leaves a wake. Just look at how many have already been pulled under by the wake of the president's sin: Mr. Clinton's wife and daughter, Ms. Lewinsky, her parents, White House staff members, friends and supporters, public officials and an unwitting American public.

'Mr. Clinton's sin can be forgiven, but he must start by admitting to it and refraining from legalistic doublespeak. According to the Scripture, the president did not have an "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky--he committed adultery. He didn't "mislead" his wife and us -- he lied. Acknowledgment must be coupled with genuine remorse. A repentant spirit that says, "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I won't do it again. I ask for your forgiveness," would go a long way toward personal and national healing.

'The scandal of Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky has forced us to examine the morality of public and private behavior with new intellectual and spiritual vigor. There needs to be no clash between personal conduct and public appearance. Throughout my life, I have seen consistency of the two in the Graham house. I pray this will also be true in the White House.' (From a press release, widely reported in the electronic and print media).

Now I do not disagree with anything said by these two 'moralizers'. It's what they do not say that causes me problems.

In two areas.

First, I believe that my response to another's sin (yes, adultery is sin) is not to weep or laugh or judge but to understand. In Gail Sheey's new book 'Understanding Men's Passages' (1998) she writes: 'Clinton never really had a boyhood. "Abandoned" by his natural father , who died before his birth, left by his mother for his first four years while she chose to pursue a nursing degree out of state, then living with an alcoholic abusive step-father, Clinton had to assume the role of grown-up in a chaotic family situation... His mother often took him along as an adolescent to her favorite night club in Hot Springs, where he had a peek into a world of illicit gambling, drinking, and prostitution. She also taught him to be seductive. Coming home from her all-night nursing duty, she would routinely say to her young son, "Nobody's told me yet today how pretty I am".

'An exceptionally bright victim of that kind of childhood learns to deny and compartmentalize the trauma, but it still lies there, a deep river of sadness and lovelessness, and unless addressed it continues to shape one's life choices. Clinton is happy only when he is seducing people - and he is equally potent in "seducing" both men and women, or just about anyone he meets. Since boyhood he has been seeking love and approval... Clinton is a classic example of the 'puer aeternus', a Jungian archetype. The puer aeternus - the eternal boy - remains stuck in an adolescent orientation toward life.' (p.35).

And my second response has to be that of Jesus to the two people he encountered who'd been adulterers: the woman taken in adultery (John 8) and the woman at the well (John 4). 'I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.' Acceptance precedes repentance (with pharisees, ancient and modern, it's the other way around). See the relevant articles on our website for more on pharisaism versus grace...

Summary: Yes, the morality of leaders ought to be in a special category. They are influencers of the young, they ought to be dependable in terms of truth and integrity, and, above all, both the Old and New Testaments affirm they are in a special category of answerability to God. But our reactions ought always to be like those of Jesus, not the pharisees. Law and grace belong together. Grace without law may be antinomian. Law without grace is legalism.

Rowland Croucher

December 1998.