Customer Reviews

From the Eye of the Storm: A Pastor to the President Speaks Out

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

What I find most troubling about J. Philip Wogaman's book is that he gives one the impression that there is only one truly Christian response to Clinton's actions. He implies that those who do not respond in the way he counsels are acting in an anti-Christian way, that they are the true villains. In effect, Wogaman is politicizing Christianity, using his own pulpit to bully Christians of other political inclinations.

As for Wogaman's suggestion for how the nation should respond to Clinton's actions: He cousels that, because the President's crimes were brought to light by his political enemies and because he is a human being, imperfect like everyone else, he deserves to be treated mercifully and with love by the law. I am reminded by Christ's words in the gospel to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Caesar, in this case, seems to be the courts, and what Caesar (that is, the courts) demanded in this case is that Paula Jones had a right to ask about sexual matters that would be private under normal circumstances (and this based on a law that Clinton himself signed and approved in September 1994) but could in this case shed light on the charges against him. Clinton, however, took it upon himself to act as his own judge, and determined to conceal the truth that the law demanded of him. In other words, he took it upon himself to determine what was and was not Caesar's. This is precisely the kind of thing Jesus seems to be counseling against in the Gospel.

Of course, Wogaman neatly glosses over facts like these in his attempt to write Clinton a legal pass for his lawlessness. The simple truth that Wogaman demonstrates is: Clinton's defenders, Wogaman included, believe he should get off the hook for lying under oath because they like his politics and dislike his enemies, while other "imperfect men" like Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas, whose politics they do not like and whose enemies they are fond of, are not deserving of the same soft hand of love and forgiveness.

J. Philip Wogaman's latest book, From the Eye of the Storm, is, as they say in the military, a target-rich environment. That a prominent Protestant ethicist and the pastor of the First Family's own Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., would see fit to remark on the moral or pastoral dimensions of the presidential crisis provokes no qualms. That a pastor would attempt to critique issues of politics, law, and justice prompts some misgivings. That Wogaman would argue for the imposition of his own peculiar theology and pastoral method on these issues, quite simply, invites ridicule.

If we are to trust Wogaman's argument (to use the term liberally), the only authentically Christian rebuke politicians can render against a man who took it upon himself, in the hallowed halls of justice, to define his own meaning of truth is a censure resolution filled with harsh-though not too judgmental!-words about what a bad, bad thing he has done.

Words, as it turns out, mere words, are the only things Clinton's apologists, Wogaman among them, can offer in his defense. Rather than using the language of race, class, or economics to elicit the typical emotional responses on Clinton's behalf, Wogaman's rhetoric takes on a thin, Christian veneer. Take his use of the words "love" and "forgive" and their variations: In his 139-page book, he mentions "love," or some variation of the word, 140 times. References to "forgive" creep up in 75 different passages. This linguistic deluge is rather numbing in effect, like having a blinding light shined in your face for several days straight. Called aggressive marketing by some, this type of persuasion goes under a more fitting name: propaganda. And propaganda of this kind has played no small role in the polarization of the public arena. Rational debate has been forced aside by unrelenting sloganism that has less sophistication than a Coke vs. Pepsi taste test challenge.

Wogaman does present one justification for counseling the nation to reject impeachment, and that justification takes the form of an analogy representing the two paths America can take in response to the crisis:

The most important issue posed by the presidential crisis had become increasingly clear to me: Will we be a society that is grounded in compassion and a generous spirit-as exemplified by the theme of the White House prayer breakfast and the response by the religious leaders? Or will we allow ourselves to be increasingly hard-hearted, as exemplified by the Starr report and the manner of its presentation to the nation?

Wogaman leaves no doubt in which direction he would shepherd us. In situations in which law and love conflict, he says, love must prevail. Just so, but do love and law conflict? In the gospel of Matthew, Christ, who also reminds us that love is supreme, said of law:

Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. I tell you solemnly, till Heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved. (5:17-18)

Wogaman's call for a spirit of forgiveness and non-judgmentalism is undercut by his own blatant judgmentalism and accusations of "malice." Of Kenneth Starr and supporters of Clinton's removal, the best he can bring himself to say is "a generous spirit is not altogether lacking," while "those who want to follow the path of forgiveness" are not "altogether saintly." More amusing still was his statement regarding his fellow participants on a political talk show: "There was a fair amount of self-righteousness floating in the air, if I can say this in a non-judgmental way." Indeed.

Of course, one could address further hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and absurdities Wogaman thrusts upon the reader on the president's behalf, but to do so would lend a credence to his tract that it does not deserve.

The thing I find most offensive about Wogaman's opinions as they are conveyed in this book is that they represent the further politicization of Christianity. On the flimsiest of grounds, Wogaman invokes the name of Christ himself, attaches that name to his own political opinions, and then presumes to imply that others are not Christian for refusing to accept his political opinions. Of course, as a Christian, one should forgive the president his crimes of obstructing justice and perjury. As an individual, I do so and encourage everyone to do so. However, as a society, punishment must be meted out to those who contradict its laws. This punishment is not delivered by private citizens, though, but by the state for the protection of the rules of an ordered society. In other words, forgiveness is for the private, interpersonal realm, and punishment for the public realm. This is Wogaman's primary failure: to distinguish between the public and the private. And of course, this failure shines through in his--quite frankly--inappropriate remarks about the president's marital infidelity. These concerns are between him, his wife, and his child, and are no one else's concerns, yet Wogaman feels the need to talk about them in a public forum in this book.

If you appreciate "cheap grace" and relentless feel-goodism, this is the book for you, but for real commentary on the Clinton scandal that gives a less partisan angle, try Judgment Day at the White House.

What kind of world of moral relativism do you have to be living in to "forgive" (excuse) Clinton for lying under oath, while condemning in the harshest possible terms Clinton's opponents. This reverend's partisanship makes Sid Blumenthal look like a balanced observer.

The author is to be commended on taking up the topic of moral judgement and its associated companion of forgiveness in our rather primitive religious society where diversity is not the foundation upon which it is built. Not a criticizm, but a recognition that at the levels of CEO, or for a President, the weight of issues that crowd the mind (as well as the heart) are not easily dissembled into the primary parts that adhere to the simplicity of typical right and wrong assessments, for the mere fact that the reponsibilities of so many depend upon a fluid, or relative nature of morality in a context few people can imagine, and fewer still can manage. The offices do not lend themselves to the easy right and wrong answers that govern most people in their deliberations where only a few concerns need be addressed. That is not to suggest that being absolved of, or restrainted by a deep, abiding sense of moral justice is not required. Indeed, it alone is the guiding star of most persons in that position. But those fundamentals are woefully inadequate to the nature of the variables due to the stature of visibility and impact that is the natural result of the job, and the status. Modeling in such cases is not so easily obtained or reduced to its lowest common denominator of elements. Far too many Presidents (and CEO's) faced with difficult choices where someone will always be harmed by either decision, must grope with the multiple levels of moral judgement as described in the 6 steps of Kohlberg in 1981 who expressed the high level analysis that accompanies, or should accompany such positions that do not lend themselves to the toggle switch of morality that most religions teach as the process of making moral decisions. Getting to yes or no is, by and large, much more difficult in such cases, and may fall upon individuals who do not have those responsibilities as well, as, for example, in parenthood, in the teaching of values and how to reconcile competing interests. At onset, the dilemma may appear to be simple, and forthright to a casual observer, but may from someone else's perspective with greater knowledge and sensitivity to broader aspects of a dilemma, require different decisions to produce a desired outcome. The simplicity of historic and even current religious guidance is to quickly assume the need for conditioned responses which may not take larger consideration into account. Hence, toleration of both expression and decisionmaking in others is highly desirable, since few of us ever know exactly the circumstances and factors involved in someone's work decisions, much less their personal decisions, and especially not when they are uniquely combined in a position like President where carrying others concerns are as important as carrying one's own. It's good to see Dr. Wogaman undertake to help answer these questions to help relieve the moral burden from each of us, reminding us that morality is essentially a subjective perspective, even within Christian guidelines.

I'm a democrat, and no fan of the either the Republicans or the president, but I've got to say, this rambling, incoherent defense of Clinton actually ends up making the case for impeaching Clinton. And frankly, I was shocked that a Pastor would interject himself into a political debate and label his political opponents' actions as immoral.

In two words: shockingly dull.

J. Philip Wogaman, a noted ethicist with a speciality in public life, shares important understandings of the application of religious beliefs, particularly those drawn from Christian scriptures, to public life. While based in the current or just past presidential situation, Wogaman's discussion and explanation of the rule and role of law, the rule and role of love (broadly defined as in current Christianity) helps sort through the rhetoric in any public life/public policy discussions that engage any groups claiming religious authority for their stands but especially the great majority who are not absolutists. His discussion of the win-lose investigative mindset is especially powerful (p. 92-96; as are his earlier discussions of forgiveness and repentence and the concluding discussion of "our self-understanding as a people." In all, Wogaman, senior pastor of Foundry United methodist Church and a career-long teacher of applied ethics, had given us invaluable insights and ways to consider our own role and responsibilities as citzens of this democracy.

Fantastic insight on the state of the unions soul!

Philip Wogaman, pastor to the President, says that the President, like all people, is a "Christian in progress". Can we expect him or anyone to be perfect? Shouldn't President Clinton be judged within the legal system based on love and mercy (as it was founded), as opposed to one based on political power, the media and sharp legal manueverings which advocate punishment, if not humiliation and/or vengeance? FROM THE EYE OF THE STORM helps sort out the Presidential crisis and lets readers (the majority of whom still think that Clinton shouldn't be removed) come to their own conclusions.

A "MUST READ" for political followers and non-followers alike!

This book provides an intimate understanding of the president as well as a religious look at this entire episode in history. Rev. Wogamon is an intriguing and thoughtful writer. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Clearly a different perspective from most of the drivel out there (a la Andrew Morton's book, etc.).