It is really amazing and disappointing that, with all the resources of the presidency and all of the wisdom available to him from his advisors, the four minute response, given by Bill Clinton Monday night, was the best he could come up with. Maybe it was so unsatisfying because we expected or hoped that we would hear an honest apology and what we actually heard was a lot less. Come to think of it, however, I am not sure if many of us, let alone politicians, have ever been taught the fundamentals of a good apology.

Confession is cleansing and helps folks to begin anew. The components of a sincere and authentic apology are simple: 1) admit responsibility and say what you did, 2) accept blame and thereby acknowledge the impact and harm you have caused, 3) express contrition, say you are sorry, and ask for forgiveness, and 4) make amends and realize that it takes corrective actions as well as words to deal with an offense.

When we look at the President's speech it is easy to see how he misses the mark. Specifically, Clinton began by admitting personal responsibility for his actions and says he knew it was wrong. That was a good start, but then the emphasis shifted to defending himself by saying what he didn't do, i.e. tell anyone to lie etc.

While he does go back to admitting that he created a false impression, his language sounded defensive and one got the feeling that his first concern, rather than to confess was to chose words which would minimize what he did. It would have been better if he had just said that he lied.

Saying that he regretted the deception, again, sounded too restrained and was a serious minimalization when what was needed was a simple "I am deeply sorry," or "I apologize."

In short order he moves from taking responsibility to trying to explain 1)why he lied, i.e. to protect himself and family, 2) to excuse himself, i.e. because the lawsuit which was asking him to testify was politically motivated, and ultimately, 3) to blame, i.e. that the independent prosecutor was looking into old, private matters for which he had already been exonerated. All of a sudden what started out as an admission of guilt has become of counter offensive move.

In asserting presidential privacy, there was an attempt to redefine the situation and identify who was really to blame. In saying that the impact of his behavior was purely a private matter which needed to be remedied only with his family he showed either a lack of any awareness or a total disregard of the pubic dimensions to his actions.

Overall, while he claimed to take responsibility and acknowledge that his behavior was wrong, the way he said it did not seem to accept the blame or express contrition. In deed one heard more self-righteous anger than genuine remorse or humility.

Also by totally ignoring any comment of what he is going to do to make things right, one is not reassured that he won't do it again and that in fact he is essentially untrustworthy.

If I were grading it I would give him a D. This not a total failure but it is not a passing mark either. You just didn't feel like his heart was in apologizing. What I heard was more of a concern to make excuses and blame others. He made no offer of what he was going to do to make up for his lapses of judgment and personal failure.

Maybe it's because he is a man in our culture and apologizing is not done much, or maybe its because as President he worried about looking like a weak leader, or maybe he was influenced too much by legal thinking which takes as its first principle - admit nothing. What ever the reason or explanation the result was unsatisfying and troubling.

Theologically Bill Clinton seems to have difficulty simply confessing that he is a sinner. Maybe that is because he truly does not have a faith in the Grace of God. He may not be able to fathom truly losing it all and starting over. If that is so it would explain why he seems so desperate to hang on to what he has.

Psychologically, we could say he is narcissistic. What ever one calls it, what made his comments so unpersuasive was his inability to stay focused on his apology and his unwillingness to recognize the public implications of his behavior.

After hearing his speech, I still wonder why he made it. What was he trying to accomplish? One makes an apology because it is the right thing to do. It is away to end the deception and lying. Clinton gives the impression that the only thing he cares about is preserving his situation. If that is true than what we saw was not a confession but a strategic posturing which was neither good for his soul nor our collective psyche.

He doesn't seem to realize that an apology is not another gimmick for getting out of a political jam. Just because an admission of wrong doing is made it doesn't mean that the cost of the injury is forgotten. In seminary, when conservatives wanted to criticize liberals about their theological views they would say that they believed in "Cheap Grace, " i.e. forgiveness without the pain of changing. Bill Clinton seems to be hoping that we will provide cheap grace for him.