Recently retired Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen has a secret. Well, he used to. As of this writing, lots of people now know that he likes to watch Fred Astaire dancing routines on YouTube. There is a lot to commend watching Fred’s terpsichorean mastery. It is no surprise that a Renaissance man like Archbishop Peter would have so many dimensions to his life in addition to evangelism, preaching, writing, and a host of other things. Fancy footwork can indeed be delightful. Well, it’s delightful in dealing with Fred Astaire, less so in other contexts. Here are several examples:
Argentina
I’ve always loved Argentina. It is a magnificent combination of South American and European culture and architecture. The Boulevards of the capital, Buenos Aires, are like nothing else in the world.
This photo of the Plaza de la Republica on Av. Corrientes is a great example. It is hard to imagine this 20-lane-wide, tree-lined boulevard in any other city. Whenever a photo of it appears, instantly, it is recognizable as Buenos Aires. Madrid, Paris, London, New York and Rome have grand streets, but Buenos Aires stands alone in this regard.
The people, the culture, music, and food are amazing. An Argentine Asado dinner of roasted meat is pretty well overwhelming. From a terpsichorean standpoint, many people know about the milongas, Tango dance halls in the La Boca or San Telmo areas of the city. First, one eats dinner late, late at night, when I have usually been long asleep, say 11:00 pm or Midnight. Then, plied with beef and Malbec, the tangoistas converge on the milongas to dance, dance, dance, literally the night away. There is great fun and an atmosphere that is not replicable in any other city. (The only thing I know that comes close is Ta Cladio Flamenco in the Old Walled City of Cadiz, Spain, where retired, professional Flamenco dancers gather at night to remember and to stamp their heels and click their castanets to magnificent Flamenco guitar!)
But it is not cosas del Baile (or other things of choreography) of which I wish to write today, but things much more grave. On January 18th of this year, Federal Prosecutor Alberto Nisman was discovered dead in his home. He had been shot in the back of the head with a .22 pistol that was found beside him. At first there was discussion of suicide, which though not impossible would require surprising limberness for an office-dwelling attorney. Before long, however, there were allegations that he had been investigating President Christina Fernández de Kirchner for possible involvement in the cover-up of a bombing of a Jewish synagogue in Buenos Aires in 1994 in which 85 people were killed and more than 200 injured. Little progress has been made in resolving that bombing.
Now, reports are that the Prosecutor has been silenced (by death) for raising the possibility that the President of Argentina has been involved.
I would not offer a suggestion as to what the facts of the situation are, but as a lover of things Argentine, I consider myself an adopted Porteña (a person of the Port), and can offer (admittedly unsolicited) advice to the Argentine President. Appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate everything. Publicly give him (or her) carte blanche to look into everything and get to the truth of everything. Anything less will allow a cloud to remain over the events. It may well be that President Kirchner, usually just called “Christina,” is completely innocent of any wrong doing in this. Since the questions have arisen, only an independent judicial inquiry with an independent special prosecutor can bring a resolution which will have credibility. I hope someone close enough to “President Christina” will offer this, or a similar suggestion so it can be implemented. Anything less would just be fancy footwork of the ungraceful kind.
United States
Evident from reading his books, like Dreams from My Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance, President Barak Obama clearly has a great deal of compassion for the poor and dispossessed. It is equally clear from Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream that he has very particular ideas of what the “American Dream” is, and how it can be realized. I find some of his thoughts inspirational, parts naïve, and some dangerous. For example, he tends to speak from anecdotal evidence, attempting to globalize what he observes in a particular situation to be an example of universal truth. This is one of the recurring pitfalls of Liberalism.
President Obama is also very critical of the foundations of America, viewing the Constitution as being fundamentally flawed because slavery was not eliminated at the founding of the nation. While he is certainly correct that not all issues were addressed at the founding, it occurs to me that the inherent “goodness” of the founding principles is the fact that the groundwork was set for hundreds of years of problems to be resolved because there is a focus on Judeo-Christian foundations, and a fundamental balance of addressing issues by having a distribution of power. Courts and legislative branch activities have made tremendous progress for millions of people in this country.
Now, frustrated with the pace of the progress of his vision, he has declared some “fancy footwork” to grant citizenship to more than five million people through a streamlined procedure that bypasses the legal system. He is doing that by “Executive Action.” Executive action has been done in the past to give direction and interpret law. I’m aware of other Presidents using Executive Action, but not in such sweeping ways. His logic in this process is that he views what he calls the “obstructionists” in the Republican Party (the opposition party), are not willing to work with him, therefore he has to take action on his own. This “fancy footwork” has a fundamental flaw. It bypasses the Constitutional system of the country.
We are seeing many complications from Obamacare, the President’s Health Care Act. There are stacks of unintended consequences that were not anticipated when “fancy footwork” was used to implement the program. It is very likely that another program which is implemented without proper vetting and without the participation of other branches of government that are supposed to be involved will also result in many negative, unintended consequences. Criminy, government officials in Washington DC are renowned for doing negative things that complicate people’s lives when they are working with the best of cooperation. When things are pursued without cooperation among branches of government, it is virtually certain that the result will be a train wreck for some even if there are some positive results for others.
Since we can be all but certain that President Obama will be reading this, let me say that the context of the immigration debate is not simply obstructionism. Our branches of government have representatives who are elected by constituents with the understanding that a particular direction will be pursued. While I’m sure that President Obama believes that his course is the best one, he does not operate in a vacuum. He needs to remember that the system in the United States is for the legislative branch to enact laws and for the President to either veto them or sign them into law. When he does not like a law, he can veto it. If the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate back it sufficiently, they can override a veto. There is no provision, however, for the President to impose laws on the nation. If he does not have sufficient influence with Congress to introduce ideas, he needs to work to win more influence. He can’t just implement things out of whole cloth because he thinks he is smarter and better than everyone else—even if he is! Terpsichorean mastery is not enough to overwhelm the way things actually are. So, President Obama, if you are reading, why not work with Congress? Instead of ignoring or dismissing other points of view, please recognize that those other points of view are held by people who are also citizens, and for whom you are also President. In order to advance your agenda, it needs to be woven together with the priorities of others, including some who are political opponents. You don’t get to ignore them anymore than they can ignore your input. There is a system in the United States that can’t be circumvented—at least not constitutionally.
President Obama also seems to be utterly committed to refusing to label Islamic terrorism as being Islamic. The undercurrent of that is that he does not want to upset Muslims who do not agree with the violent methods of groups like ISIS. The problem, however, is that ignoring the Muslim facet of the makeup of the terrorist groups will simply not work.
The parallels in the Anglican Communion are strong. Innovating Bishops (and then later provinces) were not happy with the state of things, so they just acted. They did not believe that they were constrained by founding documents (i.e., the Bible), and pressed to force innovation. The consequences are terrible, with more division and spiritual damage than could be imagined. Self-described “moderates” refuse to label these heretical and destructive pursuits as sin. Euphemistic terms are applied, perhaps out of a pastoral heart, but the problem has not been addressed because it has never been admitted by institutional structures.
England
In England, there has also been a mis-step. Though I am confident that it is not malevolently conceived, it is a mis-step nonetheless. Archbishop Justin Welby has a wonderful grasp of what mission is. That of course is not a mis-step. If you listen to his testimony of coming to faith, it is clear that he underwent a radical transformation from Jesus Christ. At the core of his ministry of Archbishop is a desire to make that transforming power of Christ available to others. It is the heartbeat of much of the philosophy of the Alpha program from Holy Trinity, Brompton Road in London through which the Archbishop was greatly and positively influenced. The rhythm of this salvation message is one that is needed, both in England and beyond.
Although it is certainly in a different category that what I’ve mentioned about Argentina or the USA, one of the steps that has just been envisioned in the Church of England to advance mission is for the creation of an Anglican Communion Mission Theologian post. See this New Post. Certainly, Bishop Graham Kings has the credentials and the intellectual gravitas to take on such a post and do it with energy and effectiveness. Without question, the motives and potential for this are excellent. There is, however, a potential mis-step that could undermine the fruit that could come from such a venture. It is a terpsichorean transgression that is poised to step on toes. Some think it has already.
Biblically based Mission is a priority. It is a good thing. The problem is that English visionaries and institutions have conceived of a “programme” to pursue mission in the Anglican Communion, but they have launched it without adequate consultation with the Communion. Even if there has been some consultation, it has not been broad enough. Today, as the news is circulating about what I view as a fine vision and fine appointment, there is a dangerous pitfall. Already my email inbox is abuzz with questions from other parts of the Communion outside England asking, “What is our part in this?” “If we are part of the Communion leadership, why were we not consulted?”
It is clear that the Church of England has researched and implemented this program with extensive consultation within England, but the Communion extends even beyond the bounds of the United Kingdom. We are no longer in the situation where all the vision and leadership has to come from England (if we ever were). With due appreciation for the great gift that Anglican Christian faith is that emanated from the British Isles, this is not the day for the imposition of a “top down” English solution to mission. When there are other examples of Anglican Communion Provinces who are successfully impacting their surrounding culture with the Gospel, it is difficult to see how Provinces in the growing Global and GAFCON South would not be quizzical about a shrinking church launching efforts to offer leadership in mission. In addition, there is not a good track record of programmes emanating out of London. Many Anglican Communion “programmes” of recent years have been rejected as being manipulative. (Indaba comes to mind as one of those…) All is not lost, however.
Actually, I don’t think that imposing anything is on the mind or in the heart of Archbishop Welby, Bishop Kings, the Church Missionary Society, or Durham University. With the universally admitted situation that the Instruments of Unity in the Communion are broken, it would be a much better move to say, “We have a great passion to serve the cause of Christ. In the Church of England we are committed to pursuing Gospel mission and are establishing a structure which we are glad to offer to our Anglican Communion Provinces to serve their needs and learn from their strengths. We hope that we can cooperate together to advance the cause of Christ.” Surely that is what they really mean. Fine tuning the announcement will help it be well received in other Provinces.
In all these cases (Argentina, the United States, and the Anglican Communion) there is a wonderful possibility for great good to be done. In order for that to happen, however, some different “footwork” is needed. It needs to be footwork that is “fancy” because of its servant heart and elegance, not because it is out of step with the rest of the dance troop, and certainly not because it steps on toes.
The Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood is Bishop of the ACNA’s International Diocese and an American Anglican Council contributing author.
