As for your first problem, this doesn’t actually appear to be a letter format, and therefore it is acceptable that it has no recipient. It is a statement for the general consumption. He can assume that the general public as well as members of the administration may read it, and that is his intent, though perhaps somewhat lofty. I certainly agree that it’s ineffective, but as I’ve stated, I think perhaps he just wants to try and make his voice heard in whatever way he knows how.

I also think we will see the clash between top-down heirarchies and bottom-up organizations for quite some time now. The government itself is in flux. Our structure of government began as a bottom-up structure — the people give the power to the leaders, and the leaders represent the people. That was the idea, anyway. Gradually, we saw small changes that eventually snowballed into this great, massive top-down structure, in which the leaders are no longer directly accountable to the people (they are instead purchased by the people who pay to hoodwink the people into casting their votes in a certain way, but that’s a conversation for another day).

Obama is trying to give the power back to the people, which is fantastic. The fact that he’ll have a hard time with that aside, any time the power structure is in flux, the smaller organizations that support that structure also begin to be in flux. I’m not surprised, therefore, that statements like Hanson’s keep coming around. By putting out a mass statement for the general consumption, he can reasonably assume that it will end up primarily on the Internet (which is where he wants it and presumably where you found it). By putting out a statement on the Internet (gosh, a “statement” is formatted strangely like a blog posting, isn’t it?), Hanson probably thinks he is doing his best to stay current. Unfortunate. But that might be what he’s going for.

This is all speculation, of course. I don’t know Hanson personally. But I do know that “traditional” organizations like the Church are beside themselves trying to find where they can fit in to this shifting, morphing, flubbery culture (Yes, I said flubbery…if you don’t know what Flubber is, I don’t know what to do with you). In a desperate attempt to stay “plugged-in,” things like this statement will happen.

Are they a good idea? Effective? Well. I don’t know. But you read it, didn’t you? And it got you thinking, didn’t it?

I love your post, and I think you give some pretty good insights, but I don’t think you finish making your case for it being “counter-productive” because you don’t hypothesize on intent. The term “counter-productive” implies that it not only fails to achieve its goals but actually does damage in the same vein.

Having discussed politics with a great many people over the past two days, I also think Hanson says the most important thing a representative of the Church could possibly say. “I call on all members of this church to join me in committing to work with this new administration across the broad spectrum of our Lutheran partnerships and networks.”

So many conservatives I’ve talked to (and I’ve talked to many) are incredibly focused on the anti-Obama ideals that got the McCain camp as far through the election as they did. People are still focused on our differences, when what the country really needs right now is for us to set aside those differences and work together with the upcoming administration and with one another toward a better future. Without that sense, we will lose ourselves in the partisanship that has fought against the good of the people of this nation for our entire lives.

In short, Jake, I think you’re being too hard on Hanson. He’s an old guy who is trying, and he has made me grateful that a man with great influence over the older generation in the ELCA is addressing our need to work together with the Obama administration. Thanks for opening up the discussion on this statement and for bringing it to my attention.

Peace and love,
Kat

However, the structure that has been created DOES look very much like a corporate hierarchy. Though this structure has its gifts, the New Christians that Tony Jones tend to call BS on the notion of “first among equals” and “set apart” status that we give bishops and pastors.

So, pursuant to your post, the notion that we need our Bishop to issue a press release addressed to Obama that speaks on behalf of our denomination is a bit absurd. I like that it gives permission for Lutherans to talk openly about politics. I think Bishop Hanson should be applauded for having the courage to speak out about such a polarizing election. I am prayerful that Lutherans will be inspired by his audacity and follow suit by expecting more of our elected leaders. That said, I would argue that the people who actually read those press releases are probably ones who know that faith and politics are inseparable…so it’s likely a moot point.

As an aside – the whole ELCA Press Release thing has been making me grumpy for a while. A vast majority of these pieces of “news” are glorified meeting minutes from Church Council meetings, reports from the Conference of Bishops, Lutheran World Federation resolutions, and statements made by Bishop Hanson. While these are interesting and borderline important articles, they are not the TRUE work of the church. I would love to read more stories of congregations that are doing effective ministry in their particular context. I want to know how individuals are living out their faith in unique ways. If the ELCA’s news division really wants to inspire and inform people they will shift from reporting about ELCA HQ in Chicago and start reporting on how God is working through the lives of everyday people to change the world.

but who showed up at the southern baptist convention? yeah, you can guess that one.

I can see what you mean about denominational statements and hierarchy. I think that it can be an effective rhetorical device though.

It seems similar, though, to how Paul prayed to God in his letters; yet, even though the prayer was directed at God it was written probably with the intention to be read publically in the assemblies to exhort, encourage, edify, and build up the unity of the body (e.g. 1 Thess. 3:11-12, etc.).

Writing a letter in this way seems to serve a few positive points: (1) As an influential leader it shows that as the representative head of the group he is trying to speak openly to the president-elect conveying the concerns of the entire group. (2) It clarifies to the group that he is leading where he thinks the entire organization stands. (3) He opens himself up to the accountability of the denomination…so the grass-roots folks can have at him. (4) If the congregations agree with him it can serve as an encouragement for them to carry on in their work. (5) It documents historical evidence that at this time this is where this association of churches stood. This can serve as a bookmark for the future. (6) For good or bad if the ELCA is lumped with those that support the president-elect’s policies, or are against them, they can vindicate themselves in the future by pointing back at a statement that will show where they actually stood on issues. There’s probably more to be said.

On the note of constructive criticism;) Even though you didn’t address your post at the leading bishop of the ELCA it seems like you are employing a similar rhetorical technique in your dialogue;^) Thanks for your thoughts!

In Christ,
Noah