I read on a blog today that Richard Land is THE spokesman for the Southern Baptists, is that true?
What is the proper way to characterize his statements? As his own, As a powerful leader within the SB, AS an official statement from the SB?
Is this as close as we will get to a hinted endorsement from the SB?
I would like to know as formal a classification as you can give me, so that when I use it in conversation I am being accurate.
Land is the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty commission of the SBC. He’s something akin to the SBC’s lobbyist, although he wouldn’t like to use that word.
Southern Baptists do not endorse political candidates. If they were to do so, the messengers at the Annual Meeting would have to vote on it. According to good Baptist polity, Richard Land’s opinion is Richard Land’s opinion. He’s the guy we put in Washington to look out for our interests, but he doesn’t officially speak for our interests. In theory, Baptists do not have representatives- we elect or appoint people to perform certain tasks, but their opinions are their own.
Al Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is another man who is frequently called upon to give Southern Baptist opinions before the press. But he doesn’t speak in an official capacity.
If there is anyone who is THE spokesman for the SBC, it’d be the president of the SBC, currently Frank Page. He’s the only one of the bunch that is directly elected by the Convention. But he’s not as famous as the other two.