OK, so my poll got shut down by the host. They say that you are not allowed to change the code so I did break the rules – because I altered the html code.
I changed the text to white from dark grey so you could actually see it. Also, they had included “/” marks in the middle of the text as an apparent mistake relating to the quotation marks I used before and after “Inner Circle.” Pharisees! Legalistic dill tithers!!!
Oh, well. I reinstalled the untampered code, and it may show back up or I may be banned for life. Who knows?
The last time I checked, over 50 people had responded to the question about what the most important issue at Greensboro might be. 52% were for thwarting the “Inner Circle” at every level. 32% thought the Presidential election was most important. 16% felt IMB issues were their primary motivating factor. No one had voted for Calvinism as an issue.
Remember that this is an internet poll that reflects the 40 and under, tech immersed crowd. It is reflective of us, but not the SBC, particulary.
It would explain the very accurate perception of one “Inner Circle” member who was heard to say that the bloggers represented a very specific threat to them that must not be allowed to come to fruition. I have made that last statement so generic, even he wouldn’t probably recognize it, but they do have the idea that bloggers want them out of power. According to my poll, they are right.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
GeneMBridges
on Jun 2nd, 2006
@ 10:38 pm:
How does one stop SBC blogging? Believe me, bloggers are masters of deconstructing written words. Can you imagine say Steve Hays (well, with the quote function working) debating issues with an SBC leader today? Yikes.
Actually blogging themselves would mean they have to engage the people. To do that, they have to listen to the people. So that means they couldn’t hide. Also, it would mean they’d have to carefully craft their words, apropos the above. Once you say something in a blog, it’s out there, in writing. That means they’d have to be (GASP) accountable! (HORROR!)
Then there’s that nasty First Amendment protection that was just upheld in the courts. They can’t censor the blogs by telling them what they can and cannot say.
So, how does one keep the “blogging threat” from coming to fruition?
K.B.H.
on Jun 2nd, 2006
@ 10:38 pm:
Go to PollHost.com
That’s where I get my polls.
You can pick the background you want.
K.B.H.
on Jun 2nd, 2006
@ 10:46 pm:
I just through a poll up at my blog. It takes NO TIME.
http://www.kevinhash.blogspot.com
Alan Cross
on Jun 2nd, 2006
@ 11:42 pm:
Art, I tried to vote for the IMB issues, but the poll wouldn’t let me. If I could have voted 20 times I would have. The IMB is absolutely what is driving me – and I’m 31. I’m not really interested in throwing the inner circle out of power (and I understand the argument about going after the root). I’m not real convinced that another group would do a whole lot better. Honestly, I just want a broad number of conservatives to be able to cooperate in global missions. They can have the politics. Many will say you can’t have one without the other, but I say, one issue at a time.
Cate Hanchez
on Jun 3rd, 2006
@ 8:57 am:
I took the poll and voted for removing the inner circle. I am primarily interested in the missionaries. That is the only reason a lot of us older people are still around. (I’m not in the tech immersed under 40 demographic, but I got pretty tech immersed by my kids, so here I am). I just can’t believe that we can’t find leadership who can resist the allure of power and who can stay focused on what is real. I believe the people are out there–a lot of the bloggers included–who could do it if given the chance. That is the reason I voted as I did.
K.B.H.
on Jun 3rd, 2006
@ 10:45 am:
Hey Art,
it Looks like I’m heading to Greensboro. Do you think there are any hotels left?
KBH
Jack Maddox
on Jun 3rd, 2006
@ 3:44 pm:
KHB
I got a room pretty late in the game,(last week) but I am staying in Winstom-Salem, about 30 miles away.
JM
Kevin Bussey
on Jun 3rd, 2006
@ 9:50 pm:
poll, we don’t need no stinkin poll! :)
John Fariss
on Jun 4th, 2006
@ 4:41 pm:
Several years ago, I was at some seminar or another that the Wilmington Association hosted. Don’t recall its title, but it was concerned with change in the church. The leader sugested that there are innovators, early adapters, middle adaptors, late adaptors, and (I don’t recall his exact terminology here) those who will virtually never adapt to anything that is new. The question eventually rolled around to the relationship of age to one’s outlook. That was when a little white-haired woman who must have been close to eighty (80!) spoke up and criticized all those old fuddy-duddies in her church who were keeping it from reaching the unchurched!
Then there was my grandfather, who was born during the Civil War. He often said that most of the progress that has been made in the world has been made by lazy men–because they were not content to do things the way their fathers did them. (He never said age was a factor–he was still innovating at his death at age 86.)
My point: not everyone who is over 40 is the enemy (me for instance), even if some of us are more technologicially challenged than others. It has a lot more to do with attitude and spiritual receptivity than age.