December 2010 lunar eclipse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The December 2010 lunar eclipse occurred from 5:27 to 11:06 UTC on December 21, coinciding with the date of the December solstice. It was visible in its entirety as a total lunar eclipse in North and South America.

Occurrence

The eclipse of December 2010 was the first total lunar eclipse in almost three years, since the February 2008 lunar eclipse.

It is the second of two lunar eclipses in 2010. The first was a partial lunar eclipse on June 26, 2010.

The eclipse was the first total lunar eclipse to occur on the day of the Northern Winter Solstice (Southern Summer Solstice) since 1638, and only the second in the Common Era.

Related eclipses

This eclipse occurred at the descending node of the moon’s orbit. Lunar eclipses are always paired with a solar eclipse either 2 weeks before or after at new moon in the opposite node. In this case, it will be followed by a partial solar eclipse at the ascending node on January 4, 2011, visible from Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia.

The following two lunar eclipses will also be total, occurring on June 15, 2011, and December 10, 2011.

The next December solstice total lunar eclipse, as a Metonic twin eclipse, will be December 20, 2029 (19 years later), one day before solstice.

A Saros cycle repeats for many centuries every 18 years and 11 days. This eclipse is the 18th of 26 total lunar eclipses in lunar series 125. The previous occurrence was on December 9, 1992, and the next will occur on December 31, 2028.

In North America, the eclipse was visible in its entirety on December 21, 2010, from 12:27 a.m. to 6:06 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. In the Central Standard Timezone and west, the eclipse began the night of December 20. Observers along South America’s east coast missed the late stages of the eclipse because they occurred after moon-set.

Likewise much of Europe and Africa experienced moon-set while the eclipse was in progress. In Europe, only those observers in northern Scandinavia (including Iceland) could observe the entire event. For observers in eastern Asia the moon rose in eclipse. The eclipse was not visible from southern and eastern Africa, the Middle East or South Asia. In Japan and northeastern Asia, the eclipse’s end was visible, with the moon rising at sunset. In the Philippines it was observable as a partial lunar eclipse just after sunset.

Predictions suggested that the total eclipse may appear unusually orange or red, as a result of the eruption of Mount Merapi in Indonesia on October 26.

As I read the profiles of women on Match.com (yes, I’m available), an often used line becomes increasingly apparent. This popular inquiry keeps appearing (usually at the end of their post regarding ‘who they are looking for’)… “Are There Any Good Men Left Out There?”

Yes, I am a ‘Good Man’, but it wasn’t handed to me on a platter! A ‘Good Man’ is a man who was forged into that state… not born that way.

Here is my take on what a ‘Good Man’ is.

What is a ‘Good Man’?

You say “There goes a ‘Good Man’”. Yet in the eyes of the Creator, there is NO ‘good man’ of his own accord or by his own hand. No. Not one.

1. Even the most benevolent and charitable men of their age will all fall short if they are Godless. Unless a man comes to know his Master, realizes that he was made to love Him above all others, turns from his own efforts, and then permits his Master to teach him ‘goodness’, compassion and love; that man has already received his reward. His wonderful deeds will not be remembered by the Creator when his time is finished.

2. A ‘Good Man’ is the man who knows he is fallible by himself, and in turn, unendingly strives to follow in the footsteps of Christ. Christ’s attributes include compassion, seeing the needs of His children and giving freely to them. Loving as a mother loves her child.

3. If a man loves his Creator and Savior, and desires above all else, approval of the Father, which inherently includes ‘How to Love’; then his Father in heaven can say, “Here is a ‘Good Man.”

What Women Want From a Man

The following is a summary of what I have painfully learned from a life ill spent.

What Women Long For:

Above all traits, a woman desires a man to be always truthful! To be immediately up front concerning all thoughts, actions and deeds of the man. This is the foundation for a successful relationship! A woman desires nothing less than ‘honesty’.

A woman desires a man who reveals his thoughts, his coming and going, and does not hide his intent or disguise his heart with false words.

A woman longs for a man who is attentive and takes a woman’s words to heart. He is not prone to turning away, or listening half heartedly (or not at all).

A woman longs to be acknowledged for all her works regardless of whether the works are of a charitable nature to others, or they are done exclusively for her ‘good man’, as in doing a kind, giving, and special act.

She desires to be complimented for her efforts to look nice or simply for her smile, and especially for any focused endeavors she has done from her heart. Failure of the man to acknowledge these woman’s doings, is a failed man. Such failure does not merit the love of such a woman as this.

THE BAD AND THE UGLY

I was a young man of confidence, yet a man who failed miserably to see all that I had been given. So much so, that eventually even that which I had was taken from me. I assumed that I knew more than I really did.

I worked hard with my hands, but lacked in wisdom.

I desired to be loved, but was naïve, and failed to realize that love is a two way street.

I foolishly assumed that the world revolved around me.

I was quick to accept (even expect) the kind loving acts of a woman, but came up short with regard to reciprocating it back to her.

I occasioned to hide my doings with silence or vague words, and ultimately suffered the cost and the loss.

I passed judgment where there was no authority given to me to judge, and which only resulted in the continuous renting and stretching of the very fabric of love.

THE GOOD

Above all things, I am humbled.

God, used my failings to teach me the intricacies of love, and instilled their attributes into my heart. Now I know what being ‘A Good Man’ demands of me. I’ve allowed God to remove the ‘amber clouds’ from my eyes so that I can see more clearly ‘How to Love’. I shudder as I recall my past. My heart is convicted to return to my foolish ways NO MORE! I may be forgiven for my past, but my past will always be branded into my mind, as a sign to remain vigilant in the ways of love.

Now my God may say, regarding me, “Here is my child who seeks me out, and is mindful to be ‘A Good Man’”.

Any love I receive, I do not deserve. Therefore, shall I cherish the one who would freely extend her heart to me. That Woman will be regarded by me as greater than the most precious jewel! She will  be my strengthener for all the days that I breathe.

See also article: Why You Can’t Find a GOOD Man; at http://davidisms.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/why-you-cant-find-a-good-man/

Read this missive if you have three minutes for God. Try to make it to the end. I almost deleted this email, but I was blessed when I finished it. Enough so, that I re-wrote it and converted it to this pdf format.

When I received this letter, I thought… “I don’t have time for these kinds of emails”. Then I got to thinking, “wait a second, this apathetic thinking process is exactly what’s caused much of the problems in our world today”.

We try to keep God in church on Sunday morning…. maybe Sunday night, and the unlikely event of a midweek service. We do like to have Him around during sickness… and of course, at funerals. However, we don’t have time or room for Him during work or play because… well, that’s the part of our lives we think we can, and should, handle on our own.

May God forgive me for ever thinking that there’s a time or place where He’s not to be first in my life! We should always have time to remember all He’s done for us. If you aren’t ashamed to do this, please follow the instruction given.

I paraphrase Jesus, “If you’re ashamed of me, I’m ashamed of you“. Not ashamed? Then by all means, pass this on!

Yes, I do love God. He’s my source of existence and my Savior. He keeps me functioning. Without Him, I’m nothing; but with Christ, He strengthens me. (Phil 4:13)

This is the simplest test of your life.

If you love God, and, are not ashamed of all the marvelous things He’s done for you, then send this to folks and the one who sent it to you! Now do you have the time to pass it on? You’ve read this far. Keep going… you’re almost done.

Easy vs. Hard

Why’s it so hard to tell the truth, yet so easy to lie? Why is it we get so sleepy in church, but right when the sermon’s over we suddenly wake up? It’s so easy to delete a Godly email, yet we forward all the nasty ones. Of all the free gifts we may receive, prayer’s the ‘real keeper’. There’s no cost, but fantastic rewards. May God bless you just for reading this!

Notes:

It’s uncanny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell; or say ‘I believe in God’, but still follow Lucifer (who, by the way, also ‘believes’ in God).

It’s strange too, how we can send a thousand jokes via email and they spread like wildfire, but when we send messages regarding God, people think twice about sharing. In fact, when we go to forward this message, it likely won’t be sent to many on our address list because we’re not sure what they believe, or if they’ll get ticked at us for sending it. It’s rather bothersome to me, how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us? The disciple Peter pretty much set that example, after Jesus was arrested and he denied ever knowing Him.

My prayers, to anyone who has the strength to send this to their entire address book, that they will be blessed by God in a way special for them; and send it back to the person who sent it, to let them know that it was indeed carried on.

Rewritten and converted to PDF format to prevent alteration or degradation, by:
Douglas Leonard Duncan, brother of Christ, on Monday, June 1st, 2009

Truck Driving Buddy

</object

I respectfully submit that our success, or failure, to overcoming our people-focused shortfalls will be directly linked to changing our language, thoughts, as well as long-held prejudices.

I respectfully challenge you to consider the thoughts I presented during a discussion in one of my masters level classes on diversity on 01 August 2006.

Here is an edited excerpt from the discussion;;;;;

Disclaimer

I respectfully submit my decision to not use the term race to categorize fellow humans. The term race frequently brings an immediate negative stereotypical mindset to the discussion. Particularly, the term insinuates that people of different gender, social, ethnic, cultural, or religious heritages are automatically inferior or superior because of their inherent yet benign heritages. This decision is my way of making sure that I focus on the people aspect while trying to make sure that I do not fall victim to an artificial and unacceptable mindset.

I maintain the following personal and professional opinion:

We, a single race of bipedal silicon bags of mostly water humanoids, have experienced both biological-genetic and psycho-social cultural drifts but we are still the same. These drifts bring behavior decisions that Kottak (2003, p. 13) called ‘Universals’; decisions based on human experience influences. (Duncan, 2006)

To paraphrase a thought process proposed by Lester (2002); “By design or accident (evolution) (italics added) we share the same DNA allele structure.” (cited by Duncan, 2006)

Point

I admit that we need to understand how some people might consider elements of ethnic diversity to be negative. I respectfully assert that any effort that helps us understand the interactions of peoples of different gender, ethnic, religious, social, and cultural heritages is not really a negative thing. Some may perceive the process as negative. I ask; is it really? I respectfully submit our corporate participation in this specific learning adventure as evidence that we need to better understand all cultural perspectives.

Positive Elements

1. Busted Concepts of Stereotype. I submit that the opening paragraphs of Carr (2003), Chapter 7 regarding African Americans, Chapter 8 regarding American Indians, Chapter 9 regarding Asian Americans, Chapter 10 regarding Arab Americans, and Chapter 11 regarding Latino Americans as evidence of a significant positive that results from efforts toward diversity in all places of work. In each of the presentations Carr provided evidence of the challenges of the stereotypical thoughts vs. the facts of reality.

The sooner that we, as a people, learn to ignore the stereotypes and get to know the person that is the face, the better we will be in supporting each other. Basically, the more we know about each other’s heritage the more we will learn about our own heritage.

2. Workplace Efficiency Improvements. Carr (2003), Kottack (2003), and Somers (2001) provided several areas in the reading assignments that lead to the proverbial business fiscal bottom line and competitive advantage. Consumers come in all shapes and sizes, cross both genders, and come from many ethnic, cultural, and religious persuasions. It is logical that a business must be able to address these differences with intelligence to remain competitive. I reason that the most sensible method of providing intelligent service that crosses artificial barriers is to approach the barrier from first-hand knowledge.

I sense that businesses should strive for diversity because it is the proper course of action. A secondary benefit is the competitive advantage impact to the proverbial bottom line.

3. Two (or more) heads are better than one. For this discussion, two or more experiences are better than one. From a leadership perspective there are many models (rubrics) for decision making. The actual model does not so much matter as the process and people involved. I suggest that the key element in any decision making model is the gathering of the facts and options. Very few decisions of leadership are so simple as to not involve or affect several or many peoples. If decisions are to be valid then input and feed-forward from the peoples affected is an absolute must.

For example, Duncan Family Enterprises is a people-based NPO that provides support services to local community members who are impoverished. Until the people of Duncan Family Enterprises understand the people of need and their respective cultural and social heritages the service provided will be at best, half-vast. Without the vast data that could be gathered from a diverse workforce, there can be no vast intelligent service. To paraphrases my local mentor, Dr. Michael P. Bobic; don’t draw half-vast assumptions from half-vast data!

In summary the three positive points toward diversity in the workplace were: 1) Busted concepts of stereotype; 2) Workplace efficiency improvements; and 3) Two (or more) heads are better than one.

Negative Elements

1. Initial costs and inefficiencies. I propose the following conceptual question; “Question, in an effort to achieve better diversity, is it acceptable for a HR team to advertise in publications that are specific toward a given culture?”

For example, it is reasonable that an employer reach out to men and women of African American heritage, who are fully qualified with Master or Doctoral credentials, by using avenues that are more associated to the African-American community that other groups; advertising via BET or other mostly African-American focused media.

It is logical that a company that pursues this effort toward diversity will incur a higher than normal advertising cost as well as a slower people hired for a position fill rate. This could likely cause significant inefficiencies and effectiveness.

I note that some people may see this extra advertising cost or inefficiencies or ineffectiveness’s as a negative. The costs are just one aspect of doing the right things, and, a step toward enhancing competitive advantage.

2. People conflicts. I note that Carr (2003), Kottack (2003), and Somers (2001) provided insight into the social, cultural, ethnic, and religious persuasions of each of the ethnic groups discussed. The differences noted lend to people conflicts that will need to be dealt with by leaders at every level within an organization. Some of the conflicts will be due to unrecognized and inaccurate stereotype associations. Other conflicts will results because of language, religious, economic, and even gender issues.

I recently dealt with a people conflict that was really quite innocent yet could have been avoided with minimal fore-thought on my part. I planned a recent sports appreciation banquet that included specification of the meal. If I had been thinking about diversity, I would not have mandated pork as the entrée. This snafu was simple enough yet a conflict not the less.

3. No Stakeholder Buy-In. I note references toward the importance of “…appropriate statistical controls…”. (Somers, 2003, p. 589) Though Somers was writing about study controls. The “…implementing policy changes based on observed differences…” thought carries over into implementing a strategic plan toward diversity.

As leadership within an organization moves toward diversity it will become imperative that everyone within the organization be moving in the same direction with thought and purpose. Unless all stakeholders know what the strategic plan is, the importance, the impact, the steps-of-application, and the end-results, there will be no success. As stated; “‘…quick fix’ interventions designed to produce ‘positive employee attitudes’ are not likely to serve their stated purpose.” (Somers, 2003, p. 590)

In summary the three negative points toward diversity in the workplace were: 1) Initial costs and inefficiencies; 2) People conflicts; and 3) No Stakeholder Buy-In.

Thanks for listening.

Dennis LeRoy (Sherlock) Duncan

Ref:

Carr-Ruffino. (2003). Diversity in the Workplace. Capella University.

Duncan, D.L. (2006). Capella University. HS8300. Unit 01, Discussion 01.

Kottak, C.P. and Kozaitis, K. A. (2003) Diversity in the Workplace. Capella University.

Lester, L.P., Englin, D.L., & Howe, G.F. (2002). Designs in the Living; The Natural Limits to Biological Change, and Human Cloning: Playing God or Scientific Breakthrough? SimBioSys Publishing. Retrieved on August 01, 2006 from:

http://www.creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BK-DES3&Category_Code=BB&Product_Count=7

Somers, M.J., & Bimbaum, D. (2001). Racial differences in work attitudes: What you see depends on what you study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(4): 579-591.

3:15 PM

Over the past few months I have been emphasizing ‘accuracy of language’ to our Emmanuel College (EC) Intramural’s Team Captains. Not so much as a listen to these words of wisdom, but making sure that we say what we mean, and that we mean what we say.

These student leaders, our Captains, are getting the message. They are now starting to select their language more carefully, to accurately articulate their true intentions. They are seeing that our customers are each other, and the students, faculty, and staff that we serve. They are also becoming more selective in their language when they are encouraging each other, and their team mates: in & out of the classroom; on & off of the field.

Below is an excerpt from my specific goal of this effort. In this sense, our enterprise is our EC Intramural’s Program. The original intent was to measure if we (EC Intramurals) were accommodating our community needs.

Successful, Effective, Efficient, Goal, Standard

The first phase of any discussion regarding whether an enterprise is successful, effective, efficient, or not, must being with a clear and concise set of definitions that becomes the goal or standard, as appropriate, against which the measurement is based.  The second phase must be in identifying possible measurements and then defining the actual measurement method that is most appropriate for the particular enterprise.  This is truth regardless of profit or nonprofit status.

The American Heritage dictionary defines goal as: “1. A desired purpose; objective.” (p. 365)

The American Heritage defines standard as: “2. An acknowledged basis for comparing or measuring; criterion.  3. A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment.” (p. 804)

The purpose here is to assure a complete understanding of the difference between a goal and a standard.  A goal is where leaders ‘want’ the measurement to be.  A standard is where the measurement ‘must’ be.  For example, a ‘goal’ may exist that a counselor should work eight patients per day.  However, today the counselor may be treating an especially bothered patient so they will need to drop down to six patients.  If eight is the goal, no problem.  However, if the ‘standard’ is eight, the counselor and their supervisor have a problem.  The standard is not going to be met.  The counselor could actually be exceptionally efficient and effective today yet not meet the standard!  If the employment contract has a ‘goal’ then the counselor is okay.  If the contract has a ‘standard’ then continued employment could be in jeopardy.  The point being that it is critical to make sure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the difference between a ‘goal’ and a ‘standard’ when a measure of effectivity or efficiency is on-going.

According to the American Heritage, efficient is defined as: “1. Acting to produce an effect with a minimum of waste or effort. 2. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.” (p. 274)

The same dictionary defines effective as: “1. Having an intended or expected effect.  2. Producing a strong impression or response; striking.  3. Operative, in effect.” (p. 274)

All too frequently these two terms are used synonymously when, in-fact, their definitions are quite dissimilar.  An enterprise may be effective and efficient, or one without the other.  For example, a given organization may be able to produce X quantity of a particular product or service more efficiently yet not be as effective in producing the end-result, income, as another organization that produces the same quantity of an identical product or service.  The polar opposite is also true.  A given enterprise may be quite inefficient compared to their rival yet actually be more effective.

Put this into a social service arena.  Your enterprise, Counseling R Us, may be very effective in providing positive and effective counseling but is actually consuming more resources, actual dollars and counselor and counselee time, than your closet rival agency.  Your rival may be more efficient in resource consumption but may produce results less effective than yours.

The American Heritage defines success as: “1. The achievement of something attempted.  2. The gaining of fame or prosperity.  3. One that succeeds.”

Given these same organizations, success is measured against whatever goal is pre-established.  Both may be successful in their own right, yet both could be a dismal failure when it comes to efficiency and maybe even lacking in the effectiveness arena.

Now here’s the next point, any measure of any goal accomplishment must be established against a predetermined goal that is specifically unique to the organization, or sub-org, that is being evaluated.  There is no one-size-fits-all, nor should any attempt be made to set such goals.  Further, success can’t always be determined by comparing actual measurement results to the established ‘goal’ or ‘standard’.

Yes, there should be benchmarks within given specialties of production or goods or services rendered but these are only benchmarks.  Excluding ethical behavior and codified requirements, no enterprise should be held to the same goal or standard as any other enterprise.  There are too many dynamics that come into play.  The point here is that leaders should ‘not’ get narrow-minded with tunnel-vision that they get locked into a mindset that neglects external factors.

Consider this same patient count example.  The number of patients that a counselor may see on a daily basis for a given state may be benchmarked at eight.  Now consider that Counseling R Us is in a neighborhood with a high delinquency, drug-dependency rate, there are no other comparable neighborhoods in your state, and the benchmark was established at the level of an entirely different cultural neighborhood.  Should Counseling R Us be expected to counsel eight patients, or should you be able to set the goals as the neighborhood needs?  Is the patient count a ‘goal’ or is it a ‘standard’?

Before trying to determine the ‘success’ of any given enterprise a realistic definition must be established that includes ‘goals’, ‘standards’, ‘efficiency’ and effectivity’, and then how the resulting measure should be applied to the ‘goal’ or ‘standard’ as appropriate.  There are multiple statistical models available for selection when determining measurement devices.

Explore and experiment with several techniques before selecting a final measurement criterion.  Find out what other like-mission enterprises are using and see if the proverbial glove fits.  It would not be unreasonable to decide to use several at the same time.  The best course of action is to find the measurements that best suits the enterprise and then adjust from there.

In the case review The Ladder and the Scale (1992) there are numerous references regarding the lack of already existing methods of measurement for the type of program the Project Match was working.  This lack was a root cause of the tension between Herr and Tamayo.

Here’s a thought in closure.

Let’s say that you are the CEO for Counseling R Us and you have a realistic ‘goal’ of eight patients per day and a ‘standard’ of five patients per day, per counselor.  In today’s process you see four counselees.  However, the fourth one was suicidal and your intervention, though resource consuming, is absolutely brilliant!  Let’s see now, you did not meet the goal or standard so you’re not efficient or effective in this measurement, and, based on the absolutes of the measurement, you are not successful.

However, your patient, that was suicidal, is doing better and will continue to improve and become a better member of society because of your effort.  In my book, that is “SUCCESS” regardless of the measurement of efficiency or effectiveness.

Thanks for listening!

Dennis LeRoy (Sherlock) Duncan

Revised 29 Nov 2008

Ref:      The American Heritage Dictionary (4^th ed.). (2001). New York, NY. Random House Inc.

            The Ladder and the Scale: Commitment and Accountability at Project Match. 1992.

                        Kennedy School of Government Case Program.  C16-92-1076.0

Whether you believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are who they claim to be does not change the fact that they are, indeed, who they claim to be. One part of this precept supports the notion that the Bible is literally the inspired word of God. Additional support for this hypothesis is provided in II Timothy 3:16 and provides concrete evidence of this hypothesis. Timothy states that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” This point is foundational to the Christian belief system and to our healthy development as human beings.

Let me explain.

The Biblical character, King David, notes in Psalms 139 that our God, the everlasting presence, knows everything there is to know about us. There is no place where we can hide from God, and no thought that we can prevent Him from knowing. Actually, King David suggests that God already knows our thoughts, needs and desires. How does this relate to YOU and your importance?

Knowing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and King David is right in his Psalms 139:14 narrative when he states that “for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”, then, before the beginning of time, God has known you. I suggest, no: I know, that YOU are so important that Christ designed your specific DNA before the Father actually spoke the creation narration. The artist Lindsey-Anderson depicts this concept in the painting on this page.

Please do not believe the doubts you sometimes have about your self, or what others may say or think about you. YOU are important! God said it, I believe it, that settles it! I love you.

Comments Welcomed on: 1, Who is the artist in the picture, and how do you know. 2. What are your observations of the pencil, 3. What is the artist drawing?

Dennis LeRoy (Sherlock)

Ref:

The Holy Bible. The Open Bible. King James Version. (1975). Thomas Nelson Publishers.

I have been wondering, for several years, if there are other people who are convinced that the traditional teachings of the Church do not fulfill the accurate and true attitude, image, and mind-set of the Trinity. Specifically, why do we seem to separate the attitude and image of God the father from those of Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

I recently found a short yet significant read that is causing redefining moments in my thought processes. William P. Young (The Shack, 2007) presents compelling suggestions that we, as a Church, need to reassess the images we invoke when we speak of the attitude, image, and mind-set of the Trinity.

Traditional teachings seem to present that God the Father is a wise old man who sits in judgment. Sometimes we include the flowing long gray- or white-haired old man who wears a flowing robe. Usually we project a sternness of appearance, demeanor, and attitude. I suggest that many times we project God the Father as a proverbial taskmaster. Kind of like when we do something wrong (make an error, sin) look out because our error or sin has caused the Father to be angry. I suggest that the Father is not the angry God that Edwards (1741) presents in his sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Actually, the Father is quite the opposite. The second point of discussion is our projection of Jesus.

I humbly suggest that Jesus is not the epitome of a Jewish priest. My heart strings tell me that Jesus is more like the personal prayer partner or accountability partner that each of us should have, and, be to others. Yes, he is a priest. Yes, he is Jewish. Yes, he is the human form of God the Father. However, his role is not judgmental. Rather, reconciliation and relationship restoration. Biblical perspectives and stories suggest that Jesus is a hands-on, loving, caring, one-on-one relationship focused partner. His relationship with the disciples, His presentation to the woman at the well, His people-first behavior, His commitment to the Father’s will, are examples of Jesus’ dedication to people. In summary, we misrepresent God the Father and Jesus the Son as the good cop-bad cop cycle. The third point of discussion is our understanding of The Holy Spirit.

In short, I suggest that the Holy Spirit has two primary jobs. First, to commute between heaven and earth to present to God the Father, and Jesus the Son, evidence that we are behaving with a mind-of-Christ. Basically, to evidence that we are getting it right. The second job is to quietly convict us of our errors (sins). The Holy Spirit’s intent of conviction is to bring us into restored relationship that provides physical evidence so that the Holy Spirit may complete His primary job.

Young’s novelette presents a thorough review of our misconceptions while presenting plausible alternatives. His thought processes are interesting and Biblically valid. Enjoy the read.

Thanks for listening.
Dennis LeRoy Duncan

Edwards, Jonathan. (1741). Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Retrieved on 31 May 2008 from http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinners.htm

The Holy Bible. The Open Bible. King James Version. (1975). Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Young, William P. (2007). The Shack. Windblown Media, Los Angeles, California.

This two-part perspective leads me to think that, boiled down to a single point, there are ‘no’ naturally occurring barriers to diversity. All roadblocks to diversity are PEOPLE-decision caused. There are many ‘detours’ that may be blamed (geography, cultural, etc), yet each detour is inter-related to PEOPLE decisions. I would speculate that these roadblocks or detours are covered by a single umbrella. Barriers are ‘learned’ behaviors. Within this thought I see three key societal influences that impact PEOPLE-decisions toward diversity.

First, some people are reared in an environment where diversity is frowned upon and sometimes downright despised. This is a society where the people do not know any different. In these cultures the normative of no-diversity is valid, not abnormal psychology. Some cultures actually euthanize disfigured babies, ‘wrong’ gender babies, and the old-folks who have become burdensome. For many years people groups of SE & SW Asia would euthanize babies of mixed tribe or cultural heritage. My interest and activities in multiple mission trips opened my eyes to these realities. This society breeds the leader who will either never accept diversity in the workplace, or may accept it under protest and then start the undertow of contention.

Second, some people are reared in an environment that realizes people are different but teaches that different peoples are ‘inferior’ or „superior‟. Similar to the warped thinking many Caucasian people felt, and maybe still feel, about people of color. This is not a Caucasian vs. non-Caucasian issue; evidence the Black-on-Black or Latino-on-Latino gang murders. This trait was evidenced by the mistreatment by U.S. citizens against U.S. citizens of Asian descent during WW II. This trait carries into cultic groups; north vs. south, Yankee vs. Rebel, inner-city vs. rural, inner-city gang vs. gang, political liberal vs. conservative. This trait lends to the ‘glass-ceiling’ within the corporate structures. This trait is akin to the first point, but the people of this behavior trait know better. This society breeds the leader who will accept and tolerate enforced diversity but will not really embrace the concept.

Third, some people are reared in an environment that realizes people are different but they do not know how to go about dealing with issues. Sometimes this is fear-based, sometimes based on lack of experience or knowledge.

Sometimes it takes codified action by law makers and the Courts to force the issue. These people want to do the right thing but don’t know what that is.

For example, many of the ‘Church’(cooperatively speaking) peoples of the world still do not know how to properly deal with people who make personal life decisions about personal behaviors. I offer how we see many ‘Church’ people pushing away the gay/lesbian/homosexual peoples and the ‘Church’ responses to single parents, divorced or separated by other cause, the non-traditional trend following teens, the pregnant unwed girl, and others. (CCCU Advance; IPHC Experience)

Having slapped this group, this society breeds the leaders who will embrace diversity proactively and encourage others to do the same once they understand the multiple positive elements diversity brings and the steps to follow.

All three of these influences fall under the single umbrella I see as the individual’s (the leader’s) religious perspectives. There is a pattern of thought within the religious and secular communities that understands, “We are not human beings living a spiritual experience, but rather spiritual beings living a human experience”. (cited by Mancini, 2004). This is NOT a Bible-thumping thought. The learned behavior is based on Spiritual teachings and subsequent personal interpretation of those teachings. Being a-religious is actually a religious perspective and therefore directly influences personal decision making.

It is the Spiritual aspects of our beings that make us ‘who’ we are. These aspects drive our personal and professional behavior patterns at work, play, school, where-ever. Who we are behind closed doors will eventually display who we are in public arenas. I am emphasizing the PEOPLE aspect of each of us.

Maslow followed this logic in development of the hierarchy of needs. The highest of the Maslow needs are people-behavior based.

Pavlov determined that the theory of conditioned response could be broken by decision making that followed reasonable logic. Behaviorists like Skinner and Erikson (Vander Zanden, 2000) made allowances for the Spiritual impact toward human behavior and development. Erikson even modified his human development schemes to allow for changing Spiritual development within PEOPLE. I guess Erikson understood that PEOPLE are dynamic.

I would never argue that we should all believe the same religious principles. However, all of the U.N. recognized and accepted religions have value of life and equality in treatment of people threads.

These threads, value of life and equality of treatment, cross all religious boundaries and are part of what make us ‘who’ we are. This is foundational to achieving true diversity, the proverbial melting-pot.

In summary, there are no naturally occurring barriers to diversity. All barriers or detours toward diversity are PEOPLE-decision based. Societal and Spiritual influences are foundational to decision making and lend to producing three types of leaders: 1) the leader who will either never accept diversity in the workplace, or accept it under protest and then start the undertow of contention; 2) the leader who will accept and tolerate enforced diversity but not really embrace the concept; 3) the leader who, once they understand the multiple positive elements true diversity brings, will embrace proactively and encourage others to do the same. The roadblocks or detours preventing diversity are PEOPLE-decisions based.

In closing, I recall that PEOPLE are dynamic. Meaning: Learned behavior can be unlearned and replaced by new learned behavior.

If we are going to continue to thrive as a Nation then we must get past any discussion of the ethnicity or gender of our political candidates?

Good, reliable, ethical leadership is not an ethnic or gender issue!

Thanks for listening.

Ref:

CCCU Advance. (Fall, 2004). Beyond Color. Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC.

IPHC Experience. (April, 2005) (Multiple Issues). LifeSprings Resources. Franklin Springs, GA.

Kottak, C.P. and Kozaitis, K.A. (2003). On Being Different: Diversity and Multiculturalism in the North American Mainstream. Second Ed.

Mancini, F. (2004). Mind, Body and Soul; A Common Sense Approach To Optimal Wellness. Pro-Solutions for Healthy Living. Vol. 2, Issue 3, p. 2.

Vander Zanden, J.W. (2000). Human Development. 7th. Ed.New York. McGraw-Hill Higher Education