The END!! (Or something like it.)

So here I am, Sharon, sharin' my heart....okay that was lame. I have been on a track of really lame jokes lately. I've noticed them; I mean, they're not hard to track, what with them limping along and all. Har har har!
Okay for serious now. I am taking a slight break from my 2:30 am paper writing regime to reflect on life as it stands for me now. I am approaching the end of my last full year at Bible College (good gracious, I think I just pooped my pants)...but I don't graduate yet; I have a few more courses to finish up before I walk the plank--er, I mean walk the stage.
Speaking of walking the plank, leaving college and finding a life of my own, when I think about it, feels like I am on the high-diving board looking down, about to take the plunge. For serious, it seems a little surreal. Like I am not really sure that I have actually made it up here all the way and am now preparing to jump. I feel like I am getting a little push toward the end of the plank though. I am not quit ready; I feel like I might chuck at the thought of dropping all that way down and splooshing into the water. Will I float to the surface, once I have finally jumped? Will I thrash around, get a cramp, and sink to the bottom? Will I be able to just barely keep my head above the water, or will I discover that I have the ability to do laps? I don't know. But I do know this: my uncertainty about my success should not prevent me from jumping. There will be no crawling back down the ladder on this one. I want to take a flying leap, knowing that whatever happens, my Maker is in control.

Purpose and Intentionality

I am reading the book "Practicing Greatness: 7 Disciplines of Extraordinary Spiritual Leaders". I thought it was going to be a book on fasting, praying, all the classic Christian disciplines that we are to implement in our lives. Instead, it is a book on the disciplines of self-awareness, self-management, self-development, mission, decision making, belonging, and aloneness. Not necessarily what I would have thought to be disciplines. And of course, the book addresses all the 'classic' disciplines as means to achieve these others. I like this because it seems to address not just symptoms or outward actions as a way of changing the inner, but addresses inner motives and thinking and overall concepts. It addresses the bigger picture and how these disciplines of lack thereof will affect one's ministry effectiveness.

All that to say, I am reading about the discipline of self-awareness. These are some of the things in the book that stood out to me:

"The single most important piece of information a leader possesses is self-awareness....Without appropriate self-awareness, hidden addictions or compulsions may guide leaders to behaviors that create huge problems that may dismay, exasperate, and bewilder those they lead. Leaders who operate without self-awareness run the risk of being blindsided by destructive impulses....For followers, credibility rides or falls on consistency....

"Self awareness gifts [leaders] with significant insight. They know why they are on the planet and what contribution they intend to make....They know what they bring to the table in terms of talents and abilities. They know what they don't know, so they are constantly pushing their learning in strategic areas that support their personal growth and missional effectiveness."

As I have been reading this over, I've been making notes in the book, something I don't normally do. But I decided to not just read this book because I have to, but read it because I actually want to learn from it. I am being intentional about this.
That's what strikes me about this book. It smacks of intentionality. One has to be intentional in order to implement disciplines into one's life. One has to be intentional about becoming a great leader, (or growing in Christ) and therefore intentionally implementing those disciplines.

I realized that I am not usually an intentional person, in a lot of ways. I am more reactionary; I sit back, take what life gives me and do something with it. I don't usually stride forward and make things happen.

I asked myself, why? It is not as if I am not decisive. It's not as if I do not have strong opinions on certain (or many) things. It's because oftentimes, I am afraid. A line from the book says, "They know why they are on this planet and what contribution they intend to make..." In order to be intentional, the question has to be answered: "Why am I on this planet?" I think intentionality flows from an understanding of one's purpose. And I have shied away from this question partly because I am afraid to find out that my life is meaningless.

Now, as a Christian, I know that God has put me on this earth to glorify Him, to do the work that He has set out for me, and to be a witness to Christ. But I want to ask, "What about Me?" What about my identity as Sharon, not just Christian? I think there is a dichotomy there, where I am not sure there is supposed to be one. I think I struggle to answer the question of purpose in my own life--I mean in the sense of the unique makeup, calling, creation that God has made me to be and made in me. What am I uniquely made to do, called to do, created to do? I think in that I will find the fulfillment of my Christian duties, whereas I think I have been looking through the glasses of my Christian calling to discover the calling unique to me. I don't know if that is a bad thing. But I think that sometimes we (or I) can hide behind it or not even realize that each one is created to fulfill the Christian calling in a way that they are specifically designed for.

Purpose. Why am I here on this planet? How has God specifically designed me, and what for? I need to understand that. And that brings me back to the concept of intentionality. I need to be intentional about discovering that--and then intentional about using it and being it. And not just intentional about making a difference, or living out my calling--but the practical aspects of being intentional. If I am truly going to be intentional, it will change the entire way that I live my life. Every conversation I have will be intentional--not with a design to manipulate--but not talking for the sake of hearing my own voice or opinions. And intentional about what I eat and how I take care of myself--that area of life is not excluded in my stance of laissez-fair or passivity. Being intentional about learning--not just picking up whatever tidbits fall to me, but setting out to learn and equip myself that all that being at school has to offer. And I guess not just at school, either. What can I learn from each stage of my life? In every situation, there is a chance for me to learn. There is a chance for me to grow in my relationship with the Lord. There is a chance for me to use what God has given me and gifted me with and designed me uniquely to do. I have to be intentional about doing that.

My paper on Roman cement and engineering!

Roman innovations and almost modern uses of cement, combined with other architectural advances, laid the foundation for many architectural developments that would impact western architecture for centuries to come. Techniques and structures durable enough to last for centuries are solid proof of the Roman’s engineering superiority of the time. In this paper we will discuss the innovations in cement work and how it impacted and allowed for advances in other areas of architecture.

Roman engineers were not the first to use cement, arches or vaults. Some historians believe that ancient Syrians, around 6500 BC, used burnt lime mortar as a means of waterproofing cisterns. The discovery of lime as a building material was probably made in the course of fire pits built from limestone. The heat from the fire would expel carbon dioxide from the limestone and thereby produce lime. It is possible that four thousand years later, the Egyptians were using lime mortar or burnt gypsum in the construction of the pyramids, as well as using cement to mould stone objects. The Nabataeans (700 BC – 300 BC) might have been the first to use hydraulic cement (sets underwater or is waterproof) as there is evidence of burnt lime found, and an abundant supply of pozzolan nearby, which is a key element in making hydraulic cement. The Greeks (ca 600 BC) were known to have used a natural pozzolan and lime mixture in hydraulic cement . Further, the Egyptians used arches and vaults, particularly as forms of drainage. The Greeks, whom the Romans were most heavily influenced by, did not use arches or much cement. Their method of construction was with cut stone slabs, and post-and-lintel over doorways. They did not use cement to the same extent as the Romans.

Cement in Roman architecture became integral as a result of engineering developments. The basic ingredients in concrete mortar are simple lime and river sand (at a ratio of one part lime to three parts sand). Limestone is made up of calcium, carbon, and oxygen. When limestone is heated, or burned, the carbon and oxygen are driven off in the form of carbon dioxide, leaving calcium oxide, or quicklime. If water is added to the quicklime, a chemical reaction occurs where heat is given off and the mixture bubbles. Three results are produced: lime putty, which is used as the binding agent for cement; lime milk, consisting of 20-30% water and can be used for paints; and lime water, which is clear, disinfectant, and can be used for medicinal purposes .

In the basic recipe, sand is added to the lime putty to make cement. However, pozzolanic ash (volcanic ash from Mt. Vesuvius, named after the nearby town Pozzuli) was discovered to make a much more superior cement than sand. This is due to the chemical and structural makeup of the ingredients. Sand (mostly silica) has a crystalline atomic structure so dense that it has little contact surface with the lime, reducing the chemical reaction significantly. In contrast, the pozzolanic ash (silica with trace amounts of alumina and iron oxide) has a very porous atomic structure, which allows the lime to enter and create a concrete-like gel. This gel then expands, and bonds the rocks together in the concrete mix, creating far stronger cement than the sand/lime mixture. To ensure the most chemical reaction possible, the pozzolan must be in powder form to allow for the optimal amount of surface area. The strength of this concrete is comparable to modern cement; indeed, a part of the chemical makeup of pozzolanic cement matches that of Portland cement.

However, the strength does not just come from the chemical makeup, but also from the method of application. At the Upper Stillwater Dam in Utah, the builders used a then-innovative technique called roller-compacted concrete. The mortar was a mixture of 40% Portland cement, and 60% fly ash. The fly ash, a by-product from electrical plants, contains the same silica content as explosive volcanic ash, and when wet, the Portland cement releases the same calcium hydroxide component found in ancient lime cement mixtures. In making the dam, the builders used little water, which gave it a stiff composition. They spread the mixture in thick layers, and then used vibrating rollers to pound the concrete into place. The Romans used a similar process. They would hand mix very dry cement in mortar boxes and carry the cement to the job sites. They would spread it out over a pre-placed layer of rock formation, and would then pound the mortar into the rock layer. We know that this is so because the ancient historian and engineer Vitruvius, alive in the days of Julius Caesar, recorded the process in one of his ten books on construction and engineering. He also mentions tamping tools. It is now known from the Upper Stillwater Dam construction that this method of tamping reduces excess water; the water is a source of weakness and voids in the concrete. When it is tamped, the concrete is compressed into a more solid mixture and also creates more bonding gel than normaliv. This is part of the process in which the domed roof of the Pantheon was made and withstood such great pressures.

Roman concrete has some great advantages over the Greek method of cut-stone masonry. It was very strong, even when spanning great distances in arches, vaults and domes. It had greater flexibility than the Greek’s stone slabs, as the concrete could be poured or layered; it took the shape of the form around it. It was also cheaper as it did not require skilled masons or special labourers, and it was faster to make than cut ashlar masonry. And one of the most important advantages was that the concrete vaulted roofing was fireproof, as opposed to the mainly wooden beamed roofs of the Greeks.

One disadvantage of the use of concrete is that it was often unsightly as the wooden form structures left marks and imprints. The Romans in their resourcefulness and ingenuity started facing the cement with more esthetically pleasing material. Tufa, which is soft volcanic stone, was used in slab form to cover the core construction of the building. Tufa blocks in irregular fist-sized shapes were used to make beautiful wall mosaics. And the Romans came to appreciate the method of regularized rectangular tufa blocks arranged diagonally. It became a popular method during the reign of Hadrian, and can be seen in different places in Hadrian’s Villa. The blocks had cone shaped backs for easier placement into the cement. And of course, all of this could be veneered over with another, prettier material, such as stucco or plaster that has been shaped, molded, patterned, and/or painted. Marble encrusting was used only in very wealthy places .

Mortar was used in many Roman structures, but was rarely needed in the arch. The arch was not a new building form when the Romans took a hold of it, but it became on of their signature pieces of architecture. It was particularly useful over doors; the Greek method of post and lintel was limited, as it had a low tensile strength and in regular use could only span a maximum of 60 centimeters. Because of its structure, the arch transfers the load onto the columns, which does away with the tensile stresses. The more an arch is loaded, the stronger it becomes, to an extent . This is because the vertical pressure on the arch stones causes the weight to be transferred to the middle third of each stone, thereby eliminating any shear, or sliding forces, that would cause the arch to collapse. There was usually no need to have mortar, as indeed that would cause shear force .

The next step in the development of arches is the use of vaults. The Romans used a very simple vault called the barrel vault, which is simply an extension of the arch. It can be constructed along a curved axis. There are two major disadvantages in a barrel vault. The first is that it is hard to light; natural light only comes in at the ends of the barrel. The second is that it needs continual support along the entire length of the vault. The solution to this is the development of the groin vault, in which there are two intersecting barrel vaults. This eliminates the need for continual support as the groin vault transfers the weight to the corners. It also lets in much more light. Groin vaulting can be used in a pattern; unfortunately it can only be used in a square or rectangular plan. This kind of vaulting was used in the construction of the Coliseum’s substructure .

As in the arch, the downward force on the vault created outward spread of the vaults. Therefore resistance to the thrust was needed at the lower portions of the vault, in the form of thickened haunches or the point that connects to the column. This created the development of buttresses, which led to increasingly intricate designs in later architecture. The Romans often cast solid concrete vaults so there were not need of buttresses in those cases . One problem with the non-concrete vaults is that if the foundation shifted or settled a bit, there was a danger of the vault collapsing in. One improvement is the addition of ribs in the vaulting, either traverse lines to the vault or in diagonals of the crossing .

One of the most visible ways that the Romans used arches and vaults was in the aqueducts. The aqueducts were the most advanced way to bring in fresh water and dispose of sewage in the era and indeed the system was not improved upon until very recently. They were built from a combination of stone, brick and pozzolanic cement. The bulk of the waterway ran underground; the Romans bored channels through rock and ran piping underneath the surface. Out of 260 miles of aqueduct systems, only 30 miles ran above ground. The aqueducts were used only where geography presented problems, such as valleys. The entire aqueduct system ran on gravity . The Pont du Gard over the French river Nimes is probably the most famous example of a Roman aqueduct. This structure is a bridge and aqueduct. It is built in three tiers of enormous arches, successively growing smaller as it ascends. The bottom portion is used as a bridge and the topmost as the aqueduct.

The pozzolanic cement used in the aqueducts and Roman bridges was essential as it was waterproof and could set underwater. The Romans would build a wooden form in the water and would either drain some off or submerge it after, but would pour in cement and have it harden underwater. This development in cement making allowed some of the amazing advances in Roman architecture that stand even today, some two thousand years later. The Roman’s use of arches, cements and vaults have quite literally paved the way for further architectural development in western civilization and still influences modern architecture today.

Coffee, and withdrawal

I am an avid coffee drinker. I have been for as long as I've been allowed to. I like the taste of a nice home-brewed cuppa joe. Or in the morning, a fresh strong cup with a bran muffin...the best kind of breakfast.

But recently, coffee has become more of a social drink than something that I enjoy. I get it because I am out with friends and coffee is cheap and tastes relatively ok. Just any social gathering is classified as "going out for coffee". Why don't people go out for slurpees, or hot chocolates, or bubbletea? Maybe because slurpees are ice and liquid sugar, and because hardly anyone around this culture-forsaken town can appreciate the fine taste of a good taro-lychee bubbletea. Hah!

I have noticed though, that the hard-core coffee addicts at some point always try to stop drinking. No matter who it is, they always try to stop. "Coffee is bad"...but then they always go back. If it's so bad for us, why do we start??

Thoughts from a Plebian

I feel a certain amount of unrest. Recent events bring light the bitter gall of my ambitions, and my perceptions. It's brought to me, and I am sore. I don't want anymore. Yet I know it's gonna be okay. Patience, that which is so hard to obtain and keep, slips away at the slightest provocation. Reflections of my selfish nature, my shaky foundations, my shallow and tacked-together floor on which I stand. I hate it. I can see that it is not my surroundings that bring the churning guts and sickly taste, and I despair at times of finding cleansing. Or I meditate on that which is hard for me to see and obtain, and that in itself is poison--the thought of what I do not yet have. I have to cling to the hope--it's there, He has said so--the hope I have in hand is sure, but not over-riding. It doesn't rear up and proclaim itself, as the despair and desolation does. That hope, it's quiet. It's not as heart-wrenching and immediate--it's a knowledge--and that in itself is difficult. My eyes are not accustomed to focusing on that hope; my sight is almost affixed to the poison, and my ears almost tuned to the key of that acridity which whistles its melody most cheerfully.

I must fix my eyes upon that which has been set before me--but oh, how hard! What I perceive is filth, and ways immovable and circular. What He perceives--what? I am not who I am perceived to be. I can't be. I strive against it. Yet it slaps me in the face; my efforts to change seem useless, my pursuit of understanding, fruitless. Desolation claws at me. I look in the wrong places, I am aware. But that which is unseen is farther away than that which is seen--or less easily accessible. How I wish I could hear the voice I know that I need to hear from! I want Him to voice His thoughts--His opinion--His affirmation--His view of me, from the inside out! I read His letters to me--but sometimes I wish I could see Him face to face and hear from His lips all that He says in His word.

And so I continue on in my perception of despondency and desolation--though I know it will pass. That hope which is so quiet and meek is still warm and alive in my hands.


higher sight, He sees
a temple, golden and shining.
a vantage, lower and despondent,
not able to wipe the mud away.

What is my fate?

Isolation often encourages reflection. So does a brief look into another's life, I think. In a way I wonder that much of Bible college holds us in naivity regarding the nature of pastoral life. I am slowly seeing that those who are emerging from college into a life of active ministry, within the bounds of a church, find the latter much different from what they might have expected. And from what I glean from them, I take and appraise my own life and where it will take me.

When I was younger, I believed that there was no other occupation I would rather do than spend my life in ministry. I thought I was to be a youth pastor. Then as a couple years passed by, I thought I might rather minister to young adults. Now I am not sure of either. Everyone needs to know the love that Jesus has to offer, from children to seniors.

And as I peruse the tale of others' lives, I observe that most or all of it centers around a church, a building. It involves boards, and elders, and other pastors, and while that is great, I get the sense of hierarchy, and climbing ladders to get to where one really wants to end up. I feel a bit of unrest at this. Is it unrest that I do not know the goal of my calling--to what exactly I am called? Perhaps. Is it unrest that I see a shadow of ambition and competition, an undercurrent our sinful nature beckoning us toward envy and the lack of sober judgement of ourselves? Maybe. Though perhaps it is the stirring of a different fate for me. Maybe I am not to be a pastor in a church, to grow from children's ministry, to youth, to young adults, and so on.

But what is it then? What is it that I am supposed to do? I feel frustrated with the apparent lack of direction, though I know that God reveals what he wants when he wants, because he knows exactly when to do it. Any sooner and, as I've heard on many a lip before mine, I would refuse from either terror or disbelief. Still, I feel a mite shamed when, even approaching my fourth year in Bible College, I don't know the core of my calling. Oh sure, I have ambitions. Go to secular college afterwards, get an education in art and languages. Meet the man of my dreams and get married, and be firmly planted in ministry before I have kids. But what is my ministry? And what of these ambitions of mine? Perhaps they are not to be?

I say this out of a restless and hardened spirit, I think. I am not eager to return to Bible college, where I must be around people constantly. There I must learn to quell any disunity and rebellion, and submit myself to the Word in standards of community living. (Here too, I think I must apply those standards.) And I am not eager to return to the books and the papers where, I feel in my spirit, failure awaits me if I continue in my lacksadaisical manner. And it is facing this challenge and overcoming it that daunts me particularly. Yet I know that I must, because I know that I have been called.

But what after? What am I called to? Am I called to a life of, excuse the term, professional ministry, or a life as an artist or teacher or anything else, with a heavy involvement in ministry? Am I to minister within the church building and system at all? I have only the vaguest of notions.

Where are the boundary stones of my life?

I am not a carpenter!

I hit myself in the face with a hammer yesterday. It hurt.