The absurdity of "mine"

I have been trying to write something perhaps related to my thoughts during the time of Advent and Christmas, but nothing has really come out onto paper as I hoped it would. Words did not flow, or seemed exceedingly theoretical. Therefore, I decided to write about an experience I am going through at the moment.

Currently I am in the process of packing my entire life into 2 suitcases. I have moved (sort of) before, but it involved multiple trips, cases, furniture, pictures, papers... But this time, I do not have that luxury.

This has been a very disillusioning experience - in the sense of the freeing of illusion - because the more I look at all the material things gathered over the past 23 years, the more I realise no one person in the world can use all this. I look at wardrobes overflowing with things, and I think of refugees that leave home with only a backpack, or people who lost everything in floods, fires and hurricanes. I think of all the clothes of brands that, later after purchasing them, were found to have a great deal of illegal slave work in making the garments. I think of all the underpaid people in China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Brazil that are a part of the process to make everything - from fabric, to sewing, to boxing, to transporting, to selling until it comes beautifully made, wrapped and hung in my wardrobe. A beautiful piece that hides suffering and costs freedom and lives of many.

 It frustrates me and saddens me that at some point I started believing the lies of a materialistic society that there is no such thing as "enough". We are told by our context to live in a logic of lack - we are constantly focusing on that which we do not yet have, what we are not - rather than a logic of thankfulness for what we do have. We become petty, shallow and pathetic people that already cannot carry what we have, and are yet chasing the bone industries through for us to make them profit. A machine that works in a sick, greedy setting that makes few grow and profit with a cost of things much more valuable than money: freedom, life, dignity.

A painful realisation, is that this is not temporary or unique to our society. Greed has taken many forms over history and has destroyed many people. Perhaps it is because with more money and belongings we feel safer - we believe we are achieving some form of meaning in our earthly lives (only to then find out in our dying beds that no money in the world can make us immortal). Perhaps we believe that having much means that we are being blessed, and therefore all is right with our soul. Or maybe we think our value as human beings is directly proportional to how much we own. I do not know a reason for it, but what I do know is any form of such justifications are blatant lies.

Firstly, ownership is a plainly foolish belief. As C.S.Lewis puts in Screwtape Letters, claims of "mine" sound equally absurd in Haven or in Hell; we will eventually find out who our time, our bodies, our efforts, our things belong to - if they belong to God or to Satan. Secondly, what we are are stewards of that which is given into our care - this means that pure temporary stewardship of money is not wrong any more than having a particular skill, intelligence, talent or ability - but we are accountable for how these are used, and what we believe them to be. If we believe they are ours by right or that our overall value is improved by having such gifts, then we are proud - and thus are not serving God with them. Also, if living in that logic we become self centred and selfish - we serve our idols and ourselves, instead of God.

In Matthew 19.16-22 and Mark 10.17-31, we can see two different accounts of Jesus having a dialogue with someone with many possessions but that sought out his Teacher to find eternal life - he studied, he learnt the commandments, and sought to learn more from Jesus. However, when told to sell all he had, give money to the poor, and follow Jesus, he couldn't. This passage puzzles me. Did he see more meaning in possessions than eternal life? Did he not really believe in Jesus? I don't know his heart. But what I do know is that in my much milder calling of "put your possessions only into 2 cases and follow me" seems like child's play! But still, at many times, I see something and am reluctant to give it away - either because I know how many months of allowance I had to save up to get it, or because of remembering who gave it, multiple reasons flood into my brain at the moment. But I have mostly found that rather than reasons, they are excuses. Because, if I were to think honestly - are there not many other people that need these things much more than I do? Is it not better for that coat to heat someone in the cold winter, or those shoes to protect someone's feet from all sorts of wounds or infections? But it is easier to ignore this harsh reality

The truth is, for a true follower of Christ this should not be a difficult job. When generosity does not come easily, many things can have influence over that - loving ourselves too much in the form of pride, telling us we need it more than anyone else or that 'we deserved it because of working for it'; lack of love compassion, failing to see God's image and likeness in the other and therefore using differences as barriers between us and the other; perhaps even plain negligence and failure to look beyond our own safe bubble; or excessive love for possessions, greed - but it definitely means something is wrong in our hearts.

And setting aside our love of possessions has a great deal of impact on our approach to others, I believe. I say this from an experience I had about 3 years ago, when I was in a very bad emotional place. I felt like God was in the process of taking away from me many 'safety lines', things I thought were important in defining who I was. We were struggling financially, struggling as a family, people I loved very much left my life, and my last safety line (prestige, studies and a label of 'intelligent') was not supporting me in a course I had no vocation for. It was like all these things were the leaves I was covering myself and my shame with, somewhat like Adam and Eve - and so the removal of them made me feel exposed. I felt ashamed, embarrassed, empty and fragile. My hands were empty of things I held dear, like there was nothing more of mine to be taken away. (Note: obviously there was much more that could be taken away, God was very merciful in the way the process occurred! I was just too absorbed in self pity to realise that!)

But I remember one day in particular, I was going home from univeristy. I was sitting in the bus and I saw two people that were clearly asian foreigners, but I couldn't place where from. They were speaking a language I couldn't understand, and I really did not want to do anything but sulk and stupidly feel sorry for myself. Until one of them asked for help in english, and I responded saying I did speak english. They were going to the same city I was, and so I said I would tell them when to get off the bus. My focus began to change away from myself. I looked at that situation, and I realised I had nothing to lose. I felt so many things dear to me had been taken away, that any form of fear or apprehension was stupid. So I took them to the city, got them subway tickets and took them to the station they had to go. They asked me curious "Why are you being so nice? Thank you!" They took pictures with me on the subway platform and gave me their e-mail - "In case you in China need help!". I chuckled to myself as I waved the two Chinese men goodbye and as I realised that feeling low, tired and useless - without any security blankets - that is when your walls come down.

Any time walking out in the street with something very valuable, it is easy to shy away from people that feel/seem menacing, but going out with no cash and nothing particularly valuable it is much easier to stop and talk to people, because we stop living in fear of loss.

And so, perhaps with the realisation of the absurdity of calling anything "ours" - either material possessions, or degrees, or talents, or even people dear to us - and see that these are all things that belong to God and which we are only stewards of, that he can take them away as easily as they were given, we cease to live in fear and anxiety. Loss is no longer an issue, because these things never actually belonged to us - they were merely lent to us. And so it is easier to live in the fluctuations of events and circumstances when the One that is most important, the only One necessary is unshakable and has promised He himself will "never leave or forsake us" (Deuteronomy 31.6), and that is enough. This, perhaps, is the true source of peace.

And, after thinking about all this, putting any 'possessions' into 2 suitcases and following Him and His will (which has been left pretty clear over the last few months) seems like a very generous and kind way of starting me off in the journey to leave the notion of "mine" behind.

The enslaving of minds

I would not generally consider myself to be a particularly compassionate person. For many years this has been a struggle of mine, and many times my prayer has been that God would give me his eyes for people, to teach me to be more understanding and loving, because this never came naturally to me. Along the years, this has been worked in my heart and slowly certain groups started to get my attention, and so my concern and prayers began to extend to matters beyond those close to my micro universe.
One day I remember particularly struck me was when a missionary working in Japan was talking about his work there, and started describing his trips in other countries in Asia. One place he stayed in to work for some time was a Christian home were girls rescued from sex trafficking were kept - many times they were sold by their own families. Some of them, as young as eleven or twelve. For some reason, this gave me a dreadful feeling of sadness, frustration and, well, rage with the world, that this could be done - something I can only classify as being 'compassion'. Since then, victims of sex trafficking have been close to my heart and prayers.
According to the International labor organisation, as many as 4.5 million people are victims of forced sexual exploitation in work - this is equivalent to the entire population of Ireland - the majority of which (over 98%, according to certain statistics) are women and girls. These statistics alone are already disheartening. However, yesterday as I listened to the lyrics in multiple popular pop songs, I realised that these numbers are just a natural consequence to an issue that runs far deeper and much more subtly than human trafficking.
Coming from a cultural context that is very concerned with aesthetics, the constant pressure women are under to always look in a particular way is overwhelming. The image portrayed in the media in Brazil is that of unanimously thin women with hair dyed and styled, make up and fashionable clothing, apart from the constant use of high heels. Cosmetic procedures have very high numbers (as I described in a previous post); the amount of money Brazilian women spend on hair and nails (approximately 20 million) surpasses that which is spent on education (approximately 18 million). Girls grow up being told by media and families that their sole purpose in life is to be married, and to be a mom. Essentially, we are told we must be desirable to hopefully be 'picked' by someone, and so - only when attached to a man - will we have value.
And so, as I thought about this culture which, certainly is not unique to Brazil, and as I thought of the lyrics of songs which make women into sexual objects, erroneously calling 'love' that which is actually lust, I realised that those in trafficking are not only the ones being beaten and forced to work for pimps.
Our minds are suffering violence daily by the lies that our context tells us. We are told we are not good enough, that our phenotype must fit absurd standards - and it is our fault if we do not. Treatments to lose weight, diets that decay the body, many times culminating in eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. The chains holding us in this dark hatred towards our bodies are not around our hands and we have no shackles on our ankles - but the chains are those of the mind, as we are brainwashed to believe that our function in society is to look beautiful (whatever that means). We then proceed to spending money, time and health - cosmetic surgeries have multiple risks, apart from the dangers in the use of cosmetics, ranging from paraphormaldehyde (normally used for preserving cadavers and tissue), which is used in treatments to straighten hair, up to lipsticks containing lead for the colour to last longer, which is toxic.
This abuse is disguised daily in the advertisements of products of needs created by companies that state you must look in a particular way. It is also in the companies that hire women because of how they look, and state they should loose weight, or wear more make up, or be dressed in a particular weight to please the clients. It is in the soul crushing words of friends and family that say that a woman has no inherent value as a human being while she does not get a husband - and it is entirely her fault if she has not. It is concealed in the quiet words of insult coming from spouses, partners or boyfriends saying the women are ageing (and thus should dye hair/do surgery/change their bodies), or saying they should look a particular way for them, and blackmail emotionally to get what they want because these women already are emotionally vulnerable.
What this does, it constructs a system in which women and girls cease to love themselves. They live solely to please others and many times subject themselves to abusive situations with abusive partners because they were never taught to be 'loved' in another way - as I heard once, "We only accept the love we feel good enough for".
Capitalism feeds off of low self esteem, because it is easier to create needs for those who are unhappy and feel insufficient - that are trying to fit a particular image - than it is to create needs for those who feel loved and content looking another way entirely. And so it breaks the mind to the extend this oppressive context becomes normal. Ultimately, we are enslaved by ideas that break us and bind us in a culture of death, competition and hatred that has no mercy towards those who look or think differently.
In seeking value or even fame and power women willingly become slaves to such ideals that diminish themselves and others. The music industry, the film industry mostly have a sexual approach of the image of the woman - they must look sexually attractive, and many times sing lyrics that make them no less than an object. This culture has become embedded to such an extent, that it has been generally accepted as normal. Physical chains are no longer necessary, because our sense of value has been decayed to the extent it has become a choice. Rather than our bodies being trafficked to be sold, our minds have been kidnapped, bound and sold for the benefit of the industry.
One of such industries is the pornographic. In a study done in the US, it has been found that 66% of young men and 18% of young women see pornography at least once a week. In a survey done with college students, 93% of boys and 62% of girls said they were exposed to pornography before they turned 18 and in a study made with 50 of the top movies in the industry, up to 88% of scenes in porn films have sexual aggression, and 49% contain verbal aggression. What this means, is that from a young age and, many times, into adulthood both women and men are exposed to  and have regular exposure to the notion that this is the normal way that relationships function, and so men are taught this is the way to treat a woman and women are taught this is the way to be treated.
Pornography is known to be as addicting as any drug. The neurological circuitry activated is the same one as with other addictions such as drug and food addiction, and as such, it too has been found to desensitise the brain to dopamine (a neurotransmitter related to pleasure and happiness, preventing the person from feeling such things), and has also been found to make the brain shrink. Also, studies have found that men who pay for sex and/or watch porn tend to be considerably more aggressive towards women and to objectify them more.
These industries that break people, ultimately result in broken relationships and the ideas slipped in by media translate into acts of hate by diminishing the inherent value of a human being. The expressions of hate escalate to the extent that relationships become verbally and physically abusive - 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. Let me put this into perspective: out of every 10 women you meet, between 3 and 4 of these have suffered abuse, and many times this ends in death: 38% of murders of women are committed by partners. Apart from this, the surviving victims suffer from multiple psychological and physical issues such as anxiety and depression (2.6 times more likely than other people) and alcohol abuse (2.3 times more likely).
The point that I am trying to get across is how simple and small things in culture - starting with telling a girl her value is in the man she gets, and she should look in a particular way - are only small signalling factors to issues that spread far and wide - to porn, domestic violence and culminates in sex trafficking - creating a culture of death to which many of us may be contributing without even being aware of this.
Many times it is easy to say that we disagree with many things in our culture - perhaps even be upset by abuse, human trafficking or even other issues not mentioned here, such as destruction of the environment, or slave labor. But we cannot simply shrug and say 'it was them': we too are part of mankind, and we too are accounted guilty. We cannot wash our hands when we too are perpetrators - even if on different scales. The person that abuses verbally a woman, the person who consumes porn, the other that buys a sex slave and the pimp are all links in the chain that contribute, ultimately, to death - of the mind and the body.
The changes can only arise in the culture surrounding us by living in a counter-culture that is an entirely different direction: we too are humans and we too are responsible for the wrong and the pain inflicted by humanity. And, once convicted, it is our responsibility to analyse and diagnose the actual changes in conduct, in the way we see and treat each other, that must be done to break the link in the chain we might be part of. Otherwise we are accomplices of hatred, abuse and murder.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

- Romans 12.1-2 (NIV)

(The sources for the data presented are here, here, here and here)

Análise sintática

O problema não é o muito amar
(Ou o assim dizer)
O problema é logo se declarar
Sem nem mesmo conhecer
O amor tem sim um alto custo
Em vez de só adjetivar o sujeito
Analisa: qual é o seu defeito?
Qual o seu conjugar do verbo ser?
Cuidado se o sujeito é oculto:
Afinal, ninguém (além do pretérito) é perfeito.
Pode ser um sujeito sincero
Ou como simples classificado
Quiçá nem mesmo valha o esmero
E nenhum verbo foi conjugado.
Mas às vezes a sintaxe tem concordância
O tempo conjuga um novo amar pelo sujeito
Amizade é transitiva, pede algo mais!
O sujeito recebe maior relevância:
Mesmo sabendo contar os defeitos...
Ao sujeito simples, adiciona-se um aposto
O oposto de desistir, algo novo então se faz
E dois sujeitos simples tornam-se um só sujeito composto

The lonely lies of social media

Brazil is the second country on the list of countries with most use of social media, only behind the USA. Alone it is responsible for 10% of the time spent on social media worldwide, and the average Brazilian uses the internet for at least 5 hours. However, Brazilians also spend approximately 4,5 hours per day watching television. Which combined with the time on the internet, consists of 9,5 hours per day spent with information being poured into our brains.

Recently, I also did a research and found in a ISAPS international survey that Brazil and USA are also countries that dispute the top of rankings regarding the biggest percentage in number of aesthetic/cosmetic surgery. Both are also top ranking countries regarding percentage of population diagnosed with depression, Brazil holding 7th (14% of total population, 66% of which are women) and USA holding first (with 17% of population). Though these are complex social issues which I could not dream of knowing for sure - and thus all I rant about from here on, is mere speculation - I find it hard to believe that these issues are non-related.

Although social media has it's importance as a means of communication and for news to be shared - since I do not watch television, it's how I keep up with news about the world and scientific field news - priorities in social media are pretty messed up. When considering the aspect of people posting about their own news, the internet is merciless. If someone posts something about how they actually feel, naïvely answering facebook's question "How are you feeling today?" or "What's on your mind?", brace yourself, because if you are not praising your own life, showing how awesome you and your events are, or exhibiting your looks, skills or intelligence, brace yourself. If you are feeling discouraged, weak and present an honest description, people tell you to talk to a psychologist instead of facebook. This is the internet. There is no room for the weak, for the ordinary, for the unhandsome.

Studies have been made that show that it is easier to be honest (and, often, hurtful) through technology because it depersonifies people. It is easier to show hate through a computer screen than it is to a human made of flesh and bone. It is easier to shame, curse and threaten a thumbnail picture and name than it is to someone standing in front of you. It makes it harder to develop empathy when there is no emotional feedback when interacting through indirect means of communication.

What this means, is that involuntarily we begin to build an internet alias, the person we want to come across as being. An alias?, one may ask. But that is my name, and those are things happening in my life, I am not lying! Yes, but there is plenty of omission.  The pictures posted only consist of the best angles, the best pictures. The stories posted are only the praiseworthy. The thoughts posted are only the popular ones among followers, seeking interest and likes. Humans are social beings, and we crave acceptance and attention.

Scrolling down your timeline suddenly becomes a depressing activity: reading about everyone's awesome lives, how happy they are, how much they have achieved, how good looking they are, you start to wonder: what is wrong with me? Why do I not feel happy like that all the time? Am I doing something wrong? So you start to try to fit in by, rather than presenting who you are, the image that you want to portray.

The alias constructed may have many forms. It may showcase your beauty - through plenty of selfies, or it can show how cultured you are by the quotes posted. It can show your awesome life through pictures of trips, holidays, parties and events. Look at how popular, smart and beautiful I am. Look at all the friends I have. We behave mostly like children craving, instead of little stars of praise, we crave thumbs up and likes. We begin to believe that our value is in what we post.

What this means is that all people have this unspoken agreement to only post things that exalt themselves, pats their pride and satisfies - even if merely by illusion - the inherent human need to be loved.

Truthfuly, this is purely symptomatic of our context. After our minds being numbed down for 39.58% of our day, through advertisements in television and on the internet, we take up marketing too in our social interactions and try to pour into other people's minds the need of interest in you, and reasons why you are important, influential, successful, happy. We advertise ourselves as though we were a product to be consumed. But that is the very issue. We are no longer people. We are products. 

This permeates not only social media and internet interaction, but it spreads into our other interactions too. We may try to fit the image as much as possible - and in come fake fabricated events, shallow relationships that never reach the real people, plastic surgery, make up and clothing to portray that image we want to get across. Our life becomes a constant show and spectacle because we fear how people would react if we were to show our real selves. 

Eventually, the show can't go on. Either we break under the pressure - causing all sorts of psychological issues and, many times, suicide - or the image cannot be fabricated. Perhaps we age and our intelligence is not as it was, our looks age and we are no longer young and beautiful, we lose money and become uninteresting, obsolete.When people realise we are not actually what we pretended to be - that we are humans made of flesh and blood, that have emotions, hurt, a complex history, we are treated like a product that did not fit the advertised qualities. The logic of purchasing and using a product for self benefit ('the costumer is always right') is transported from the marketplace into the way we interact with each other. 

The same way we were taught that others are perfect products, and were merciless in our judgement, this comes back to us. Ultimately, like the product we made ourselves to be, we are used, consumed and discarded. And so a cycle of hatred, lack of love and empathy and, in the end, loneliness begins to take its toll; although humanity never has been so connected as it is through so many means of communication, none of our 800 friends are anywhere within sight - except that handful that know you are more than a source of news, status, or looks. Those that know you are human. 

How can we break the cycle? How can we break social media addiction? The addiction to the illusion of acceptance? How can we stop drowning our minds in produced information and concepts that murder our relationships and humanity? 

 The internet ends up making us exalt ourselves, and the qualities exalted are generally individualistic and self beneficial: beauty, wealth, intelligence, status, etc. However, by changing our basis of values in our mind, instead of aesthetic surgery, we end up doing mind and soul surgery - we change the things that are important. By regarding virtues such as faithfulness, gentleness, patience, love, as higher, and by seeking such virtues, the focus changes entirely from one's self to the other. What happens is not that all the other qualities cease to exist; they may still exist, but they are not important for someone to have value. And too, if they do exist in a person that has other virtues as priorities, they are not used for self benefit: the intelligence and wealth can be used in favor of others, for example. Beauty ceases to be a competition, and can just be something pleasant to be appreciated - but definitely does not change or define the value of a person. And in a society that every advertisement highlights how important you are and how this product will benefit you, and make you be loved and appreciated, changing the way we interact with each other by seeing the other as the focus, the one to be exalted, is a rebellion in itself. And, perhaps, all that needs to happen to begin a revolution. 

The Mission

I remember when I was young, listening to some missionary stories in sunday school that sounded very much like horror stories. I came back home upset multiple times when videos were shown of cannibal tribes still existent in Brazil, and them talking about how we were all missionaries: "You are a missionary too, even though you're a child. You don't have to go to somewhere like this, you can talk about Jesus in your school, with your friends, everywhere you go." It was upsetting and it made me scared - do I really want to be a missionary if that is what it ultimately ends with? Becoming someone's meal?
On the other hand, I loved listening to the stories grannie told me, of her and grandpa leaving Ireland to come to the back of beyond in Brazil, with no electricity, in all sorts of rural regions where christianity had not yet reached. Grandpa would leave on his horse with nothing but his toothbrush and Bible for weeks - and grannie would stay at home, waiting, with 4 kids, getting on with her work, and with the feeling of a hole in her stomach that was only filled when grandpa came back, as she herself describes it. They worked together, they cared for a home, for seminaries, they talked about Jesus' love. The funny thing is, I never heard even one sermon, and yet they have always been examples I have wanted to follow - because their lives spoke so much louder than any words could have.
It was with disbelief that I realised that they, like the videos I saw in sunday school, were missionaries. That their stories, were missionary stories. But... I enjoyed them. They were different. I wanted to listen to these. My definition and view of 'mission' begun, then, a process of divine reformulation.
Reading a book by Eugene Peterson on pastors, he highlights a strange and, to me at the time, revolutionary concept that no profession as a Christian is any easier, and each one has their own struggles. Being a loving, self-sacrificing, ethical, just, faithful and righteous person is just as difficult in the church as it is in an office, lab or mission field. There are different benefits or responsibilities. but none is easier.
Jesus' great commission is not something which can be chosen if we take it on - being his disciple, believing and trusting in Jesus as our Saviour, has this as a necessary implication. One cannot be a disciple and not do as he instructed:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
(Matt. 28.18-20)

Being a missionary is not a choice that a christian may take on or not, but it is a natural consequence of full comprehension of God's love throughout history and the meaning of his sacrifice. If a hungry beggar finds bread in an endless source of bread, and knows that there is no less food if more people come, it is natural that he would tell all people he sees hungry where to get bread. As it is put by Brennan Manning in "Ragamuffin Gospel", the sharing the gospel is no more than a beggar showing the other where there is bread. And if the people that are told 'love your neighbour as yourself' are unable to share such joy, there is something very wrong.
But sometimes I would still wonder: But what about these people that are 'called' to go to different countries, different cultures? Isn't it easier for God to just get people that already live there to talk about his love? Afteral, they understand the culture FAR better than anyone from another place, wouldn't they be able to dialogue better with locals?
I spent some time in thought and here are a few things I have concluded on why being a missionary overseas has it's importance for those working in the mission field:

(1) Depending on God - Leaving your home, country and family is a tough job, regardless of the reason. It is an experience in which during multiple moments one might question if they did the right thing, because it can be very lonely feeling; you don't really understand the culture and language surrounding you, and it takes a while to build meaningful friendships which will be able to strengthen you in your new country. However, this is an amazing opportunity to deepen the trust and relationship with God. It is a moment you realise how easily and quickly you can lose all the people, things, places, that you love most and just how very alone and meaningless (when considering mundane aspects) you are to this world, and how fragile the construct of 'happiness' and 'fulfilment' are when based upon what our culture establishes. You find your meaning is not here on earth, and you seek all you have: your Faith.

(2) Depending on generosity - Most missionaries receive their support from people who freely give money to them, to help their work. Part of mission is learning to depend on one another, and giving feedback on your work - it is also an important aspect of those who stay behind and support the missionary, be it financially, be it in prayer. In an age of 'independence' it is revolutionary to be entirely dependent of your brothers and sisters, and it is a revolution to be a faithful - and joyful - giver that does not expect a benefit for themselves from it.

(3) Greater empathy - Having gone through the great struggle of beginning mission work in a foreign culture, you are more empathetic and understanding with other people in transition phases; it is a chance to be more loving unto people leaving their homes, without a family, etc. You understand the importance of hospitality, and of that honest and loving conversation. Also, the deepening of dependence in God brings a further understanding of his love - which you really, really want to be able to show appreciation for by sharing it.

(4) Understanding diversity - Suddenly, the way you think, many things you were taught during your life, are tossed in the bin. The meaning of words, expressions and actions; what is normal, what is beautiful all have new meanings to the people you are in contact with. The feeling of "homelessness" when seeing such a relativisation taking over so many things makes you understand how diverse the world is, and allows you to see how Christianity stands in relation to other cultures. You learn to see other cultures under a different light, and to see the people beyond the culture.

(5) Understanding the meaning of Jesus leaving his 'home' - You miss lots of people and lots of things. Some days are worse than others, but as you come to think of it realise that this is just a faded image of what Christ did for us:

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me" 

- John 6.38

"He made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!" 

- Philippians 2.7-8

Leaving the side of the Father, taking on a very nature that was not his own, and dying. It is the origin and the very reason why we are called to mission, and many even to martyrdom. Teaching us to understand and value that which has already been done.


The truth is, I do not know what it is like to be a missionary in the full meaning of the term - all I speak is from observation of the many missionaries surrounding me, and from my own attempt to live mission in my daily life, but these were the things that helped me understand a bit better why it's so important and why so often it has this not particularly logical format that causes people to relocate their entire lives to other cities, countries or continents to share Christ.
Maybe, on the long run, when done correctly and fully all these things happen: when we realise that even our 'homes' are not home, and our 'cultures' are not ours in light of the Kingdom that is yet to come.

Caution: Mixed Gender lab. Beware of crying or falling in love.

Recently I was asked to do a writeup on what it's like to be a woman in science for a project called "Projeto Redomas". It is a project organised mostly by girls who take part in the Brazilian Christian Union, and was made to give attention to stories of women who, at some point in life, in some christian environments, were exposed, treated as objects, classified and shut down. The idea is to bring out interesting, respectful and constructive discussions; for a sense of empathy and love to prevail above that which is determined by society. If you're a portuguese speaker, I recommend having a look at the project. 
In any case, this is the original text which was later translated for the project, hope you enjoy! 

Source: Pipet monkey blog

Luke was born a very large baby. He grew strong and tall, and everyone was sure that Luke would be an amazing basketball player – after all, he was so tall. He was told his whole life about how he would be a legend on the basketball courts. Luke grew up, played basketball but always felt a mediocre player. He hated it. His actual dream was to become a chef. But how to tell all the people that had told him he must be a great basketball player that he, in fact, had no motor coordination for the sport?

Luke knew that chefs that were as tall as him earned less – in some places in the UK, tall people earned R$ 29.354,00 less; in other restaurants, the difference went up to staggering R$ 123.286,78 . He also knew that there were only 30% of the people working with cooking that were as tall as he was. Many of his exceptionally tall friends also had had trouble with painfully average sized chefs stealing their recipes to publish. He found himself presented with both options: either to give in to the expectations so many people had of him – even if he were mediocre, at least it would be easier…  -- or to face the barriers in cooking to his heart’s content.

Luke isn’t real, and no, the cooking industry has nothing to do with one’s height. But the statistics presented in this story are very real. This is just a metaphor for women, and the kitchen is actually a lab. This is what being a woman going into science looks like. This is the real daily struggle every woman knows they will have to live with if they decide to go against the ‘more feminine’ professions.

For a group of people who claim to regard the truth highly and who attempt to be unbiased  in assumptions until an analysis of the data is made, the scientific community assumes many things of minorities within its community.

Society thrusts upon us the responsibility of living up to the expectations of the stereotypes we may seem fit for, when, in reality our individual personal experience has lead us to be very different from the stereotype attributed to us. Unfortunately, women still struggle under many stereotypes in the workplace, and science is no different.

Very often women are regarded as being unfit for the scientific work due to differences between stereotypical female and male ways of thinking. Yes, men and women do have different brains – it isn’t news that during development we have different neurological formation and neurone distribution, but the thought of one type of brain being better than another is, at best, a naïve assumption – at worst, plainly foolish.

“Women are too emotional. They cannot be unbiased for producing and evaluating scientific data.”

Yes, us women have to struggle with peaks of hormones once a month much larger than the fluctuation in hormones a man suffers during his entire life. However, having emotions does not overrule every other functioning part of our brain. If hormones are an actual issue, one could say men are unfit for working as researchers because of how much more testosterone they have, which increases their tendency of getting angry and thus their evaluation of data would be clouded by it if they thought a certain result might be different from what was expected. Men and women have different struggles, this does not mean one is more or less suited for such a career.

“Men focus on one task and become experts in it – women think of too many things at once to be as good as a man.”

Focusing on one task/skill very much is regarded as a male characteristic and, almost by default, is considered better. But my question is: why is it considered better in the first place?

First of all, not all people fit the stereotypes presented for genders. And, even if we do consider stereotypes exist for a reason, this still does not affect my main argument. In the book “What’s wrong with the world”, author G.K.Chesterton has an exceedingly chauvinistic claim that a woman’s skills in domestic work are far more impressive than that of the man. While the man has to focus only on his one selected career, a woman has to be a cook, a cleaner, a philosopher and theologian to children’s questions, and care for a child all simultaneously. But my question is: who decided the ability to multitask and link multiple fields ought to be restricted to the household? Many skills and tendencies in the way a woman works can be exceedingly helpful when balancing lecturing, researching and publishing.

One of my favourite examples of how a multidisciplinary brain linking different fields can have impressive results is Marie Curie. She still is the only person to be awarded with Nobel prizes in two different fields, Chemistry and Physics.

“Women will try to use their looks or emotional blackmailing in their favor.”

In an interview, Nobel prize laureate, scientist and lecturer Tim Hunt from University College London claimed he did not like having women in his lab – “They fall in love with you, you fall in love with them, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

I cannot lie – I have seen girls who would attempt to get higher grades and pass subjects by wearing short skirts, cleavage and emotional black mailing or whining. I also saw male lecturers give in. On the other hand, I have also seen male students attempt to compliment lecturers to pass a subject, and the lecturer being unyielding.

The whole issue in this matter is not a question of gender, but of ethics – and using the poor examples of women who can attempt to make use of female stereotypes in their favor, is because they are giving in to a notion they at some point began to believe: that it is better to achieve a certain goal in any other way than doing your job properly and efficiently. The issue is both in those who accept this (and reinforce the conditioning that appealing sexually or emotionally is good) and in those who resort to such unethical tactics. Not on the gender.

“Science and motherhood don’t go together.”

I know a researcher who was pregnant when defending her Doctoral thesis and suffered from hearing in a sarcastic tone – both from men and other women – that she was ‘clever’ for defending her thesis pregnant, to get people to feel sorry for her and ‘take it easy’. This same woman, when in a meeting, had to leave earlier than expected due to her child taking ill and – in the same context that a few weeks ago the people saw a father leave to pick up his children was seen as a “loving and caring father” - she was treated badly and people pointed out how bad it was to have mothers working outside the household.

Being a mother and researcher and lecturer certainly isn’t a walk in the park, but if being a father, researcher and lecturer is, then there is definitely something wrong.

“Women are more suited for jobs which involve empathy and emotional attachment such as nursing and teaching, and not for logical thinking or power positions.”

Last time I checked, all human beings have feelings and, again, perhaps for women they may be heightened at certain times of the month. However, if our feelings cloud our logical thinking or our decisions made due to power, there is definitely something wrong – and it is not if it’s a woman or a man deciding, but that someone is making themselves (and all who work under them) susceptible to something as volatile as feelings. More than a diagnostics on gender issues, it is so of social issues which classify feelings as being something bad – to be ignored – or something good – to be listened to all the time. The thing is, feelings exist and must be acknowledged and dealt with: but what is right or wrong is what we do with them.

“A man’s work is more trustworthy.”

A lecturer and researcher said this, in a classroom. Though it is not something often spoken, the fact that much work researched by women and many discoveries made by women in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, physics and biology has only seen the light of day and been considered relevant when published by men who stole and published their work and ideas. Much of the credit still is not attributed correctly to the female researchers.

I could talk more of experiences I have seen and experienced of what it means to be a woman in science. The truth is, if there are women in science, it is because we are standing on shoulders of giants – of women who have fought through social expectation and convention to prove that women, too, can pursue truth and want to take part in the pursuit for the truth about the universe and the laws that govern it. But there is still much to be done for the generations to come, so that this dialogue is no longer necessary.

Something, though, both society and the scientific community still struggle with is something I have repeated multiple times along this text: men and women have different struggles and benefits from the way their minds and bodies function. However, this does not mean they are better or worse in a certain task, career. Stereotypical female or male characteristics are not better or worse in their essence, despite what we are told. In the end, we are just different, and differences can only enrich and aid the field.

Perhaps, next time, before looking down a microscope at the smallest of fungi, or looking up through a telescope at the celestial bodies, we could take some time to appreciate and understand the complexity of the beautiful human being standing beside us in a lab coat that is not defined by labels and stereotypes - and see that, like us, they too are human. Maybe learning to see each other accurately, together we can work better to understand this amazingly beautiful and complex cosmos we are in.

Love is inconveniant

I haven't been on this planet for too long, but I have been on it long enough to be sick of seeing the same old story of young women who wait, and wait for love, impersonated byprince charming - aka, handsome, brave, determined, leading, kind, protector, loving, a savior of all their emotional and past issues who will redeem them from every other poor choice, and add to this list any particular adjective according to personal preference - and, upon the disilusion of discovering such a man does not exist, deciding to marry the first guy willing to marry. All because "they want to be married".

People advertise this strange idea that marriage is the end of our problems, because once you're married, that's it; afterall, in all the stories, that was all that the "Happy ever after" is, right? Suddenly, vows made, you will have a natural inclination to love, because your spouse also went through the magical transformation of "I do" and all became easy and wonderful. But...upon the sudden realisation this is not the case, after arguments and tears, fights and dishes broken, they go their seperate ways to 'seek love and happiness'.

Where I believe it all went wrong, is when the dreamers failed to foresee that love is no easy task, and involves a great deal of pain (unlike what the world sells). Now, many may object to this statement. Multiple people I know who have divorced stated that "they were no longer happy" and so decided to see if they would be happier separate than together, and so they consider that the way to allow the other person to be happy is by letting them do what they want*.

However, though happiness is a wonderful thing, our society pizes happiness above all else, whilst I believe, though a wonderful thing, there are many things far greater than happiness in the realistic scheme of things.

And example:  Current parenting believes a parent must make their child happy at whatever cost, and must yield to the child's every want. If they want the dad or uncle to dress up as a pricess, they should. If the child wants a gift, they should get it. The only thing this produces is not a happy child, but a spoilt brat. Or, in a worse case, it can produce physical or psychological harm to the child if what they want is something harmful. In this case, making the child happy (giving them what they want) is not to be regarded as highly as the child's safety. The objective of this metaphor is not to say that in any romantic relationship one has the role of a parent, for instance. In love, a discipline which many times limits happiness (and may even cause pain) is to be applied to ourselves, rather than attempt to apply it to anyone else. Perhaps having an affair with a younger woman would please a man and make him happy - however due to love and respect for his wife, he know he oughtn't pursue such a fantasy. Perhaps you would like to go to a game or had plans that would make you happy, but out of love it is many times necessary to leave this aside to spend time with a loved one.

What this means is that, appart from happiness not being the most highly regarded and protected thing, it is most certainly not your happiness that is the priority in a relationship. When I hear a number of lovesongs singing "I need you to make me happy", that, apart from not being love, is the thing most unlike love - that is pride; that is believing the other person's sole objective ought to be to make you happy. And pride and love cannot coexist by their very nature. Pride states that ones self is the most important thing in the world, which prevents all of the exercises of love - service, forgiveness, understanding, repentance - from taking place. After all, why should one who believes to be perfect and sovereign go out of their way to look at the point of view of anyone other than themselves, or be concerned with the well being of another?

The beauty of a relationship where there is no pride and of perfect love on both sides is that one serves the other, and one must never seek out their own happiness or well being - for they can trust that the other will be concerned with that.

Now, when one feels love for another, the work in this task many Joules easier. However, loving someone does not mean neither that there is the feeling of love present, or that one even likes the other person all the time - after all, it is almost impossible to like anyone (even ones self) all of the time. I dare say, love proves itself most in the moments where the feeling is entirely absent, and still is acted upon as though it were present. More than a noun, a place to be 'in' or something to be felt, love is a verb: not to be spoken of in far off theories, but in actions of self sacrifice.

This does not mean any bloke who shows up at a lass' door ought to be the one to marry because "love isn't easy" afterall, but the evaluation to be made is if this is the promise one wishes to make to a potential spouse - to live in self sacrifice constantly, to be willing to bend and serve and be faced every day with your natural tendency to be self centred (and being constantly reminded by this other person that you shouldn't). The Bible never ordered anyone to marry; it is a gift and a metaphor for a love far greater. Still, aside from what is sold to us, singlehood is, yes, an option to be contemplated - however it is valid to keep in mind that  marriage is only a very intensive school of a love which we are told to live by in all circles - friends, family and acquaintences.

Upon thinking of all of this, I am always brought back to think of the one who came to show us what true love is. God, himself, who made himself vulnerable to the point of being a helpless child in the hands of an inexperient mother, and gave his life for those who could never repay his love. If Christ taught us anything, he taught us that the one who loves is the one who suffers and cries. He taught us that the one who loves is the one who give everything, expecting nothing in return. The one who loves is the one who, in this world, is spat on, beaten, cursed, damned. The one who loves is the one who dies at the hands of the ones who don't.

So, to all the lass's and pet's around the world, wishing to find the perfect boyfriend or girlfriend, or even walk the aisle, I leave a small reminder. I'd say that from Christ's example, it's safe to paraphrase The Princess Bride:

"Love is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." 

Note: I am not married, though in a relationship. Therefore, much of what is mentioned here comes from books such as The meaning of marriage (Tim & Kathy Keller), Mere Christianity (C.S.Lewis), The Single Issue (Alber Y. Hsu); other things come from observations of both multiple broken marriages close to me and healthy marriages; so, when treating about marriage, I'm definitely not an expert on hands on experience, and there's still much to be learnt in non-romantic relationships. So, sorry if it's too theoretical/idealistic and little practical!

* I of course understand there are multiple cases in which divorce is necessary, and I do not believe relationships in which there is infidelity or are abusive (emotionally or physically) ought to be tolerated. When I describe love as being "pain", is that there is a great deal of sacrifice that goes on, however, though Christ gave us his all, but because God loves us and has established what is a good relationship in hiw word (Mt 5.32; Col 3.19; Eph 5.25; 1 Peter 3.7; Eph 5.28). We are all humans made in the likeness of God, and as such the abuse or destruction of dignity of his likeness is an offence to God himself.