Being Worth The Investment

Social Investment and its Iterations

One of the things that many people struggle with in this day and age is self-worth. While people think it is a very simple concept, it is something that is quite complex. There is a reason why we see people on Maury and Jerry Springer seemingly desperate for attention, or see the man who is a womanizer or see women desperate to get the attention of men. The idea of self-worth drives a lot human behavior. However, we seldom talking about the idea of investment. In this discussion, I am not talking about the monetary investment. I am talking about social investment.

The definition of social investment is "is any investment activity which has an expectation of both a social outcome and a financial return, which would usually be below market rate." Essentially, that means that people are willing to "go to bat," vouch for, or support someone else because they see their potential to either generate financial or social capital for them. It is a reason why even if your credentials are subpar, you can still make your way into positions. This lies at the crux of the old saying "it's not what you know, it's who you know."

Looking at myself (both in the past and in the present), the amount of social investment I have has been limited mainly to family or those who are like family to me. Professionally, I have experienced a dearth of social investment. The reasons are unknown why that has been the case, but at the same time I accept it as a part of my own life (which means I have to work harder than some other similarly situated people - and there's nothing wrong with that at all). So I take a lot time trying to find innovative ways to socially invest in myself, even where others have not seen any inclination to do so. The saying that best fits is "you gotta love yourself, before anyone else can love you." The same is true regarding social investment. 

When I look at social investment, people tend to socially invest in people who have a trait that they either like or identify with. There is a reason why many mentors take mentees who have a similar story or have risen through similar circumstances throughout their lives. It is also a reason why certain professors in academia take certain students under their wing. The idea is " I have become successful because someone took the time to make the investment in me, so I should pay it forward and do the same for someone who I understand their struggle." That is normally how it goes as far as the realm as mentorship. Meaning if you have a good mentor, opportunities will be plentiful and it is up to the mentee to ultimately follow the heed of the mentor. It is a thing of beauty when someone manages to make their way through the merciless undergrowth into the stratosphere all because of great social investment and mentorship. 

However when does social investment rear its ugly head? I can take my example from my own life and looking at the environment that I went to college in. The institution I attended was a marvelous institution and was renowned for it's robust culture and academic engagement. However one of the things I noticed was that the idea of social investment was stretched in a way where it could leave people entirely in the cold. People would not converse with people or socialize with them based on the idea that they had "nothing" or "not much" to offer. Whether it be connections to a job, a leg up to join an organization, or even getting into the parties - if someone had no reason to socially invest in you, there was no point in communicating. Even if they did socially invest in you and you thought you had a genuine friendship, the friendship would end merely because they feel like the investment they had made ran it's course and they no longer had a use for you. 

Being in the broader world, I understand why that was a common attitude. It was common because of the idea of preventing social waste. "Waste" is defined as the "resources consumed by inefficient or non-essential activities." In a day and age where capital is King and social elevation is Queen, socializing with someone that doesn't foreseeably add anything to your life is a "non-essential or inefficient use" of social energy. Hence, if people don't see anything in you - even if you are the diamond in the rough - they'll be inclined to pass because they believe it is a waste of time, energy, and effort. This attitude also extends to certain behaviors that are quite common in some places.

For example, I have an associate (we've grown apart in the last few years because of this) who likes to go to the club. They're a fun person. However I began to notice after "leveling up" or getting around other people with clout and money they would no longer invite me to functions. After speaking with a mutual friend of ours, the truth had come out. The reason why I was no longer getting invited out was that I was not "cute enough" to impress their new posse. The fact that I was not able to traverse a mall and purchase Gucci or wear Maison Margiela made me unfit to be a friend anymore. Further, they felt that they were wasting their social investment on me and could place it in other people. Since then, me and them no longer go out anymore and I accept the relationship (and the drifting of it) for what it is. 

In the end, social investment is important and drives life in ways that can dramatically improve standards. There is nothing with social investment in itself. However, using it to define friendships and all relationships with others is problematic. The idea that every friendship needs to have a condition and benefit attached to it like a contract is a sign of social ineptitude. It discounts the idea of the human condition. If life truly operated like this, life long friendships would never happen and at best a single gaining of an award, degree, or accolade can rearrange all social connections in your life. The idea of social investment being at the only driving force in building relationships will leave you alone because you've used up everyone and leave you broke because you'll probably have to spend money trying to keep up with the Jones. 

Even if you're someone like me: where it's seldom that people socially invest in you, it's okay! Remember to pour into yourself. Social investment in yourself makes you just as strong as a plethora of people socially investing in someone else. If you're not complete, you may not be able to readily accept the investment of someone else to come along. So building confidence, self worth, fitness (of the mind, body, and spirit) are important ways to socially invest in yourself. You cannot go wrong doing it... and it surely is not a waste.

Kim Burrell is Merely A Messenger of a Problem

Kim Burrell is Merely a Messenger of a Problem

The Church Is Sick, and She's Prescribed a Common Pill

Why should we would be surprised about homophobic comments comments coming from the pulpit and those who have found their fame by being the voices of Gospel? Rants like those of Kim Burrell are not new. They've been performed for years. The only difference is that there is a camera to record it in live time now in comparison to the past. Kim Burrell made some homophobic comments and likened homosexuality to perversion. Other church leaders have supported her while stars and networks have condemned her. However there is something that is missed in this continual discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. We miss the concept of judgment as being sinful in Christianity and a manifestation of "worldliness" just as much as homosexuality is. 

Admittedly there is misnomer in Christianity. Many defend that all sins are equal. They aren't. Stealing of bread from the market does not equate to the violation of one of the ten commandments: taking the life of another human being. However, with preaching religious doctrine focused sermons on just one abominations while leaving others to interpretation is problematic. Even in the finest of textbooks with the best teachers it is pedagogically incorrect to talk about a phrase in isolation discounting the rest of the sentence. What I am exactly referring to is the faulty teaching of Levitical Law. In actuality, if pastors taught Levitical Law properly the congregation would find that a total of 75 things other than homosexuality that are also abominations. 

In light of this, why are we so surprised about Kim Burrell and many other pastors that proclaim that "we need to cast the demon of homosexuality out of these children?" There is no surprise -- this is a net result of improper pedagogy used my many pastors, clergy, and famed people who are members of Christianity. Rather than preaching love and acceptance of their Earthly brethren and sistren, they decide to cast a division to try to make them more favorable in the eyes of God and secure their own salvation. The Bible and other religious texts were used to spin an agenda and purpose to bolster power on one group. The legitimacy of such bolstering: the idea of divine right. 

This was done with Western/American Slavery. For instance with Ephesians 6:5 it stated that "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." It legitimized slavery. Ephesians 6:5 was considered to opine that the master was given the authority by God to place them in bondage. In Ephesians 6:9 stating  "...masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." This was commonly ignored. Then again in Colossians 3:22 it states that "slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."  1 Peter 2:18 states something similar saying "slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." These passages in totality were used to legitimize slavery and promote and agenda. When Slavery ended in 1865 in the United States it was considered by some to be an abomination against God and his will.

This is similar to how Leviticus is used. Leviticus 18:22 has been used by Christians ad nauseam in the last four decades as the main defense against decriminalization of homosexual behavior and equal marriage rights. For Black churches who preach on this, it's shocking because the reliance on this passage is so common that the other 75 things stated within Leviticus got ignored for the sake of bolstering that one particular "banned practice." Even while poverty, poor educational outcomes, and institutional infighting plague parishioners, destroy neighborhoods, and run endemic in many Black churches, homosexuality is seen as a danger that is more pressing to address. The problem is that the gay community (mainly the Black gay community) is facing push-back from the evangelical black community. Why? Because hurt people hurt people and because the oppressed oppress those less privileged. For black gay people you're kicked twice, once by a Euro-centric Society and twice by the churchgoing Black community that deems your existence an abomination. 

Kim Burrell is not the problem. She is merely a messenger of the ideology dominating (black) churches across the United States. Even as she delivers a sermon, it is unnerving to believe that in some churches across the country her even having a voice is considered an abomination. There are some people who even believe that the likings of her and Shirley Caesar are against the doctrines of Christianity and that God did not grant women the priesthood to stand in a pulpit. 

This oxymoron demonstrates the flaw: We throw scripture around to forward our aims, our pedagogy in providing the religious teaching is stilted and flawed, and the Church ignores plenty of problems for the sake of forwarding an agenda to "save souls." 

We ignore the pressing issues that weigh on the minds of our congregations and communities to fight homosexuality. We ignore that homosexuality is not a choice but partially hardwired into us upon birth in accordance to genetics and hormones. We forget that the people that compose the musical selections every Sunday or sing in the  choir may be subject to some of these judgments made by the church and may struggle day in day out with their sexuality. We fail to remember that God made no mistakes in crafting us in such effect. We fail to remember that God is love. We fail to remember that falsehoods and use of the Word to push an agenda is an abomination tantamount to homosexuality. We fail to realize that casting judgment is playing God because it violates Romans 2:1, Matthew 7:1, and Proverbs 21:2. Until we get out of the business as humans of pre-determining sin and who goes to hell, we cannot walk in a truly Godly fashion.

Likewise, until we start to take stock of some of our own transgressions, then judgment will be a pill we prescribe for other and fail to take ourselves. Kim Burrell prescribed a commonly prescribed pill of judgment. This is indicative that Christianity is sick. Not because of gay people, not because of homosexuality, not because of perversion, not because of sin. But because of failing to follow the baseline foundations that Christianity was built on: the idea of good will to the fellow children of God and not casting judgment where we lest not be judged.