WARNING: THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL POST
As the heading suggests.
I am pretty irritated right now. My parents went to a friend's place and promised to bring back some food for me. I was resting at home as I am sick. At 9pm, my mum called me to tell me that there was no more food so they couldn't get me any. And that they were reaching home.
I have absolutely no idea how they could have not called me any earlier to let me know that. Even calling me at seven would have been late because:
A) There was hardly any food at home.
B) I needed to have dinner to take my medication
C) I was freaking hungry
Point is, they could have easily called me at 6 something. Even if there was food, they could have called to ask if I was hungry. If there wasn't, they could have called so I will know how to call 67773777.
Anyway the above had led me to wonder if I would be better off living alone, visiting my parents a few times a week. This way, they don't have to wash my clothes, no complaints about how messy my room is, no need to ask me to wake up when I've already set my alarm for a later timing etc etc etc.
The problem is that I don't have enough money to buy my own house.
If you think carefully about it, money can solve a lot of problems. To anyone who thinks that I'm being materialistic, here are my justifications:
A) Having money makes you more likeable:
Part of the reason why relationships fail (parent-child, husband-wife, boyfriend-girlfriend, friend-friend) is because of money, or rather a lack of it. Conversely, If your parents are at least rich enough to take care of themselves, or even better, able to support your education or lifestyle etc etc (like Reiner Leong's parents). then you can afford to screw up now and then and you will definitely love them more.
If I book a whole Singapore Flyer capsule for a girl and I, throw a candlelight dinner in prepared by a 3-star Michelin chef, then got special fireworks asking her to be my girlfriend, I'm pretty certain she would find it hard to say no.
Being able to enjoy premium pastimes with friends by treating them would also be a good way to make them like you. You see, they don't have to like you for your money, but at least they know you won't be borrowing money from them.
B) Having money makes you seem like a better person.
Closely related to point A, point B is about leaving a legacy. There are only two things that can allow you to leave a legacy: Religon and money. Everything else is somehow tied to these two factors. In fact, the ability to spread a message or to expand any legacy is also dependant on resources. Mass media such as movies, documentries, advertisements, functions, charity balls, marathons, the list goes on.
If you were to take a look at the names of donors on a wall in a building, they will never be the person who donated 2 dollars. If it were the heart that counted, then why isn't your name and mine up there. Afterall, I did give every single cent I had to the building fund when I was 17. In case you want to know it was 10 dollars and a few cents. But my name was never up there on that wall. Don't get me wrong, I don't yearn for public recognition, but doesn't it seem like society recognises the names on the wall as better people?
C) Having money makes you right
This one is simple. The bottomline is that there are unlimited desires but limited resources. Try as you might, no one can get fairness for free. Everything comes at a price. Therefore, If you want justice, fairness and equity, you must be prepared to pay for it. I was introducing the idea of politics in church to Megan when she expressed her disbelief, saying "But this is church!" I used to believe that too until I realise that while all power, glory and majesty belongs to God, we like to borrow it once in a while to fulfll our own ends.
Let's continue to make this one simple. If I had 1 billion dollars, I would buy the church. The only ministries that will run would be those that I want. Pastors and maybe even the Bishop would do my will (if I were that rich, I would be pretty influential too no?). I would probably have a chapel named after me. There would be a strange phenomenon of God agreeing with all my decisions after all the pastoral staff have "prayed about it". Be it how a church musical is planned down to the worship songs used, It would be how I like it.
I'm very sure I'm going to get stoned for writing the above. But the burden of proof is not on me. I dare anyone to stand out to tell me what I'm saying is not true. It works like this in the working world and it works like this in the church as well. I'm pretty darn sure if I paid for the whole church building and all the renovations (probably 50 million), I could use the worship hall for any purpose and no one would stop me. If I'm pay the church staff's salaries, my children would be allowed to shout at them with no consequence.
So, if you've lasted this long, read all the above, you're probably thinking that I've lost it.
Actually no.
My reason for writing all of the above is to let everyone know that I finally understand why I always get into trouble in church. I finally understand why it is wrong to stand up for what you believe in. I now see the folly of my ways. How can I expect to inspire people with my 10 dollars and a few cents when what people look at are the names on the wall? How can I get any credibility for what I say if my father is not influential? How can I not be termed a troublemaker when I go against rules which are redundant?
The main thing is not about how much money you have. The thing is how easily we are swayed by appearances.
I am forced to conclude that the fear of God doesn't exist much anymore; only the fear of losing our money and power.
And even though we say our Grace, we worship the ones who debit money into our accounts every month even more.