“You don’t need church to find Jesus.”

I don’t make it a secret that I’m not a religious person. I’ve never been a churchgoer and I probably never will be. Listening to a sermon doesn’t lift me up or inspire me; the majority of hymns with which I’m familiar don’t leave me choked with emotion or feeling strong. I’m just not especially affected by church. It’s not my thing.

That’s not to say I don’t believe in a greater power… but that’s also not anyone’s business but my own. So I find it interesting that at my recent book signing I was interrogated by a couple who obviously felt it was in their best interest to know my full name, where I live, what my viewpoints are on censoring books in school libraries, and where I go to church. When I admitted that I don’t go to church, I was informed, “You don’t need church to find Jesus.”

My question is this: Why is that an appropriate thing to say? I would never in a million years approach someone on the street and encourage them not to go to church just because I don’t go to church. I think it’s great that so many folks have found a sort of bonus family within their church communities, but I also think it’s great that others are allowed to find peace, love, and acceptance elsewhere. So what if church isn’t for everyone? Neither are raisins. 

Or pickles. 

Or olives.

To me, the fact that a person can dislike olives is supremely weird. I’ve said it before and I will say it again and again and again: The letters comprising the word “olive” also spell “I love,” which is precisely how I feel about olives. And yet, if you don’t like olives, I’m not going to force them down your throat. It’s absolutely fine if you don’t like olives! More for me, right?

I do realize that olives and Jesus are not the same thing… but I’ll bet Jesus appreciated olives. It’s my understanding that he was appreciative and accepting of most things. 

You know what I’m appreciative and accepting of? Books. And I think they should be available to anyone and everyone who wants to read them. Does that mean all books should be available to all people at all times? Of course not. There are certainly some titles that are too mature for younger audiences, just as there are some titles that are too immature for older audiences. The purpose of a book is to impart knowledge, whether that knowledge be historical facts or fictional experiences that allow people to empathize with situations they will likely never experience in their own lives. 

In my opinion, empathy is a good thing. I wish more people practiced it. And I absolutely wish more people read books. In a nutshell, books open our eyes to other worlds and our hearts to other people. How is that a bad thing?