Currently Listening The Shadow of Your Wings: Hymns and Sacred Songs By Fernando Ortega Grace and Peace see related

Blood, Bambi II, and the Nature of Christian Kitsch

There are plenty of examples out there of what I call Christian Kitsch.  Shipoffools.com has the most spectacular collection, including the Inflatable Cathedral and Pope Soap on a Rope.  But I’d like to get started with a different example of odd marketing.  I found this picture on the always outrageous failblog.org, which documents (and labels with FAIL) the more spectacular instances of failure in marketing, phrasing, standing upright, and, uh, good taste (you have been warned).  This one was found on display at somebody’s local video store:

I’ll give you a moment to pick yourself off the floor. 

Done laughing?  Okay.  Let’s analyze this and draw some parallels to the way we as Christians market our products.  What is going on in this picture?  It could be….

1. The right packaging of the right product. 

I haven’t seen Bambi II, so for all I know, it could be that in this installment, the little guy grows up and decides to seek revenge on the men who shot his momma.  Kind of like Open Season meets Kill Bill. 

I can hear the trailer now: “He’s the new king of the forest.  [Drum dum.  Drum dum.]  And now it’s his turn to go hunting.  [Cut to bunny: ‘That’s why they call me Thumper!’]  Only this time [Drum dum dum], it’s personal….”

If that’s the case (and admit it, it does sound kind of cool), then this display would be a fine way to market it.  “Bambi II: Oh yes… there will be blood.”

So, maybe that’s one way of looking at some of those Christian kitsch products.  They’re kitschy products, they’re marketed kitschily (is that a word?), and people who like kitsch will buy them.  I can’t say I like it much, but that’s what we get for living in a capitalist free market system.  At least nobody has to buy what they don’t like.  Consider: Did that necktie with an orange and green fish design on it ever pretend to be anything other than a necktie with an orange and green fish design on it?

Still, I suspect there’s something else going on.  It could also be….

2. The wrong packaging of the right product.

Although I hesitate to give opinions of movies I haven’t seen, I’ve got a hunch that Bambi II doesn’t really have any scenes of graphic animal carnage.  If that’s the case, then whoever put up that display was probably thinking…

Let me try that sentence again.  Whoever put up that display was probably not thinking.  At all.  Thus a discussion of their thought process would pay them the undeserved compliment of assuming they had one.  So let’s leave them alone for now and go straight to the Christians.

Suppose that someone really has a vibrant, life-changing relationship with Jesus.  Suppose that, for whatever reason, they decide that the best way to announce this to the world is to buy a green and yellow t-shirt that says “F.R.O.G.”, which stands, as everyone should naturally be able to tell, for “Fully Rely On God.”  (I’m not making that up.  You can find these and other poor-quality products at your local Christian Kitsch store.)

What does that mean?  I think it shows shallow thinking and poor artistic taste.  Certainly neither of those is an enviable quality.  But they’re not really evil, either. As much as I hate to admit it, someone can be a shallow thinker with poor artistic taste and still be a perfectly decent human.  And you don’t need to be blessed with an especially clever mind or a fine cultural upbringing to love God and love your neighbor, which I recall Somebody once saying were the two things that matter most.

Of course, this assumes that there actually is something deeper to one’s Christian life than the shallow, tacky slogans.  This is what most people seem to fear (or, depending on your viewpoint, to enjoy): that there is nothing more happening in Christians’ brains than the bouncing around of the shallow slogans on their products.  If that’s true, then for shame, for shame. 

But if there is something deeper going on spiritually—if we as Christians really are living humbly, loving our neighbors, forgiving our enemies, showing the mercy and grace of Christ—then maybe the kitsch isn’t such a huge issue.  Oh, it’s still tacky all right, but if there’s more to you than that, it’s a fault I’m willing to overlook.

I’m still not endorsing the purchase or use of Christian Kitsch.  It makes you look silly.  But there are worse things than looking silly—being silly, for instance.  As long as you’re not really silly, a little looking silly can actually be a good thing for you.  Keeps you humble, and all that.

And now here’s another idea.  It could be…

3. A phenomenally clever way to get your attention for the right product.

I’d never heard of Bambi II before I saw this crazy picture of it.  It’s still probably not my cup of tea, as movies go, but I have to admit that that bizarre mixed message did bring the product to my attention in a way that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.  Some marketers are picking up on this concept, with absurdist-style commercials, viral videos, ironic product placement, and other ways to get your attention without coming off like a traditional sales pitch. 

Considering that the producers responsible for the film thought there was a need to make a sequel of Bambi, I’m guessing their minds probably don’t work in quite that way (though see point 1).  Considering that the minds behind most Christian Kitsch appear to think that “JesUSAves” is a great way to show one’s faith and patriotism, I think the same is probably true of them.  To all these people, I say, go listen to some music by Beethoven, look at some paintings by Van Gogh, read some poetry by Shakespeare, some prose by Traherne, in short, get an idea what art is supposed to be before you try making any.

But I want to end on a more positive note.  A few months ago, a church in Charlotte, NC with the unusual name Kinetic Church had the misfortune to have the trailer that contained all their supplies and equipment stolen.  In response, they decided to get creative.  They put up billboards all around the area, with messages like this one:

The choice of language raised many eyebrows; after all, “ballsy” is a word you don’t normally hear in church.  But it got people talking.  It created buzz in the blogosphere.  It got them on the news.  And that was exactly the point.  The purpose of all these signs was to get the thief’s attention so he would go to the church website.  And there, they would see this video:

If you can make it through that video without getting seriously choked up, you’re made of sterner stuff than I.  And I say that anything that gets people to see this kind of message is fantastic, however tacky, kitschy, or eyebrow-raising it might appear to be.  This, my friends, is what it’s all about.

Currently Reading Life with Jeeves (A Jeeves and Bertie Compendium) By P. G. Wodehouse see related

Why I Believe There's a God (continued):

Happy Anniversary, Sweetheart.

Currently Reading Puff, the Magic Dragon (Book & CD) By Peter Yarrow, Lenny Lipton see related

Jesus and Thoughtful Bible Study

What.

Have we done.

With the Bible.

What on earth is this catalog talking about so ungrammatically (is it that hard to say “better than we do”)?  To “do Bibles,” in the context of the advertisement, apparently means to sell them.  “Save, save, save” is marketing code for “Buy, buy, buy.” 

That doesn’t seem like much to be proud of.  Surely translating Bibles, giving them away, or producing hand-lettered illuminated manuscripts are more noteworthy endeavors.  But the marketer informs us that no one, absolutely no one, sells Bibles better than they.  Of course.  Excuse me a moment while I break into song: “You’re so vaaain; you prob’ly think this post is about you, don’t you, don’t yooooou….”

Ahem.  Where was I?  Ah yes.  It’s clear that a lot of people, Christian or not, have missed something significant about the Bible.  When you’re dealing with any book, you have to know what its purpose is, or you won’t understand it correctly.  Most books don’t exist simply to make money (although you had better not get me started on The Secret). 

Usually, the context of the book itself will give you important clues as to why it was written.  Miss those, though, and you will likely misinterpret the whole thing.  Have you ever read an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland as a serious Freudian allegory of Lewis Carroll’s repressed desires?  No?  Lucky you.

Obviously, that approach to Alice, even if it’s true (of which I’m skeptical), overlooks most of the things that make the book worth reading in the first place.  But how many of our approaches to the Bible commit the same error?

Often in Christian devotions, you’ll see the Bible compared to “a love letter from God.”  But just put the Bible next to any love letter.  Whoever makes the comparison clearly isn’t familiar with the contents of the Bible, or hasn’t gotten many love letters, or both.  Love letters are full of gushy sentimentality; the Bible—well, isn’t. 

And what about the skeptics who read the Bible like the lawyer in the old story, “looking for loopholes”?  Of course, it’s well known that if one sentence in an obscure chapter of the Bible seems to indicate that an ancient king committed what might appear to us to be a war crime, why then the whole book must be without any value at all!  This approach often borders absurdity:  I once saw the same angry atheist express, in the space of three comments, his opinion that Christians were fools to believe in absolute morality, and his outrage that the God of the Bible was so absolutely immoral. 

One thing I’ve noticed, though, is that (very interestingly) people’s attitudes about the Bible generally reflect their attitudes toward God.  The antitheist who hates God reads the Bible and sees God presented as a hateful being.  The atheist who thinks God is a myth reads the Bible and sees mythology.  The self-righteous Pharisee who sees God as a law-giver reads the Bible and sees a book of rules.  The sentimental church lady reads her favorite happy psalms and is inspired.  The person who’s getting tired of church leaves the Bible on the shelf.

Does that mean that the Bible is purely subjective, and any meaning we find in it is one we bring to it? Of course not; it says what it says, and anyone can find that out with a bit of study.  It does mean, though, that perhaps when people object to the Bible, their objection reveals more about them than about the Book.

So what about the book?  If all these approaches to it are suspect, what approach could we gather from looking at the book itself?

There’s this man named Jesus of Nazareth who figures very prominently in the Bible, for reasons that should be obvious to most Christians.  A very good portion is spent foreshadowing what He would do when He arrived, or recounting the details of His life, or reflecting on the results of what He did.  So if a person as significant as Jesus had something to say about the Bible, it should be a very substantial piece in our understanding of the book.

(Guess what that was leading up to.)

Jesus on the central theme of the book:

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself….  Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”  And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. –Luke 24:27, 44-45

• According to Jesus, the central theme of the Bible is—Himself.  Everything in the Scripture, whether in the Law of Moses, the charges of the prophets, or the prayers of the Psalms, points in some way to Jesus.  That would be mind-bogglingly arrogant for anyone to say about themselves… unless it was true.  Yet the effect of listening to Jesus was a better understanding and comprehension of the Scriptures.
  
  

Jesus on a summary of the book in two sentences:

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”  Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” –Matt 22:35-40

• There’s Jesus’ “Readers’ Digest version” of the teachings of the Bible: Love God, love your neighbor.  According to Jesus, all the teachings of the Bible are, in some way, expositions of those two ideas.  In other words, if you say you understand the Bible, but you don’t love God or your neighbor, something’s probably wrong somewhere.  And probably not with the Bible.
  
  

Jesus on the origin of the book:

“But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,  ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” –Matthew 22:31-32

• That is one doozy of a sentence: The words that you read in a certain book can have precisely the same effect as though God was speaking directly to you.  And which book is that?  You guessed it.
  
  

Jesus on why some people just don’t get the book:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. –John 5:39-40

• Jesus has two strong points here:  First, all of the Scriptures “bear witness about me,” in other words, as He said elsewhere, the whole Bible is about Him.  Second, even this is no substitute for coming to Him yourself.
  
  

This last verse was originally spoken to religious people who had a thorough academic knowledge of the Scriptures.  Yet Jesus contended that even they had missed the point.  The most important thing is, as Jesus put it, to “come to me that you may have life,” and no amount of book-knowledge can substitute for that. 

Perhaps this applies to the skeptics as well.  Suppose we really did find a genuine logical or factual contradiction in the Bible somewhere that couldn’t be reconciled through a better understanding of language, context, or culture.  (If you think you have, I’d recommend checking it out with the Christian Think Tank or Tektonics before crowing too loudly.)  That would be interesting, maybe, but it wouldn't change the real issue: If Jesus is who He claims He is, then He is the only true source of eternal life.  An error in a book doesn’t change that.  If you don’t believe in Jesus, the issue you should be thinking through is Jesus Himself.

Let me put the point of all this in one word.  A man in a hurry once asked R. A. Torrey if he could say in one word the best way to study the Bible.  Torrey replied, “That is a lot of weight to put on just one word, but if I had to, the word would be… Thoughtfully.” 

A flippant, shallow reading (or marketing!) just isn’t going to cut it.  But read the Bible thoughtfully looking for the truth about Jesus, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you found it.

Recommended Further Reading:

The Truth of the Bible: Learning to think spiritually by A. S. A. Jones.  The self-described “ex-atheist” explains how a change in her approach to the Bible helped her to see what she had been overlooking.

Profitable Bible Study by R. A. Torrey.  Getting the most out of Bible study has a lot more to do with the reader than with the method.

Jesus and the Sufficiency of Scripture by yours truly.  An older article of mine listing some other things Jesus said about the Scripture.

How to Study the Bible and Enjoy It by Skip Heitzig.  A great little introductory book that I used to recommend during my bookstore days to people who found Bible study boring.

Currently Reading Exploring the Worship Spectrum: Six Views (Counterpoints) see related

O Taste and See: Chocolate, Music, and the Existence of God

I have a friend who has no sense of taste.  I don’t mean that she’s un-cultured; in fact, her preferences in art and music are quite sophisticated.  I mean that when she puts food in her mouth, she doesn’t taste a thing.  It’s not a terribly disabling handicap, as handicaps go; she still gets all the nutrition she needs and leads a perfectly healthy and active life.  It’s just that, to her, there’s no real difference between eating wedding cake and eating tofu.

So here’s the question: How would you go about describing to this person exactly how chocolate tastes?

You could write something, maybe a descriptive sensuous sort of poem, or maybe a detailed technical analysis of how the chemicals in chocolate interact with the pleasure centers of the brain.  Maybe if you’re musically inclined you could write a tune that depicts what it feels like to eat chocolate.  (J. S. Bach once wrote a hilarious “Coffee Cantata,” so this is actually not too farfetched.)  You could copy those splendid sequences from the film Ratatouille where a surrealistic montage of color represents Remy’s emotional response to the flavors of food.  You’d probably come closest by letting her smell a Hershey bar, but even that just isn’t the same as tasting it.

Until we stop and think about it, we don’t realize how much our perception is limited to our senses.  There’s really only one or two ways to perceive most of the things around us.  You can’t smell a sunset, see a symphony, touch a flavor, or hear the scent of a rose.  If it wasn’t that we happened to have the right senses to experience these things, more than likely we’d never know they exist. 

Imagine having no sense of smell and being told that a rose has the most beautiful scent in the world.  You put it to your nose and inhale.  You can’t smell a thing.  “What are you talking about?” you say.  “There’s nothing there.”  “What do you mean?” says your friend, sniffing the rose herself.  “It’s the most wonderful thing I’ve ever smelled.”  “But I can’t smell anything…”

Logically, there are two choices: 1) There is nothing there, and your friend is creating her own delusional alternate reality, or 2) There is something there, but you lack the proper capacity to perceive it.

Hopefully, for the case of the flower, you’d eventually go with the second.  We all know that our senses can be limited.  Even when our senses are perfectly healthy and functional, they’re still surprisingly narrow.  We all know about light that is “beyond the visible spectrum”, or the famous “whistle only dogs can hear.”  There are even some animals that have senses we know nothing about.  We know of eels that can locate other objects by their electrical field, birds and fish that can navigate the world with their own internal GPS.  It’s perfectly natural, even though it seems to us like a superpower.

If we think it through, and if we’re honest, we have to admit that there could be any number of things out there that exist, but that we simply lack the capacity to perceive with our senses.  Our senses aren’t exhaustive guides to the reality even of things we know about.  

I think this is where many of our discussions on “the existence of God” miss the mark.  “Where’s the evidence that God exists?” an atheist or skeptic will ask.  Or, almost as common, “I would believe that God exists if I saw such-and-such, but I believe that is impossible.”  Christians then try to answer them on their own terms, and are often left fumbling for a good way to reply.

For instance, I had a dialogue with an outspoken atheist a while back in which he said he would not believe in God unless God could tell him the exact number of check marks in a certain book on his shelf.  Presumably an omniscient God would indeed be capable of doing that if He wanted, but what if (I asked) God exists but simply has no interest in playing pick-a-number?  (He didn’t take that very well.)

Here’s the thing.  What if someone said, “Where’s the evidence that the music of Beethoven exists?  Until I see a symphony, I won’t believe it’s real.”  Well then, that person is going to keep right on disbelieving in Beethoven, because your eyes are not the right way to perceive music.  You can watch the musicians perform, you can look at the score, you can even smell the fine antique wood of a musical instrument, but music itself belongs to the sense of hearing.  If you can’t hear, you’re left wondering what the fuss is about.

It’s not that philosophy, or science, or the world around us offer evidence against the reality of God; I think there are plausible arguments to be made from any of them.  In the same way, you could argue to a deaf person that music exists because they can see that all those people with violins have to be doing something.  But that’s not the best way to make the point.  There’s a lot more than the visual presentation that goes into making music.

So if our senses are insufficient, what’s the best way to find the reality of God?  A great saint, martyr, and devoutly spiritual man once wrote this (read it carefully):

“But, as it is written,

    ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
        nor the heart of man imagined,
    what God has prepared for those who love him’––

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.  For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.  Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.  And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.  The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

—2 Corinthians 2:9-14 ESV (italics mine)

There’s so much in there that to examine it all would take a great deal of space (I also once used it in a sermon on “receiving the Holy Spirit”).  But his main points are simple: You can’t see, hear, or even imagine what God is like on your own, but God reveals this to us by means of the Holy Spirit.  (The “Holy Spirit” of course is God Himself, the third Person of the Trinity.)  Just like your own spirit best knows what is deepest within you, when you “receive the Holy Spirit,” you will understand who God is and what He is willing to do for you. 

If you reject the Holy Spirit?  Well then, you’re like a person wearing ear plugs at a concert, a person with a blindfold at an art gallery, or my friend with no taste at a gourmet dinner.  You have no real way of perceiving what it’s all about.  It’s not that there’s no evidence for it; it’s that you’ve closed yourself off to the evidence, so no wonder you can’t see it.

When we debate about God’s existence, far too often we are trying to settle a spiritual question on natural terms.  Surely that must suffer the same shortcomings as trying to describe a flavor in literary terms.  Oh, maybe it can be done.  Maybe it can even be done well.  But it can never be as good as letting that chocolate melt in your mouth.  Maybe that’s why the psalmist said…

Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
Blessed is the man who trusts in him!

(Psalm 34:8)

Currently Reading AT THE BACK OF THE NORTH WIND (Barbour Christian Classics) By George MacDonald see related

Is Jesus the Only Way?

"I believe in preaching to the converted;
for I have generally found
that the converted do not understand their own religion."
--G.K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles

If you saw the news in the past couple of days, and if you have any interest in religion, most likely you saw the report of the largest recent survey on the religious beliefs of Americans.  No fewer than 35,000 people were interviewed for the survey, which means that the statistics are about as accurate as they will ever get.  Thanks to the Pew Forum for the legwork.  (Here is a link to the source, for those interested.) 

I was not surprised to learn that the majority of Americans think that there are many true paths to God.  This is a pluralistic nation, after all. 

What surprised me was that the majority of Christians would agree with them.

66% of all Protestants, 79% of Catholics, and 72% of Orthodox believers said they agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life."  Even among Evangelical Protestants, supposedly so conservative in their theology, a clear majority (57%) agreed that their religion is not the only way to salvation.  The only self-identified Christian groups whose majority would disagree?  Mormons (39% agreed) and Jehovah's Witnesses (a mere 19%).  Go figure. 

Why is this a surprising issue?  Christianity is founded on this guy--hopefully you've heard of Him--by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.  Among His many teachings recorded for us, we find this statement:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me." 
--John 14:6

That doesn't strike me as figurative or even especially complicated language.  Most of the words are one syllable.  It's not that there's a clarity issue here, or that this sentence is open to all that many interpretations.  Jesus said that He was the only way to the Father.  Not a very popular message in a pluralistic society, perhaps, but there you have it.

Why would somebody make a statement like that?  I can think of only three possible explanations:

1. He was an arrogant, prejudiced egomaniac who wanted to use religion to control people's lives.
2. He was naive and didn't know about all the other alternative religions out there.
3. He genuinely had something to offer that no other religious system had to offer, and it works in a way that no other religious system works.

The first one is indeed true of a lot of cult leaders and spiritually abusive types, who try to manipulate their followers by telling them that if they leave their little group, they will be eternally condemned.   All the evidence shows that groups like that are not healthy, from a spiritual, emotional, or even mental standpoint.  However, can anyone seriously read the Gospels and think that the character of the Man presented there is anything remotely like that of a David Koresh or a Jim Jones?  If so, I deeply pity you.  If not, we have to dispose of the first possibility.

The second option is that Jesus was speaking out of ignorance; if He had broadened his mind more, He would have known that there were other possible ways to God.  That won't do for Christians, of course: who wants to trust their eternal destiny to a man who can't even be trusted on simple facts?  For non-Christians, consider this: A naive person might say, "My way is the only right way."  Jesus said, "I am the way."  A person can be naive about what they believe, but being that wrong about who you believe you are is not naivete but insanity.  Again, does the Jesus of the Gospels seriously strike you as clinically insane?  I've talked to insane people, and even to people who thought they were God or Jesus or something.  Not one of them talked remotely like Jesus did.

So the question then is, what did Jesus offer (if anything) that no other religious system offers?

When you think about it, most religions really do have a lot in common, especially when it comes to ethics and morality.  I've even seen writings from atheists and other completely irreligious people stressing the importance of moral living.  The ethical system they all put forward (religious or otherwise) is in all its essentials the same as the one your mother taught you: "Don't cheat.  Don't steal.  Be honest. Talk respectfully to your parents. Treat others nicely."  People in any church or synagogue or mosque or temple would agree with that, though they tend to put it in more sophisticated language. 

So in that sense, all religions really are the same, and you stand an equal chance for salvation in any of them.  Find an ethical or moral system that works for you, and stick with it.  Try your darndest to live up to it, and the best of luck to you. 

Because as soon as you make a serious concerted effort to live morally according to your system of choice, you're in for an unpleasant surprise:

You can't.

By "you" here, I'm referring of course to myself, because I know that's true from my own experience.  But I have a shrewd guess that it's true of the rest of you as well.  If you don't think so, feel free to try to prove me wrong.  Pick out whatever serious ethical or religious system you like, and keep a detailed journal of how well you perform for six months. 

But remember, the least little slip-up shows a fault with the whole arrangement.  If you slip up, it shows that there is a problem not with the rules but with the person trying to keep them.  Ethics are all fine and good, but if you can't keep them, adding or changing the rules won't help.  Memorizing and trying to follow all the rules of swimming won't do you any good if your problem is that you have a tendency to sink.  If you sink just once, you could drown.  In that case, you don't need a rulebook: You need a lifeguard.

See, God (any God worth believing in) is 100% morally perfect.  So if you want to get to God, you have to meet that standard.  One little slip on a tightrope means your balance isn't perfect anymore.  One little crack means your window isn't perfect anymore.  One little cramp means your swimming isn't perfect anymore.  One little drop of poison means your water isn't pure anymore.  And one little slip-up on the ethical system means you're not a moral person anymore.  If you're not a moral person, so much for your hope of getting to God.

But (to go back to my lifeguard illustration) the great thing about lifeguards is that they say, "You can't swim here when you need to, but I can.  I'll help you and do the swimming for you."  When you're going under, that's exactly what you want to hear.  There's all the difference in the world, of course, between knowing there's a lifeguard up there somewhere and knowing there's someone who's coming to rescue you.  Once that person rescues you, you have a special relationship with them: They're not just a lifeguard, they're your rescuer.  Your savior.

That's why Jesus puts the emphasis not on His ethics (although He preached ethics better than anyone), but on Himself.  What you need is not more rules, but someone to help you follow the rules, and to save you from the terrible results that would otherwise happen when you inevitably broke the rules. 

"But why couldn't God just forgive us?" you say?  Well, the answer is that He did, but when you forgive someone's debt, you're left owing the balance.  "The wages of sin is death," according to Scripture, so somehow God had to die in our place, or the balance would be off.  By coming to earth and dying on the cross, Jesus paid the penalty we deserved so the books could be cleared.  (I wrote about this in more detail here.) 

That's a message that no other religion offers.  The only one who offers to do it is Jesus.  If that's something you want, then there's only one person to get it from.

All you have to do is accept that He did it for you.  He did it for you because He loves you. 

If this is the first time you've heard something like this, I encourage you to watch or read the presentation at Yours For Life, which puts it as clearly as anything I've seen. 

If you know this already, find somebody else and talk to them about it.  And remember, that person might very well be sitting next to you in church.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Actually, I have a question myself.  There was one other other really surprising revelation on that survey of religion:

21% of people who identify themselves atheists say they believe God exists.

6% of atheists even say they believe in the existence of a personal God.

I guess Christians aren't the only converted people who could use a bit of doctrinal clarification.