1

Excellent post, Joe. The analogy is dead-on. While I was in elementary school, I attended an Independent Baptist school (not Southern Baptist, but Independent. These are the "KJV-Only" folks). Scary stuff, at times. It was while attending this school that I was first introduced to Chick tracts.

I hate to say it, but I'm pretty convinced that they've driven far more people away from Christ than they've ever brought to Him. You'd think that PETA would figure this out, too.

2

Jared,

I'm sure you had no intention of being insulting or carelessly throw out generalizations. Now knowing this, I would like to say that not all Independent Baptists are the same. The very name Independent Baptists kind of assumes that they are, well, independent.

My pastor does read and preach from KJV, but he also references other translations and encourages us to read translations that we prefer.

Most IB's fall under the General Association of Regular Baptists and then choose some things that don't fall under other "types" of Baptists.

Anyway, I'm sorry you had bad experience(s) with IB's.

Merry Christmas.

3

Samuel,

Forgive me for that generalization. It was an insensitive and poorly-written post on my part. Obviously, one's beliefs are not necessarily dictated by the "official" denomination to which their churches belong.

I had intended to relate my personal experiences in light of the Independent Baptists with which I've had interactions, and nothing more. Were I not part of a church in which I feel at home and able to contribute, I would likely be a member of a Baptist congregation, due to the stands that the church has taken through the years.

However, there is a tendency within Independent Baptist churches to be more likely to embrace abberant movements like the "KJV-Only" movement, etc. This is not to say, obviously, that all Independent Baptists believe in such things, or even condone the teaching of such things in their churches. As you say, the very name of the denomination indicates a reluctance to endorse a set of uniform positions ad-hoc.

4

PETA does offensive well. It seems to be their strong suit. Just as they are now trying to offend Christians, not too long ago they were busy trying to offend Jews with their comparison of animals in cages with victims of the Holocaust. In truth there are actually 2 branches of PETA. One branch works through normal channels at bringing up genuine concerns such as abuse (real abuse) of animals. The other group, the "activist branch" does these shock campaigns. The first branches work has been thwarted many nitmes by the activist branch. I don't know why they don't just separate and work individually. The partenership isn't helping them.

5

Ah, yes...Holocaust on a Plate, I think they called it. Nothing like implicitly marking the slaughtering of chickens as morally equivalent to the systematic murder of 6 or so million human beings for building sympathy for your cause. Way to go, chuckleheads.

6

Jumped to your site from Hewitt and am very pleased at what I found. I hope to check it out frequently.

Working in a large downtown area I frequently come accross people "preaching the gospel" or passing out tracts.

I too did the "street witnessing" thing when I was a young Christian. I'd like to think I have more of a heart for the lost but have matured in my evangelical tactics.

Not since the 19th Century (Walter Martin exception here) has standing on a street corner telling strangers what to do produced much fruit. People do not trust strangers. They are daily bombarded by unsolicited advise in the form of advertising, spam and salesmen. Engaging strangers in dialogue may work once in a blue moon, but generally they want something from you.

Street Witnessing used to be thought of as a brave and difficult thing to do. It however is easy compared to actually getting to know someone and having them trust you enough to talk to them about spiritual things.

7

My apologies for posting a little off topic. The Chick Tract statement got me thinking about street witnessing.

8

I wrote a piece that espouses on the "Jesus was a vegetarian" silliness which you might find interesting.

In addition, there is nothing despicable about Chick tracts, though they are admittingly inflammatory at times (to the sinner that is). Such tracts simply offer blunt truth, served up in a medium that appeals to an inordinately wide audience. Interesting to note is that they have demonstrated far more appeal abroad than in the U.S. (even in Canada, where free speech is a foreign term as they banned Chick's material)

In addition, they also sponsor a video project that presents the gospel in an 80 minute film featuring over 360 paintings, which is narrated by David Jeremiah. Effort is being made to translate the video into over 1000 languages.

So what does your church do?

The alternative (in order to appeal to a wider audience) would be a more watered down wishy washy gospel that would be less offensive to the masses. While the quantity of so called conversions might increase asa result, the quality of such conversions would be suspect.

Men like Chick are interested in quality, not quantity. Perhaps you should be too?

9

The Qu’ran, which also endorses the Virgin Birth, holds a special regard for Jesus and Mary.

Huh? See below for a particular verse found in the Koran:

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

This is holding Christ in high regard? Let's get one thing straight, though Muslims esteem Jesus to be a prophet and a all around great guy (as do many people of many different persuasions), to esteem him to be anything less than what he truly is, that is GOD ALMIGHTY, is a gross insult. Jesus was not merely a man, or even a good one. He was and IS, God in the flesh. This is the point that needs to be emphasized with whomever we witness to.

I find it curious that however much professing conservatives claim to abhor political correctness, they end up resorting to PC speak themselves in the most hypocritical fashion.

10

Mr. Bob,

I completely agree with your comments about "street witnessing." I think that who believe that they will get credit for turning people off to the "good news" will be in for a surprise when Judgment Day arrives...

11

Mac,

Where do I begin…

***there is nothing despicable about Chick tracts, though they are admittingly inflammatory at times (to the sinner that is).***

Chick believes that all Catholics are going to hell. If believing that our fellow Christinas are going to hell isn’t despicable I don’t know what is.

***Men like Chick are interested in quality, not quantity. Perhaps you should be too?***

What Chick should be interested in is doing what Christ commanded -- loving God and our neighbor.

***I find it curious that however much professing conservatives claim to abhor political correctness, they end up resorting to PC speak themselves in the most hypocritical fashion.***

How is “politically correct” to acknowledge, as you did yourself, that Muslims hold Jesus in “high regard?”

12

I've published an additional posting on this subject at New Covenant (link directly to the post). I've referenced an article from the March 2002 issue of Touchstone Magazine titled, "Our Food from God: Factory Farms & the Culture of Death."

PETA has made the mistake of looking at the Christian world through Naturalistic colored glasses.

13

"Chick believes that all Catholics are going to hell. If believing that our fellow Christinas are going to hell isn’t despicable I don’t know what is."

In other words, Chick is merely repeating the sentiment of almost every famous Protestant in history, from Luther to Spurgeon. By claiming Catholics are Christians (which is to claim that our differences are a matter of semantics), is to put yourself at odds not with Chick, but with prominent figures of Reformation history. Are you sure this is where you want to be, considering that you use the inherently Protestant "Evangelical" label? Chick does indeed love God and his neighbour, because a fundamental aspect of love is that it "rejoices in the truth". Chick tells the truth, not because he hates Catholics but precisely because he loves them and wants them to truely become Christians. He sounds the trumpet of true Protestantism while others have long abandoned it in favour of returning to Rome. Chick is not the anomaly here, rather it's the current ecumenical movement that disregards the flagrant differences of theology between Catholicism and Protestantism. Suddenly the widest contradictory interpretations of Scripture are all considered to be valid for the sake of unity.

Chick doesn't force anyone to convert to his point of view. He doesn't lobby Congress to outlaw Catholicism. He seeks only to spread his message in the hopes that people will listen. To call this hate is not only a sign of ignorance, but also an act of blatant slander and defamation.

Regarding your last point, it's disconcerting to see a somewhat lopsided effort to esteem the "good" qualities of a religion while ignoring the bad, a soft form of PC as I view it, and it grants a form of legitimacy to what you must concede as a Christian is a false religion. Muslims will not experience the glory of heaven if they place their faith in Allah rather than Jesus Christ. Is this not the message that you SHOULD be promoting?

14

Mac,

***In other words, Chick is merely repeating the sentiment of almost every famous Protestant in history, from Luther to Spurgeon. By claiming Catholics are Christians (which is to claim that our differences are a matter of semantics), is to put yourself at odds not with Chick, but with prominent figures of Reformation history.***

The differences between evangelicals and Catholics are not a matter of semantics nor are they trivial. But that does not mean that we are not all brothers in Christ.

According to the tract, “Are Roman Catholics Christian?”, Chick believes that to become a “Christian” requires four things:

1. Admit you are a sinner (Catholics obviously believe this otherwise their would be no need for “confession.“ )
2. Be willing to turn from sin (repent). (Catholics believe in “conversion”, a turning from the self-centeredness of sin to faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.)
3. Believe that Christ died for you, was buried, and rose again. (Catholics believe the Apostle’s Creed which includes, “I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. …was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”)
4. Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal savior. (Catholics affirm that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ.)

Since Catholics agree with Chick on these matters why does he say they are not “Christians?”

***Are you sure this is where you want to be, considering that you use the inherently Protestant "Evangelical" label?***

Absolutely. I am a fully committed Reformed evangelical Christian.

***Suddenly the widest contradictory interpretations of Scripture are all considered to be valid for the sake of unity.***

There is a huge difference between having different interpretations of scripture (as I do with most charismatics) and telling people they are going to hell.

***To call this hate is not only a sign of ignorance, but also an act of blatant slander and defamation.***

It well might be, but then again, I never used the word “hate” so I don’t see how it is applicable in this discussion.

***Regarding your last point, it's disconcerting to see a somewhat lopsided effort to esteem the "good" qualities of a religion while ignoring the bad, a soft form of PC as I view it, and it grants a form of legitimacy to what you must concede as a Christian is a false religion. Muslims will not experience the glory of heaven if they place their faith in Allah rather than Jesus Christ. Is this not the message that you SHOULD be promoting?***

With all due respect, Mac, I think you have to take my words as they are. Pointing out a true statement is not “granting a form of legitimacy” to Islam. All truth is God’s truth, so making a true statement about what is written in the Qu’ran is not endorsing that religion. As I’ve said before, Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians. I can respect their religion while disagreeing with its content.

15

Since Catholics agree with Chick on these matters why does he say they are not “Christians?”

Catholics though attribute completely different definitions to matters such as grace, salvation, faith from the defnitions Protestants use. While claiming to believe they are saved by grace (it's a relatively current phenomena that Catholics noaways use "evangelical speak" to bring further confusion to the differences between their religion and "ours"), they must still follow the sacraments that ultimately results in ending up in purgatory, in which their time there can be somewhat abbreviated by indulgences. The literal view of the eucharist demonstrates a belief that Christ's sacrifice was not once for all time and perfect, and they attribute to Christ characteristics (such as his subservience to Mary) that are profoundly unbiblical, so much that many Protestants aforetime have boldly claimed in confidence that the Christ they serve is not the one we serve. The Bible warns of false Christs and false gospels that will deceive many. If they follow after a false Christ, one can only conclude that their salvation then is not assured and that they indeed are not real Christians, because the Christ they profess to serve is not the Christ of the Bible. It is not enough to simply get the name right, or even the basic semantics right. They follow a doctrine that wholly detracts from biblical Christianity.

I never used the word “hate” I take this to assume that you don't view Chick's work as "hate literature"?

I'll concede your last point regarding your thoughts on Islam.

16

Mac,

***Catholics though attribute completely different definitions to matters such as grace, salvation, faith from the definitions Protestants use.***

Instead of answering this point by point I’ll simply refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia to determine if you think that they use the definitions in ways that would be deemed “heretical” by Protestants.

***The Bible warns of false Christs and false gospels that will deceive many. If they follow after a false Christ, one can only conclude that their salvation then is not assured and that they indeed are not real Christians, because the Christ they profess to serve is not the Christ of the Bible. It is not enough to simply get the name right, or even the basic semantics right. They follow a doctrine that wholly detracts from biblical Christianity.***

I think you are stretching on this point. The Bible’s warning are about specific instances where someone claims to be the “returned Christ” (a recurring theme throughout history) and against “false gospels” such as the “Gospel of Thomas.” Using scripture to claim that the Christ that Catholics believe in is somehow different from the Christ of the New Testament is a dangerous and unwarranted exegetical practice.

***I take this to assume that you don't view Chick's work as "hate literature"?***

No. To believe it is “hate literature” would require me to believe that Chick has hateful motives. I don’t believe that at all. I think that Chick is probably a genuine Christian who is simply misguided in his theology. I also think that his work has done more harm than good but he has to answer to the Lord on that one, not to me.

17

Since volumes of works have been made to adress what we're discussing now, I won't rehash them here. Here's a relatively good starting point to learn about why the differences go far beyond semantics: http://www.reachingcatholics.org/

I'm glad to see you don't regard Chick the same way others do, at least recognizing that his actions are not motivated by hatred.

Merry Christmas!

18

I don't really want to get involved in the Catholic argument here. I know some Catholics who place their faith in Christ alone for salvation, and some who are utterly confused. I can also say the same about Protestants, though I personally believe the numbers would be different. Clearly Catholicism has a history of clouding the clear issue of salvation by grace through Jesus alone with a lot of other things, though there are also thousands of good priests who do no such thing.
There are also many liberal Protestant denominations who cloud the "main thing" with a socialized church environment void of any mention of Christ's provision for us sinners.

Lets look to solutions to clear the muddy waters, rather than continuing to argue a 700 year old argument. I am personally quite excited about the upcoming movie by Mel Gibson -http://www.passion-movie.com/english/index.html.

The Pope and other Roman Catholic leaders have given their thumbs up on the issue and this is good news (pun intended.) Protestant leaders as well are promoting the movie to their ministry's followers and congregations.

From everything I have read from believers and non-believers alike, those who see the movie will have a confrontation with Christ and His love.
Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos says "I would like all our Catholic priests throughout the world to see this film. I hope all Christians will be able to see it, and all people everywhere."
This is good news. It is no wonder Mr. Gibson is fighting against a strong tide of anti-Christian attacks.

I believe this movie if seen by enough priests and parishoners, by enough Pastors and congregations could spark a revival in our country. My faith is not in Mel Gibson's artistry or a movie, but in the ability of the Gospel when given clearly to shatter the self-centered sin nature of the heart of almost any person and cause repentance. On that all Christians must agree.

19

Chick.com is not interested in integrity. When I pointed out factual errors in an article posted on their site, they responsded that the author was responsible for the article's content.

As the publisher, they certainly have an obligation to make sure they publish factually correct information. Publishing false information is a reflection on the validity of their faith.

20

I hadn't ever heard about Jack Chick until a couple of days ago when I stumbled across this article and some other sources about it.

Since this seems the closest thing I have to a serious forum for this issue, I'll place some comments here about what I believe as a Christian.

God calls each and every one of us into a relationship with Him. He has given us a great and wonderful gift - free will. This allows us, as individuals, to enter into that relationship with Him, or, reject such relationship in sin.

This situation poses a dilemma, however. Being individuals, each with our own wills, one formula for Faith will not work with everyone. What has brought me to Christ is not, necessarily, what will bring Joe Smith on the street to Christ as well. That said, there is some merit to such diverse methods of evangelizing as these Chick Tracts may offer.
On the other hand, blanket messages to masses of people may do more harm than good. Effective evangelizing, I have seen, comes from prayer and insight. While the message found in the tracts may be exactly what 1 person needs to find Christ, in the same way, it may be all 3 people need to be convinced that "christians" are bogus and not worth their time to investigate.
It takes more than blind pamphletting to convert people. What it really takes is effort and relationship. If I have a friend who does not know Christ, and I know their personal situation and sins and how they're hurting without Christ's love, then I'm going to know a whole lot better how to minister directly to them than some bloke I just stop at a corner and hand a bunch of paper to. In this way, Chick Tracts afford a method of evangelizing without actually evangelizing.

So, the pendulum swings both ways, as it were. On the one hand, we have an extreme message that may be exactly what one person needs. On the other, they may, as many have found, drive more people away because they are used as blanket messages and not targetted witnessing. Indeed, they depersonalize the process by trying to fit one message to masses of people.

Relationship with one another is how the love of Christ is spread, not through pamphets, or fliers, or bulletins. How better to show Christ's love to a person than to reflect that love as best we can. A handout is too impersonal in this regard.

21

Thanks for your comments, Mike. I agree with you. Christ called us to make *disciples* not *converts*. That is why I believe that certain forms of evangelism are superior to others.

22

Uhm, Catholics are Christians. I have talked with Chick's people before and they just act like they know what they are doing. And a lot of things Chick has said has been disproven (about Catholics anyway) because one of his men, Alberto Rivera (a.k.a. Alberto Romero) was a con artist and has been busted by Catholics and non-Catholics in many news articles. Look it up if you don't believe me.

23

To whom it may concern.
We would like to learn more about your teaching's and offers you have.
We really like to receive some print word matterials from you, anything like book's, pamphlet's, etc.
We would be very greatful if you could help our ministry in any way.

Sincerely,

DR. JORGE LAMARAO
HABITOVAR AV. ANTONIO SERGIO 3
3880-047 OVAR
PORTUGAL

24

I'm going to come right out and say that the works of Jack Chick are hate speech, or at least they would be if he were sane enough for anybody coherent to take him seriously. I offer in support of this thesis:

1. Jack Chick asserts that the Catholic church is actually a front for Satanism. In "The Death Cookie", he goes so far as to claim that it was FOUNDED with the direct advice and aid of a demon. To my mind, this is hate speech.

2. Jack Chick believes that the Pope, aided by demons and a supercomputer, maintains a list of every Protestant church member on Earth, so that he can direct Catholics everywhere to torture or kill all of the (non-Catholic) Christians at the appropriate time. (He expounds this viewpoint in "My Name... In the Vatican?") That goes beyond hate speech, and into outright paranoia. He's delusional.

I could go on, but why?