Monday, May 01, 2017

Chick tracts

Some abolitionists recently wondered aloud whether Chick tracts are good to use. Here are my thoughts, which can succinctly be expressed in two words: No, no.

1) They feed into the sinner's prayer mentality.

2) They consciously teach KJV Onlyism.

3) The main message of at least two of their tracts is how the KJV is the only legit Bible and all the other ones are evil.

4) Thus when you buy Chick tracts you perpetuate KJV Only ism.

5) And you also perpetuate and reinforce their fundamentalism which is quite literally anti-abolition, for it is a call to remove oneself from the world and take shelter under the pastor and the local church.

6) And if anyone takes a Chick tract and should like it and think "this is good stuff", they would probably have thought the same about a tract that was actually good, and additionally now they might go looking for more Chick materials and fall under IFB sway.

7) The drawings of demons are more like children's Halloween costumes and their conversations are exactly what I'd expect in a 1950's era KJV only IFB church. Pretty much nothing like actual demons.

8) The storylines are clearly trying to be edgy, but, again, 1950s fundy kitsch. They're cheesy and laughable.

9) Thus you educate the culture on what Christians think is actually quality material. If you are handing these out, you are saying "This is material I believe in, and you should too", and so what else are unbelievers supposed to interact with and engage?
Personal anecdote - on a bus in Madrid two weeks ago, I glanced to my right and saw a guy looking up chick dot com on his cell phone. He got off at the same stop as me so once off the bus I intro'd myself and asked him if he was an evangelist, b/c I'm one and am looking for teammates. He said that he is anti-creationist and is into comic books as well, and he uses material he finds on tracts to prepare material counter to creationism.
dot dot dot
dramatic pause

So this educated cosmopolitan Spaniard wants to destroy creationism, and the best resources he can find to champion Bible ideas is Jack freaking Chick. It's disgusting and shameful. Chick is a placeholder for actual apologetics, and when people hand out Chick, they are NOT handing out GOOD material that they COULD be handing out.

10) Chick tracts are demonstrably inaccurate in numerous of their anti-Rome tracts. The stuff about how much of the Roman Mass is a direct derivative of Babylonian mystery religion and stuff is dubious at best, and it's not even close to a strong argument against Romish theology. Further, it's needlessly offensive to Romanists.

11) A very substantial number of their tracts pictorially represent God the Father, giving Him a vaguely human form, thus violating the 2nd commandment. God the Father doesn't look anything like that. How do I know? Because He doesn't "look like" ANYTHING. He dwells in unapproachable light, Whom no man has seen - 1 Timothy 6.

12a) I repeat that you could be giving out good material, but if you choose to give out garbage, you are neglecting the good you could be doing.
12b) For cheaper than Chick, you can print out tracts that I wrote myself - I'll give you the file for free.
For prices comparable to Chick, you can get AHAGear quads.
For decent tracts that are 100% free, check out

There are no excuses for Chick tracts. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble. If you should find one in public, take it for yourself but don't leave for anyone else to find, is my suggestion.


F. Hutto said...

//They feed into the sinner's prayer mentality//
Could you expound on this please? Are you implying that the "sinner's prayer" is wrong?

Rhology said...

Hello sister,

Yes, I think the sinner's prayer is a really bad way to go, as it feeds into the idea that "sincere" prayers are some sort of incantation that trigger the outflow of God's grace or something. It's a powerful means of false conversion.

F. Hutto said...

Hey Mr Rhology (JK) ;)

Thanks. Makes sense. IOW putting too much emphasis on the prayer, as opposed to the mindset (heartset)?
Quick question, do you have any suggestions on good literature about repentance? I'm studying the importance of repentance in salvation. Whether salvation is a work or God or man. (I know there is a lot of controversy on this subject, not trying to stir that up.) Just want to study it out.


Rhology said...

Hi again,

I'd suggest listening and reading some Paul Washer on the topic.
For example.

Washer's ecclesiology isn't any good but his soteriology is quite helpful and direct, so I think it's helpful.

Also it might be helpful to remember that "salvation" is a pretty general term that encompasses not only justification and regeneration but also sanctification and glorification. In conversations like this one, it's usually best to be more specific. So I'd say that regeneration and justification are works of God - His work is sufficient and precedes any decision by the sinner.

So for that reason any evangelism work would need to focus on convicting the heart with the Law so that any indication of repentance be obviously wrought by God and not by some emotional manipulation like the sinners' prayer is. The sinner needs to be completely shattered by his need for a Savior - What must I do to be saved?

Jesse said...

Yeah, this Jack Chick fellow has literally buried his head in a pile of unscholarly rubbish. Consider, for example, his endorsement of Alexander Hislop's book "The Two Babylons." There is no doubt that his tracts are nothing but a disgrace to the Christian church. I would definitely not give his website the time of day, either, as it is littered with KJV only revisionist propaganda (I used to be one of these). Thank you for this organized outline, Rhology.