Archives for posts with tag: Jack T. Chick

“Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!” He believed in witches with magical powers controlled by demons with a masterplan to take over the world, but for many he was the personification of that witch. His version of reality was one filled with demons, satanists, world leaders controlled by Lucifer bent on world domination. Musicians performing mind control through subliminal messaging and so on.


Can’t say I’m upset about this. Jack Chick lived in a fantasy world. Anecdotal stories in comic books do not prove that Jack Chick’s frightening world of demons and satanists ruling the world through symbols and mind control actually exists.

Believing in his version of reality is a horrible bondage that I know only too well. I’m glad I got out of it and I’m glad he won’t be making anymore of those horrible comics.
He promoted more than a few people who have been shown to be fakes. He also promoted a false version of Church history that supported his crazy doctrines of Baptist Successionism and KJV Onlyism.
His comic book (I wouldn’t honour it by calling it a history book) called “Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?” was so full of lies and distortions. It was actually one of the books that helped move me away from Evangelical Fundamentalism. So I guess I have to thank him for that. But he deceived many and continues to do so. And David W. Daniels will make sure his legacy continues to confuse and radicalize a small subsection of the Evangelical community for generations to come. Thankfully that subsection is slowly dying away.
I have a full box of his tracts I bought about 10 years ago. I hardly knew what he believed and I was naive enough to believe we were all in the same boat on all the major issues. Jack Chick probably helped radicalize me… for a time… but thank God I eventually saw the light of sanity.
One of my old landlords was a big Chick supporter. He bought into the whole system. NWO. KJV Onlyism. Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon etc. etc. etc. Turns out though he was a pathological liar. He had hoarded millions of Euro in a secret bank account. He kept it a secret from his second wife. His first left him years ago and now we all know why. He was abusive and controlling. And this has been a steady characteristic of almost all extreme Fundamentalists I’ve known. He was keeping the money for his son. He told her he was giving it all to missions. Now an old man he was found out and admitted he has never given a penny to missions. He plans on leaving his wife penniless and giving it all to his worthless son who hardly does anything to help him, while she treats him like a king and acts like a servant. Terribly sad. Fundamentalism forces some human beings to lie about themselves, pretending they are saints. I’d rather be an honest sinner than a lying saint.
I have been accused at different times of reading back into history something that is not there. So I have called pre-critical Christianity Fundamentalistic, to which it was said that Fundamentalism can only refer to a movement started in early 20th century America by men like R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon and continued on by others such as H. A. Ironside up to people like Jack T. Chick and his ilk today.
I have also been accused of ignorance because I refer to the text used by Jews in the first century as the Masoretic.
All I can say is that my only crime was not adding the prefix “proto-” to these ideas. I still hold to the undeniable reality that pre-critical Christians were fundamentalist in thought and action and that the Jews in the first century read from a source that closely resembles the Masoretic we have today. While Christians in the first few centuries before Jerome read almost exclusively from the Septuagint.
So let me say this instead. Christians, before the advent of modern science were proto-fundamentalists. Jews in the first century read, what scholars call, a proto-Masoretic text.
My favourite philosophy is Existentialism. Philosophers have identified various thinkers throughout history as proto-existenialists. Augustine of Hippo would be one example. And this without much controversy. You can find the list near the bottom of this page:
The practice of ascribing to earlier generation a title that is unquestionably of later origin is fine within proper boundaries. Augustine was not an Existentialist. Hell, most existentialists were not Existentialists! But it is still perfectly acceptable to ascribe certain beliefs of his as existential in nature. What later philosophers described rather exactly, earlier thinkers saw in more vague terms.

At the same time I totally agree that it is possible to read something back into history that isn’t there. To illustrate this I will refer you to this article:
It’s a fine line to walk. We have many Restorationist Christian groups such as Anabaptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Christ, Baptists, Mormons, Plymouth Brethren, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Protestant splinter groups.declaring to be in a long line of dissenters against the Roman Catholic Church. The worst case I have ever seen is Jack Chick’s “Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?” It is full of lies and half-truths and pure fabrications. If you are not easily led I recommend reading it for a laugh. Many of the groups mentioned have thankfully distanced themselves from earlier attempts by Church historians tying to find genuine links with every group possible that had any disagreement with the Catholic Church. So we have the absurd situation where Baptists are trying to claim Gnostics, such as the Paulicians, as their spiritual and doctrinal forefathers.
My point is this: genuine connections in thought or practice are possible to find, without turning these into a type of absolute lineage akin to the idea in Catholic theology of Apostolic Succession. Pretty much the only thing many of these groups have in common is their opposition to the main body of Christians. Even their reasons for disagreement are often radically different.
The same can be said for the Catholic and Orthodox. Physical lineage is not the same thing as actual agreement with the doctrine and practice of the early Church, especially the Ante Nicene Christians. Calling yourself Catholic and showing some supposed unbroken lineage proves very little. The changes (especially in Catholic theology) are so vast as to make something like Newman’s Development of Doctrine absolutely essential in this critical age. yet Newman does exactly what I am accused of. Reading into Church history something that simply isn’t there. So what does he do? He looks for any old scrap of similarity and says it was a “seed” that grew into a great oak tree in his own day… Yeah right Newman, pull the other one please…