WWW.Chickcomics.com
RESPONSE FROM LINZ:
Perhaps 'evil' is too strong a word, or perhaps there is a continuum of evilness; certainly if I felt that Chick tracts were evil in the same sense as the holocaust (or the inquisition, to quote a favourite reference of yours), I hope that I would stop reading them despite what I referred to as their strange fascination. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a case to be made that the tracts are, at least at some level, evil, and I will attempt to make that case below:
First though, let me make it clear that I am not making this claim simply because JTC is controversial or offensive. Controversy can be a very positive and constructive thing and is often necessary in the task of seeking the truth. And certainly the Bible makes clear (as JTC points out from time to time) that standing for the truth, defending justice and proclaiming the gospel are all activities which may well be offensive to some. And I agree with you that JTC's forthrightness is refreshing and is an undoubted element in the attraction of Chicklets. So my objections to Chick tracts are not those of the PC police, but rather proceed from an unashamedly Christian, theological and pragmatic point of view.
There may be more grounds than these, but I want to suggest three, each of which relates to a particular bugbear of JTC's:
1) I believe that the tracts are evil because they incite hatred against certain groups, especially homosexuals, Muslims and Catholics. Now before you immediately spring to JTC's defence by pointing out that he loves these groups and just wants to save them all from hell, let me say that the incitement is done subtly and by implication and inference. It may indeed be that this incitement is not at all intended by JTC. Nevertheless, it is a standard ethical (and legal) principle that you are not entirely absolved of responsibility for the consequences of your actions, even if those consequences are unintended, if the consequences might reasonably be predicted from the actions. For example, if I leave a loaded gun about my house with a five year old child, I may not intend that the child hurt or kill itself with the gun, but I am nonetheless responsible if the child does so, because such a consequence can reasonably be predicted as a possibility from my actions. Chick's intention may be that the groups he targets be saved, but the way in which he vilifies those groups makes it at least a good possibility that less thoughtful or less restrained people reading his tracts may be brought to hate the groups mentioned, and perhaps act upon such hate.
You might then ask whether JTC does indeed vilify his targets. I submit that he does so by the selective way in which he presents the groups in question. For example, homosexuals are routinely portrayed as promiscuous, engaging in public sex, orgies, partner swapping. Contemporary homosexuals are regularly linked with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gommorah who are then described by JTC as sexually violent and as paedophiles. If Chick is truly concerned for the souls of homosexuals rather than vilifying them, why is there no comic in which a restrained, loving, monogamous homosexual couple is portrayed as learning that their gentle and caring lifestyle is nonetheless a sin in the eyes of God? But instead Chick seems hellbent (!) on portraying homosexuals as unremittingly wicked.
I won't go through the way JTC portrays Muslims or Catholics in detail but suffice it to say that the same typecasting and selective portrayal takes place here. The picture of an Irish Catholic stabbing someone in the name of Mary seems to me to be quite likely to help incite hatred in places like Northern Ireland. And do please note that I am not denying that such a thing might or even does happen. It is the selectivity that is the problem - where are the portrayals of Catholics tending the wounded or standing up for the oppressed in the name of Mary? They could still be told that they are mistaken in their adoration of the virgin since that is JTC's belief, but they do not have to be regularly shown as evil.
2) This leads directly on to my second grounds for believing that Chicklets are evil - that Chick blasphemes against God. Does that sound unbelievable? Well, you'll agree that JTC portrays the Catholic church as absolutely non-Christian and evil - the whore of Babylon, communion wafers as demonic, Popes as evil manipulators etc. etc. Now if (as I believe) he is even in part wrong in this portrayal, if the Catholic church is in any way a Christian church, in any way a source of doing God's will in the world, then JTC is surely guilty of the same sin of blasphemy as the Pharisees when they claimed that Jesus healed people by demonic means. He imputes the work of God to demons.
3) Finally, I believe that Chicklets are evil in that they undermine the faith of the weak and the work of the Kingdom. People who are unable to research and weigh up the arguments for themselves are led to think that the non-KJV Bibles they may have been brought up with, saved with, learned from are based on demonic manuscripts, that the churches and preachers who taught them faithfully from those Bibles were propagating lies, that the Schools and Colleges that practise good scholarship (and I say that as someone who has studied this topic in some depth) were aiming to bring down their Christian lives. All of these are serious charges which smear godly men and women, bring God's name into disrepute, and unsettle genuine and faithful Christians.
It is of course possible to disagree with the basis of any or all of these arguments. Nevertheless, I hope that I have at least demonstrated that if it is reasonable for JTC, on the basis of his beliefs, to argue that he is doing the work of God; it is at least arguable for me, on the basis of my own not unreasonable beliefs, to argue that JTC is in fact batting for the other side! (Haw Haw Haw!)
-Linz
Thanks again Linz for your provocative comments. As you noted before, we welcome varied viewpoints-- especially well spoken ones like yours. However, since Chick can't respond very easily to your criticisms, let me attempt to do so and provide the other side.
America has a long standing tradition of allowing free speech despite possible negative consequences of that speech. Comparing the misuse of theological discussions to unlocked handguns is flawed for one very obvious reason: Kids are not considered responsible for their actions but their parents are. Most people would agree Hollywood inspires far more violence than Chick tracts do-- But the people who say Hollywood is evil and want to censor it are laughed at. We don't want America to childproof everything (especially religion) out of fear of it being misunderstood by the lowest common denominator. That's the logic that resulted in classic Road Runner and Tom & Jerry cartoons having their chase scenes removed.
Regarding Chick's portrayal of homosexuals as negative: You sound like you're a better Biblical scholar than I, but I'll be surprised if you can find any portion of the Bible that presents homosexuality in a positive light. All references that I'm aware of (in the terms of today's political correctness) are "hateful" and condemn it. Some passages command the death penalty for homosexuals. So compared to the Bible that Chick is promoting, his treatment of gays is actually much more restrained. It could best be summed up as "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Regarding Catholism: Many of the people I love are Catholics and I'm not personally out to convert them, but Chick is and I think I understand why. He believes they are going to hell and he wants to save them. That's a far cry from a sinister motive. I agree that much of what the Vatican promotes is good, but as others points out, you don't poison rats by feeding them 100% poison. You mix the poison in with 98% good food. They're tricked into consuming the lethal material by hiding it within healthy grain. So saying that the Catholic Church is in part Christian does not prove they are good. In Chick's mind, it's a clever demonic ploy to lure away millions who might otherwise pray directly to the living Christ instead of Mary or some other dead intermediary.
Regarding Chick's belief that the King James version of the Bible is the only uncorrupted English translation of it: Well, if you were the devil, what better way to corrupt Christians than to slowly rewrite their own Bible and destroy Christianity from within? Chick's fear is not without some merit. After all, the devil represents deceit, so corrupting the Bible would seem a logical goal. Chick may be wrong about this-- but so might you. So why take chances? "Stick with the original (translation) and accept no substitutes" as they say.
While I enjoy the irony that Chick could actually be one of the demons he publicly crusades against, I don't see any credible evidence of this. His positions have solid foundations in the Bible and classical Protestant theology. The times have changed making many of his views seem radical, but compared to what used to be mainstream values for most of Christianity's history, it's actually modern society that is out of sync with conventional Biblical values, not Chick.
Hi again,
Thanks for posting my comments and for providing the opposite viewpoint (were you playing the devil's advocate? Haw Haw Haw!). I do hope you will tell me if I am (to use a British expression) "banging on and becoming a perfect bore", but I felt I wanted to respond to your message. I am happy to agree to differ, but I'd like to do so after understanding one another as well as is possible.
I'm up for one more round! I'm always happy to debate with someone who doesn't take it personally and has new perspectives to offer. I'll try to respond to each point paragraph for paragraph.
First, regarding free speech and responsibility. While I am not a "Free Speech at any cost" advocate, I certainly was not suggesting that Chick ought to be censored (I am Australian, not Canadian!). There is a difference between pointing out the moral status of an action or the moral responsibility for consequences of those actions and calling for proscriptive legislation. Imagine that someone was disseminating the notion that Jews had taken over the IMF and were planning to bankrupt the Western world, that they were planning to enslave all unmarried Gentile women and use them as brood mares, and that they woke up each morning and spat upon a cross. I might well defend that person's right to say those things, but I would nevertheless label their actions in propagating such rubbish as evil because of the likely consequences (can anyone say Hitler?). In the same way, I believe that the content of some Chick tracts is such that they may fairly be described as evil because of their incitement to hate. I wish that Chick would stop using those particular means to get his message across. But I am not part of the loony left - I love the Road Runner and cheer each time the Coyote's feet head south into that canyon, followed a second or so later by his head!
Fair enough. Any friend of Wiley Coyotee is s friend of mine.
Regarding homosexuality: thank you for the compliment regarding my biblical scholarship, but I don't really wish to argue the question of the Bible's approach to this issue, nor do I believe that it is necessary in order to make my point. Let us accept for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a sin and that it is hateful to God. The practise I am objecting to is not describing homosexuality in these terms, rather it is the regular depiction of homosexual people as wicked in all sorts of other ways, so as to vilify or incite hate toward them. The Bible regards those who commit adultery in the same way as homosexuals, yet I feel sure that we would feel it was wrong, were someone to imply in writing that all unfaithful partners were likely to indulge in orgies and gang rape or should be seen as hairy beasts lumbering towards children saying "It's that time again!" It is Chick's selective portrayal of homosexuals as monsters which I believe is unworthy of the gospel and evil, rather than his portraying homosexuality as a sin. If JTC truly loves the sinner he should refrain from unjustly typecasting them.
Don't you think there are already enough positive homosexual role models being promoted by TV, movies, and magazines? I sure do. Try to find a negative homosexual role model in the mainstream media and you'll have a tough time of it. I was in San Francisco when they filmed Basic Instinct, and the homosexuals organized massive protests and tried to shut it down... all because the semi-villain was bisexual! Dr. Laura was shut down my homosexuals on TV because she didn't embrace their lifestyle. The boycotts these folks use to intimidate producers is well known and feared. Now that's typecasting for you: Only good homosexuals are aloud to be shown for 99% of programing. Chick offers a small degree of balance when viewed from a greater perspective.
Besides, homosexuals ARE more promiscuous than heterosexuals. That's a fact made painfully obvious through the rapid transmission of AIDS in their community. If both groups were equally promiscuous, you would have seen similar transmission rates. I'm not saying this means they deserve to die or anything, but that Chick is calling them as he sees them and not making it all up to be mean.
In regard to both Catholics and the KJV, you state that you understand Chick's motives and that they are good ones. I have not made Chick's motives a subject of argument, my question is as to whether he is in fact achieving more good than harm through what I see as evil tactics. I have no doubt that Chicklets do and have done much good and brought people to a knowledge of Christ - unlike JTC I do not see the world or those I disagree with as entirely black or white. But I argue that on balance, despite Chick's intentions (and what they truly are, neither you nor I can judge), the particular way in which Chick goes about his task is substantially wrong, causes harm to people and the gospel and is thus a moral evil. As a form of reactionary entertainment for Christians, Chick comics may be great; as a tool for proclaiming God's love in Christ to non-Christians, I think they are highly suspect.
That's a judgement call on your part, and many would disagree with it. Myself included. (But I bet most Catholics would probably say you're right!)
One final comment regarding the KJV. The difficulty with your approach (Take no chances, stick with the original) is twofold. Firstly, on a philosophical level it is based on poor scholarship and a lie - the KJV is not the first translation, the Septuagint was the first translation of the whole OT which is still around and the Latin Vulgate for the NT. But of course Chick rejects both of these. In fact the KJV was not even the first ENGLISH translation - it just happened to become the most popular. (And ironically enough, there are some portions of the KJV which were based, not on the Greek Textus Receptus that Chick promotes, but on translations done by Erasmus from the Vulgate back into Greek!!) The techniques of textual research used by current Biblical scholars are not tools invented by demons to undermine the Bible, they are the exact same techniques used in researching any historical document at all. To insist on denying those accepted methods in the sole case of the Bible simply makes the Christian church look either obtuse, or like we have something to hide. As someone who was almost turned off the Christian faith by the intellectual failings, and sometimes the downright intellectual dishonesty of the Creation Science' movement (a debate for another time and place), I am acutely aware of the dangers of using bad scholarship to shore up supposedly Christian positions.
I was referring to the first English translation, but even if there were earlier versions, the KJV has been the widespread standard that launched Protestant growth, and seems a logical choice for a foundation beyond reproach. I can see where others might disagree, however.
Secondly, in embracing the KJV only we are taking a very BIG chance, and that is the chance that young people will both fail to be attracted to or even understand the message of the words themselves, and also that it will add further to the impression that the Church is archaic and irrelevant to the modern age. I think that over that side of the puddle you have a level of cultural Christianity which is still shielding you from the results of this, but believe me, here in Europe and back home in Australia, the Church is seen by the majority of people as entirely out of touch with real life. In the words of British comedian Lenny Henry, "Young people all over are drifting away from the church and turning back to God!" (Of course you or I may doubt whether it is really the Biblical God they are turning back to, but his point is clear.) If the Church is seen to have any good purpose this is often merely to be a repository of old architecture and quaint traditions. This situation is not at all helped by having a Bible which speaks in the language of Shakespeare, reviled by schoolchildren the world round! The aim of the Bible Society, for which both myself and my wife used to work at various times past, is to make sure that all people everywhere can have a Bible in their own language and at a price they can afford. Why then, do we wish to deny English speaking people a Bible in their own language?
I understand these concerns and think they have merit. But to paraphrase the Bible, what does a man benefit if he saves his hand but condemns his entire body? It is better that he cut off the infected part and cast it away. In other words, if the issue is preserving the true word of God, it is better to lose those who do not try harder to understand it than it is to lose everyone by dumbing the Bible down and corrupting its true meaning. It is a controversial call though, I admit.
I have enjoyed this discussion immensely. Do please reply if you wish, or tell me to bug off if I'm getting boring.
Best wishes- Linz
Thanks Linz, I've enjoyed hearing from you. I don't pretend to know what Chick is really thinking, but I'm basing my assumptions on what I've seen in his tracts, comics, and heard in his tapes.
Rev. 10.06.01